NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center posted an update to their graphs today.
They show the largest gains in solar cycle 24 tracking metrics I’ve seen yet.
See graphs below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Norman Page says:
April 7, 2011 at 8:31 pm
This indicates a very sudden increase in solar activity with a resulting rapidly declining cosmic ray count.
You point out yourself that the drop is only a few percent. That can hardly have any dramatic effect.
Anyone got any ideas of what solar (or cosmic? )event caused this sudden change?
simply a sector boundary and its associated high-speed solar wind stream.
rbateman says:
April 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Ok, let’s compare SC23 and SC24 from their start dates
note the sharp increase in SSN near the end of 1997, similar to the recent jump.
genomega1 says:
April 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm
When Global Warming ended, Global Cooling started in, shoving frost lines equatorward. Kind of like tides sloshing back & forth over multi-decadal timeframes of unknown length.
It just took it a decade to apply the brakes before clutching into reverse.
Watch out, though, unlike a standard transmission with multiple forward gears and one reverse, this thing sports multiple reverse gears.
Looks like some Fukushima radioactive pollution found its way into the instruments or somebody is counting every freckle.
@- genomega1 says:
April 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“…Then perhaps you can explain why in Florida the frost belt has moved 100 miles south.
Hundreds of orange groves no longer exist in northern Florida because the freezing temps destroyed them.”
Is this based only on the last bad winter ?
I can find no historical data that indicates a yearly or decadel trend in colder, frostier days in Florida. Only a record of some exceptional winters (often during a La Nina period) affecting the subsequent orange growing season at least in part due to the effect on the pollinating bee populations.
Due you have any evidence that the climate locally in N Florida is trending in the opposite direction from the global climate rather than just occasional fluctuations ?
Welcome to solar max…
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Solar polar magnetic reversal well on the way…
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Perhaps SC24 will be on the decline before the end of this year???
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Ian Cooper says:
April 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Looks like the start of a mimic of Cycle 14 as surmised by Leif!?
The Sun is a messy place. Expect those wild swings for low cycles. On the other hand, it does not look like a Grand Minimum as some will have it.
SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14. IMO it’s a bit early (about 13 years) to be saying whether or not we have a grand minimum coming into play. Leif thinks SC25 will be bigger than SC24, and this is entirely possible. It’s also possible it may be about the same. Or smaller.
Time will tell.
Q to Lief,
If the big shiney thing in the sky, which contains 99.9% of the mass in the solar system, varies in TSI by one thenth of one percent over a solar cycle, how can anyone be certain that such a variation cannot affect the atmosphere of a planetary body containing much less than 1/10th of 1 % mass of the solar system. Genuine question! AtB:-)
David Thomson says:
April 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm
It’s easy to catch up the sunspot numbers. That’s why when we can barely see three specs on the Sun’s disc, the sunspot count is 64. Go back and compare a sunspot count of 64 in the past solar cycle to a count of 64 today and see what I mean.
The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.
SIDC/NOAA comparison graph here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sidc_noaa1.png
genomega1 says: Then perhaps you can explain why in Florida the frost belt has moved 100 miles south. Hundreds of orange groves no longer exist in northern Florida because the freezing temps destroyed them.
Go ahead give it your best shot.
Yeah, I’ve watched it over the last few decades as the orange groves slowly marched down past Orlando…
Then again, it could be worse… It could have been like that winter a while ago when it was so cold it was “raining iguanas”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/cold-killing-iguanas/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/frozen-florida-citrus/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319971,00.html
Note: That says SOUTH Florida…
Yes, but the 10.7 flux seems to drift down toward 110 even with all the spots. Cycle 24 is like a very, very slow race at Talladega. We’re only at about lap 34 and maybe getting ready for the first pit stops. Oh, and the Big One is usually somewhere around lap 130+/-.
Neither of us want a Grand Minimum, Leif, but these ‘wild swings’ in a ‘messy place’ shouldn’t quell our fears of one.
==============
Sometimes the sun burps for a while. The sun is still on track for a repeat of the Dalton Minimum.
My hearing isn’t as good as used to be but I’m pretty sure it isn’t “heck” in the lyrics. 😉
The vegetation on Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park at the end of Key Biscayne was wiped out in Hurricaine Andrew in 1992. Soaring Autralian pines snapped like twigs. It was global warming, but who new then.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.
No, the NOAA/SIDC ratio for March was 0.63. The long-term average ratio is 0.64. Wolf’s original method is not used since 1893 [and shouldn’t be used as it is not reproducible – this has been recognized by all serious observers since the 1890s]. The data since then has been scaled down by a factor of 0.6 to put the modern count on the same scale as Wolf’s. The modern count since 1945 has been 20% higher than it should be compared with 1893-1944. This has nothing to do with Wolf’s original method, but is due to weighting by size of the spots where large spots can count up to five times a small spot. Only the Locarno station still does such weighting, but since Locarno is used as reference station by SIDC, the weighting carries over into all other counts.
tallbloke says:
April 8, 2011 at 12:19 am
SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14.
The SSN for SC5 [you don’t mean SC4] is so uncertain that no meaningful comparison can be made. Wolf initially himself thought SC5 was a rather large cycle [based on the very meager solar observations at the time], but when he got a compilation of aurorae from Sweden published around 1880, he decided since there were rather few aurorae around and just after 1800 that he better reduce his sunspot number for SC5 and 6 [he almost cut them almost in half hence creating the Dalton Minimum].
Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
The 3% was just the initial drop – total was 5% + in a week or so – would be very significant if it continues.
Let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think that SSN is the proper metric when measuring all the stuff spewing from our sun collectively referred to as solar output. And let us hope that no one here is foolish enough to think planet Earth, cloaked in her thick atmospheric soup, is a sensitive female prone to faints and illness at the slightest mood change in her big celestial lover.
It is Earth herself, who faints and swoons to her own inner storms, and leaves her inhabitants to fend for themselves. If she pauses to consider her man at all, it is only when her winds are quiet enough to warm up her backside for a while. Typical of a female to press her chilly cheeks against a warm lover.
Geoff Sharp says:
April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count.
The ratio SIDC/NOAA since Jan 2010 has been 0.64, not different from the long-term average. As I said Locarno is currently the World reference point. The main observer at Locarno, Sergio Cortesi, has been observing since 1957. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Sergio-and-Me-jpg is a photo of Sergio and me discussing his count at the telescope [using the same aperture as Wolf’s original telescope here http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.png ]. Incidentally since about 1860 all wolf’s observations were made with this much smaller telescope http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png . Wolf multiplied his counts made with this telescope by 1.5 to bring them onto his 80mm scale. As you can see, both telescopes still exist and are, in fact, still used every clear day to carry the Zurich sunspot series on.
Since Wolf’s method is not reproducible [by any observer or sunspot-revisionist] the only way to ensure [or check] the calibration is by comparison with either another observer [using a reproducible method]. Wolfer did that for the last 16 years of Wolf’s observations [made exclusively with the small 37mm telescope] and found the [in]famous ratio 0.6 [after having first multiplied Wolf’s count by 1.5]. Luckily, Wolf himself discovered [and used] a completely objective way of checking the calibration, namely by comparison with the daily variation of the magnetic needle [compass], see: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf so it has been possible to obtain this objective calibration back to at least 1781, and sporadic back to 1722. Before that we don’t know what the calibration is, but simply assume that we can compare the various solar observers and make an educated guess.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 8, 2011 at 6:52 am
Geoff Sharp says:
April 8, 2011 at 2:21 am
The SIDC did look to over count March with many specks counted along with outlier specks in a group being split out as separate groups. Since Jan 2010 the SIDC result has been generally above the NOAA count. Both of these counts are of course higher than Wolf’s original method.
——————————————————
No, the NOAA/SIDC ratio for March was 0.63. The long-term average ratio is 0.64. Wolf’s original method is not used since 1893 [and shouldn’t be used as it is not reproducible – this has been recognized by all serious observers since the 1890s]. The data since then has been scaled down by a factor of 0.6 to put the modern count on the same scale as Wolf’s. The modern count since 1945 has been 20% higher than it should be compared with 1893-1944. This has nothing to do with Wolf’s original method, but is due to weighting by size of the spots where large spots can count up to five times a small spot. Only the Locarno station still does such weighting, but since Locarno is used as reference station by SIDC, the weighting carries over into all other counts.
No, NOAA and I both get 0.69. No point arguing, the graph shows it all.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The rest of your response basically supports my argument, the Waldmeier factor making up the major component. It is time you accepted this publicly (your paper already says this)
tallbloke says:
April 8, 2011 at 12:19 am
SC24 currently looks more like SC4 (Dalton Minimum) than SC14.
The SSN for SC5 [you don’t mean SC4] is so uncertain that no meaningful comparison can be made. Wolf initially himself thought SC5 was a rather large cycle [based on the very meager solar observations at the time], but when he got a compilation of aurorae from Sweden published around 1880, he decided since there were rather few aurorae around and just after 1800 that he better reduce his sunspot number for SC5 and 6 [he almost cut them almost in half hence creating the Dalton Minimum].
There is no doubt SC5 was a low cycle. Who do you think has the best account? Wolf or Hoyt and Schatten? http://www.landscheidt.info/images/gsn_sval.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:38 am
Yep, heard it all before. It adds nothing to your argument.
Norman Page says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:28 am
Leif – your sector boundary explanation sounds plausible – but do you have any data to support it? Solar wind velocity change at the appropriate time for example.
Of course, I never say anything without data to support it. E.g. here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3
Geoff Sharp says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:49 am
Yep, heard it all before.
And still you haven’t learned anything
It adds nothing to your argument.
But it subtracts everything from yours, leaving nothing left.
It would be nice if you would stick to what is historically correct, and to what is factually correct for recent data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:38 am
telescope here http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.png ]. Incidentally since about 1860 all wolf’s observations were made with this much smaller telescope http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png .
Should have been:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-80mm.jpg
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.jpg
Geoff Sharp says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:46 am
No, NOAA and I both get 0.69. No point arguing, the graph shows it all.
My bad. I had averaged the ratios rather than ratioed the averages. Apparently makes a small difference.
The rest of your response basically supports my argument, the Waldmeier factor making up the major component. It is time you accepted this publicly (your paper already says this)
No, the Waldmeier factor means that all old values must be increased by 20% before being compared to modern data. ‘Accepted’ ? Who discovered the Waldmeier factor and been telling everybody and his brother about is for several years now?
There is no doubt SC5 was a low cycle. Who do you think has the best account? Wolf or Hoyt and Schatten?
Of course SC5 was low. The point is that the values are still so uncertain that direct numerical comparison does not make much sense. To wit the difference between Wolf and H&S. We can’t really tell from today which is better. Even if I could, people would still cherry pick what they like, supporting whatever agenda they have.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 8, 2011 at 8:05 am
But it subtracts everything from yours, leaving nothing left.
It would be nice if you would stick to what is historically correct, and to what is factually correct for recent data.
Historically you well know that Wolf did not adopt the Waldmeier method of counting that introduces a very large step in the historical record. Before Waldmeier, Wolfer made his correction factor to align with Wolf without knowing that the Waldmeier method would be introduced or that the speck ratio would increase as you have stated thru L&P (whatever L&P is). Your insistence to bluff and blunder while I use your own research against you doesn’t look good.