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.
When you allow for changes in telescope technology and changes in the way sunspots are counted you will come to the conclusion that Cycle 24 is mimicking Cycle 5 (the beginning of the Dalton minimum). I am referring to the work done by Geoff Sharp see http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50 If anything, at this stage, it seems to be undercutting that cycle. This gives credence to Habibullo I. Abdussamatov’s work, which suggests a new Maunder-type minimum. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf
Also a site worth referencing is http://www.solarham.net/ Where you will sometimes see sunspot tiny specks that are numbered. They could not have been seen through 19th C telescopes. Yesterday it even had a spot recorded that had zero area!
Although it can take about a quarter of a million years for energy from fusion to get to the surface of the sun, this does not mean that there could not be some cyclical component to how the energy is conveyed to the surface. Convective heat transport within the sun
vukcevic says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Nature abhors coincidence; it’s ruled by cause and consequence.
but Vuk loves coincidences; finds them everywhere.
I thought the decline in TSI graph was interesting. Though 3 months doesn’t exactly make a trend.
So 11 Watts down by 2030 perhaps ?
Significant ?
Dr Svalgaard
What do you think of this idea that the sunspot cycle is a driven nonlinear oscillator (i.e. a nonlinear kind of dynamo)?
It seems not everyone was convinced.
Vuk:Nature abhors coincidence; it’s ruled by cause and consequence.
Dr.S: but Vuk loves coincidences; finds them everywhere.
One hundred years long coincidence is one hundred years of a cause and the consequence that we (including Svalgaard of Stanford) do not currently understand.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm
Leif, it looks like you can get a legit free PDF download of the book you recommended above (The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space: A Guide to the Sun-Earth System) at http://ilwsonline.org/ilws_publications.htm
Brent Walker says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:26 pm
When you allow for changes in telescope technology and changes in the way sunspots are counted you will come to the conclusion that Cycle 24 is mimicking Cycle 5 (the beginning of the Dalton minimum). I am referring to the work done by Geoff Sharp
In determining the sunspot number such allowance is duly made. Sharp’s ‘work’ is uncalibrated and invalid and in any event, the actual data on solar cycle 5 are so poor that no meaningful detailed comparison can be made.
This gives credence to Habibullo I. Abdussamatov’s work, which suggests a new Maunder-type minimum.
Abdussamatov’s work is already falsified by events.
i>tiny specks that are numbered. They could not have been seen through 19th C telescopes.
We use small telescopes today on purpose to be compatible with the [superb] 19th century telescopes and small spots and specks should be counted. In addition the proportion of small pecks has been decreasing the past half century and is not at an all-time low.
Yesterday it even had a spot recorded that had zero area!
The Air Force network measures area in bins of 10 millionths of the hemisphere, so a 0 just means less than 10 of those. The vast majority of spots are very small.
Bob_G says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Although it can take about a quarter of a million years for energy from fusion to get to the surface of the sun, this does not mean that there could not be some cyclical component to how the energy is conveyed to the surface. Convective heat transport within the sun
The inner 2/3 [radius] of the Sun is convectively stable [does not convect] and energy flows out by very slow diffusion.
phlogiston says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:42 pm
What do you think of this idea that the sunspot cycle is a driven nonlinear oscillator (i.e. a nonlinear kind of dynamo)?
I don’t think so, as the Sun is not an oscillator in the first place. Two completely different processes operate in the solar cycle: one deterministic [the dynamo] converting poloidal [north-south] flux into toroidal [east-west] flux, and one random [not a dynamo] that converts toroidal flux back into poloidal flux.
vukcevic says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm
One hundred years long coincidence is one hundred years of a cause and the consequence that we (including Svalgaard of Stanford) do not currently understand.
to make it sound even more impressive it is 3,155,692,608 seconds of a cause and the consequence. Read up on ‘degrees of freedom’ before making statements about significance.
The fact that TSI has been decreasing over the last three months is normal behavior. The long and low plateau of this cycle has begun.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Rich says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Leif, it looks like you can get a legit free PDF download of the book you recommended above (The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space: A Guide to the Sun-Earth System)
That is good news as Jack’s book is good. His wife gave me a copy of the book when it came out. Unfortunately, Jack didn’t live to see it.
Leif,
I just looked at Roy Spencer’s update for January. Both this and sunspots and other sun data show an uptick. Is this generally true? I guess I could go look back at the last 6-12 months but I was wondering if anyone had plotted the two against each other over the last 30 years.
Since Spencer’s data is in the atmosphere, not surface temps. I know people have plotted surface temps. and not been impressed with the correlation.
vukcevic says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm
In the periodic timing “Y1” over the ssn, you have factored in Jupiter’s orbital period of 11.87 * 2 to get 23.74 years, you haven’t factored in any positive or negative exchanges of any other planets or the precession of these exchanges, what is 19.859? It looks like a conjunction period of planet Jupiter and Saturn, if it is do not use this with only Jupiter, this conjunction is periodically chaotic over time scales.
you have modulated a match to the timing over the SSN. If you expand the scale of the Sunspot number will your modulation hold?
tiny specks that are numbered. They could not have been seen through 19th C telescopes.
My reply was a bit garbled. Here is what it should have been:
We use small telescopes today on purpose to be compatible with the [superb] 19th century telescopes and small spots and specks should be and are counted. In addition the proportion of small specks has been decreasing the past half century and is now at an all-time low.
Bill says:
February 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm
I just looked at Roy Spencer’s update for January. Both this and sunspots and other sun data show an uptick. Is this generally true?
There is no correlation [and one would suspect any] on such short time scales.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
There is no correlation [and one would NOT suspect any]
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 12:54 pm
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.
I understand your comment. I believe the assumed solar dynamo mechanism is not correct, however. Observational evidence of an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle would validate the need for an alternative hypothesis.
The needs to be observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. If and when there is it would be interested to discuss this subject in more detail.
There are sets of unexplained anomalous observations concerning other stars and massive astronomical objects that indicate the assumption concerning what happens when massive objects collapse is incorrect. The sun is believed to have formed around the core of a collapsed super nova. What happens when massive objects collapse is, assuming I understand the mechanisms, the cause of the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly and other large scale cosmic observations, such as the evolution of spiral galaxies.
William says:
February 5, 2013 at 3:23 pm
I understand your comment. I believe the assumed solar dynamo mechanism is not correct, however.
You mean that you assume that the believed solar dynamo mechanism is not correct. On what is that assumption based? Or more to the point: how would you prevent the dynamo? Whenever you move a conductor across a magnetic field [or vice versa] a current is induced. That is how the dynamo works.
Observational evidence of an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle would validate the need for an alternative hypothesis.
There is no such observational evidence.
The sun is believed to have formed around the core of a collapsed super nova.
No, no-one believes that except a few nuts.
What happens when massive objects collapse is, assuming I understand the mechanisms, the cause of the spiral galaxy rotational anomaly and other large scale cosmic observations, such as the evolution of spiral galaxies.
This is nonsense.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
I got a matching trend from solar activity and the armagh temperature record, but to get it I had to only use sunspot numbers for January and February and temperature from march, I’m not sure how valid it is, but the trends matched. If it is valid and the trend is in other surface temperature data sources wouldn’t it be in the global anomaly?
May I suggest you have underrated most politicians? A more appropriate descriptor for “good” would be “superb.” : )
Dr. Svalgaard:
I have another question. I’ve read where you state that modern (post 1940s) sunspot numbers are inflated due to what essentially amounts to overcounting of large sunspots. The remedy for this is to increase older sunspot counts by approximately 20%
When Cycle 14’s max of 64.2 is increased by 20% to 77, that puts 14’s max well over the estimated max for Cycle 24. Wouldn’t that mean that Cycle 24 is the smallest since Cycle 6, which adjusts up to 58.4 (from 48.7)?
If so, then this is the smallest cycle since the Dalton Minimum, which would be pretty interesting.
The Hermit says:
February 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm
When Cycle 14′s max of 64.2 is increased by 20% to 77, that puts 14′s max well over the estimated max for Cycle 24. Wouldn’t that mean that Cycle 24 is the smallest since Cycle 6, which adjusts up to 58.4 (from 48.7)?
I think something else is going on: namely that the Sun’s magnetic field is matching cycle 14, but that the sunspots are not forming so much because of the Livingston & Penn effect and so the SSN is lower. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
This arrived by email today. It shows that there is a growing acknowledgement that the sun is up to something different:
———————————————————————–
(4) Special SCOSTEP Bulletin declares 2013 MiniMax24 on 30 January 2013.
———————————————————————–
From Nat Gopalswamy (gopals at ssedmail.gsfc.nasa.gov).
SCOSTEP Declares the year 2013 as the year of the MiniMax24
By Dr. Nat Gopalswamy (NASA GSFC), SCOSTEP President
The Scientific Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP) is declaring the
year 2013 as the year of MiniMax24 to mark the unusually small maximum of solar
cycle 24, following an unusually long solar minimum that has been witnessed
recently.
SCOSTEP seeks focus on the current peculiar state of the Sun by declaring the
year 2013 as the year of “MiniMax24” to note that the Sun is going through
activity maximum conditions, but the activity is rather low. SCOSTEP will
conduct year-long scientific and outreach activities to understand and explain
the current behavior of the Sun and its potential impact on human society and
Earth’s space environment. The scientific activity will include a comprehensive
observing campaign named “MiniMax24 Campaign” to record the subdued activity of
the Sun and compare it with that of previous cycles. In particular, events on
the Sun will be recorded and tracked all the way to Earth’s atmosphere along
paths of mass and electromagnetic flow from the Sun. Outreach activities
explaining the implications of the weak solar activity on space weather and
Earth’s climate. SCOSTEP encourages year-long activities to be led by national
SCOSTEP committees and by task group leaders of the current SCOSTEP scientific
program CAWSES (Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System).
Solar cycle 24 is the 24th cycle since 1755, each cycle lasting for about 11
years. Cycle 24 began around January 8, 2008 but the activity was minimal
through early 2009. The current solar cycle is the subject of active research,
as it does not appear to be generating sunspots in the manner which would be
expected. Sunspots did not begin to appear immediately after the last minimum
(in 2008) and although they started to reappear in late 2009, they are at a
significantly lower level than anticipated. The International Space Environment
Service predicts the cycle to peak at 90 sunspots in May 2013, compared to the
120 observed at the peak of the solar cycle 23 (May 1996 – Dec 2008).
Most recent observations have shown that the weaker polar field strength
observed during the solar cycle 23-24 minimum has resulted in a weaker solar
cycle 24. In the northern hemisphere of the Sun, solar maximum conditions
prevailed throughout the year 2012 and the sunspot number reached a maximum
value of only about 90, while the southern hemisphere has just started entering
into the maximum phase. The peculiar behavior of the Sun may be an indicator
that it is progressing towards a grand solar minimum, which will have serious
consequences in solar-terrestrial space. The unusual conditions during the solar
cycle 23-24 minimum were observed on the Sun, in the heliosphere, and in the
magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper atmosphere of Earth.
When the Maunder minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum, 1645 –
1715) happened in the seventeenth century, humans were not aware of the
long-term modulation of solar activity. But a potential grand minimum is now
underway, which can be recorded with ground and space based instruments for
comparison with previous solar cycles. In particular, it will be important to
investigate how the weaker solar influence will affect the neutral atmosphere we
live in and the extended geospace environment.
Thanks, Anthony.
Maybe this is interesting:
Historical Total Solar Irradiance [LISIRD: LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center – Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics – University of Colorado at Boulder (CU)] http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
Andres Valencia says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Maybe this is interesting:
Historical Total Solar Irradiance [LISIRD: LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center – Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics – University of Colorado at Boulder (CU)] http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
Maybe, but it is wrong: See slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
Compared with the 2001 – 2002 peak this one is a dud.