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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2010 at 5:17 am
Here is how the SSN follows F10.7: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
I have looked at how you have created the F10.7 values for this graph.
Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed). If I use the standard Canadian model there is no divergence between the SIDC daily and F10.7 Flux during SC23?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_flux.png
vukcevic says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:30 am
If LP is real, than it may be just another manifestation of something which could be predictable.
Except that the polar fields do not decrease as a result of L&P. What decreases is the visibility of sunspots. Your formula is not a good representation of the polar fields outside of the interval 1980-2000 and has no physical basis, so, alas, no predictive power.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:47 am
Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed). If I use the standard Canadian model there is no divergence between the SIDC daily and F10.7 Flux during SC23?
The Canadians disagree with you:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6d_Tapping_i.pdf
http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf
Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed)
What specifically do you disagree with? The ‘not sure’ doesn’t mean much.
I have described the method in detail here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf
Both the Canadians and the Japanese agree with my analysis. The directors of both observatories were co-authors of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:47 am
Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed).
It is needed because the relationship between flux and SSN is not linear [see middle Figure on page 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf ], so you cannot just simply scale one to the other.
Try to repeat the analysis with this in mind. That is find a formula for the relationship before 1990 [say]. the calculate either F10.7 or SSN from that formula for data after 1990 and compare the two.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Except that the polar fields do not decrease as a result of L&P.
Hey Doc
You got it upside down again, but let me enlighten you:
Cause: magnetic field decline as reflected by the polar field’s decline.
Consequence: L & P effect.
vukcevic says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:26 am
Cause: magnetic field decline as reflected by the polar field’s decline.
Consequence: L & P effect.
The magnetic flux on the Sun does not decline other than the normal solar cycle effects. The L&P effect has to do with the visibility of the flux. I have forgotten how many times I have said this. What is it you do not understand?
Leif Svalgaard says:
What is it you do not understand?
More appropriate:
L.S: Do you understand any of it.
V: Very little if any.
L.S: Then, how dare you make nonsensical statements !
V: I just look at numbers and assume a meaningful connection.
L.S: That is not science, it is ‘numerology’.
V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.
L.S: Agree
V: I agree too.
Happy ending!
vukcevic says:
June 16, 2010 at 11:27 am
V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.
The inverse is not true: numbers alone do not make science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.”
(L.S.) The inverse is not true: numbers alone do not make science.
Ah, another rush statement, Romans thought the same and how wrong they were. Pythagoras, pi, binary, hex, etc.
I used numbers to create order out of a chaos, by taking elementary trigonometry function in form of a simple formula, easy to understand.
Is it a kind of ‘Zeno’s paradox’, where something that mathematically can be proven to be true, that the same in reality may not , time will tell.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:17 am
It is needed because the relationship between flux and SSN is not linear [see middle Figure on page 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf
Your references don’t explain your reasoning for adjusting the base data, but you did describe it in detail in a previous WUWT story. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/ No one including myself challenged your data at the time, perhaps we should have looked closer.
The continuous record from Canada in a wiggle match test lines up very nicely with the SIDC record and if put under more scrutiny would not show the kind of divergence you and Tapping show for SC23.
By adding 3% to the continuous record before 1991 creates the variation seen during SC23. The Japanese record is not continuous and is in two parts. The first part is lower than the Canadian record with the second part above. I would be adjusting the Japanese record, the Canadian record is backed up by the sunspot count.
Have you submitted this analysis for peer review?
vukcevic says:
June 16, 2010 at 2:03 pm
time will tell.
Time has already told. Back in 1965.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
The continuous record from Canada in a wiggle match test lines up very nicely with the SIDC record and if put under more scrutiny would not show the kind of divergence you and Tapping show for SC23.
‘would’? Either it matches for SC23 and not earlier, or earlier and not for SC23.
The Japanese record is not continuous and is in two parts.
So is the Canadian record.
Have you submitted this analysis for peer review?
It has been discussed with colleagues at AGU and at the Hinode Science Meeting and is generally looked upon favorably. In particular, the two directors [of the Japanese and the Canadian observatories] agree with it [co-authors]. There can be no better peers. Later this month it will be formally submitted to the Astrophysical Journal. We do not expect any peer disagreements or whining.
perhaps we should have looked closer.
Repeat my analysis. the Japanese data can be found here: ftp://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/pub/norp/data/daily/
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I have already shown the unadulterated version of the data matches the SIDC sunspot data nicely and does not show the SC23 deviation or any other deviation.
I will wait for peer review, in the meantime I will continue to use the accepted version of the F10.7 data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
vukcevic says: time will tell.
(LS) Time has already told. Back in 1965.
Aha cycle SC20, for which I have neat numerical solution as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
As you or anyone else care to look at, it can be seen that the solar cycles are subject to amplitude reduction when two governing components are in anti-phase.
A precise mathematical relationship, proved itself on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum.
And what is Svalgaard et al explanation?
Random drift of one part of a sunspot in 1000 (thousand) ?!
And just had to happen to fail for the strongest cycle ever SC19 ?!
Can we have something more verifiable ?
Let’s hear it !
Science should not be based on such feeble theory (1 in 1000 drift) and than it fails when it has the greatest chance of success (Ouch!) .
As John McEnroe would have it “Man you can’t be serious !”
vukcevic says:
June 17, 2010 at 1:17 am
Aha cycle SC20, for which I have neat numerical solution as shown here
Your talent for self-delusion is unmatched. To concentrate on the polar field formula, you ‘predict’ a very large PF for 1965 and the observations show [are consistent with] very weak polar fields as we have discussed repeatedly.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 17, 2010 at 12:08 am
I have already shown the unadulterated version of the data matches the SIDC sunspot data nicely and does not show the SC23 deviation or any other deviation.
As the careful analysis [ http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf ]by Tapping shows, the original F10.7 data shows the deviation clearly for cycle 23.
Here is my version of that relationship: http://www.leif.org/research/Canadian%20F107%20flux%20and%20SSN.png
What is yours? Plot Sunspot number against F10.7 flux separately the two time periods.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your talent for self-delusion is unmatched. To concentrate on the polar field formula, you ‘predict’ a very large PF for 1965 and the observations show [are consistent with] very weak polar fields as we have discussed repeatedly.
This is a science discussion, do I detect some anxiety in your post, and failure to comment on extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift you espouse .
As it happens you are wrong again on both of above counts.
I have no particular talents and self delusion is not a sport I readily participate in.
You are also wrong in interpretation of my formula, which you relentlessly have been perusing for some time now, and failed to fault.
Let me make it clear in simple terms:
There is no accurate and accepted value for polar fields in 1965, else it would be quoted in your extensive work on the matter (private guess is not good enough), it could have been either low or high.
Either
a- Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
b- Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle
Case a) Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
If polar field has direct relationship with the next cycle, then my formula as described here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has to be subject to same anomalies as the solar cycles (else cannot be PF/SSN amplitude correlation, and specifically no Rmax = 0.6286 DM).
The anomaly formula has been proved as correct on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum, i.e. whole of the SS’s known records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
In that case anomaly would calculate PF to around 200. That is matter of simple logic.
Case b) Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle
Your theory is defunct, case closed.
My case is based on 2-3 precise astronomical numbers which are beyond dispute, and two simple mathematical equations which is again beyond dispute.
Most importantly they do work, as the same type equations work in mechanics, acoustics, electro-magnetics, electromagnetism etc.
What does not work is some kind 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift, unknown to any other science, and to make things even worse it fails when had the best chance ever to succeed (SC19-SC20).
Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.
vukcevic says:
June 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
a-Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
in case a, the PF for minimum in 1965 would be 105/0.6286=167. You PF formula predicts 304 in 1963. Case closed.
Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.
This is easily done, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1006-3061v1.pdf that shows how a weak polar field of cycle 20 results from random diffusion of the magnetic flux.
LeifSvalgaard says:
This is easily done, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1006-3061v1.pdf that shows how a weak polar field of cycle 20 results from random diffusion of the magnetic flux.
No it does not. Introduces another spurious variable ‘tilt angle’ , which is undoubtedly a fiddle to get wanted result.
Without the cycle-dependent variations of the tilt angle the weak cycle 20 would have been unable to offset the polar field after cycle 19.
Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.
vukcevic says:
June 17, 2010 at 10:30 am
No it does not. Introduces another spurious variable ‘tilt angle’ , which is undoubtedly a fiddle to get wanted result.
The tilt angle is an observed property of sunspots [Joy’s law] and is a fundamental part of the dynamo. Page 5 of
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/graduate/classes/spring2010/Giacalone_503/lectures/ss_mag3_spr10_schad.pdf
It even has a theoretical understanding:
http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~arnab/arnabresearch.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
The tilt angle is an observed property of sunspots
Yes, but it its application is nonsense.
Our calculations showed that theory matches observations only if the magnetic field in the solar interior is assumed to be about 10 Tesla. This is the first time that the value of the magnetic field in the solar interior could be established.
Too many reasons why this is incompatible with observed either polar field or sunspots (not to mention Maunder, Dalton , L&P if real, etc) .
In short : pure fiction.
The AGW boys are real amateurs in the science of ‘fiddling science’ when compared to ‘doctoring’ going in the solar science.
No fidle here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
Just 3 astronomical numbers and 2 COS functions. All mistery gone, problem solved .
vukcevic says:
June 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Just 3 astronomical numbers and 2 COS functions. All mystery gone, problem solved
Many people long for simple solutions. I think it was Einstein who said: “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler”. You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point. Perhaps time to pack your bags for a trip to Stockholm…
Leif Svalgaard says:
You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point. Perhaps time to pack your bags for a trip to Stockholm…
What you meant to say:
An elegant and simple solution may solve multiple problems at once, especially problems not thought to be inter-related.
Ah! ‘Stockholm, City of My Dreams’
Vi ses där.
Leif Svalgaard says:
You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point.
Not everyone is indisposed to the simplicity of solutions:
IP Address 140.147.236.204 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region District Of Columbia
City Washington
ISP Library Of Congress, Information Technology Service
Visit Length 23 mins 34 secs
VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
Browser Firefox 3.6
Operating System WinXP
Resolution 1024×768
Javascript Enabled
Navigation Path
Date Time Type WebPage
17th June 2010 20:38:33
Page View http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Exit Link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 17, 2010 at 7:06 am
As the careful analysis [ http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf ]by Tapping shows, the original F10.7 data shows the deviation clearly for cycle 23.
Not all that clearly actually, the comparison graph he deploys makes it difficult to visually see any deviation between the two sets of data. We need to see a clear graph of the non manipulated base data properly overlaid to gain some sort of comparison. He also states flux (observed), making it unclear if he has used the adjusted for orbit flux?
His closing comments are interesting ” Weird solar behaviour should be good for solar and space weather funding” along with his own doubts on the accuracy of his method.