by David Archibald
Figure 1: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2012
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle is currently at 67°. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.
Figure 2: Ap Index 1984 – 2012
Three years into Solar Cycle 24, the Ap Index has now risen to the level of previous minima.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2012
Figure 3 shows that solar wind flow pressure has returned to levels prevailing over most of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 4: Solar Cycle 20 compared to Solar Cycle 24
The last time the planet had a discernible cooling period was in the 1970s, associated with Solar Cycle 20. This figure was developed to compare the Ap index and neutron count of Solar Cycle 24 with Solar Cycle 20. In Solar Cycle 20, the Ap index diverged a long way from the neutron count.
Figure 5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1968 – 2012
Similar to the Ap Index, the Interplanetary Magnetic Field is now up to the levels of previous solar minima.
(note this figure has been corrected from the original, thanks to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
Figure 6: Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it.
Figure 7: Aligned neutron count by solar cycle
In this figure, the neutron count of the last five solar cycles is aligned on month of minimum. It shows that Solar Cycle 24 hasn’t departed much from where Solar Cycle 23 was at the same time. On the other hand, the neutron count could go sideways from here.
Figure 8: Predicting year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum
It is estimated that Solar Cycle 24 maximum will be centred on May 2013 and using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can derive the year of the 24/25 minimum as 2026. This means that the fall time for Solar Cycle 24 will be 13 years. For all the numbered solar cycles, plotting fall time from the maximum against the maximum to maximum time enables us to make an estimate of the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum. From Figure 8, the Solar Cycle 25 maximum will be 19 years after the Solar Cycle 24 maximum in 2013, which makes it 2032.
Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040
The large decline in the sunspot number and F 10.7 flux at the beginning of the year, prior to the recent major flare, suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will look like Solar Cycle 5 in having a low base of activity with periodic spikes. The estimate of 7 for the peak of Solar Cycle 25 is from Livingston and Penn.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:22 pm
You have not answered my questions.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 18, 2012 at 8:57 pm
You have not answered my questions.
Nonsense,
In your analysis do the unweighted spots include both type 1 & type 2 spots?
The unweighted spots are all spots, hence both type 1 and 2 and any other ones
How did you gather the data, did you use every daily drawing back to 2003 or some other method? It would also be interesting to see a smaller range between the data points (monthly) especially on the upslope of SC24.
Daily drawings are available back to 1981: http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
You can count yourself. It is mostly straightforward, as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf slides 12-18 or here: http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf .
I don’t know what you hope to see. The demise of small spots without penumbrae is so robust that it also shows on monthly counts, especially on the upslope of SC24: http://www.leif.org/research/Ratio-Weighted-to-Unweighted-Spot-Count-Monthly.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:02 pm
The unweighted spots are all spots, hence both type 1 and 2 and any other ones
Your answer is unclear. The aim would be to compare individual spots of type 1 & 2 (total) with the overall total of all individual spots counts. To do this correctly the unweighted data would need to include type 1&2 spots only. Is this the case?
You also have not described how you collected the data.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:32 pm
“The unweighted spots are all spots, hence both type 1 and 2 and any other ones”
Your answer is unclear. The aim would be to compare individual spots of type 1 & 2 (total) with the overall total of all individual spots counts. To do this correctly the unweighted data would need to include type 1&2 spots only. Is this the case?
My answer was very clear: “all spots”. And it is not necessary to only include type 1 and 2 spots. Since the unweighted data includes all spots, the weighted data will be smaller if they contain many 1&2 spots and large if they contain few. this is trivial and you should be able to see that, without me having to give you some numerical examples.
You also have not described how you collected the data.
You have evidently not found it worth your trouble to read the detailed description of the method and its validation by Marco. I’ll repeat:
Daily drawings are available back to 1981: http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
One just counts spots on the drawings. It is mostly straightforward, as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf slides 12-18 or here: http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf .
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 18, 2012 at 9:49 pm
No, I can see now what you have plotted, which looks to have nothing to do with extracting a speck ratio or amount of Locarno regions counted as 1 or 2 in proportion to all spots counted.
This proportion is what is critical in determining what exactly L&P are counting, which I think is a great proportion of lower magnetic strength smaller spots.
The way to do this is count all spots with each having a value of 1. Then total the number of spots that are counted by Locarno as 1 or 2 and then compare the total of that count with the overall value. This would be a difficult exercise unless the individual values for each Lorcarno spot are held separately. Until this is done there is no solid data on the actual speck ratio over multiple cycles.
@ur momisugly Veritas.
Thank you.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 12:13 am
This proportion is what is critical in determining what exactly L&P are counting, which I think is a great proportion of lower magnetic strength smaller spots.
L&P are measuring all spots whatsoever during their observing slot.
Until this is done there is no solid data on the actual speck ratio over multiple cycles.
It is not necessary to determine the actual speck ratio to determine if it is increasing or decreasing. The total number of spots T is T = s+n where s is the number of specks and n is the number of other spots. The total number of weighted spots W is W = s+F*n, where F is the average weight factor. The speck ratio is r = s/n = (F*T-W)/((F*T-T). Let for simplicity F be 3 [weight for spots with penumbrae], then r = 3/2 – (W/T)/2 = 3/2 – Q/2, showing that r and the quantity Q =W/T that I plotted are inversely related. If Q goes up [as it did during SC24], r goes down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:36 am
The speck ratio is r = s/n = (F*T-W)/(F*T-T).
Sorry for the typos: the speck ratio is r = s/T = (F*T-W)/(F*T-T).
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:19 am
Sorry for the typos: the speck ratio is r = s/T = (F*T-W)/(F*T-T).
Looks like mumbo jumbo that cannot try to distinguish if type 1&2 spots are increasing or decreasing. Without proper analysis your claims are just handwaving.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Looks like mumbo jumbo that cannot try to distinguish if type 1&2 spots are increasing or decreasing. Without proper analysis your claims are just hand waving.
Well, the resulting formula shows that the speck ratio, r, varies inversely as W/T:
r = 3/2 – (W/T)/2 = 3/2 – Q/2 and since W/T is known, so is r. The bottom line of all the analysis is that the speck ratio has not been increasing during the up-slope of SC24, because W/T is increasing. But this we knew all along as what has been happening the past couple of cycles is that the small spots [and hence the specks] are disappearing relative to the larger spots. This has now been explained to you so many times [and backed up with suitable papers] that you ought to have gotten it by now. We shall see, if you are still in the dark.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Do the analysis properly and then come back to us. Nothing to see so far.
“The way to do this is count all spots with each having a value of 1. Then total the number of spots that are counted by Locarno as 1 or 2 and then compare the total of that count with the overall value. This would be a difficult exercise unless the individual values for each Lorcarno spot are held separately. Until this is done there is no solid data on the actual speck ratio over multiple cycles.”
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Do the analysis properly and then come back to us. Nothing to see so far.
As your speck-ratio is arbitrarily defined there is nothing gained by trying to duplicate that definition. The fact is still that the small spots are disappearing. This has several consequences as shown so clearly in the data and my proper analyses of those. Your speck ratio straw man prevents you from seeing [admitting, rather] that. So, to be clear: you do not think the small spots are disappearing in proportion to the large spots? Do you think their proportion is the same? or increasing? or don’t you know?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Until the data is provided no one knows. The proportion of type 1 & 2 spots over several cycles is necessary to determine the speck ratio and is far from a strawman. You have made the statements the speck ratio is decreasing but have not provided as yet any reliable data.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm
You have made the statements the speck ratio is decreasing but have not provided as yet any reliable data.
No, I have pointed out that the small spots are disappearing in proportion to larger spots. All the data we have supports that, e.g. directly shown in the paper by Lefevre and Clette, but also L&P and my own investigations. The speck ratio is your invention, which is not even well-defined. You proposed that your speck ratio might be going up with SC24, and I have shown that the smaller spots are disappearing even faster in SC24.
Reliable data has always, it seems, been data that supports your speculations. Everything else is ‘junk science’, remember.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Until the data is provided no one knows.
All available data shows that the smaller spots are disappearing, that active regions contain fewer and fewer visible spots per region, that spots are weakening. This is the important finding. That ‘nobody knows’ what your speck-ratio is doing does not change those facts. One might infer from the disappearing of the smaller spots that specks would also disappear in the same measure and since ‘nobody knows’ there is no observational evidence contradicting that inference. Correct?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:03 pm
You have provided no evidence either way….just more handwaving.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm
You have provided no evidence either way….just more hand waving.
So you give up on trying to understand the issue. Your loss.