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.
Tilo Reber says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:51 am
I believe that this is about the fifth time that Hathaway has dropped the magnitude of his prediction curve […] 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.
I am beginning to think that many commenters cannot read or are so biased that they don’t comprehend what they read. For the umpteenth time: The early prediction had a physical basis [recurrent geomagnetic activity prior to solar minimum being a proxy for the polar fields] and was depending on picking the ‘right’ peak. Hathaway picked the wrong peak and so his prediction was wrong [as he has long acknowledged]. Now he does not make predictions [although they are labeled as such], but rather a running ‘forecast’ curve-fitting to current data. This has worked well in the past once we are a few years into the cycle and seems to work now as well. There is no model involved, no bias, political or otherwise, just fitting a curve to actual data [with a small admixture of old predictions]. I will now make a prediction that the next time a Hathaway forecast comes out [in a month], everybody here who got the whole thing completely wrong [like you] will still get it wrong and we shall see the very same comments once more [as we have seen every time in the past]. This prediction is based on past ‘performance’ of said commenters and is highly statistically significant.
If sunspot cycles affect global climate than the prediction would be of a fundamental importance, if not as Dr. S often tells us, and the effect is only + – 0.1C , then it’s importance is limited to the space science and astrophysics.
Since most of interested readers know about differential rotation of the solar outer layers, which is often linked to the generation of the solar cycles, both sunspot and magnetic (Hale), but there are fewer who know that the Earth (this time liquid outer core) displays differential rotation too.
“Non-steady differential rotation is one of the main characteristics of the-buoyancy-driven flow within the Earth’s liquid core that generates the main geomagnetic field by magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) dynamo action.” http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/13763/1/00-0133.pdf
Don’t ask me about MHD, Dr.s LS. and RGB are your men.
The above mentioned ‘geomagnetic field’- GMF is easily measured and since about 1880 there are relatively good records. From so measured GMF, scientists both at NASA and elsewhere have calculated changes going on in the Earth’s core rotation.
I had look at their data and found that about 1/6th or ~17% of these long term changes of ~105 years long period, is made of oscillations with a period equal and synchronised to the solar magnetic cycle.
Does this matter to the global climate?
Circumstantial evidence shows not only that it matters but could be of the essential importance:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
lsvalgaard says, February 5, 2013 at 8:57 am
Looking at Hathaway’s latest mag butterfly diagram, it seems there’s still some way to go and that there’s not much oomph in the pipeline. What appeared to be the start of a switch in the north seems to have fizzled out again.
Does this suggest the next cycle is going to pretty much flat-line or are there other factors to be taken into account?
Leif Svalgaard’s cogent commentaries, lectures and rebuttals concerning the solar cycle are reason alone to regularly check this site.
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.
Drop it.
In Reply to Dr. L. Svalgaard:
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…”
This is based on the existing theories used by Hathaway and others. Why does the magnetic field go up and down? Why is there an 11 years cycle? Why is the Sun a relative constant but variable Star? Dogma is the name of the game.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 8:57 am
Too wordy. How about “Cheshire sunspots”?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” 🙂
– – – – – – –
Leif,
Perhaps one of the other reasons to expect a low cycle 25 is the expectations from the historical record of solar behavior called the Gleissberg cycle ( ~ 70 to ~100 years)?
John
Brrrrrrrrr!
As I’ve said before, I mourn that no one person can possibly live long enough to see how these things come out in the end…because there is no end, not even a pause, just a neverending cycle. Inconvenient, that.
Dr. Svalgaard,
In your TSI-SORCE diagram you added the comment “welcome to solar max…” in the data for the early part of 2012, a little after the 2011 peaks. Your arguments for this certain appear solid and convincing to me, especially in light of the imminent magnetic pole reversal.
However, others have brought up the fact that the butterfly diagrams for this cycle indicate that solar max is still a ways out there, given that the sunspots haven’t really started clustering around the equator yet. This data also seems compelling.
Could the phenomenon you are describing where the magnetic field is too weak to make sunspots visible account for the solar max timing shown by the butterfly diagrams – i.e., the equatorial sunspots one would expect near solar max are there, but the polar field isn’t strong enough to make them visible, so the butterfly diagrams just don’t look right?
vukcevic says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:54 am
GMF is easily measured and since about 1880 there are relatively good records. […]
I had look at their data and found that about 1/6th or ~17% of these long term changes of ~105 years long period, is made of oscillations with a period equal and synchronised to the solar magnetic cycle.
Not many cycles since 1880, so you can’t really make any valid association. Of course, that doesn’t stop invalid ones to sprout.
Does this matter to the global climate?
Not one whit.
AJB says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:18 am
Does this suggest the next cycle is going to pretty much flat-line or are there other factors to be taken into account?
The cycle will likely have a long drawn out maximum like cycle 14 which it is beginning to resemble.
Dr. Lurtz says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:40 am
This is based on the existing theories used by Hathaway and others.
No, it is based on solid physics and helioseismic measurements of the solar interior.
Why does the magnetic field go up and down? Why is there an 11 years cycle? Why is the Sun a relative constant but variable Star? Dogma is the name of the game.
None of those variations have anything to do with the fusion in the core as the long travel time washes out any short-term variation. Physics is the name of the game.
The Hermit says:
February 5, 2013 at 11:08 am
However, others have brought up the fact that the butterfly diagrams for this cycle indicate that solar max is still a ways out there, given that the sunspots haven’t really started clustering around the equator yet. This data also seems compelling.
If you compare with cycle 14 http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif you’ll find that the butterfly diagrams look very similar [so far]. As for the maximum: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png and http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png indicate a rather flat and drawn-out maximum with many ups-and-downs.
Comment about the lead post’s first two charts: latest SSN Progression chart and latest F10.7cm RF Progression chart.
It is somewhat misleading to have the red curve (labeled: predicted values smoothed) start about 5 vertical scale units above blue line (labeled: monthly smoothed values).
I assume the red line is not accurately labeled. It is not merely the ‘predicted values smoothed’, it is the ‘maximum bound of the predicted values smoothed’.
John
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 11:32 am
If you compare with cycle 14 http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif you’ll find that the butterfly diagrams look very similar [so far].
http://www.leif.org/research/BFly-Diagram-14-24.png
This should provide a very good test of the effects of solar variation on climate variation. Only we probably have to wait through the end of cycle 25 for the test to be informative.
John Whitman says:
February 5, 2013 at 11:35 am
I assume the red line is not accurately labeled. It is not merely the ‘predicted values smoothed’, it is the ‘maximum bound of the predicted values smoothed’.
Unfortunately, the red curve is the actual predicted values. At our latest meeting [I was on the panel] I lobbied for a lower value in the 70-75 range, but was overruled by more timid souls who dared not go that low.
John Whitman says:
February 5, 2013 at 11:35 am
latest F10.7cm RF Progression chart.
Back in 2009 I had this to say about the prediction
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20SWPC%20Solar%20Flux.pdf
In reply to John Peter’s comment:
John Peter says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:18 am
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)
There is a lag of 10 to 12 years, in cooling in the paleoclimatic record, when there is an abrupt slow down in the solar magnetic change from a succession of active solar magnetic cycles.
There is in the paleoclimatic record a pseudo cyclical (6000 to 8000 year periodicity) abrupt climate change event (cooling) which is referred to as a Heinrich event. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that are concurrent with the Heinrich event.
If I understand the mechanisms (what causes the Heinrich events) a Heinrich event is caused by an abrupt interruption of the solar magnetic cycle. The abrupt interruption of the solar magnetic cycle is not a Maunder minimum. The solar event that causes the Heinrich abrupt cooling event is when the solar magnetic cycle restarts. There is Maunder minimum like cooling before the solar magnetic cycle restarts due to the very weak solar heliosphere during the spotless period and hence high GCR.
If I understand the fundamental mechanisms and the sun is moving to special state which causes a Heinrich event, what will be observed next is:
1) Svensmark and Tinsley’s ion mediated cloud mechanisms will stop being inhibited. There will be cooling of the planet at mid latitudes due to increased low level clouds due to the high levels of GCR. This mechanism was being inhibited. (i.e. Ions were being removed by a different mechanism.)
2) The solar magnetic cycle will abruptly stop. The sun will moved to a spotless stage and I would expect a significant reduction in the large scale magnetic field and a significant unexplained reduction in the minimum solar wind speed and density. This will result in more cooling but not abrupt cooling.
3) If there is observational evidence to support the assertion that 1 and 2 are occurring, I have more to add as to what to expect next.
Nice prediction work Leif. It’s a good example for the IPCC to follow. Theory is not needed to make predictions. It is also possible to project past patterns.
As Leif describes the polar-fields prediction scheme:
The IPCC uses a theory-based criterion for what it includes in its prediction scheme: the Level Of Scientific Understanding, or LOSU. If the mechanism is not understood, they leave the effect out of their models, even where an effect is indicated in the data. Page 7-43 of the draft AR5:
But since they don’t like any of the theories of what the amplifying mechanism might be, the only solar forcing they include in their models is TSI, even though they admit that something further must be going on. They have basically admitted that their models must be wrong, but then they withhold that caveat from their conclusions.
Dr. Lurtz says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:40 am
“Why does the magnetic field go up and down? Why is there an 11 years cycle? Why is the Sun a relative constant but variable Star?”
All very good questions, All three are connected, I been studying the timing of the suns magnetic cycle, when you look closely at the activity you will notice that the cycles precess with time, this will give the impression that some cycles are longer than others, this creates a major flaw in the models used to predict future cycles, as they concentrate on the amplitude (solar cycles going up and down) of these cycles without understanding the underlining process of the timing, this is why the curve fitting process mentioned above that Hathaway tried in 2006 failed.
“Why is the Sun a relative constant but variable Star?”
My thoughts on this are, what would our suns magnetic field be like if the planets had not formed around the Sun? Would it’s magnetic activity be faster or slower?
If planets orbiting a star slow down it’s life cycle and extend it’s lifespan, Would this mean that dimmer stars of the same age as our Sun did not have sufficient planetary mass form around them?
The timing of our solar system relative to the timing of our suns magnetic field exhibits some similar timing features, which may have originated from our early solar system’s formation and have remained there.
William says:
February 5, 2013 at 12:06 pm
If I understand the mechanisms (what causes the Heinrich events) a Heinrich event is caused by an abrupt interruption of the solar magnetic cycle.
There is no such mechanism. The solar cycle is not ‘interrupted’. I have asked you before what you meant by ‘interrupted’ and you never answered. Now, it seems that you mean that the dynamo stops altogether. There is no evidence of that and should it happen how could it ever be resumed? The dynamo is ‘self-sustaining’, meaning also that when it is dead, it is dead.
Alec Rawls says:
February 5, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Theory is not needed to make predictions. It is also possible to project past patterns.
You got that completely wrong. Extrapolation based on patterns have no explanatory power if not backed by some theory or understanding.
As Leif describes the polar-fields prediction scheme:
There is no theory involved in the curve-fitting, except the assumption that the immediate past is a reasonable predictor of the immediate future.
You are confusing our physics- and theory-based precursor method with Hathaway’s curve-fitting. They are not the same. One more time:
Our polar field precursor technique is based on solid physics and mechanisms. Hathaway’s is simply curve-fitting [i.e. a description of how the cycle is doing and there is nothing wrong with that, it is like looking out the window to see if it looks like rain]. I didn’t think that my prediction upthread [ February 5, 2013 at 9:35 am ] would be validated this quickly.
Olavi says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:36 am
Solarpower and windpower should produce only hydrogen for hydrogen cars.
###
If the greenie faux dream (a Marxist carrot, to get the asinine masses to move) of the replacement of the fossil fuel engine with a hydrogen engine, through their miscalculation of the magnitude of the tenacity of capitalism to succed, actually comes to be, the Marxist will started bleating about the dangerous greenhouse pollutant, H2O which now must be taxed and regulated for the good of our children, while dancing around the fact that the Hydrogen is coming from the dissolution of H2O in the first place.
Sparks says:
February 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Dr. Lurtz says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:40 am
……..
Estimates of the strength of the ~22 year variability of the Earth’s core magnetic field is number of orders greater than the intensity of heliospheric field at the Earth’s orbit:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm
and since it is synchronized with solar cycle (good records go back 10 cycles, to 1880), with a strong 105 year period (also evident in the solar modulation) than one could suggest there is a common cause at work, the obvious one is the planetary factor.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
vukcevic : Nature abhors coincidence; it’s ruled by cause and consequence.
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, 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
The ENSO meter seems to show the Nino3.4 index about 3 weeks in the FUTURE, which is cool and a little spooky.