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)
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.
Leif,
Solar may not work well where you are, but tell me your opinion of governments in Canada spending $$$$$$$$$ to subsidize it here? Even when it isn’t cloudy or foggy, the sun spends a lot of the year fairly low in the sky. Seems like a poor use of funds to me.
Sparks says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:37 am
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
My current thinking is that solar activity was not markedly lower, but that sunspots did not form [for unknown reasons] as readily from the magnetic field [which may not have been much lower]. This is speculation, and you’ll see much more of that in the years to come.
MiCro says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:05 am
Leif, how low of a polar field have we seen in the past
We only have direct measurements back to 1952, but can make a good guess back to the beginning of the 20th century: e.g. figure 14 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Munoz-Jaramillo_etal_ApJ2012.pdf The polar fields at the recent minimum was on par with that a century ago in 1912
and what happens as the field peak approaches zero (even if we’ve not seen it before)?
I don’t think it will [ever]. If it did, the sun would not modulate the cosmic rays and we observe such modulation all the time [at least for the past 10,000 years] even during Grand Minima [e.g. the Maunder]
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 Maunder minimum (the Sun’s dynamo loses it’s charge)?
I don’t think so for reasons already stated
happycrow says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:16 am
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?
We don’t know, but the thinking is that without the darker spots TSI would be a tad higher.
jmrsudbury says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:21 am
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.
No, the NOAA graph is a ‘prediction’ made in the past. Hathaway’s is a ‘forecast’ based on current values.
Steve R W says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:24 am
Can you please critique the following
I have a low opinion on the Larouche stuff and do not think it worthwhile to go into details [The Larouche crowd and followers would not listen anyway].
I would love to understand this better and I’m sure there are many who read this site that are in the same situation I am in, that is, I am super interested but undereducated. Can someone direct me and others like me to a layman’s book or website that can help us gain understanding about the basics involved here? And it needs to be on a layman’s level! I’m mostly self-educated and quick to learn but have minimal science and math background. It would be great to be able to follow the dialogue with a better understanding.
Last comment, at the end of 2012 we had a large increase in sunspot activity and the stratosphere warmed right along with the increase in sunspot activity. Sunspots play a larger role one earth climate then most are saying.
Peter says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:50 am
Seems like a poor use of funds to me
Politicians are good at using funds poorly…
No, I need to disagree (again) with Hathaway’s curve-back-fitting here.
Leif: Look at the 10.7 flux as one example:
We are expected to believe the 10.7 flux will suddenly increase from its current 120 level to 140 – and then hold that level! – for almost another full year. Yet the 10.7 curve last broke over 12 months ago with a paltry 126 peak in January-Feb-March of 2012. Since then its has steadily declined down to its current level – with no sign of any “pulse” upwards of the 16% to 20% that Hathaway needs just to catch up to the projected “red line” of this prediction.
SSN numbers are equally unlikely to catch up to this predicted peak later in 2013: The SSN peak was 15 months ago in Oct-Nov of 2011 at 98, and there’s been a steady decline since then. True, that “peak” was so short and so “spikey” (lasting only 5 months) that it is very unlikely it really was the solar cycle 24 “peak” at all: but, then again, that WAS the maximum of the solar cycle 24 thus far!
Even the sunspot numbers would need a very, very significant sudden “burst” in activity – from less than 60 up to 90 – just to catch up to the “red line” of this “prediction” ! Then, sunspots would need to stay at that 90+ figure for a full year before declining. Instead, their actual sunspot count just continues to decline since September of last year: 60-55-60-40-58.
Sure today’s count of 58 is higher than December’s 40, but why should that jump of 18 be considered more reliable than the previous trend of 12 months of steady decline from 65 in May of 2012? Sunspot counts have never exceeded 65 for 9 months. Why should we expect them to jump 50% now?
The sunspot and 10.7 flux is indicating this latest theory is still not right.
I wonder if someone has the plot of Hathaway’s original prediction so it could be overlayed on the recent one.
Leif,
What does your precursor theory say about the SS number for cycle 25? I know you have hinted that it may be low, but what’s the initial thoughts on a number? Thanks in advance.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:55 am
No, I need to disagree (again) with Hathaway’s curve-back-fitting here.
Leif: Look at the 10.7 flux as one example:
The curves shown are not Hathaway’s forecasts, but the prediction of the Sunspot Prediction Panel [ http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-Panel.png ]. Both the 90 for SSN and 140 for F10.7 are too high [as I have told them many times, but the prediction should not be changed]. Hathaway curve-fits the current data and so will always be ‘correct’ as far as the data shows. This is like the weather forecast which also takes current data into account and gives a reasonable short-term forecast.
theory is still not right
There is no theory involved in the curve-fitting, except the assumption that the immediate past is a reasonable predictor of the immediate future.
BarryW says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:02 am
I wonder if someone has the plot of Hathaway’s original prediction so it could be overlayed on the recent one.
somewhat meaningless exercise as Hathaway does not make predictions, but curve-fits to current data.
@HappyCrow,
As I understand it, Livingston & Penn say that when the magnetic field of a sunspot is less than a certain value (1500 gauss), it can’t be seen from Earth. The average magnetic field strength of sunspots has been slowly declining over the past couple of decades, and L&P predict that if values continue to decline, all sunspots will disappear by 2022. That doesn’t mean that the underlying processes have stopped, only that the magnetic field is not strong enough to create the “hole” in the sun’s atmosphere that allows us to see the spot on the surface.
What Leif is suggesting is that he predicted a sunspot number of 75 for this cycle, but we are only counting 65 because some of the spots are too weak to see. The equations connecting SSN to TSI are based on old observations when the magnetic fields were stronger and we saw all the spots. Now that the magnetic fields are weaker and we are probably failing to see some of the spots, the TSI seems higher than it “should be” for the lower SSN but makes sense if you assume the true SSN* is higher but some are invisible.
(*Of course, a spot is just a visible manifestation of something very complex going on at the sun’s surface. Just because we can’t see some of the weaker spots doesn’t mean they aren’t there.)
Mer, I was and am in a similar position as you are. I recommend The Sun Kings, by Stuart Clark. ISBN-13:978-0-691-12660-9; ISBN-10: 0-691-12660-7. IMHO, well worth the time to read.
happycrow says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:16 am
I will let Leif critique this summary, but then again, I’ve always been willing to let me correct my words. 8<)
The TSI is a measure of the average total solar energy (in watts) that the earth receives at the top of atmosphere (in space) at its average orbit around the sun. Right now, he tells us that the best average TSI = 1362 watts/sq meter. This is UV, visible and infrared light, plus radio waves and other radiaiton.
The sunspots are small "dark" or slightly cooler local "storms" on the surface of the sun caused by intense but very localized magnetic currents in the sun's atmosphere. Very coarsely approximated, if the general solar magnetic field levels go down as Leif expects the next few years, then these "localized" magnetic fields will be too small to create the small localized storms we see as sunspots.
But the REST of the sun's energy from fusion as light and IR and UV rays WILL continue to be released as we see it released now and the net TSI will be very, very little affected. We think. 8<)
Yes, sunspots may become invisible as the net, ever-changing magnetic fields lower, but he expects TSI to remain nearly the same.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:17 am
Ric Werme says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:02 am
Thanks for the reminder. I thought that might be the case, but didn’t have time to review. We could use that confusion as another reason to emphasize the 10.7 flux value instead.
Anthony Watts says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:34 am
Just mount them on recycled wind turbine towers if the fog isn’t too thick.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:51 am
“My current thinking is that solar activity was not markedly lower, but that sunspots did not form [for unknown reasons] as readily from the magnetic field [which may not have been much lower]. This is speculation, and you’ll see much more of that in the years to come.”
I was thinking about this, It could be that not all of the magnetic field will get skewed across the suns equator during the normal timing of the cycle, it seems to me that this will reduce sunspot activity while still maintaining the magnetic field although weaker around the equator.
A group, can’t remember their names, are monitoring the actual diameter of the Sun [a difficult task]. If I remember correctly, the diameter has been decreasing. This would match other indications that the internal Solar fusion process is slowing down. This could be a predictive indicator of Solar output [ or it could be a lagging indicator?].
Their work, if available, should also be included on this page!
Leif Svalgaard.
“I have a low opinion on the Larouche stuff and do not think it worthwhile to go into details [The Larouche crowd and followers would not listen anyway].”
You now have to justify your position! And now you HAVE to go into detail.
Spill your guts! How about you take on Laurence Hecht.
mer says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:52 am
I would love to understand this better and I’m sure there are many who read this site that are in the same situation I am in, that is, I am super interested but undereducated. Can someone direct me and others like me to a layman’s book or website that can help us gain understanding about the basics involved here?
Solar physics and the connection with the Earth are complicated subjects [with a lot of misconceptions]. I can recommend a book by the late Jack Eddy: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Earth-Near-Earth-Space-Sun-Earth/dp/016083807X/ [problem: it is expensive]
BarryW says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:02 am
This was from NASA’s website – linking to a powerpower (below) and Hathaway’s 2006 predictions of 160 peak for solar cycle 24 in mid-2012.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
Thanks, gents. The basics are easy enough to follow (hey look, a possible minimum!), but self-educating on terms can get a bit dicey.
I believe that this is about the fifth time that Hathaway has dropped the magnitude of his prediction curve. He started out claiming that 24 was going to be the biggest solar cycle in 400 years. Then, as the data rolled in, he began to downgrade his prediction little by little. But every prediction turned out to be too large. And corrections had to be made to fit the data. Now if one is going to make errors, they should roughly distribute around the real data. But when one makes errors that consistently overestimate reality, then one is plagued by bias. Either Hathaway’s bias is political or it is in his model. And if it is in his model and he continues to use it without correction, then that is political as well.
Tucker says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:06 am
What does your precursor theory say about the SS number for cycle 25?
Since the new polar fields have not formed yet, the precursor method cannot be used yet.
There are other reasons to expect a low cycle 25.
StrongDreams says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:09 am
What Leif is suggesting is that he predicted a sunspot number of 75 for this cycle, but we are only counting 65 because some of the spots are too weak to see. The equations connecting SSN to TSI are based on old observations when the magnetic fields were stronger and we saw all the spots. Now that the magnetic fields are weaker and we are probably failing to see some of the spots, the TSI seems higher than it “should be” for the lower SSN but makes sense if you assume the true SSN* is higher but some are invisible.
Well said. Perhaps ‘invisible’ should be replaced by ‘not strong enough to cool the atmospahre so to appear less radiant’.
Dr. Lurtz says:
This would match other indications that the internal Solar fusion process is slowing down. This could be a predictive indicator of Solar output [ or it could be a lagging indicator?].
It takes a quarter million years for the energy from the fusion to go from the core to the surface…
Steve R W says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:17 am
You now have to justify your position! And now you HAVE to go into detail.
No, as it will have no effect on the true believers, so why bother?
RACookPE1978 says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:31 am
This was from NASA’s website – linking to a powerpower (below) and Hathaway’s 2006 predictions of 160 peak
Hathaway’s prediction [and THAT was a prediction – what he does now is a running forecast] was based on picking ‘the wrong peak’, see slide 24-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf He has now seen the light and there is no reason to harp on that old link
I’m pretty sure Hathaway will have this curve right in 2020.
Well, the “inactive” sun is not doing much to reduce global temperatures in January
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
+0.51C Interesting observation to be investigated (on the Blog window)
“Due to the rather large 1-month increase in the temperature anomaly, I double checked the computations, and found that multiple satellites (NOAA-15, NOAA-18, and Aqua) all saw approximately equal levels of warming versus a year ago (January, 2012), so for now I’m accepting the results as real. The most common cause of such warm spikes (when there is no El Nino to blame) is a temporary increase in convective heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. This would suggest that the global average sea surface temperature anomaly might have actually cooled in January, but I have not checked to see if that is the case.”
Leif says:
No, as it will have no effect on the true believers, so why bother?
Correct. Never argue with someone who already knows that they are right. It is a waste of time and energy best used elsewhere.