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.
Carla
Arctic stratosphere in May 1999 was normal (SSW usually appear Nov-Mar).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/archive/10mb9065_1999.gif
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
How do they calibrate to a zero point if there is variance in galactic incoming?
The real factor is not the solar wind, not the sun, not the galaxy, but the Earth itself. That is where the shielding is. The solar modulation is only a few percent. The galaxy stuff changes too slowly. The Earth is the big shield.
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
shows the result of GCRs on 14C the past several thousand years. The big swing matches [inversely] the curve with the crosses on it showing the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field [seen by a cosmic ray at some distance from the Earth], the little wiggles are due to solar activity and the galaxy variations are nowhere to be found.
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
If true, then subtracting the solar wind output from cosmic ray incoming gives the variance (or anomaly) of cosmic ray incoming.
Since the solar modulation depend on energy [lower energies are modulated much more] one can calculate the so-called cosmic ray spectrum and deduce the unmodulated galactic part. Here is how it is done: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf
Hi Leif,
Thank you for your reply. We are talking at cross purposes.
I thought that you were using something more advanced like a LOESS utility.
In 1979 William Cleveland published the LOESS (or LOWESS) technique for smoothing data, and in 1988 he and Susan J. Devlin published a refined version of the technique (references are given at the end of this article). For each X value where a Y value is to be calculated, the LOESS technique performs a regression on points in a moving range around the X value, where the values in the moving range are weighted according to their distance from this X value.
Read more: LOESS Smoothing in Excel | Peltier Tech Blog | Excel Charts http://peltiertech.com/WordPress/loess-smoothing-in-excel/#ixzz1AIVLXzjU
The LOESS method has some similarities (IMHO) to some of the geostatistical methods used in ore reserve estimating.
Hi Leif,
Reference to the Wikipedia entry which also mentions the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_regression
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Thank you for your reply. We are talking at cross purposes.
The real limitation for my use [which precludes sophisticated methods] is that the relationship is not linear, the data not random, the physics not understood, so I can only use regression as a rough cut.
@Loodt Pretorius
> The LOESS method has some similarities (IMHO) to some of the geostatistical
> methods used in ore reserve estimating.
I thought that was called “kriging”, a method of interpolating ore concentration samples over a geographic area to estimate the extent and best places to mine. So named after D.G. Krige, who developed the technique for estimating ore reserves of South African gold mines. Like LOESS, it is a kind of non-parametric regression:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VKz9Sswk1bkC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=loess+kriging+ore&source=bl&ots=uUwZhC6u38&sig=4WDitzMMI01CyRE4_xpAOfZyHL4&hl=en&ei=g00mTZOpFoOClAfQlZT9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
New to all this and not a regular but I find all this fascinating. The reason I’m here is because I recently watched “Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura: 2012”. I know, I know. Anyway, he talked to some people from NASA who said that they were expecting sun activity to be higher in 2012 than it was 150 years ago and combined that with a major decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field to give us: catostrophic burning of Earth, essentially. Mass extinctions and so forth, fire and brimstone.
What I gather from these conversations is just the opposite or is there something to the “wind up” theory of Hathaway? OR is it all just interstellar junk? Thanks for your opinion, anyone.
Interstellar Overdrive says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm
is it all just interstellar junk?
sounds like a winner
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 3:14 pm (Edit)
Replying to
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
…
The real limitation for my use [which precludes sophisticated methods] is that the relationship is not linear, the data not random, the physics not understood, so I can only use regression as a rough cut.
—…—
But then, given that non-linearity, not-all-of-the-physics-is-perfectly-understood, and (somewhat) random data, isn’t it all the more important that accurate data and simple trend analysis (much more than simple linear analysis/extrapolation into the future) be done first?
The theory must come later, in particular because it appears to me that every advance in nuclear physics theory/particle physics theory has come only after the observation of a (previously unknown and unsuspected!) phenomenon.
racookpe1978 says:
January 6, 2011 at 9:44 pm
But then, given that non-linearity, not-all-of-the-physics-is-perfectly-understood, and (somewhat) random data, isn’t it all the more important that accurate data and simple trend analysis (much more than simple linear analysis/extrapolation into the future) be done first?
Of course, if you seriously want to extrapolate, but in the case at hand, the trend line was indicative only. Use at own risk.
Thanks for your response. I’m sorry I didn’t notice your cosmic ray/ geodipole graph before I asked the question. I don’t think that graph can be understated for laymen type. I’m baffled by some of this stuff and I think that can only be attributed to scale. It’s nice to see the big picture. Just doing a quick google search on catastrophic events in 4500 BC, based on the scenario I was speaking of (low geomagnetism/high solar activity) and the first thing I clicked on corresponded well with that graph. Not catastrophic by any means but warm and prosperous, followed by cold climate shock. Maybe global warming is bred into the brain trust.
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php?topic=16278.0;wap2
That’s bringing the correlation to life.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy.
What else do we have?
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy. What else do we have?
10Be is the best, and we can drill as many cores as we like.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:58 pm
rbateman says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm
C14 is reported to have some problems in regards to contamination and can be a misleading/difficult proxy. What else do we have?
10Be is the best, and we can drill as many cores as we like.
~
“””There is an immense number of distinct compounds that contain carbon atoms. Some sources suggest that there are about ten million known compounds.[1] However, it is possible that the number is greater.”””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounds_of_carbon
So.. what happens if the solar system, in its past, encountered an area of interstellar space that was rich in Carbon? (by the way an area has been observed made a mental note cause they used an exclamation point at the end of the sentence!) How would this mess with the data?
I have got to start taking better notes. repeat 3 times
Ok, off the newer topic.
Not exactly what I was looking for but an example non the less.
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere over the past 60,000 years:
Impact of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux
at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
Bottom pg. 3-4
..The gas-phase abundances in the CISM, which include unobserved H+, provided the first evidence that the Sun is in
shocked ISM. The abundance pattern in the gas is characteristic of the destruction of
refractory grains in 50–100 km s−1 shock fronts, such as associated with expanding
superbubble shells (Frisch et al. 1999). Abundances of the refractory elements Mg, Si,
and Fe are below solar by factors of 3–15, and C is overabundant.
Rob .. carbon 14 is messed up. I have got to read this again. But you should be able to get the gist of it here.
I wish this would paste correctly.
From the same article as my last post. Out of time here now.
pg. 10
5 Future: Improving Comparisons between Local ISM Structure and
Paleomagnetic Records
..Given the uncertainties, the attenuation of GCRs and ACRs by an ISM-modulated
heliosphere appears to be capable of accounting for several unexplained excursions
in the geomagnetic record. More study of the roles of anomalous cosmic rays versus
higher GCRs as source populations of the radio isotopes will be of interest, since differences
between the 14C, 10Be, 36Cl records are mandated if ACRs are a factor in
14C production rates. Only more data will reveal whether these interpretations are
accurate..
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 6:32 am
So.. what happens if the solar system, in its past, encountered an area of interstellar space that was rich in Carbon?
Since 14C is radioactive and half of it disappears in 5700 years there wouldn’t be any left. And there wouldn’t be any 14C there any way. The 14C we find on Earth is generated from Nitrogen in the atmosphere. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
Slow down Dr. S
PASADENA, Calif. — Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20101208.html
Vuk etc. says:
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
2.so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1 or 2 ?
Vuk etc. says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:50 am
1. There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe.
2.so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
1 or 2 ?
Both
Leif Svalgaard:
You have found that the Total Solar Irradiance(TSI) at the Maunder Minimum was very similar to the TSI at the bottom of any solar minimum, right?
So the difference in Solar Irradiance between the Little Ice Age(LIA) and the 20th Century was small?
If so, what do you think was the cause of the LIA?
Maybe high volcanic activity?(big volcanos emit SO2 that with water forms sulphate aerosols that reflect the incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth)
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:37 am
Vuk etc. says:
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon.
so? There are stars that consists wholly of carbon.
~
Then the cosmic lexion must bbee wrong?
Cosmic Lexicon: Carbon dioxide
Home > Library > Science > Cosmic Lexicon
A compound formed by combining one carbon atom with two oxygen atoms, making the molecule CO2. Carbon dioxide is an important part of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. Carbon dioxide gas condenses to a solid below -78 C. This solid is commonly known as dry ice. The polar ice caps on Mars are made of frozen water and carbon dioxide.
http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide
Thanks Huxter Vuks ..good game, you too Dr S.
hmmm must have wire crossed here somewhere .. that’s ok though.. cus the sun seems to have few wires crossed at this time too. lol