NOAA SWPC has updated their plot page of solar metrics, and the slump continues.
At spaceweather.com Dr. Tony Phillips writes:
SO THIS IS SOLAR MAXIMUM? Forecasters have long expected the Solar Max of 2013 to be the weakest of the Space Age. It might be even weaker than they thought. As shown in this 20-year plot of sunspot counts vs. time, the sun is underperforming:
Sunspot numbers are notoriously variable, so the actual counts could rapidly rise to meet or exceed the predicted curve. For now, however, the face of the sun is devoid of large sunspots, and there have been no strong flares in more than a week. The threshold of Solar Max looks a lot like Solar Min. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of X-class solar flares in the next 24 hours.
===================================================
Here’s the other metrics, which are also “underperforming”.
The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 1:39 am
this was the consequence of the Earth’s magnetosphere found itself well within the solar feedback loop as demonstrated here:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
lsvalgaard says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:24 am
………
At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk in 1940 epoch compared to many others. Here is a comparison SC17 and SC23 which are in all other respects very similar:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
Do you have an explanation?
HenryP says:
November 18, 2012 at 10:53 am
But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
LeifS says
http://www.leif.org/research/
ehhhhh,
which one are we talking about here (scratch my head, scratch my head)
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:47 am
At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk
A wrong explanation is worse than no explanation.
You can learn more by consulting http://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~cathy/Classes/SIO229/planet-earth.pdf
The main field is the sum of the crustal field [which does not vary] and the core field [which does]. The variation of the core field did not go berserk in 1940, but the data collection improved. As IAGA points out http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrfhw.html “The IGRF has achieved worldwide acceptability as a standard and has proved valuable for many applications, BUT INAPPROPRIATE USE COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR RESULTS”
HenryP says:
November 19, 2012 at 10:31 am
which one are we talking about here (scratch my head, scratch my head)
There are many that deal with that topic. It is a good idea to read them all [with obvious titles].For example http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:47 am
At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk
The correct explanation can be found here:
http://www.agu.org/wps/ChineseJGeo/46/46.04/articles/xwy.pdf
“errors in the high-degree Gauss coefficients in the IGRF 1945-1955 models. In other words, these errors have notable effects on the determination of the secular variation”
lsvalgaard says:
November 19, 2012 at 10:38 am
The variation of the core field did not go berserk in 1940, but the data collection improved. As IAGA points out http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrfhw.html “The IGRF has achieved worldwide acceptability as a standard and has proved valuable for many applications, BUT INAPPROPRIATE USE COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR RESULTS”
Not exactly.
The variation of the surface field did go berserk in epoch 1940, time of SS cycle 17.
I have added secular variation for SC15 (epoch 1920) and it is very much as that of 2000.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
Epoch 1950 is also more volatile than normal, but that is because SS cycle 17 spans two epochs.
Credibility of my results is fine.
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am
The variation of the surface field did go berserk in epoch 1940, time of SS cycle 17.
One more time [you are hard of learning]: the unusual ‘behavior’ of the secular variation of the main field [the surface or crustal filed does not vary] at that time was due to errors in the reference models. When those are corrected, there is nothing special about 1940.
Dr. S do look again, 1920,1940 & 2000 compared
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
I will leave it to you.
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Dr. S do look again, 1920,1940 & 2000 compared
Perhaps you should look again.
The correct explanation can be found here:
http://www.agu.org/wps/ChineseJGeo/46/46.04/articles/xwy.pdf
Errors in high-degree harmonics will seriously influence the estimation of the secular variation.
“However, quite different features are noted in the contour maps for four intervals from 1940 to 1960. In these contour maps there are many small-scale cells with the maximum yearly rate 150 nT/a, and no obvious westward drift can be detected. These unusual features may be ascribed to the errors in the high-degree Gauss coefficients in the IGRF 1945»1955 models. In other words, these errors have notable effects on the determination of the secular variation.”
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am
Credibility of my results is fine.
It is a mark of true pseudo-science that even after a correlation has been shown to be spurious because of errors in the data, the pseudo-scientist still maintains that everything is fine. The secular variation errors and the GSN errors are good cases in point.
You may think so, but there is always strong possibility that there was no explanation why 1940-1950 epochs should be so much more active, and then someone has a ‘brilliant’ idea, “our models don’t look right lets correct the data”, …hmm, they still do it elsewhere. Fortunately the scientists at NOAA knew better and wisely left it on their data files.
Now we have an explanation here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sub-cycle.htm
Spurious! – Svalgaard of Stanford declares angrily.
Have a nice journey back.
vukcevic says:
November 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm
You may think so, but there is always strong possibility that there was no explanation why 1940-1950 epochs should be so much more active, and then someone has a ‘brilliant’ idea, “our models don’t look right lets correct the data”, …
It is a mark of true pseudo-science that even after a correlation has been shown to be spurious because of errors in the data, the pseudo-scientist still maintains that everything is fine. The secular variation errors and the GSN errors are good cases in point.