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.
I seem to remember The Sun changed allegiance at the last election and moved to the right politically!
Onion, here’s an experiment for you to try:
Take a large pan of water and set it on your stove – let’s call it’s starting temperature the baseline temperature . Heat until it boils then turn the heat down but not off. It will continue boiling for a while.
Now turn the heat off, wait a minute or two after the heating has stopped and then stick your hand in it. No-one else here would be surprised to find that it’s still damn hot even though the heating has stopped, and will continue to be for quite a while!
Go on, try it, you know you want to – that’s real experimental science that is….
onion says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“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!)?
If it`s the second warmest that must mean there has been no warming for 16 years,
Phil Jones I believe.
Do you mean this PDO
This PDO,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/SolarPDO.jpg
I agree with Onion. He is making good point here. Northern hemisphere was plunged into LIA, and than continue to go warming to the present day. TSI change, we are told was insufficient to account for it, PDO and AMO were not even invented (that happened in 1990s) in order to account for previously nonexistent natural cycles. Their role is important since when you take them out again, you end up with exponential rise in temperature. The AMO and PDO invention was real turning point in understanding AGW. As onion says we have to ask what then was warming the earth from 1700 to the time CO2 took that role on itself.
Maybe Onion wants to make a bet.
There is some serious betting going on at Pierre Gosselin’s blog
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/05/warmist-daringly-bet-5000-that-2011-2020-decade-will-be-even-warmer/
Onion said:
“With PDO, solar cycle, etc all gone down the tube there really isn’t any fathomable explanation for why the Earth would continue warming. Not to mention the havoc another 0.3C warming will do for promoting an unprecedented level of modern warming vs the MWP.”
They haven’t gone down the tube yet but in any event it is a bit early to be on the turn following the recovery from the LIA so there is still a chance that energy in the thermohaline circulation since it was put there during the MWP could still be on the way back to the surface to skew PDO to the warm side for a few more 30 year periods.
Against that we do have the sudden change in solar behaviour but it’s a bit early to be able to assess the long term significance of that.
Still, with a strong La Nina in progress now that should produce a tropospheric temperature decline soon enough. It takes a few months for air temperatures to follow sea surface temperatures so that La Nina has barely hit the system yet.
What we need to watch is the global albedo and ocean heat content trends under the influence of a quiet sun and more meridional jets with more clouds. At current albedo levels the ocean heat content should soon start to decline and it is some time later that that decline starts to skew the relative dominance of El Nino and La Nina.
The question then is whether that is enough to reverse the ongoing recovery from the LIA.
hotrod ( Larry L )’s post at January 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm
exactly echoes my thoughts on the subject, and should be re-read by any who missed it.
I would add that, as we all know, correlation is NOT causation, however correlation would be required to show causation. There is no correlation between CO2 and “temperature”.
WAIT!
I get it. It’s not “onion”. It’s The Onion. BWAAHAHAHAHAHA! Everything you said makes prefect sense now. Thanks for the laughs.
To be fair, Onion is asking an interesting question and Onion, please do NOT stick your hand into a pan of water that is just short of the boiling point.
Nearly all the studies I’ve read related to Natural Cycles indicate we’re headed into a cool phase for the next 30 years. Its good for algae and bad for humans.
The climate system is very chaotic but if we don’t cycle into the cooling phase then there is something else going on.
CO2 however requires an input of solar energy to create a Greenhouse effect so we already know CO2 wouldn’t be causing the deviation from the norm under an extended solar minimum unless the temperature was consistently within the same range and it already isn’t.
I really wish they stop pointing at silly anomalies like Arctic Sea Ice and conclude global warming.
John from CA says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm
oops, last sentence should read:
I really wish they would stop pointing at silly anomalies like Arctic Sea Ice and dismiss global warming.
Hi, Anthony.
I think you make an error when comparing the data above.
You point out forecast level and current level in the graphs.
The date for your “Current level” do not match the “Forecast level”.
The predicted values is a smoothed centered value and and should be compared with the smoothed meassured value, NOT the monthly value. That graph do not make any prediction on monthly level.
So what is actually compared is December 2010 predicted level with the june 2010 smoothed meassured value or december meassured value.
I guess you see the problem allready…
What should have been done is comparing the forecast level för june 2010 with the smoothed meassured level for the same month. That graph do not offer that possibility since there is a 6 month gap between predicted level and measssured smoothed level. Maybe something for NOAA to reconsider so values can be compared better?
By eyeballing that graph I estimate that the smoothed forecast for june 2010 was ~35, not ~48 as pointed out.
/Jerker Andersson
EUV is also suffering the doldrums. The values are usually behind by about 2 weeks, but judging by the F10.7 values the current output of EUV is as low as seen during the SC22/23 minimum.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I noted a previous comment in the earlier thread that the progress of the L & P effect is ‘independent’ of the usual 11 year (approx) solar cycle.
This is what L&P want you to believe, but when you dig deeper it is very obvious that magnetic activity follows the solar cycle. There is no L&P effect, we are just experiencing a grand minimum cycle. A debunking HERE.
I’m STILL holdin’ my BREATH on CodeTech’s: There is no correlation between CO2 and “temperature”., though…’cause I’m fixated on the ABC Radio’s ‘mind numbing’ tripe it spews daily. Talk about POLLUTION!
And, I’m very very very glad that ‘they’ (these radical Marxist’s) can’t find ‘gigantic oven mits’ and ‘touch the sun’ to somehow alter it, like my little brother tried to when he took a broom outta the house one evening and tried to ‘touch the moon’! ‘Cause they’ve already built GIGANTIC PIN WHEELS as happy reminders from our childhoods…
And, Now, NOW I ‘really know’ why we’re so darned far away from that glowing ball o’ fire called the SUN.
It MUST BE ‘fiercely independent’ & ‘freedom loving’ – and I – for one, am glad it’s so.
…mebbe that’s how the ‘greenies’ got their names…? (It COULDN’T be ’cause GREEN is supposed to be an ‘intelligent’ color… They chose ‘Green’ ’cause their ‘moon’ was made of nasty old cheese…
C.L. Thorpe
(who’s forever preferred ‘The Sneeches’ to ‘Green Eggs an’ Ham’.)
jakers says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Uh, maybe you should learn something about solar science, before you comment!
++++
Why? Not knowing enough certainly hasn’t stopped the solar scientists from continuing to look like fools with wrong prediction after wrong prediction. Are they using something more accurate than chicken entrails to do their predictions? Can you actually prove it? Perhaps if they upgraded to a dart-throwing monkey they’d be closer?
I’d love to shut up about how horrible they’ve been –just as soon as they stop being horrible.
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
The earth would quickly become shrouded in clouds and a new ice would start. Could the solar wind vanish for thousands of years; wind speed too low to break through the sun’s gravity. What evidence do we have that this could not happen?
~
whoooooooaaaaa.. knocked my socks off clear across the room. Had to slow down and think about this for a moment. (looked up alittle Slade off Sladest “were all crazy now”) Came back started reading and said to self.
What would happen if the interstellar wind changed from blowing from behind heliosphere to blowing into the nose of heliosphere? Maybe something like that, perhaps.
retraction from earlier, should’nt have said we gots no polar field. Should have said “we gots low low solar polar fields.”
we gots is a you know
But thanks for the article it is a keeper. Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
@hotrod ( Larry L ) says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm
You rock, sir.
onion says: “I would say climate skepticism is quite firmly dependent on warming continuing no more.”
Wow, you have nailed it, onion. This is the absolute test of climate skepticism. So, now, tell us . . . what is the absolute test of your warmist beliefs? What is one particular action (over some particular time period) that could occur that would instantly change you to a climate skeptic?
The NAO has now been strongly negative for 18 months, how long can it go?
My local climate here in the UK is cycling pretty much as normal. We’re a maritime climate so a small temp drop here may well be offset, (in energy terms,) by a much larger temp increase in a more arid climate.
On the Global scene I note an approximately 60 to 70 year cycle with possibly others superimposed. Lets just say we have passed a peak of the cycle in the last decade, that would indicate possible cooling in the near future.
I note, the Russians are having a few minor problems with some excessive ice in the Sea of Okhotsk and China is having a little snow. Also, South East Australia is a little cool and wet.
DaveE.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
EUV is also suffering the doldrums. The values are usually behind by about 2 weeks, but judging by the F10.7 values the current output of EUV is as low as seen during the SC22/23 minimum.
~
tisk tisk tisk Good observation though. Sorry, suffering cyclomania aftermath.
I don’t think we should say Grand Max or Grand Min. Grand Max maybe would be like no ice at either of earth’s poles. And Grand Min would be ice almost pole to pole.
Maybe we should call them Medium Maximum and Medium Minimum, or some such thing.
Ok nuff playin around.
We’ve got solar scientists that can’t predict….
…climate scientist that can’t predict
The only thing we know is that from the mid 1940’s to the mid 1970’s – 30 years – it cooled off. Scientists saw a “trend” and tried to predict another ice age “if this continues”
From the mid 1970’s to the mid 2000’s – 30 years – it bounced back up. Scientists saw a “trend” and tried to predict global warming “if this continues”.
Good ole Dr. Phil says no significant warming since then…
Does anyone else see a “trend” in this…………………………………………
The only trend is starting that “average” “normal” line in the 1970’s, too much of the bounce back is in that average………
and onion is so lame he thinks it’s all about temperatures
Well, here’s a thought. The solar minimum is lasting longer than expected, yet temperatures are at the highest level on record. Could it possibly be that the effect of solar irradiance is now dwarfed by the effect of accumulated GHGs? I know it’s a wacky theory that no one’s thought of yet, but maybe we should rule out solar variations as THE dominant climate forcing these days.
Don’t you know that we tree huggers have a new acronym for this phenomenon? We call is ASS or Anthropogenic Sunspot Shrinkage. Obviously this is humans doing again, and we are going to have to trash our economy to fix it. Why can’t you deniers see this? I’m working on the consensus right now.
John Day says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm
So, “Ap=zero” does not mean the Earth’s magnetic field has vanished, merely that is “calm”, i.e. not changing. Higher numbers mean more disturbance, which are called “geomagnetic storms”.
It is partly correct to say that Ap is a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field, because the small variations on top of the Earth’s magnetic field are, in fact related to the sun’s field [albeit in a complex manner]
Mark Adams says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:39 pm
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
Does happen from time to time, although it didn’t ‘stop’, just got really thin for a short while.
The earth would quickly become shrouded in clouds and a new ice would start. Could the solar wind vanish for thousands of years; wind speed too low to break through the sun’s gravity. What evidence do we have that this could not happen?
Even if it did happen it would have almost no impact on the Earth, as the energy in the solar wind is a million times less that in the ordinary heat and light we receive every day.
stephan says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I notice Leif has not made any comments re cosmic rays or does he still hold on to his objections to it? Look at Oulu graph carefully.
The variation of cosmic rays is but a few percent. It is very difficult to maintain a constant calibration over decades [as instruments, people, environment change]. Oulu has been especially bad in this respect. Here is a plot of cosmic rays from several long-running stations: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png
Oulu is the thin blue line. If you take Oulu’s values and divide by the mean of the other stations you get the triangles. As you can see, that ratio has been drifting upwards by some 4% over the past half-century, meaning that Oulu has not maintained a constant calibration. I don’t think there has been any change worth writing home about.
John from CA says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:13 pm
if Orbital Mechanics are considered a valid indicator of activity?
No, that is nonsense.
http://judithcurry.com
It is sad to see that the rot has also affected Curry’s blog.
Dennis Wingo says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Are you in a position yet based upon observations, to lower your forecast of a peak SSN of 72 for Cycle 24? Do you have any thoughts yet on Cycle 25?
The forecast is based on past polar fields so cannot change [it can be falsified, that is another matter]. There is a fine point though: what we predicted is solar magnetic activity of which F10.7 and EUV may be good proxies. The sunspot number used to be a good proxy too and we expressed the prediction in terms of of that more familiar quantity [as there was a firm relation between the proxies]. If L&P are correct [and it seems more and more so], it no longer makes sense to express solar activity by the SSN [which may go to zero]. Our prediction is equivalent to F10.7 around 120 sfu so that prediction will stand. Statistically we would expect SC25 to be low as well, as low cycles come in bunches.
Sean Houlihane says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Wow. Maybe not quite conclusive yet, but that is pretty clear.
Yes, this is the main reason I believe that L&P may be correct.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
This is what L&P want you to believe,
and what their data shows, consistent with the growing discordance with F10.7.
A true Grand minimum is likely to be just an extreme L&P effect. It remains to be seen if it will happen this time [I hope so, but am not ready to commit to this as we don’t know if L&P will hold up].