NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24.
Here’s the Ap Index from SWPC:
The Ap value of 3 was last seen in late 2009 and early 2010, which bracketed the lowest value seen in 10 years (on the SWPC graph) of Ap=2 in December 2009. It was also the lowest value in the record then. SWPC has since revised their data upwards from 1 to 2 for December 2009. Here’s what it looked like then:
And here is the story at that time:
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux is a bit more encouraging, but still rather anemic compared to where to where it should have been in the solar cycle.
Here’s the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The last major update to NOAA’s prediction came in May 2009 when they wrote:
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
It seems to be time again for an update, since it seems likely that the “consensus prediction” has failed.
The Livingston and Penn data (from Dr. Leif Svalgaard) continues unabated and on track for sunspots to become invisible when the umbral magnetic field reaches ~1500 gauss.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science ran with a significant story: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
We live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




I really love it when nature refuses to do what arrogant humans ‘want’ it to do!
The Sun does not have any Political alignment.
It does not care what the consensus is.
it will do whatever, and it shows that we know very little about it, since when ‘they’ say it should be higher and it isn’t, show us we need more money for research before we go gang busters over some trace gas called CO2….
Remove all the nanospots that were added to the count and that the sun should almost be a flat-liner.
Someone needs to tell Sol to shape up or ship out
I don’t want to pile on the solar scientists, but this went past embarrassing a long time ago.
And the sun is something we’ve been studying much longer than climate, and with quite a few less variables involved.
Should be an object lesson for all of science that yes, they’ve come a long way, but just a fraction of the total distance. Most of them seem to get fixated on the former, and miss the later. It’s called hubris.
Polar fields are on course for max around 2012
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Polar field equation (updated from 2003/4) predicted long lasting slump, at least 2 more cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
L&P effect has bottomed out and is not explaining anything exept that sun’s magnetic field grows weaker at periods of low cycles, so probably it was there in 1910, and 1810.
On the other hand high predictors may use it as a handy excuse for their failure.
Solar cooling….
Don’t know why folk are worried about the Sun, like that’s got anything to do with climate or weather (oops sorry I still had the sarcastic lock on my keyboard on!)…
Just what does “a low sunspot count” mean?
… anything between “nothing to see here” and “the beginning of the next iceage”.
The only thing we know for sure is that solar activity is not man-made, but as that’s never stopped the idiots in the eco-numbskull brigade from creating propaganda, I’m sure it won’t be long before we see: “man-made sunspot decrease!”
AGW is infectuous? How many other bodies in the solar system will be adversely affected by man’s continued disregard to the environment?
/sarc
Because of “settled science” being defined by “consensus”, that latter word has now become a standing joke in our house. “It is the consensus view”, announces my wife “that you will not be getting a glass of sherry before dinner.” And then she pours it.
The Livingston & Penn “B Gauss” graph looks like it’s trending to reach 1500 in around 2020 but earlier graphs they’ve drawn (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/) show 2015. Have they changed their prediction from 2015 to 2020?
“From the dawn of time, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun!”
— Montgomery Burns
I do not like the way NASA separates the actual data year average by six months from the predicted average curve. I wish they would extend the red prediction curve back six months before present so that we can see the predicted values for the next six months. The way it is now there is a six month gap.
Of course, this would reveal the error in their prediction, which they don’t want revealed.
The only part of the latest official ISES SSN prediction that might be right is the 2013 time of cycle 24 peak activity. If that is true, however, the peak ISES SSN is likely to be 60 or less. Just drop NOAA/SWPC’s ISES SSN prediction curve from 2011 to 2017 down 30 points to visualize what this might look like. Spotless again in 2017, probably.
My own theory is that solar activity is a lagging indicator of hemlines.
“Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.”
See, the supermajority overrides the sun’s veto power, so it now must conform to the panel’s decree. If it doesn’t, it will be seized and removed from power forcibly. Then we’ll elect a new sun from some other star system or something.
Oh my, and all those silly cosmic rays too. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/12/05&starttime=00:00&enddate=2011/01/05&endtime=23:18&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on You would think that they might have something to do with clouds or something.
CO2 just HAS to have something to do with this.
As a ham radio operator – I’m starting to get depressed.
Dan… Is that your theory… or your hope?
I’m sure some algorian politician will say mankind is to blame.
One implication of this is that you will be unable to use the excuse “it’s the Sun” to explain the continuing global warming over the coming decade.
“Solar physicist David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, agrees but with a caveat. “It’s an important paper,” he says. But the sunspot magnetic field calculations don’t take into account a lot of small sunspots that appeared during the last solar maximum. Those sunspots have weaker magnetic fields, which, if not included, could make the average sunspot magnetic field strength seem higher than it really was.”
Some cherries, some pie… ;-(
“It’s the PDO” has also bolted as an explanation. Can anyone tell me what the skeptic argument will be if the world continues warming (I say ‘if’ but I am quite sure it will) despite a negative PDO and a deep solar minimum (well we’ve already had that any look at 2010 temperatures!)?
Vuc,
Why do you say that the L&P effect has bottomed out?
It looks pretty linear to me, heading towards zero.