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.
May I suggest that it would be an inverse indicator? After all the colder it gets the longer hemlines would be expected to be …or maybe that’s what you meant.
Smokey:
What about Ronald Reagan, that massively funded and armed islamic extremists in Afghanistan (that two decades later destroyed the World Trade Center) and sold weapons to Iran to fund the anti-sandinista “contra” guerrilla in Nicaragua…
And Herbert Hoover, that make economic policies that lead to the Great Depression?
David A. Evans says:
January 5, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If I could afford it Leif, I would buy Dr. Spencers book.
email me your shipping address and i’ll buy it for you.
Frank Perdicaro says:
January 5, 2011 at 7:45 pm
>i>” 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
The ‘should be’ refers to our understanding, not to the sun. We have a reasonably good understanding of the F10.7 emission from basic physics (bremsstrahlung and gyro-synchrotron radiation) and thus have a good cause for saying that the F10.7 flux is a good measure of solar ‘activity’ [we could even define solar activity to be that measured by F10.7]. This would make sense because we use F10.7 in the models to calculate the density of the thermosphere which in turn determines satellite drag [which is monitored VERY closely]. So, as far as satellite operators [and I think also ham-operators are concern sunspots are irrelevant, F10.7 is king].
In the past, there has been a VERY strong correlation between monthly means of F10.7 and sunspot numbers. This was taken as evidence that the SSN also was a good proxy or indicator for solar activity. Hence the interest in the SSN. The SSN also goes back in time much longer than F10.7 and is therefore important for assessing the long-term variation of solar activity. Other than that, nobody gives a hoot about the SSN. We can reconstruct F10.7 back some 120 years, backed up by measurement of UV emission seen in the Calcium K-line, and by the effect on the conductivity of the ionosphere [which we can infer from the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field], and all that time the SSN tracks the true solar indicator [F10.7 and friends] very well.
Now, sunspots form by coalescence of small pores, specks, and magnetic elements that sometimes erupt en masse followed by rapid assembly of sunspots from these magnetic pieces. Their magnetism manifests itself in the corona from where we get the resulting F10.7 emission. If the process that collects the magnetic flux into spots [and we don’t know what that is – although we are not without ideas http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf ] becomes less efficient we would still have the magnetic flux, but it would not be concentrated and the field would not be strengthened [the field strength is flux divided by area, so less area means stronger field for same flux] in the photosphere where the spot would form. A weaker field means that the ‘spot’ will be warmer [as the field helps divert heat convected up from below away from the spot] and hence harder to see [smaller contrasts]. So we would predict something like what L&P observe, if the ‘percolation’ is weaker [for some reason yet to be found out]. The sunspot count would then be lower than what it would have if the percolation were operating as usual. So, under the assumption that the Sun is operating as it always has, the ‘SSN would fall below F10.7 compared to what it should‘ under that assumption. We therefore conclude that the assumption is false and that something is afoot. So, that SSN is below what it ‘should’ be simply means that we have a phenomenon we have not seen in the record so far. When this happens we learn something.
kim says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Once more for me, please, why the isotope evidence argues against large changes in TSI and in cosmic rays during previous grand minimums.
If by ‘isotope’ you mean 10Be and 14C then:
1) people don’t infer TSI from those directly
2) they infer the solar magnetic field from the cosmic ray modulation and then under some assumptions calculate what the think TSI would be as caused by that magnetic field. Thus we have a case of ‘calibrating under assumptions’, thus junk in, junque out.
3) this may work in reverse: TSI may influence climate which in turn influences the deposition of the isotopes. The isotopes are created elsewhere and transported to the polar regions or the forests by circulation.
Also, do you still believe that volcanic albedo changes produced the bulk of the cooling noted around the times of previous solar minimums?
For some there is direct evidence, e.g 1809-1815.
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.
Even at WUWT there are trolls [‘irritants’] denying L&P.
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
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?
You deny that the Earth swings, but are comfortable, it seems, with the Sun doing it…
Can anyone expand on this please.
“Remove all the nanospots that were added to the count and that the sun should almost be a flat-liner.”
There must be a pony, somewhere beneath that massive pile of horse-pucky.
There was a fellow in Defense a few years back who discussed known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Solar and climate investigators may want to keep that in mind.
Instruments of varying accuracy and precision have been at this for about 30 years, some perhaps a few hundred years, trying to explain things with geological observed
cycles stretching beyond 100,000 years in a system aged 4.5 billion years. What we essentially have is an instantaneous measurement, and it matters not the instrument you prefer, and are trying to forecast based on a single data point. You may think you have a lot of observations, but are they measuring on an up cycle or a down cycle, and which cycle and of what duration.
Anything is Possible
January 5 2011 at 1.45pm
has hit the nail on the head. Regardless of what happens over the next decade or so to ‘global average temperature’, a fatuous concept to describe climate IMHO, it is much too early to be taking drastic measures. As I recently suggested in a letter to The Australian, degrees of certainty in relation to climate sience vary from high, as to the fact of 20th century warming, less so for it’s magnitude, even less so for it’s cause, virtually non-existent as to it’s long term effects and right back up to high as to the fact that proposed mitigation efforts will be both outrageously expensive and spectacularly ineffctive.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
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]
Really? Just a week ago you’ve been fiercely defending the view that there is no such connection.
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
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/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
I don’t know if it is significant, but before he died, Timo Niroma noted that the two day lull in the solar wind coincided with the perihelion of Jupiter.
The next one is this spring, so maybe we’ll get a repeat performance. Not too long to wait now.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/a-test-for-planetary-solar-connection-jupiter-perihelion/
From Onion & From Peru.
Nope! From Uranus. Verbal diarrhea. Just passing through are you?
Even at WUWT there are trolls [‘irritants’] denying L&P.
Rather than deny L&P, that wouldn’t do, it looks like it is bottoming out (I would like to have latest numbers, this is only to September)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
since there is no mechanism proposed, there are some ‘experts’ who firmly believe that L&P is caused by sun-planetary magnetic interaction, but of course there are some deniers of this obvious relationship.
Hopefully the mods will allow me to respond to this off-topic collection of lies by …
Did you just imply that there were Afghans on those four airplanes on 11-Sep-2001? What would possess you to utter such nonsense? Those would have to be some very old Hijackers no? Of course if you had to tie together two widely separate eras (Afghanistan 1983/2001) you might correctly associate the Afghans we helped with what would later become the Northern Alliance, but certainly not the Pakistan driven Taliban invaders. But please continue your fantasy and your smearing of people fighting for their very lives and their country.
And about President Reagan, (actually his basement crew led by Ollie North) they correctly circumvented an unconstitutional usurpation of Executive power (Boland Amendment, etc) by cleverly using a 3rd party (Israel) to sell old parts to a moderate (at the time) in Iran and funneled the proceeds to the Ant-Communist freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Many of us chipped in as well, and we still do even to this very day. You see, the Communists and their local puppet figure-heads are the bad guys. [snip] As it stands now you have everything as backwards as possible.
Hmmm, no. Hoover became President on March 4, 1929, the Stock Market collapsed in October, 7 months later. What policies did Hoover ram through at impossible speed to cause this? If you had said he later prolonged the Depression by authorizing proto-Roosevelt New Deal style central government you may have had a point. But you didn’t say that. You are just reading from the progressive/communist propaganda playbook which unfortunately is distributed to fellow travelers worldwide without the burden of facts.[ok that’s enough . . take it somewhere else now]
It is such a shame, your post. You see, before today and without fail, every Peruvian I have met has been brilliant, interesting and independent. You are none of these things. Peru is one of the bright spots on a continent full of Communist wannabes. Therefore Occam’s Razor suggests that you meant to type From Venezuela or from Cuba. Adios.
Yes, I pointed out that the Ap is affected by solar activity, but my point was that Andrew’s post (and previous posts) gives the impression that the formal purpose of the Ap index is to measure solar magnetism. It’s purpose is to measure very tiny fluctuations in terrestrial magnetism. These fluctuations are influenced by the Sun, but by other non-solar factors too.
It would be like saying “the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a measure of personal income”, perhaps indirectly true in a statistical sense, but not true as a formal statement of purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
Alexander Feht says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Not a bug, a feature.
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
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
~
Some of those reconstruction of SSN gragphs using 10Be back 10 to 14 thousand years really show solar activity within a fairly steady state. But before that woweeeee talk a bout grand mini. eeek gads. But a good candidate for X hmm. Let’s ask someone else. Just kidding, Interstellar influences might be a good candidate. Could start with interstellar material sailing 26 km/sec through heliosphere via gravitational focusing. Which is also the same speed as the solar orbit (AT THIS TIME) through interstellar space.
Tallbloke .. I must be using the wrong ephemeris or something. I’m still wondering about the earths reaction to the event not to mention what causes such an event. In particular for me as it coincides with some other solar funk that begins to manifest itself in Cycle 23 that whole extra lengthy polar reversal etc…… It is a good one and I am tempted to sidetrack on this for a while. Seems to be heavily documented.
And Leif, “average spaceweather” thanks for a good morning laugh. Ya know sometimes .. somethings just hit the funny bone. Vuks has it wrong, you do have a sense of humor.
David A. Evans says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:08 pm
WHY PANIC?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
David, there has to be a constant state of panic (CSOP) because without it there would be no need for research grants. Climate scientists (and in this case I use the word scientists loosely) need to keep the pot either boiling or freezing because to merely let the world quietly simmer as it has always done (okay, not when it was being formed, but anyway, always at the behest of the sun, not Mann) would be committing financial suicide. Therefore, man is responsible, say the scientists, so please keep sending us those research grants so that we can argue endlessly about a couple of degrees temperature rise/fall or a few millimetres sea-level rise/fall (in either case over a couple of hundred years) and make a nice living in the process thank you very much.
Do you think I’d get a grant for doing research into CSOP? Perhaps the UEA will get Dr. Jones to organise a course.
Alexander Feht says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
“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]”
Really? Just a week ago you’ve been fiercely defending the view that there is no such connection.
Perhaps you could substantiate that?
In http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf I show:
“Physical Meaning of IHV (and am, aa, ap)
Geomagnetic activity as given by the three-hour am-index has been found [Svalgaard, 1978] to depend on solar wind parameters and the geometry of their interaction with the Earth as this: am = k (nV^2)^(1/3)(BV) q(α, f) S(Ψ) where the various factors have meaning of Momentum flux, Magnetic Reconnection, and Geometric Modulation, and where B is the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) strength, V is the Solar Wind Speed, q is a function of the angle α between the IMF and the Earth’s magnetic field”
Vuk etc. says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:16 am
(I would like to have latest numbers, this is only to September)
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png is up to date through December.
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 4:48 am
the formal purpose of the Ap index is to measure solar magnetism. It’s purpose is to measure very tiny fluctuations in terrestrial magnetism. These fluctuations are influenced by the Sun, but by other non-solar factors too.
The purpose of Ap [and similar indices] is to measure solar magnetism using the Earth as the instrument. We go to great length to exclude non-solar influences
Julius Bartels [who invented the Ap-index] said about it:
“In conclusion, we may roughly classify solar phenomena according to their effects on the earth’s magnetism as follows: (1) Individual flares of ultra-violet light: these produce brief geomagnetic effect simultaneous with radio fade-outs. (2) The general change of ionizing wave-radiation in the course of the sunspot cycle; this governs the general intensity of the solar daily variation. (3) Moderate corpuscular radiation: this produces ordinary aurora and minor magnetic disturbances, and is the main factor governing the daily character-figure C. [early forerunner for Ap] (4) Intense corpuscular radiation: this produces magnetic storms, and aurorae outside the auroral zone. It is the main factor affecting the u-measure of magnetic activity.”
From http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf
“.. while trying to explain away the warmest year and warmest decade.”
I get so tired of hearing this.
Whenever I bring up the MWP, it’s pointed out that they mean “warmest in the last 150 years”. Ok – I understand that – but why is it that only the last 150 years matter when we’re talking about climate? We’ve definitely been warmer in the past, but that isn’t relevant for some reason.
There’s plenty of flippancy around here (and I’m pretty good at engaging in it myself) – but I’m asking this seriously – I really don’t understand the argument favoring AGW that so readily discounts previous warm periods.
Onion: “Why? Not knowing enough certainly hasn’t stopped the solar scientists from continuing to look like fools with wrong prediction after wrong prediction.”
Only a fool would assume total knowledge to the point of financial predictability (enough to bet trillions of taxpayer dollars on) in either of these two massive systems. Now we here other sciences should ‘hurry up’ (in their observations) and get with the CAGW program and stop looking like fools. Ain’t that just the scienciest?
I see where the name Onion may come from, peel away the all layers and there’s nothing inside.
correction to last message: hear, not here.
Much gracious, Leif. As ever, it’ll be the clouds.
============
Carla says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 6, 2011 at 5:38 am
AusieDan says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm
~
I might add to that comment about a steady state for the past 12,000 or so years.
Add a few TSAS (tiny scale atomic structures) such as MM (molecular medium) clouds and even the “so called” grand max’s and grand mini’s can be explained. Because TSAS and MM vary in size. What does make it different this time is the suggestion that the solar systems orbit has brought us to the S1, S2 shell boundary.
tallbloke says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:32 am
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
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/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
One other thing Tallbloke, I’m looking for the evidences that the solar system did encounter a faster moving interstellar wind associated with the S1, S2 shell boundary. The month of May has Earth on the apex side of the solar system when it encounters the inflow of material from the interstellar regions. What kind of SST occurred during that event? Might have some confirmations. And SOHO saw nothing. huh….
“Extreme ultraviolet images of the Sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) revealed nothing unusual during the interval from May 9-11, 1999. Credit: European Space Agency/NASA”
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9912/immovies.html
I’d love to change the world..Alvin Lee..timeless swt..
Blade, for some people the only way to make sense of history is to lie about it. And thus does tragedy become farce.
============
tallbloke says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:32 am
Carla says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:22 pm
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/
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
Same year as the Gakkel Ridge volcano in the polar region under all that water oh my..
Surprise: Explosive volcanic eruption under the Arctic ice found
Posted on June 25, 2008 by Anthony Watts
Far away in the Arctic Ocean, at 85° N 85° E, a similarly violent volcanic eruption happened almost undetected in 1999 – in this case, however, under a water layer of 4,000 m thickness.” So far, researchers have assumed that explosive volcanism cannot happen in water depths exceeding 3 kilometres because of high ambient pressure. “
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
More of those kwinky dinks so to speak.. good day