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.
HenryP says:
March 4, 2012 at 10:23 am
But that implies less UV during low SSN? …
Earlier you asserted that:
Is it not so that during low SSN there is more UV coming from the sun?
MAVukcevic says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Can’t win them all; still link for Aa North would be appreciated (thanks in advance).
The file http://www.leif.org/AaN-AaS-IHV.xls
contains IHV, AaNorth, and AaSouth for each 27-day Bartels rotation for 1868-2003 [I haven’r updated it lately yet]. I use Bartels rotations instead of months because months have different length [introducing noise in a power spectrum]. The Aa values have been corrected for the various defects that I have discussed earlier [ e.g., in http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf ]
MAVukcevic says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Can’t win them all; still link for Aa North would be appreciated (thanks in advance).
The file http://www.leif.org/research/AaN-AaS-IHV.xls
AFPhys says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Ahh- Just found paper- Lief, Cliver and Kamide (2004) predicted SC24 to be max SSN of 75 +/- 8 in 2011. Significant miss (probably) in year due to the unexpectedly long SC23.
We were not trying to predict the maximum, simply used the nominal length of the cycle [which is what one does, if one doesn’t know any better]
What if there were a higher realm of power in the universe that made our Sun go quiet for a time to teach the pesky humans a lesson?
It may not be coincidental that I’ve been thanking God for the extended solar minimum since the House passed the cap-n-trade bill back in 2009. I’m glad the bill didn’t pass the Senate due to the cooling planet since then. It’s the Sun stupid. Either way we win.
Henry@Leif
Leif,
the paradox, as you probably know,
is that more UV from the sun may in fact lead to less UV reaching the bottom of the atmosphere.
i.e. (more) UV +O+O2=>(more) O3 => more UV deflected to space
As far as the information from page 18 is concerned,
I am not sure where they stood measuring,
are they measuring on top of the atmosphere (satellite), like measuring TSI,
or are they at sea level, on a cloudless day?
HenryP says:
March 4, 2012 at 10:27 pm
are they measuring on top of the atmosphere (satellite), like measuring TSI,
By satellite [same one as for TSI]
The heliosphere is being compressed. An energized Fluff is reducing the area of the heliosphere and this makes the scarce gases more abundant. This is the key to researchers on E finding answers to long sought missing parts of solutions. The problem is that there is only 10 months left to discover all the answers. And of course, when the MW capacitor overloads and discharges, the heliosphere goes back to ‘normal’ and nothing of the solutions will work. One assumes that the hope is that some form of energy will be found that will allow this massive compression that revealed our secrets to be maintained. Probably not.
And once the return to normal, the hotter than Hell gas giants will be presenting an entirely new condition to Sol which is why NASA says much weather disturbance ahead.
The enlivening of Fluff is of course due to neutrino bombardment, and that is from G1.9
Course, I could be wrong.
It would appear that the ISES Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression updated today is slightly different from what was posted here. It looks like December was replaced with February. Of course I have been wrong before.
Jeff
NASA seem to have changed their tune on solar forcing :
R.F. Hirsch :March 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm (in Tips and Notes)
quoted NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
“…. because the combined effect of all forcings is less than that of greenhouse gases alone, and much of the greenhouse gas forcing has been “used up” in causing the warming of the past century. It is apparent that the solar forcing is not negligible in comparison with the net climate forcing.….”
AdolfoGiurfa says:
March 2, 2012 at 11:35 am
> Just waiting for the “Watts Effect”………
Ah, it was referenced, I thought it hadn’t. Very good!
For folks who stumble across this via search engines, check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/28/testing-my-solar-power/, then http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/solar-stormcontinues-geomagnetic-storm-and-auroras-expected/ and stand in awe. No need to kneel. 🙂
What!? Eaten by the spam catcher! Perhaps some effects are not to be mentioned in public, or perhaps I’m just not worthy to remark on them. 🙂