When I last wrote about the solar activity situation, things were (as Jack Horkheimer used to say) “looking up”. Now, well, the news is a downer. From the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) all solar indices are down, across the board:
The radio activity of the sun has been quieter:
And the Ap Geomagnetic Index has taken a drop after peaking last month:
WUWT contributor Paul Stanko writes:
As has been its pattern, Solar Cycle 24 has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The last few months of raw monthly sunspot numbers from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) in Belgium are: January = 12.613, February = 18.5, March = 15.452, April = 7.000 and May = 8.484. After spending 3 months above the criteria for deep solar minimum, we’re now back in the thick of it.
The 13 month smoothed numbers, forecast values and implication for the magnitude of the cycle peak are as follows:
- June 2009 had a forecast of 5.5, actual of 2.801, implied peak of 45.83
- July 2009 had a forecast of 6.7, actual of 3.707, implied peak of 49.79
- August 2009 had a forecast of 8.1, actual of 5.010, implied peak of 55.67
- September 2009 had a forecast of 9.7, actual of 6.094, implied peak of 56.55
- October 2009 had a forecast of 11.5, actual of 6.576, implied peak of 51.46
- November 2009 had a forecast of 12.6, actual of 7.190, implied peak of 51.36
- December 2009 had a forecast of 14.6, actual would require data from June.
Solar Cycle 24 now has accumulated 810 spotless days. 820, which would require only 10 more spotless days, would mean that Cycle 24 was one standard deviation above the mean excluding the Dalton and Maunder Grand Minima.
One standard deviation is often an accepted criteria for considering an occurrence ‘unusual’.
Here are the latest plots from Paul Stanko:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps a comparison of butterfly diagrams of SC23/24 with SC13/14 would help??
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.GIF
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC13_14.GIF
The suntrout are hungry with that long minimum, so the larvae were chomped as they swam upwards, or sipped off just as they surfaced. As the trout get full, at times they’ll take rests and let the larvae go. Then they’ll get downright fat & lazy for a while, until the cool-off starts and perks them back up again.
Have you ever fished a trout stream, Bateman?
Ken Tapping is the man running the Canadian F10.7 measurements. Here is his take on what is going on:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6d_Tapping_i.pdf
rbateman says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:16 am
That’s what they said 2 years ago.
.. and, funnily enough, it’s what all the solar-climate supporters say when asked about the continued rising temperatures.
It is instructive to read L&P’s original paper on their measurements:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/649/1/L45/pdf/20946.web.pdf
You know, our modern observational tools (ground based & satellite) are so much better than they had in the time of past minima, I’d dare say that we are in a minimum that rivals Dalton.
Sort of like comparing modern electron microscopes to Leeuwenhoek’s microscope.
Leif, your AAS article says:
“If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so…”
Actually, I find the opportunity to study a grand minimum with modern astronomy tools & techniques quite exciting!!
IMHO, the sucker is broken. Conveyer belt system is not doing what it used to, this might be a very long-term change. Teeny-tiny sunspots, OK, but nothing earth-rattling for a long time, if ever.
Ed Murphy says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:51 am
A fish story, that’s explains everything. 🙂
John Finn says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:56 am
Rising temperatures on the Sun due to L&P warming up the spots?
Sounds about as effective as TSI.
It appears to me it is all a big guessing game. After years or self adulation top science gurus aren’t going to say ‘we have no idea what is going on’.
BTW another big earthquake of Sumatra.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010xkbv.php
On a light hearted note:
http://spaceweather.com/images2010/12jun10/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg?PHPSESSID=5kbe8tsb1g8u6d1d7skrdfg1v6
http://www.geographicguide.net/oceania/maps/new-zealand.jpg
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:04 am
There is a small solar cycle variation of the kind you mention. See slide 9
And we can imagine how that small dip might look if measured correctly, all of the pre SC23 max data should be removed from the study and your graph, including these values is bad science.
You also misunderstand the effect. There will still be dark spots with strong fields, but just fewer of them compared to smaller [less dark] spots with weaker fields.
Your allegation of ‘bad science’ is misplaced. The data is strongly suggestive and consistent and it is good science to formulate a working hypothesis based on them.
There is no misunderstanding, the larger spots on the back of SC23 are in natural decline and by adding the speck values it goes down even quicker compared to the the method used before SC23 max. The larger spots have been missed on the small SC24 up ramp, but even so an increase in gauss peak strength has been observed. The F10.7 flux values are an entirely different measure and need not be related.
The data is too unreliable to be strongly suggestive. Promoting this weak data and claiming spots will disappear in 2015 is bad science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:04 am
No need to wonder. The orientation and orbital elements of the Earth change with time and the changes manifest themselves as glaciations.
Leif and all,
Thanks, I have seen Milankovic’s work (or at least general summaries of it) & I wanted your take those ideas. Appreciated it.
I am trying to update my perspective as follows.
So the Major Glaciation cycles do not appear to have varying TSI (say at 1 std a.u.) as a major cause and there is a mainstream theory (see Milankovic) that seems to explain the causes.
We have a view now that TSI (say at 1 std a.u.) variation does not appear to have been a major contributor to the earth’s lower temps in the Little Ice Age (coincides with the Maunder Minimum). Leif, I assume therefore, TSI variation is also not likely to be a major cause for any low temps during the Spörer Minimum & Dalton Minimum. [Sorry, if I assume too much there.]
And conversely, Leif is it true that the historical earth warm periods seem not to be due to TSI changes either? I am referring to periods such as the Roman warm period and Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm period we are currently in.
There is a study ongoing at CERN to investigate whether solar activity variations may cause earth temp changes via resulting solar wind changes on GCR=>clouds. As I understand it, there are no results yet to report.
If CERN study shows no significant relationship exists between solar activity and earth temps via GCR=>clouds then I wonder where does that leave us on Non-Earth Origin (NEO) causes for earth temp changes.
So, Leif . . . . . are there some NEO candidates in the back of your very experienced solar physicist memory banks? : )
If there are no currently feasible NEO causes for earth temp changes for the Maunder, Sporer and Dalton minimums (also the historical earth warm periods), then . . . . . . well it is reasonable that earth internal processes are primary drivers those historical changes. Incidentally, for those periods it does not seem possible that man was the cause of earth temp changes . . . which may provide some useful input to us about our theories on whether anthropogenic CO2 is a viable cause of current warming & cooling.
Am I missing something fundamental?
John
Clive E Burkland says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:49 pm
The F10.7 flux values are an entirely different measure and need not be related.
F10.7 is generated by the magnetic field of sunspots so is very closely related.
Promoting this weak data and claiming spots will disappear in 2015 is bad science.
Sticking your neck out with a definite prediction is good science. The current trend moves the ‘disappearance’ out to 2018.
John Whitman says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:31 pm
So, Leif . . . . . are there some NEO candidates in the back of your very experienced solar physicist memory banks? : )
Most solar physicists are not worrying about the climate and it causes.
well it is reasonable that earth internal processes are primary drivers those historical changes.
It is a strange fact that people who do not accept internal terrestrial processes are happy to accept internal solar processes…
Clive E Burkland says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:49 pm
The spot swarms on the startup of previous small cycles (12,13 & 14) are missing from SC24.
I believe they are impacted already, so as to be missing the smaller spots. We see them as lone groups of medium spots.
The two groups of today (1080 & 1081) are about half of what they should be.
An examination of the Haynald Observatory drawings http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html is sufficient to demonstrate what we should be seeing if L&P were not happening.
rbateman says:
June 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm
The two groups of today (1080 & 1081) are about half of what they should be.
An examination of the Haynald Observatory drawings http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html is sufficient to demonstrate what we should be seeing if L&P were not happening.
Less spots does not necessarily mean weaker spots (magnetic), this year has seen many spots that are of dark contrast that don’t appear to be diminishing in strength. The dynamo will still go through its normal cycle as it has during past grand minima, but at much lower levels. I think what we are seeing now is a reduced frequency in the dynamo which could also be particular to one hemisphere. This might be causing the reduction in activity but we should expect and are indeed witnessing an increase in gauss strength as we come off the bottom of the solar minimum. If we experience a solar grand minimum this rise off the bottom may not be too impressive. 2015 will be probably just after cycle max, even during a grand minimum we should expect plenty of spots.
What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am
What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.
Then you chose to ignore the inconvenient F10.7 result. Doing this is bad science, but that is your choice, of course.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:08 am
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am
What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.
Then you chose to ignore the inconvenient F10.7 result. Doing this is bad science, but that is your choice, of course.
The F10.7 “result” ?
Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 8:24 am
Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.
The two main sources are ‘free-free’ emission [basically electrons being deflected by other charges – depends on the density of the corona, which in turn is created by the Sun’s magnetic field] and, more importantly for L&P, by gyro-resonance: electrons spiraling in the magnetic field of sunspots. The F10.7 flux is thus a sensitive measure on ‘true’ solar activity. More here:
http://www.esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/Alpbach2002/DudokdeWit-Radio%20monitoring%20of%20the%20sun.pdf
That there are now fewer spots than the F10.7 flux indicates there should be [deduced for the period 1950-1991] is a good argument that we are undercounting spots and specks. The L&P effect is a natural explanation.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 8:24 am
Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.
The tight [physical] relationship between F10.7 and SSN is well described by Tapping:
http://www.lps.umontreal.ca/~paquetteh/Maunder_SP.pdf
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am
Less spots does not necessarily mean weaker spots (magnetic), this year has seen many spots that are of dark contrast that don’t appear to be diminishing in strength.
The cycle is ramping as L&P eats into it. Even the L&P data shows a range, and it’s going to be reflected in the depth of intensity of spots.
On the average, using SOHO MDI Continuum as the basis for comparison, SC24 is is failing to gain umbral depth and breadth from it’s spots.
It’s clear from examination of SOHO EIT’s as well. The active areas don’t extend as far, and often fail to produce spots.
Need more? Take a long-running Neutron Monitor count, like Moscow, and subtract the expected cyclic waveform from it.
From 1991 to present, a slope will be seen, mimicking L&P’s slope.
Now, here’s something to chew on: What do you think will happen to SC24 when ramp is expended and the L&P persists?
rbateman says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:51 am
Those links don’t work, they’re .png files.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.PNG
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC13_14.PNG
What am I supposed to see? I see 13-14 has obvious clumpy groups of spots, but they don’t jump out nearly as much in 23-24.
Hi Bob
You might be interested in this recent article from Freiburg university
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2010/04/aa14112-10.pdf
Ric Werme says:
June 13, 2010 at 11:59 am
Sorry Ric, I changed to .png to aid in examination.
Vertical lines of “+” ‘s are indicative measure of the latitudinal extent of groups.
Use the Windows Magnifier, and look closer at the clumps. They are composed of a lot of “+” marks. The earlier cycles had groups that, more often than not, extended over a wider range of latitude than does SC23/24.
SC23/24 is a random & scattered spraying of groups, and far less extensive as the range in latitude reveals.
6 Solar Cycle transition butterfly diagrams are available on this page:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin.htm
More on the way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2010 at 8:40 am
Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.
According to your reference there are many sources:
1. Sunspots
2. Plage
3. The quiet solar atmosphere
4. Polar faculae
5. Prominences
We would only need one to vary according to the record history to get a variance between spots and flux, more plage could certainly be a culprit. The variance seen since SC23 could just be part of the normal process heading into a grand minimum type cycle, the important fact is that in general the F10.7 is ramping up. Just as we see with the gauss readings.