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.
rbateman says:
June 13, 2010 at 9:48 am
I think you are still confusing less activity with less magnetic strength, there is no doubt about reduced activity, but the gauss readings are still heading in an upward direction. The value of 2906 on the 30th march is a good example, that region was not overly large but the contrast values remained high well into the decay phase. The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings, this method has recorded the high points of EVERY region of SC24. It also shows an upward trend.
The Neutron count is mainly controlled by the solar wind which is influenced by other factors other than just magnetic output. If you look at solar wind graphs that cover SC23/24 you can see it does not always follow the sunspot count.
I think that once the SC24 ramp is expended the gauss values will simply return back to solar minimum baseline values before heading back up again to SC25 max.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:16 pm
According to your reference there are many sources
These are not independent and really derive from the sunspots eventually.
between spots and flux, more plage could certainly be a culprit.
That is very likely what the L&P effect is, namely that the magnetic field around spots are assembling itself less efficiently into spots.
in general the F10.7 is ramping up. Just as we see with the gauss readings.
You have not understood anything then. Of course, F10.7 is increasing and so is the sunspot number. It is the ratio between them that is changing, because sunspots are becoming warmer. This means that solar activity is not really affected, only the visibility of the spots and thus the SSN becoming less useful as an indicator of solar activity.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings
Including for all the small specks? The L&P effect is not that the largest spots are always weaker, but that there are more specks [some too weak to be seen and that fraction is increasing] relative to the larger spots and that therefore the sunspot number is too small and not a valid measure of solar activity anymore. As simple as that, and completely independent of any solar cycle variation of spot magnetism. This is what the F10.7 flux shows, which you conveniently ignore. It is, of course, possible to ignore what one wants, to fit one’s agenda. Many other people do that, too.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The Darkness Ratio that Geoff has been working on hasn’t been updated for some time, but reading through each entry I can see it runs in a range of <50% to slightly over 70%.
L&P also runs in a range.
A good percentage of spots are simply too weak in contrast to be seen, like Leif says.
Spot groups are likewise down in the number of small spots they contain, as I have demonstrated with the SC23/24 Transition Butterfly diagram. Download the sequence of transition butterfly images, and run through them.
The decrease goes back to SC22/23.
If L&P were to reverse slope, it would be refected in time on the butterly. Right now, I don't see any evidence of that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings
Maybe we can close this by the following remarks:
No solar physicist would claim that the L&P ‘effect’ is without doubt or uncertainty. On the other hand, L&P could be a natural [or unifying] explanation for three different anomalies:
1) the L&P measurements themselves
2) the changing relationship with F10.7
3) the fact that during the Maunder Minimum when few spots were seen, the solar dynamo was still operating and cosmic rays [and thus solar wind] were still modulated.
If L&P is for real, this would the most important development in solar physics in the last 400 years and therefore on this alone commands our interest and scrutiny. It is perfectly possible that there is nothing to it and that we must seek other explanations for the above three anomalies. The exciting possibility is that L&P are correct and good science will result from this. In a few years time we will know.
The Layman’s darkness ratio measures the entire region of all groups that make the grade. Single regions under 23 pixels are not counted, the graph is updated every month and is up to date. The values climbing over 70% being of interest and they show the upward trend. The butterfly diagram once again is more about spot count not magnetic values.
The only thing the L&P results are showing is the increase in specks, but as we all know this is actually inflating the sunspot number. Trying to link spots and flux is full of traps with so many variables involved. The flux and sunspot values are not hard linked as Leif is suggesting (sometimes rudely). Flux values can rise along with gauss readings while the amount of sunspots does not need to rise at the same rate, the frequency is reduced. This is also shown in the EUV values, they are also not hard linked to sunspot activity. The dynamo is being strangled but still going through its normal fluctuations in the Hale cycle.
Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.
Rather than going around in circles, lets see how the next 6 months go and come back to review the situation.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm
The Layman’s darkness ratio measures the entire region of all groups that make the grade. Single regions under 23 pixels are not counted, the graph is updated every month and is up to date. The values climbing over 70% being of interest and they show the upward trend.
Climbed to 74% and fell to 51% in June. Climbed and fell 20 points since the end of May, repeatedly. It’s been higher and lower the past few months. I don’t see any trend yet. I see a measurement running in a range. Given enough time, an overall trend will emerge, but it’s not there yet.
Geoff’s last reading:
2010/06/12 06:24 1081 now measuring 45 pixels, it was larger some hours back but maybe the M class flare robbed it off some energy. The darkness ratio measures 51%, dropping 10%
Clive E Burkland says:
June 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm
The only thing the L&P results are showing is the increase in specks, but as we all know this is actually inflating the sunspot number.
We ‘do not all know that’. The sunspot number is not inflated, but is too low.
Trying to link spots and flux is full of traps with so many variables involved. The flux and sunspot values are not hard linked as Leif is suggesting (sometimes rudely).
Flux and SSN are physically ‘hard linked’. There are no ‘traps’. Rude remark: You should get your facts straight. See http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.
What NSO study?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:25 am
We ‘do not all know that’. The sunspot number is not inflated, but is too low.
Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.
Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.
——————–
What NSO study?
The one I referenced earlier in the discussion. http://www.nso.edu/general/docs/APRPP_2009-10.pdf
rbateman says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:42 am
Geoff’s last reading:
2010/06/12 06:24 1081 now measuring 45 pixels, it was larger some hours back but maybe the M class flare robbed it off some energy. The darkness ratio measures 51%, dropping 10%
Thanks Rob for the typo alert. The current spell is indeed interesting, most of the measured values are taking a dive for the past month or two. I don’t expect this to continue though.
On a lighter note, I am intending to attend Anthony and David’s road show next week, I hope there is an open question time?
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:20 am
Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.
The flux is the true measure of solar activity, and ‘most people’ seem to not know what is going on living as they do in a different universe than the real one where the rest of us dwell.
“Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.”
——————–
What NSO study?
The one I referenced earlier in the discussion. http://www.nso.edu/general/docs/APRPP_2009-10.pdf
that says:
“Magnetically weaker sunspots are seen more frequently now with correspondingly higher infrared intensities”
Perhaps misquoting references is accepted behavior in that other universe…
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:20 am
Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.
So, if the current number is inflated, then the ‘real’ sunspot number is even lower supporting my finding that the sunspot number is too low…
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2010 at 5:27 am
…The current spell is indeed interesting, most of the measured values are taking a dive for the past month or two. I don’t expect this to continue though.
If things are to turn around on the Sun, it’s going to have to be more than simple rotation. You know how this thing likes to get stuck for extended periods. Behavioral problem Star.
“direct measurements of solar
irradiance currently cover only about three decades. Beyond that interval
irradiance has to be estimated using available observations and activity
indices. This entails three major difficulties: (a) the physical connection
between the observed activity phenomena, such as sunspot number with
irradiance is complex and difficult to quantify. Often the result is the need
to use connections that are often largely empirical, (b) proxies might have
to be used. In a sense this has some commonality with (a), except that
here the physical connection is even less understood, but a historical high
correlation between the proxy and the desired quantity justifies its use, (c)
having constructed a model which necessarily incorporates elements of (a)
and (b), it has to be extrapolated substantially outside the parameter space
that was used to set up that model.”
I guess “tight” doesn’t mean what we thought it might.
gary gulrud says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:41 am
“it has to be extrapolated substantially outside the parameter space
that was used to set up that model.”
I guess “tight” doesn’t mean what we thought it might.
I don’t think that ‘tight’ has changed its meaning.
About ‘extrapolating outside of the parameter space’, we are now in a better position as the Sun has obliged us by returning to the low values of more than a century ago, so we are not extrapolating ‘substantially’ outside that space anymore. In a sense, we have a tighter and better base for interpreting the proxies. This is real progress.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2010 at 7:57 am
So, if the current number is inflated, then the ‘real’ sunspot number is even lower supporting my finding that the sunspot number is too low…
It may suggest an even greater deviation between the current F10.7 values and the sunspot number. But that does not mean the two are connected, I have been researching plage activity over SC22 & SC23 and suspect there is a greater proportion of plage activity during SC23. Plage and EUV look to be very closely connected, so I overlaid the F10.7 values over the EUV values for SC23.
The fit on one solar cycle is fairly impressive.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/10.7_euv_1996-2010.png
The Flux/SSN deviation may just be related to an increase in plage?
Geoff: The problem isn’t so much in scaling one to fit the other, it’s that over time (many cycles) these things want to diverge and converge again. Moving targets. It’s alive.
rbateman says:
June 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Geoff: The problem isn’t so much in scaling one to fit the other, it’s that over time (many cycles) these things want to diverge and converge again. Moving targets. It’s alive.
Agree, it would be a lot better if a few cycles of data were overlaid. But the very neat fit especially at 2002 that is not apparent with the sunspot data warrants further investigation perhaps. Finding it hard to find any references dealing with plage area over the cycles.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
It may suggest an even greater deviation between the current F10.7 values and the sunspot number. But that does not mean the two are connected
On physical grounds, the sunspot number, F10.7, and EUV are all just manifestations of the same thing: the sun’s magnetic field. So, they are all closely connected. Here is how the SSN follows F10.7: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
Plages are the source [and later debris] of sunspots, so are very strongly related to spots. The L&P effect may be a change in the efficiency of the compaction of smaller magnetic elements into spots that then appear dark. It must be remembered that L&P is about the visibility of spots, not about absence of magnetic flux.
“I don’t think that ‘tight’ has changed its meaning.”
The hope that smoothed regressions to the mean, employing data adjusted by sundry fudges, might reveal an explicit relation of effect, severally distant from their common cause, is a fancy that awaits heuristic underpining by “science” and its epistemologists-confidence notwithstanding. Certainty is a feeling.
gary gulrud says:
June 15, 2010 at 7:07 am
Certainty is a feeling.
The is no ‘certainty’ in science. We try to understand the causes the best we can, using the best data we can get, and construct images or theories based on those. Feelings do not enter. People who promote anti-science or pseudo-science, on the other hand, seem to be propelled by feelings.
Well said. This is why I find the L&P hypothesis so exciting, and why we should pay a lot of attention to what is happening with our Sun. This stuff is incredibly exiting on its own.
A different issue is whether there is a earth climate connection.
Leif, you said this in 2008:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 3, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Data exists up to and including a couple of the first spots of cycle 24 – that is through March 2008 and they show [and thus confirm] the same trend, which is now based on 1990 and 2008. If I could figure out how to show an image here, I would.
Now, there are a few things to comment upon:
The spots will still be there except they will be invisible. The reason for this is that as the magnetic field decreases, the plasma heats up [rather it is the strong field that inhibits convection and cools the spot]. As the spot heats up, the temperature difference between the spot and the surrounding photosphere becomes smaller and the contrast decreases with the result that it becomes more difficult to see the spot.
So, the spot is still there, the magnetic region is still there, the interplanetary magnetic field is still there, the cosmic ray modulation is still there, TSI-variation is still there, the solar cycle dynamo is still operating, etc.
During the Maunder minimum, we know from 10Be in ice cores that the cosmic ray ray modulation was still operating, so it may be that we had a similar situation, that the magnetic field was still there, but the spots [especially the smaller ones] were hard to observe.
Even if the trend should ‘flatten’ a bit and 2015 becomes 2020 or more, it is quite possible that a Maunder-type minimum is in the offing. This does not , IMHO, automatically mean that we are entering another LIA, as it has not been demonstrated [at least to my satisfaction – the rest of you can believe what you wish, I’m not trying to convert anybody] that the LIA was due to the Sun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
—
No one can say that you are not consistent! 😎 Thanks, Leif! You touched on the “sunspots are hard to observe” that I remarked on regarding historic minima.
I’m giving some hard thought to L&P, we’ll see what the sun decides it wants to do. This could be quite a ride!
Leif Svalgaard says:
If L&P is for real, this would the most important development in solar physics in the last 400 years..
If LP is real, than it may be just another manifestation of something which could be predictable.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm