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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:32 am
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.
Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
So you are saying solar cycle predictions are done by committee? That’s dumb!
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is ‘standard’ and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.
Resourceguy says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:43 am
So you are saying solar cycle predictions are done by committee? That’s dumb!
Well, not entirely dumb as there is input from ~12 experts http://www.lund.irf.se/helioshome/Cycle24PredictionPanelA.gif as well as from several external scientists. So there is debate and discussion and the problem can be examined from many sides.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:44 am
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is ‘standard’ and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.
True. I understand that. But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower. As you go forward by the year you will see gradual and rapid uptick in ionization. If you go all the way back to the years coming into the previous solar max its nowhere near the level we are at now. And IMO I don’t think we can chalk this up to a cosmic ray contribution either, as we would have also seen this at last minimum, and didn’t.
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/digisonde/scaled.cgi?endTime=20121108&var=foF1&pwidth=1Y
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:44 am
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is ‘standard’ and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.
True. I understand that. However if you look at the FoF1 plot data on the HAARP digisonde on their website and scale to yearly output you will see an uptick around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect ionization to be lower, then going forward by the year we see a gradual and rapid uptick. (Which I would say in OTHER cycles would be normal, but considering how our sun has been in a coma…) Going further back to before the previous maximum and comparing to present coming into current maximum we are very juiced up. IMO I don’t think we can chalk this up to a GCR contribution as we would have seen this in previous years and did not.
The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is ‘standard’ and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.
Leif, that model is calibrated against known decay rates for satellites in low Earth orbit, thus it is base upon observation, not simulation. This model was updated in the early 90’s with the ODERACS experiment where calibrated spheres were ejected from the Shuttle cargo bay and their rates of decay measured. Also in the early 90’s I flew a payload that measured the density of the atmosphere by measuring the impact of molecules on the Shuttle by looking at the deceleration that comes from these impacts. We also have real time data today for atmospheric density as the International Space Station flies in low Earth orbit and we have extremely precise measurements of its decay rate.
There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle. This is an extremely important area of interest for the USAF in monitoring orbital debris and thus the atmosphere and its effect on drag is an ongoing area of research and measurement. So I do question the statement that the shrinking of the atmosphere is based on computer models that need updating.
Leif Svalgaard says: November 7, 2012 at 9:03 am
Sun that gives all things birth
Shine on everything on earth!
……………
Piet Hein (Danish Poet, 1905-1996)
Gail Combs says:
I get frustrated by no explanations on graphs too…
Gail
Sun gives life and warmth to the seas and the land
Solar magnetic cycles with the Earth’s do blend
To make the cold North Atlantic waters oscillate
Geomagnetic storms move the Arctic’s magma flow
And suppress Antarctica’s magnetic field down below
With little effort Vuk can all graphically demonstrate
(spurious Montenegro non poet)
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:08 am
But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower.
Just by eye-balling the summer values [the winter values are noisy] and plotting them together with the microwave flux and the sunspot number http://www.leif.org/research/foF1-F107-SSN.png I see nothing out of the ordinary.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:33 am
There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle.
Thanks for the update. So, there is nothing ‘unaccounted’ for. Some earlier papers I read on that were still using the old Jachia model and that one did not account well for the data. So, the myth of unaccounted for changes is just that: a myth.
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:08 am
But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower.
Just by eye-balling the summer values and plotting them together with the microwave flux and the sunspot number http://www.leif.org/research/foF1-F107-SSN.png I see nothing out of the ordinary.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:33 am
There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle.
Thanks for the update. So, there is nothing ‘unaccounted’ for. Some earlier papers I read on that were still using the old Jachia model and that one did not account well for the data. So, the myth of unaccounted for changes is just that: a myth.
20.20GMT: sudden strong geomagnetic storm from nowhere
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
Silver Ralph,
“While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?”
That which we call the effect of gravity, is no more than curvature in space-time. Bodies are forced to travel in straight lines unless acted upon by a force (Newton) but space-time curvature means that the shortest distance is in fact a curved trajectory. A curved trajectory through space-time appears as an acceleration through space.
Another rule of thumb, is that bodies move unaided along trajectories such that their clocks show the greatest elapsed time. This results in an acceleration towards a centre of mass.
I would suggest that based on such fundamental properties as space-time curvature, and the effects of gravity on time, dark matter would indeed react to gravity, otherwise it would have the ability to move in and out of different dimensions, which we can’t even be sure exist (string theory not withstanding). Not impossible, but implausible.
While this particular oscillator is rife with harmonics and ringing, so there is the possibility of a false inflection point, we may have reached the peak and are now on the way down. That’s really bad.
Throwing a bone to the doomers … only 43 days until 12/20/2012! 🙂
vukcevic says:
November 7, 2012 at 10:46 am
Geomagnetic storms move the Arctic’s magma flow
And suppress Antarctica’s magnetic field down below
Some people simply cannot learn. You are approaching this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
vukcevic says:
November 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm
20.20GMT: sudden strong geomagnetic storm from nowhere
It is not from nowhere, but is related to the expected sector boundary crossing at that time: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
Leif Svalgaard says: November 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Some people simply cannot learn. You are approaching Kruger effect
Hi Doc
Ah, psychoanalysis. There are a lot of things you’re better off not knowing.
I only translate data into graphs.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A-A.htm
Can someone explain to me what the “dark count” measures and why it lies within the range of 40-48? It can be found on the SDO-EVE Diodes plot along with irradiance.
vukcevic says:
November 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I only translate data into graphs
Any fool can do that, and does.
Project722 says:
November 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Can someone explain to me what the “dark count” measures and why it lies within the range of 40-48? It can be found on the SDO-EVE Diodes plot along with irradiance.
A measure of the noise in the system can be had by not letting sunlight into the detector and see what reading you get [the dark current].
Leif Svalgaard says
Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
…There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.
Hmm. Pattern is more like precursor to Dalton than Maunder. Maunder is a lot more catastrophist, though. Is there any more reason than excitement to go all the way to Maunder?
Leif Svalgaard says (re timing of possible Maunder Minimum):
“..20 years, and I don’t think it will have any significant effect on the climate”.
Leif,
My apologies if you have already explained this before to more regular readers, but why do you think that a Maunder Minimum in the sunspot count would not have any significant effect on the climate? I am sure that you have a clear and credible scientific reason for stating this.
Also, do you have any thoughts on the possible causes of the historically recorded long period of erratic, generally bad weather in the northern hemisphere that is often rather dramatically referred to by casual commentators as the ‘Little Ice Age’ and loosley equated by them to the period of the Maunder Minimum?
With regards,
Larry Kirk
Doug Proctor says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
Hmm. Pattern is more like precursor to Dalton than Maunder.
On what is that supposition based?
Is there any more reason than excitement to go all the way to Maunder?
If SC25 will be as low as 7 as we wildly speculate here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Penn-Liv-Sval-ApJ.pdf then we have a Maunder. This is, of course, speculative.
I know what is wrong with the sun! The United Nations imposed a Hydrogen tax.