The sunspot number for February from SIDC is down again, to 33.1
Here’s the source of that data: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/monthssn.dat
So far, cycle 24 is significantly lower in SSN number that the last three cycles, in addition to having a delayed start. While the delta of the drop in Feb 2012 is not unusual by itself, it is the lowest observed value of the last three cycles this far into a new cycle.
Compared to the entire data set back to 1749, which I’ve plotted below…
…it shows cycle 24 so far to be on par with cycle 12 and cycle 6 in amplitude.
While this drop in SSN number might appear to some as a signal for a possible peaking of cycle 24, there is other evidence that suggests otherwise. For example the Solar Polar Field Strength. Usually the polarity of the North and South solar hemispheres flips at solar max. As you can see in the graph we are close but not quite there yet. And, it has flattened out compared with previous recent transitions.
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Leif Svalgaard also tracks this and here are a couple of his graphs:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Leif has previously suggested that he thinks for solar polar field will see the flip later 2012 or early 2013. We don’t have long to wait.
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) has not yet updated their Solar Cycle Progression page, but will in a few days. In the meantime, here are the SSN and Ap index graphs manually updated with SIDC data to give you an idea of what they will look like compared to the forecast (in red):
The Ap Geomagnetic field index, just like the SSN, is down again, suggesting the sun’s magnetic dynamo is not winding up like it did near the peak of cycle 23 and previous cycles.
We live in interesting times.
When I see the low SSN during the 1800-1820 period and the low SSN before 1890, what jumped out at me are September 1815 and August 1883. It caught my eye as soon as I saw the graph. Coincidence? If there is a major volcanic eruption during this lower than normal Sun activity, I’ll laugh my buttocks off. Just saying!?!
It is too early to make a huge splash about this drop in solar activity. Give it a year or so to see if we get another pulse up in activity. I am guessing that the odds are at least 2:1 that we’ll see the current high numbers for SC24 exceeded easily by then.
This is totally Bush’s fault.
Leif stated a few years ago, that it takes 6 months for changes in the sun’s magnetic field to propagate all the way out to the heliopause. Something to do with interactions with plasma.
Because of this, any changes in GCR that are caused by changes in the sun’s magnetic field, will take 6 months to phase in completely.
All this illustrates is how ignorant we really are. We would all be better off if everyone admitted to their common ignorance and got on with correcting that situation. This all harkens back to Plato’s dialogue Theætetus.
Edim says:
March 2, 2012 at 1:31 am
It would seem to be so…
Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:27 am
All this illustrates is how ignorant we really are.
I too believe we are ignorant of the Sun. My “DC offset” theory simply goes back something Anthony talked about on the Ides of March in 2008 as a “step function (or discontinuity) in 2005”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/15/sun-still-blank-no-sign-of-cycle-24/
@Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:27 am
Usually when an employee in a job needs to make new tasks for which he/she was not prepared for, he/she is being trained in the new technique. It happens now that there is a new theory which explains how the Sun works:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac
http://plasmauniverse.info/
So those guys working in astrophysics need a retraining in electricity. (BTW: It would be a good ideate teach electricity to children, as every “modern” gadget we use works with such an “UNKNOWN” force)
The cosmic ray count is a more useful proxy for solar – earth climate relationships than sunspot numbers – ( check the Calder post following this one)
The cosmic ray max follows the SSN minimum by about a year. The late 2009 GCR max was the highest since 1964 .To comare the 23 – 24 cycles check
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?tartdate=1998/02/15&starttime=00:00&enddate=2012/03/01&endtime=20:14&resolution=Automatic choice&picture=on
This shpws clearly that the GCR count is about 8-9% greater now than at the same time in the 23 cycle. with probable increase in cloudiness lowering temps.cf 22-23.GCR max (SSN min)
There has been no net SST temperature rise since 1997 with CO2 up 7.9%
Re: a lot of people
There’s no way the CAGW crowd can use this as a cop-out. In doing so not only would they concede that the sun is a primary driver, they would put themselves in a position contending that it is an even stronger driver than skeptics purport, because it has to override CO2.
In which case, we should immediately disband everything “green” in favor of a huge ramp-up of fossil fuel usage to maintain global temperatures, fighting the sun’s influence toward a mini ice age.
So, yeah…. I’m sure they’re cooking up something, but don’t expect an easy out. It’s just not their style – they’d rather twist it somehow to further their cause.
The Science is settled.
One is tempted to quote from “The Captive Mind” by Czeslaw Milosz:
When someone is honestly 55% right that is very good and there is no wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it is wonderful, it is great luck and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.
(An Old Jew of Galicia)
What caught my eye was F10.7 falling off the table at around 2012.7
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Roy says:
“Doesn’t anyone know a neat trick for hiding the decline?”
Ask climate scientists, it’s in their Nature.
Mark Adams says:
March 2, 2012 at 4:47 am
This event coincided with a perihelion of Jupiter.
The link to Oulu I posted above doesnt work too well .
Go to http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database
and generate a chart with start date 1998/02/15
Even uber-warmist Germany is starting to see the light.
The new book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) is creating a stir.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/20/hamburger-abendblatt-defends-vahrenholt-slams-germanys-culture-of-intolerance/
Dr Svalgarrd,
Sorry, maybe [someone] has asked this before, but why-oh-why in the 21st century do you use “decimal years” on the x-axis? Converting to dates is easy. No matter what system you use, there are a plethora of scripts/methods/macros to calculate the date.
If this is a motion, I’ll second it.
Dr. Hathaway is back on line, see link in:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
with March ‘prediction’ for SC24 max severely trimmed back (just below 60) from his previous estimates.
Can I assume that Dr. S. still holding firm?
Mine is an extrapolation now 9 years old, no change is allowed.
Let me predict the future:
1) the earth will cool due to low solar activity.
2) At some point, a volcano will go “puff”, size unimportant
3) Politicians and certain folk will then exclaim:
“the cooling is due to the volcano! Send money!”
“Oh, the misery of the downtrodden! Send money!”
i.e since the cause of saving mankind/the environment/their rice bowl/etc is on the line,
they will find a way to selectively rationalize anything.
After all, the minimum a rational person can use for “climate” must be a full PDO, but the scammers try to use a 1/2 PDO since it supports their rice bowl, so why would we expect them to “dumb up” and not try to have some clever rationalization?
During the big freeze last year here in Ireland,a professor of geography was interviewed on national radio and asked about possible links between sunspots and earth’s climate. His unchallenged response went something like this, ‘we think about 20% of the current climate change is due to low solar output ( his words) but anthropogenic global warming is still happening in the background’.His 20% is interesting (wherever he got it), as it could be the beginning of a slippery slope for the warmists.
Stubben says:
March 2, 2012 at 8:14 am
This event coincided with a perihelion of Jupiter.
That may have been the cause in May of 1999. We only really know that the loss of the Solar Wind for a few days is possible. If the decline of solar activity to a threshold point could cause such an event, the duration might be until the Sun ramped back up to that threshold point. As a family man, I really do not like being a forecaster of doom. I will try to shut up about it now.
My hat is off to Leif and The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel which reached a consensus decision on the prediction that is proving to be true. The recent drop is meaningless until we hit the projected top and start to turn down. They don’t adjust their projection like the other agencies who predict.
Time will tell but so far an amazing prediction.
There may be a double peak, with the first peak being the highest then the second a bit lower. Probably some sort of harmonic behavior, where the low frequency content is more energetic near the peak, and, the higher frequency content dominating in the trough regions. If so, then we may have already passed the initial higher peak, which would be bad, bad news.
@ur momisugly richard verney says:
March 2, 2012 at 4:11 am
WW-III.
The worst ever. And to boot, the war will exacerbate the cooling!