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.
With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. Also why no mention of the current UV level from the sun and its effect on the atmosphere?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm
First: the GSN is flawed and should not be used.
There is little if any difference between the average SSN and GSN (group sunspot number) since 1880s, however in the earlier period the GSN appear to be more realistic.
Solar activity is not only controlling our climate, but it can be shown that geological records in the far North Atlantic (within Arctic circle), where magma is constantly seeping into the ocean floor, there is good correlation to the solar activity
.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Thus there is a direct Arctic – sun link.
Is this coincidence?
No.
What about Antarctic?
Continental configuration there is different but the link is even stronger:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Inevitable conclusion is that the Earth’s poles are directly responding either to solar activity or to a mutual cause.
Dr. Svalgaard is entirely wrong to claim that correlations are ‘spurious’ since he has clearly failed eider to fault the data or correlations, so arm waving and pleading it’s ‘spurious’ in the Arctic, its ‘spurious’ in the Antarctic isn’t what science should be about.
Oh, and that is not all
Polar fields correlation is, you guessed is ‘spurious’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Temperature variability correlation to the solar-earth link, oh yes, yes that is ‘spurious’ too
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
So if data can’t be faulted than Dr. S calls on his fallback ‘spurious’ claim.
Correction: The first link should be:
Thus there is a direct Arctic – sun link.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
J Martin says:
November 6, 2012 at 1:06 pm
I’m speculating on colder than the Maunder from 2100 on.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/how-the-temperature-datasets-tell-us-extra-co2-has-little-effect/
I’m speculating I’ll be dead by then!
If I remember, Richard111, they keep the same way of counting the sunspots as they did back then so the stats wont need to be adjusted.
vukcevic says: November 6, 2012 at 10:54 am
Ok sunspot output is a bit mean, but the global field (judging by the polar measurements) has played according to the rule (as ‘set’ by the vukcevic formula)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious.
______________________________________________
The master of the wiggly line strikes again. Oh hail to the master.
Most interesting Vuk. But what do the lines represent, and what does the graph tell us? How is this drunken-spider-drawn image relevant to this discussion??
.
Long term solar proxies show regular cycles of 104 and 208 years, see both
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/cycles-in-sunspot-number-reconstruction-for-11000-years/ (104.3 and 207.7 years) and
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/analysis-of-be10-records-as-a-solar-irradiance-proxy/ (104.7 and 206.9 years)
and the modern sunspot data shows greatest correlation after 210 years. All of these facts makes the current weak sunspot cycles entirely predictable.
Thanks again Leif. These sunspot posts are the only ones where it is worthwhile reading through the comments – largely because of the replies from a heavyweight scientist in the field concerned.
But a note for Anthony: too many of the graphs on the Solar Page are incomprehensible – no legends, no explanation. Have you a tame expert who could tidy it all up please?
If the projections of a new Dalton or Maunder are correct this could be even more important than gazing ata Michaels Mann’s navel (sarc).
Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Dark Matter is not black or ‘dark’, but rather ‘invisible’, i.e. does not interact with electromagnetic radiation [i.e. light].
While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?
If Dark Matter reacts to gravity the majority of it should be within the Sun and along the Ecliptic, drawn there by gravitational action. However, as I understand it, the Galaxy is supposed to have a ‘halo’ of Dark Matter. If Dark Matter forms a halo around galaxies, and by implication around solar systems, then surely it is only weakly effected by gravity. If so, then only a smattering will be inside the Sun.
.
vukcevic says: November 7, 2012 at 12:48 am
Correction: The first link should be:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
_______________________________________
GSN-NAP?
Let me guess — Global Spider Network – Network Amplitude Probabilities.
Or is the GSN Global Spider Network just having a short sleep?
.
Sparks says: @ur momisugly November 6, 2012 at 11:53 am
They will also have to concede and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past…
________________________________
No they did not concede that. Actually the ‘Team’ and the IPCC went to great lengths to bury that and continue to do so. It was called Judithgate.
Dr. Svalgaard if you have a problem with the work of Dr. Willson and Dr. Hoyt please take it up with them. Their letters were written to Dr. Scafetta in September 16 of 2008 for inclusion in Dr. Nicola Scafetta’s Climate Change and Its Causes – A Discussion About Some Key Issues (Presented at EPA, Feb 2009) LINK
For the rest of us, Dr Richard C. Willson is Principal Investigator of the ACRIM ( Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) team. Dr. Nicola Scafetta is listed as a Co-Investigator so these are the guys collecting the actual data from ACRIMSAT. LINK
It’s such a pity that solar cycles are so long, (or my life expectancy is so ‘short’). I would like to live to 100 so I would be able to watch the outcome of this highly inetersting solar story.
I have one question: Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?
Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious.
______________________________________________
The master of the wiggly line strikes again. Oh hail to the master.
Most interesting Vuk. But what do the lines represent, and what does the graph tell us? How is this drunken-spider-drawn image relevant to this discussion??
Hi Silver
You got sense of humor, but the astronomy isn’t your forte:
Solar magnetic field (Hale) cycle, it is in the bases of Babcock-Leighton sunspot theory. Our Dr.S uses its amplitude to foretell strength of the next cycle.
11.862=Jupiter’s year, the magnetic giant of the solar system
19.859=Jupiter-Saturn : two giant magnetospheres merge
Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
Let me guess — Global Spider Network – Network Amplitude Probabilities.
Arachnophobia ?
No need to fear, it is something much larger than a giant tarantula and far more important
It is Group Sunspot Number and North Atlantic Precursor.
North Atlantic has a ridge between Greenland and Scotland
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/Dickson_map_550_52088_100563.jpg
dividing the North Atlantic into two distinct parts joined by few shallow channels controlling the warm Atlantic waters inflow into Nordic seas (and further to the Arctic ocean) and the cold Arctic waters overflow into N. Atlantic, the essential components of the N. hemisphere’s temperature.
This is very active tectonic area, particularly in the Iceland area, hence
North Atlantic Precursor NAP-geological records.
Why Precursor?
Because it tells future changes in the N.Atlantic temperature changes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
vukcevic says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“Perhaps you need to consult Vukcevic formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which shows exactly what the sun is up to”
Vukcevic – could you please explain in laymans terms what you are trying to convey with your chart alongside Dr. Svalgaard’s? I can see the polar fields of the sun weakening, but what is the 92% correlation? Specifically, in your words, what is the sun “up to”?
Richard111 says: @ur momisugly November 6, 2012 at 11:58 pm
With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. [That is what Geoff Sharp tried to address with his layman’s count. Lief S. comments on it are scathing scroll down to comment section to see his comments. link contains forbidden word so ‘google’] Also why no mention of the current UV level from the sun and its effect on the atmosphere?
____________________________
There is mention of the UV/EUV see:
Also see:
http://ilws.gsfc.nasa.gov/ilwsgoa_woods.pdf
NASA: EUV Images
Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
Explanation of The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) by vukcevic is here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-.htm
(I get frustrated by no explanations on graphs too)
My frustration is that certain media outlets are still crying wolf about “MASSIVE SOLAR FLARES PREDICTED! SUN IS OUT OF CONTROL!” I hear all sorts of local folks fretting and worrying about how the Sun has become dangerous and that we’re all on the brink of complete technological destruction. Some press outlets are really harping on the “rising potential for solar flares,” never once mentioning how flares are actually less than expected, less than in the past, and certainly much less than the same time last cycle. I understand that our technology becomes more and more susceptible to solar slaps, but usually that particular point is not made. It’s put out like the Sun is some evil monster that is out of control. Well… technically… it is out of control: our control. Thus the fear. Come on, Sun! Shine! Slap us with us some sweet lovin’ warmth.
vukcevic says:
November 7, 2012 at 12:45 am
There is little if any difference between the average SSN and GSN (group sunspot number) since 1880s, however in the earlier period the GSN appear to be more realistic.
Before 1880s GSN is wrongly calibrated and is 50% too low: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
Gail Combs says:
November 7, 2012 at 3:02 am
Dr. Svalgaard if you have a problem with the work of Dr. Willson and Dr. Hoyt please take it up with them.
I don’t have a ‘problem’ with their work. It is what it is. But that alone does not make it correct. All TSI measurements before SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm have systematic errors http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL045777.pdf “[26] Because a change in solar irradiance imparts a direct radiative climate forcing, drifts in solar radiometers that are mistaken for true solar irradiance variations can be misinterpreted as causing natural‐driven climate change. Examples include the much‐debated issue of the irradiance increase between cycle minima in 1986 and 1996, evident in the ACRIM composite (but lacking in other composites and the model) and the low irradiance levels in the PMOD composite during the 2008 minimum”
Silver Ralph says:
November 7, 2012 at 1:45 am
While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?
Yes.
Alex the skeptic says:
November 7, 2012 at 3:31 am
Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?
Yes, but not because of our better instruments [sunspots are deliberately counted using small telescopes http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png ]. The modern count is biased because it is counting large spots more than once, i.e. a large spot may be counted as 5 spots, while a small one only as 1 http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf
Interesting that the sun is spotless again. For the last few months, there have been subdued but pretty reliable spots getting nearer and nearer the equator — closer in the N hemisphere than the southern. That seems to indicate it’s getting very close to or is at “max”. Next step, according to my education here, is polarity shifts for the N hemisphere spots.
And the core keeps merrily along fusing hydrogen at a constant rate, completely indifferent to what’s happening at the surface.
Gail Combs says:
November 7, 2012 at 5:50 am
With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. [That is what Geoff Sharp tried to address with his layman’s count.
Except that we still today use small telescopes [on purpose] and that Geoff’s attempt is fundamentally wrong on several counts.
Also, has anyone been paying attention to the degree of ionization in the ionosphere/thermosphere? Particualy the F1 layer? It is known that during the previous deep minimum we just had that this upper boundry layer contracted by as much as 28% and according to NASA they say 60% of the contribution to this collapse is “unaccounted” for. The problem I see is that this rapid increase in ionization began during the minimum when it should have been low and continues to this day, along with a still contracted F1. What are the consequences of the combination on heavy ionization coupled with a contracted upper layer other than drag on sattellites? Obviously you cant keep packing more and more ions/atoms into the same space before something bad happens.
Alex the skeptic says:
November 7, 2012 at 3:31 am
Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?
Yes, but not because of our better instruments [sunspots are deliberately counted using small telescopes http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png ]. The modern count is biased because it is counting large spots more than once, i.e. a large spot may be counted as 5 spots, while a small one only as 1
Here is today’s observations [from the reference station that all other observers are normalized to]
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121107.JPG
You can see there are 5 sunspot groups. In the upper right is a little table that shows the number of spot assigned to each of the 5 groups. There are 19 in all. The sunspot number would then be 10*groups+spots = 10*5+19 = 69. But if you count the spots actually visible on the drawing [try it!] you find there are only 9 spots in total, so the real sunspot number should be 10*5+9 = 59.
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:07 am
Obviously you cant keep packing more and more ions/atoms into the same space before something bad happens.
The F1 layer is at about 200 km height. For every 50 km you go up in the atmosphere, the density drops by a factor of a thousand, so the density 200 km up is 1000*1000*1000*1000 = 1,000,000,000,000 times smaller than at the surface so at that LOW density not much bad can happen.
What drives the climate?
’o sole, ’o sole mio, sta nfronte a te
(The Sun, my own Sun,
it’s right in your face)
Ed Zuiderwijk says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:44 am
What drives the climate? ’o sole, ’o sole mio, sta nfronte a te
Sun that gives all things birth
Shine on everything on earth!
If that’s too much to demand
Shine at least on this our land
If even that’s too much for thee
Shine at any rate on me
Piet Hein (Danish Poet, 1905-1996)