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.
Upon one of my occasional stops at WUWT, I see the desperation increasing among the choir. Still clinging to the “no warming since 1998” straw, the hymnists now must try to stay afloat when handed the anchor of the feeble sun, while trying to explain away the warmest year and warmest decade.
How about more of those high quality Easterbrook and Goddard posts to soothe the angst, Anthony?
Ah, wish we had some comments on decline of gauss.
From:
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
Matthew J. Penn
and
William Livingston
..The linear decrease of 65 Gauss per year predicts that Cycle 24 will peak with a smoothed SSN of
66, and Cycle 25 will peak with a smoothed SSN of 7. Using a value of 50 Gauss per year suggests
a smoothed SSN of 87 for Cycle 24 and 20 for Cycle 25..
I not so interested in the exact number of spots, but the gauss decline here.
The way it is coming down is interesting.
good night hmm spherical harmonics oh my
coaldust says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:54 am
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.
…
Here ya go. Current figures as against the last three predictions (including this month’s new prediction):
http://www.lexacorp.com.pg/misc/sunspotpredictions.png
Adam R, me boy, thanks for increasing the WUWT traffic – not that your input counts for much.
I’m still waiting for a credible answer from the alarmist crowd to my oft-asked question:
Can you show us any empirical, testable and verifiable evidence of planet-wide harm due to the increase in CO2?
So far, these things have all been debunked. But maybe a smart guy like you can show us some global CO2 damage.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
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.
========
Thanks!
In the last 150 years, how many times has the World been going to either fry or freeze?
We reach a warmest ever every fry panic & a coldest ever every freeze panic.
WHY PANIC?
DaveE.
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!)?
James Hansen and his lying elves.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
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].
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results. It’s a pity most people don’t bother to to acquaint themselves with the facts, it can be a dangerous thing as we know on the AGW side. The fact that Anthony runs the L&P graphs in this story is a testament to that. I would like to see a story on WUWT fully exploring the L&P method instead of taking it for granted. Are you up for it Anthony?
Thanks Anthony,
Good article!
It it now has links from “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm
and “Observatorio ARVAL – Cambio Climático; La naturaleza cíclica del clima Terrestre”, at http://www.oarval.org/CambioClima.htm
Both pages quote from “Say Goodbye to Sunspots?”.
John-X says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:29 pm
“Hunger does not breed reform; it breeds madness, and all the ugly distemper that makes an ordered life impossible.” – Woodrow Wilson
Wilson was a power mad fascist and a fool. The only wisdom you can find in his words is by applying the opposite.
OK, time to go over the basics again, please, Leif. This Livingston and Penn effect may well be the Eddy Minimum coming on. Once more please tell me why we’ll not necessarily cool? I know, the mechanism isn’t nailed down, but surely there’s more now to the story than the last time I tried to understand it.
================
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results.
Ignoring the points before 2000 makes no difference because there are so few. Even you should be able to see that. Their method is not biased as they measure everything when they have telescope time [which does not depend on the sun]. Even you should also be able to see this.
A very strong support for L&P is the discordance with F10.7 [Especially the Canadian one as Ken Tapping discovered]. We have already had a L&P article on WUWT. A new one might be good now that L&P has been strengthened by the latest data. But I don’t see what new [other than the additional support] can be brought to the table.
Baa Humbug says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Leif a question to you if I may.
Is there any evidence that suggests these sorts of eruptions happen more often when the sunspot activity is low?
As comments seem to be closed on the “Global” thread you get the answer here:
1) theoretically one would expect this as magnetic fields can be wound up more, without being disturbed by other activity
2) observationally there may be support too. From http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf :
“[10] Several other recent predictions [Schatten, 2003; Schatten and Tobiska, 2003; Badalyan et al., 2001; Duhau, 2003; Wang et al., 2002], but not all [Tsirulnik et al., 1997; Hathaway and Wilson, 2004], also seem to indicate lower solar activity for the coming cycle(s). Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity [Lockwood et al., 1999; Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88).”
Geoff Sharp says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:34 pm
No…their data is only from SC23 cycle max, before that a different measure of collection using only large spots skews the results. Plus their data collection method is heavily biased towards speck measurement which also skews the results.
Ignoring the points before 2000 makes no difference because there are so few. Even you should be able to see that. Their method is not biased as they measure everything when they have telescope time [which does not depend on the sun]. Even you should also be able to see this. These things have been explained to you again and again, perhaps you would now acknowledge that you have understood them…
kim says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Once more please tell me why we’ll not necessarily cool?
Why would we ‘necessarily’ cool? We may not cool because the change in solar output is so minute, unless you believe the Earth’s climate is hypersensitive to very small perturbations. If so, it has had many [millions] chances to run-away responses over geological time. Rather, it looks like the climate is rather resilient and has enough negative feedbacks to prevent hypersensitivity. Roy Spencer can tell you more about that. Buy and read his book.
Here are my thoughts on this: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
“crosspatch says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm”
Despite observations to the contrary, here in the Australian MSM, particularly the ABC, the decade to the end of 2010 is still being touted as the warmest on record. I am not sure how long this AGW story will continue.
And the east coast summer, in Sydney at least, continues to be a lot cooler than normal/average.
If I could afford it Leif, I would buy Dr. Spencers book.
It seems to me that climate psientists posit reducing Arctic sea ice as a positive feedback. I posit that it is a negative feedback.
I decided this some years back & placed it open to ridicule sometime in the last year and a half here.
When ice level is high, so is albedo but the ocean is insulated by ice and loses energy only to the ice, not to the atmosphere and thence to space. This causes the sea ice to diminish.
When ice level is low, albedo is lower but because this is late in the melt season, incidence of radiation is also low meaning that reflection off surface water is quite high, also the intensity at that latitude is quite low anyway. More open water means that ocean energy is lost to the atmosphere, thence space. Lower ocean energy causes ice to extend and this season, late freeze in the West Greenland area means a lot of ocean energy will be lost. I suspect we will start to see a significant recovery of Arctic ice.
This will likely be cyclic with variable overshoots.
Hope this explains my view coherently
DaveE.
Rarely do I disagree with Leif, even when he is trying to make a joke, but here
goes.
” Already, the sunspot number is running way below it should be for the F10.7 values”
Not so correct an assumption. The sunspot number and the F10.7 values are what
they are. The sun is fundamentally correct, and it is man’s task to try to understand.
The sun is not confused, but rather doing exactly what it should do –whatever that
happens to be. The “should be” implies a body of knowledge we do not have.
I too am one of those ham guys. Newly Extra, with a new high-end Yaesu radio and
a new antenna. But propagation is really bad. My antenna is on a flat 13’x33′ steel
roof, generally considered an ideal configuration. It is not-quite-useless. Not a good
time to enjoy radio.
Holy necro-post. With this continued cooling, some time at the depth of the coming
solar minimum, we will be able to make carbon dioxide snow at the south pole. Is
anybody betting on the date for the first recorded CO2Snowstorm?
thegoodlocust says:
“Wilson was a power mad fascist and a fool. The only wisdom you can find in his words is by applying the opposite.”
Correctomundo, Locust.
Wilson was the third worst president of the twentieth century, after J. Carter, the 2nd worst. And for the same reason – both were clueless about human nature.
Leif @ur momisugly 7:08 PM
Thanks, that’s how I understand it. If the sun directs climate, we’ve got to explain the lack of hypersensitiveness given climate excursions greater than TSI variability.
Once more for me, please, why the isotope evidence argues against large changes in TSI and in cosmic rays during previous grand minimums. Also, do you still believe that volcanic albedo changes produced the bulk of the cooling noted around the times of previous solar minimums?
I need reminding, but some here need minding. I’m amazed how often otherwise knowledgeable commenters at other sites are ignorant of the Livingston and Penn effect.
================
I’m impressed that everyone is treating onion like he is a grown up with serious ideas despite, well, you know. In small doses he and his new playmates do provide a modicum of humorous relief. Hotrod (Larry L) said it all and quite well, too.
David E Evans: “WHY PANIC?”
If crop choices have been made over the last warming cycle lead to crop failures in the coming cooling cycle, feeding 6 billion (2 billion more than 30 years ago) might be an issue. Add in the issue of corn being burned in fuel tanks and there could be catstrophe for some.
There is a glaring omission in all this discussion about what has happened to the temperature in recent years (rising, flat or falling – take your pick).
What is missing is the impact of UHI.
Recent research has shown that Phil Jones and the IPCC were incorrect.
Most or all of the measured rise in temperature during the last 100 years or so, may be explained by the growing impact of UHI on the measuring instruments.
Adjust the data for UHI and all you have is the natural fluctiations from the 60 plus year zigzag cycle that runs through global data and throught all the oscillationns like the AMO and PDO.
Having made that adjustment, we must now just sit back and wait to see if the variations in the mangetic forces at work between earth and sun (that also change the number of observed sun spots) have any influence on the earthly climate.
While we need to wait about 30 years to see the effect of the 60 year cycle, I suspect we won’t have to wait nearly so long to feel the effect of the solar variability.
Man, as the adv once said “I think I’m feeling it right now” or words to that effect.
If variations in the sunspot cycle do not relate to variations in earthly climate, then what was the cause of the very large swings during the last 1,000 years?
It would be good to have two theories which we could test against the data as it comes in:
Theory A – fluctiations in sun’s magnetic forces caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Theory X – X caused climate change over last 1,000 years.
Has anybody got a good candidate for X?