The sun is currently showing two significant spots, though activity is generally quiet. Current SSN is 30, and Sunspot AR1667 (on the left) is in decay, and it is no longer crackling with C-class solar flares. Credit: SDO/HMI
![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/latest_512_45001.jpg?quality=83)
First the current data from the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. The SSN rebounded moderately in January:
Radio flux rebounded about the same amount as the SSN:
The Ap geomagnetic Index is still quite low, showing only a miniscule rebound.
NASA’s David Hathway updated his forecast page on Feb 1st and had this to say:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
Here is the latest Hathaway graphic:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
Other data of interest from the WUWT Solar Reference Page:
I find the fact that TSI has been decreasing over the last three months curious.
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceThe polar magnetic fields seem to be at the point of flipping now, suggesting solar max has been reached.
UPDATE: Credit where credit is due. Svalgaard et al predicted this scenario in 2004:
Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?
Leif Svalgaard,1 Edward W. Cliver,2 and Yohsuke Kamide1
Received 3 October 2004; revised 10 November 2004; accepted 9 December 2004; published 11 January 2005.
Abstract:
Predicting the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle is a
key goal of solar-terrestrial physics. The precursor method
currently favored for such predictions is based on the
dynamo model in which large-scale polar fields on the
decline of the 11-year solar cycle are converted to toroidal
(sunspot) fields during the subsequent cycle. The strength of
the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to
be an indicator of peak sunspot activity for the following
cycle. Polar fields reach their peak amplitude several years
after sunspot maximum; the time of peak strength is
signaled by the onset of a strong annual modulation of polar
fields due to the 71=4 tilt of the solar equator to the ecliptic
plane. Using direct polar field measurements, now available
for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar
cycle 24 (2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed
monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the
smallest cycle in the last 100 years. Citation: Svalgaard, L.,
E. W. Cliver, and Y. Kamide (2005), Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest
cycle in 100 years?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/
2004GL021664.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I gotta run, but I keep wondering if there’s something I can do to help keep the World Climate Widget up-to-date ala the ENSO meter. It says the SSN is 117, which is a bit much (spaceweather.com said it was 70 a couple days ago, sounds like a couple groups faded away since then).
REPLY: Hi Ric, my plan is to overhaul it in the next month. The old code doesn’t work right anymore and I want to expand it to include other temperature metrics – Anthony
As we said back in 2004: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
The Livingston and Penn effect has further depressed the sunspot number by about 10 units. Using F10.7 [which seems to be less influenced by L&P] the forecast is 125 sfu [solar flux units] which is what we seem to be approaching. The conclusion is that the polar field precursor technique first proposed by us in 1978 seems to work well [albeit only verified for four cycles.
So, could there be a connection with the fact that we are cooling for the past 11 years?>
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
(which is the equivalent amount of years for one solar cycle)
Ric Werme says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:02 am
I gotta run, but I keep wondering if there’s something I can do to help keep the World Climate Widget up-to-date ala the ENSO meter. It says the SSN is 117
This is a confusion that pops up regularly. The Widget shows the ‘raw’ sunspot number not put on the Wolf scale. The raw number is defined as SSN = 10*groups + number of spots. To bring the raw number onto Wolf’s scale it should be multiplied by the scale factor 0.6 [bringing the number down to 117*0.6=70]. As part of my work in the SSN Workshop http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home [note we just had a 3rd meeting in Tucson last month] I’m arguing that we should get rid off that pesky factor.
The Sun is angry with us. To appease it, send money to pauchari@wwf.org
Well, here comes the Hathaway minimum. Or should that be Watts?
I take that back; on the basis of that paper I think “the Svalgaard minimum” should be the leading entry.
Leif, correct me if I am wrong, but TSI fluctuates in a cyclic pattern, thus, at least this feature is following its usual course. Mathematically, this cyclic TSI influence on Earth’s temperature can be calculated but does not rise above Earth’s natural temperature variations as detected by our sensors. It seems to me then that there is nothing to be concerned about in terms of this quiet Sun “causing” us to freeze. Me thinks there is nothing new under the Sun has never been truer.
wws says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:21 am
I take that back; on the basis of that paper I think “the Svalgaard minimum” should be the leading entry
I ain’t dead yet, so the Eddy Minimum [as has already been suggested]
I’m sure some future solar epoch will get a Svalgaard label. In the meantime he might have to settle for a solar powered high school in Petaluma named after him. 😉
Pamela Gray says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:23 am
TSI fluctuates in a cyclic pattern, thus, at least this feature is following its usual course.
Actually, TSI is now a bit ‘too high’ compared to the sunspot number [from what we would expect from earlier cycles]. This may make sense if the SSN is a bit too low because of L&P effect, e.g. slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
Anthony Watts says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:34 am
he might have to settle for a solar powered high school in Petaluma named after him.
Due to the morning fog we always have solar power doesn’t work to well before noon:
http://www.wunderground.com/US/CA/Petaluma.html
“Tuesday: Partly cloudy. Fog early. High of 61F. Breezy. Winds from the West at 10 to 20 mph.”
The Fall of 2013 is a better prediction for the peak, than the last forecasts. My first forecast for the timing of solar maximum and solar minimum puts solar maximum at January 2014 and solar minimum around 2019 with an error of up to 2-4 months.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sunspot_area-1875-2040-4.jpg
If the trend in Polar magnetic field continues, cycle 25 will be lower still.
Leif, how low of a polar field have we seen in the past, and what happens as the field peak approaches zero (even if we’ve not seen it before)? If we lose the magnetic field, I would presume that would effect the electric fields, which reduces the magnetic fields, and so on.
Is this the mechanism that caused the Mauder minimum (the Sun’s dynamo loses it’s charge)?
From Leif’s presentation linked above
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
[Leif’s working hypothesis posits]
“A lessening of the efficiency of the process that compacts magnetic fields into visible
spots”
I’ve been reading along on this for years, and this is a great “Holy Cow!” takeaway point (if it all works out)
Okay, help the liberal-arts major here. What does it *mean* if the sunspot measurement is too low for TSI? Or do we yet know?
The middle line of Hathaway’s graph peaks near 70 around June of this year. I wonder if the red lines on the NOAA graphs will be lowered again. — John M Reynolds
Can we please have a comparison done of the predictive abilities of Svalgaard vs Hathaway!
Sun spot cycle 24 COULD be just one low one or it COULD be the start of a more cycles as low or lower. After 800+ days around 2008 with out a single sun spot I have a feeling #25 is going to be low also. With PDO going to cold according to Joe Bastardi , my feeling is things going forward in the next 5 to ten years could get much colder with cold PDO & quite sunspot cycles.. My sunspot cycle and earth temps Example is like when you turn the stove down from high to low but leave the lid on a pot of boiling water. Water will stay still hot but in time will cool down some. Kind of like with the Oceans of the world and the sun.
Leif Svalgaard.
Can you please critique the following. I ask this with nothing but respect to your profession.
Planetary Defense: An Extraterrestrial Imperative
http://larouchepac.com/planetarydefense
I forgot to mention back hundreds of years ago before they had telescopes many small sunspots we count like today and not recorded. So the smoothed number is actually lower if you take into account. More like 50 ish.
Solarpower and windpower should produce only hydrogen for hydrogen cars. Climate scientists are going to find out that, it is the sun wich drives earths climate, not CO2. Our only contribution to warming is UHI and increasing albedo via land use. Svensmarks theory is in test now. I believe, that those whom have dissed it, wont do it 10 years from now.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Declining spots historically have produced a cooler planet, keep your snuggles handy.
Out of interest I hindcast the suns magnetic field back to the maunder minimum at a two cycle interval to where the cycle had weak solar activity, Ive used Leif’s sunspot numbers for this.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/maunder-minimum-ssn-1600-2033.jpg
This is something to think about also. Look at the global temperature charts around 2008 when the world economy slowed to a stand still and sunspots were at zero. Global temps came down because human static was not such a big influence on temperatures is my feeling.
Pamela Gray says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:23 am
Leif, correct me if I am wrong, but TSI fluctuates in a cyclic pattern, thus, at least this feature is following its usual course. Mathematically, this cyclic TSI influence on Earth’s temperature can be calculated but does not rise above Earth’s natural temperature variations as detected by our sensors. It seems to me then that there is nothing to be concerned about in terms of this quiet Sun “causing” us to freeze. Me thinks there is nothing new under the Sun has never been truer.
You may find this paper interesting reading.
“Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing”
Nir J. Shaviv
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf