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.
In reply to Lief.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm
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.
William: Yes. Agreed. No observational data up this point in time that supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. I understand that you personally believe that it is physically impossible for the solar magnetic cycle to be interrupted.
There is Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots, is linearly declining. Why is the solar magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots declining? Extrapolate that trend.
There is observational evidence that a significant solar change is underway. There is paleodata that a significant solar magnetic cycle change correlates with the 6000 to 8000 year Heinrich events.
There is an interesting set of papers concerning the evolution and properties of quasars which supports the assertion that very large objects when they collapse do not form a simple classic BH. What forms is an active object that evolves. The quasar papers in question are written by leaders of that field. There were new papers concerning this subject that were published in 2012.
There is however no point to discuss the collapse of very large objects, the solar origin, the solar composition, if there is no observational data to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
I can and will present a complete hypothesis if and when there is observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
William says:
February 6, 2013 at 8:51 pm
There is Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots, is linearly declining. Why is the solar magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots declining? Extrapolate that trend.
That would lead us into a Maunder Minimum type condition, but even during the Maunder Minimum the solar cycle continued and cosmic rays were modulated as usual, so no ‘interruption’:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
There is paleodata that a significant solar magnetic cycle change correlates with the 6000 to 8000 year Heinrich events.
Links please
There is however no point to discuss the collapse of very large objects, the solar origin, the solar composition, if there is no observational data to support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
Indeed, so why bring it up? And quasars and BHs do not have anything to do with the solar dynamo temporarily shutting down.
Leif: So, it’s not his job, but it’s the job of a panel that he is a part of.
You do love to quibble.
“Furthermore NASA does not use Hathaway’s forecasts for anything.”
Who is paying him to make them, and why?
“E.g. in the decision not to de-orbit the Hubble telescope [which would have been necessary had cycle 24 turned out to be a powerful cycle”
Small world. I was working on the Deorbiter Module software when the project was cancelled.
“to not understand that in the first instance ‘model’ meant ‘based on physics and theory’ and in the second case ‘model’ meant just the mathematical function to which the current data is fitted.”
Irrelevant. “Model”, as you can see from your own usage, can have a wide range of meanings. And yet you chose to quibble with my usage of the term when you yourself called it the same thing. And then you chose to quibble over a difference of meaning for “prediction” and “forcast” – insisting that we must all accept your definition and no other. And this is when Hathaway is clearly calling his charts, regardless of method, “predictions”.
In any case, maybe you could clear up when, exactly, Hathaway sidelined his physics in favor of curve fitting. You saw the October 08 chart. Well, here is one from January of 2009.
http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/nasa-predictions-where-have-all.html
Notice that the max sunspot number has dropped about 35 points, but the prediction that is fitted to the data is still showing a “we are going to take off like a rocket any day now” shape. And it continues to look more like wishful thinking than anything justified by the actual data.
Now the January 2009 chart was at a minimum Hathaway’s third try. I believe that his first looked more like this:
http://heavenawaits.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/cycle-24.gif
So by June of 08 he was already using a downgraded curve. Was he, therefore, using a “true model” for the pre June 08 prediction, the June 08 prediction, and the January 09 prediction? When, exactly, did he figure out his error. And why were every one of his “errors” consistently overestimates.
I still believe that he continued to cling to his model all along and that he only modified it (down slightly) as the real data forced him to do so. And I continue to maintain the position that I stated in my first post. All of his numerous charts were biased to the large side. There was no moment of transformation where he corrected his errors such that his predictions stopped having a plus bias.
Just found Anthony’s running video’s of those curves.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ssn_predict_nasa_1024.gif
I see no point where there was a recognition of error. I see only someone who is forced to continuously adjust his pet theory by incomming data.
Tilo Reber says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm
I see no point where there was a recognition of error. I see only someone who is forced to continuously adjust his pet theory by incoming data.
I see that you didn’t learn anything. Didn’t take the trouble at all.
Tilo Reber says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm
I see no point where there was a recognition of error. I see only someone who is forced to continuously adjust his pet theory by incoming data.
You don’t look to hard, try this:
http://ep.probeinternational.org/2011/06/17/lawrence-solomon-nasa-scientist-reverses-sunspot-prediction-bolstering-global-cooling-theory/
I have explained in detail how his forecast is made. Hathaway is not adjusting ‘his pet theory’ [he has abandoned it – and now go along with my pet theory]. You do not know what you are talking about, nor does it look like you will learn the facts. Try to read my post.
Tilo Reber says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm
“I see no point where there was a recognition of error. I see only someone who is forced to continuously adjust his pet theory by incomming data.”
============
If you don’t like the data as presented here, maybe you would like it elsewhere.
It is just data, it has no feelings.
Solar scientists do great work in their narrow speciality, but often they are totally colour blind to anything outside their narrow speciality.
Dr. Hathaway does good work but at the time when he was predicting highest solar cycle ever, he looked at Vukcevic formula even went to trouble to reproduce it
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
all the way back to SC1, ignored 90 degrees switch around 1800 (when there was extra short ‘missing’ cycle 4a, see Usoskin – lost solar cycle) and went ahead with his grandiose SC24 prediction, declaring Vukcevic formula to be a contradiction of science.
Now we see results, his reputation was tarnished for ever, but he was warned in good time.
Dr. Svalgaard too, does an excellent work, his contribution to the solar science is unparalleled (despite efforts to fit all sunspot cycles between two parallel lines), but again as Dr H, he is colour blind to what he doesn’t want to see, as in here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm
for Dr. S. the green line is invisible.
Time may tell, but the Dr. H’s example could be a timely warning:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
vukcevic says:
February 7, 2013 at 12:51 am
ignored 90 degrees switch around 1800 (when there was extra short ‘missing’ cycle 4a, see Usoskin – lost solar cycle)
There was no lost cycle. Usoskin and you are wrong on that. E.g. See Zolotova, N.V., Ponyavin, D.I.: 2011, Astrophys. J. 736, 115.
declaring Vukcevic formula to be a contradiction of science.
And right he was on that one.
Ric Werme says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:34 am
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.
Why Ric? Leif’s response is ordinary at best.
Benjamin Deniston, Liona Fan-Chiang, Peter Martinson, Meghan Rouillard, Sky Shields, Oyang Teng, have presented a paper worthy of discussion, yet you flick it off like a fly landing on your face.
Critique the paper.
Steve R W says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:25 am
Critique the paper.
It has to be worthy of critique and free of agendas.
lsvalgaard says: February 7, 2013 at 6:01 am
……There was no lost cycle. Usoskin and you are wrong on that.
Now Ilya Usoskin is wrong again, you upset him twice; how about cancelling your Oulu trip?
Well I would respectfully disagree.
My formula for pre-1800 (with 90 degree phase switch) shows it clearly
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle4a.htm
not to mention the sunspot group number, which I am sure you will tell us that is wrong too.
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].
Lief, you have to explain yourself. Your dismissive comments seam rather boorish. Can you provide examples and evidence to the folk who wrote the paper as not being people who would NOT listen to your commentary?
Have you engaged on the public record the following who wrote the paper:
Benjamin Deniston, Liona Fan-Chiang, Peter Martinson, Meghan Rouillard, Sky Shields, Oyang Teng.
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://larouchepac.com/planetarydefense&sa=U&ei=4sUTUbDDLsSyiQfa34HQDQ&ved=0CCwQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHm7Yu_lkA4ZsNmN5lyvFWzBS39hw
Your hand waving dismissal is not good enough from my perspective. What are your trying to prove?
You obviously know your stuff.
Steve R W says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:25 am
Critique the paper.
It has to be worthy of critique and free of agendas.
Worthy according to whom?
And what would be the “Agenda” you speak of Leif?
Seriously? What is it? A man of your scientific abilities seems to flicking away the subject like it doesn’t exist.
With all due respect, what’s your problem?
vukcevic says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:36 am
how about cancelling your Oulu trip?
Ilya invited me to come and educate him…
My formula for pre-1800 (with 90 degree phase switch) shows it clearly
DK strikes again, it seems. The data says otherwise:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1800.png
I have followed your stuff from the beginning to now, and there is nothing of value [expect for entertainment] in any of it. Hathaway did the right thing dismissing it from the start. I am more patient [having brought up four children], but still cringe when I see what garbage you peddle.
Steve R W says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:45 am
And what would be the “Agenda” you speak of Leif?
A paper that starts out by saying: “If we wish to survive as a species, we must eliminate the ideology of monetarism” is dismissed out of hand in my book. But the rest of the paper is garbage too. E.g. the question: “how do all the stars in a galaxy know to have the same red-shift?” They don’t know to have any red-shift. We observe their red-shift because the space between us and them has expanded since their light was emitted. A different observer would see a different red-shift. The differences between the distances to the individual stars are completely dwarfed by the much larger distance to their galaxy, so we cannot with current technology measure such tiny differences in red-shift. If we could, we would see the differences. There are other errors too numerous to mention.
Steve R W says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:45 am
And what would be the “Agenda” you speak of Leif?
A paper that starts out by saying: “If we wish to survive as a species, we must eliminate the ideology of monetarism” is dismissed out of hand in my book?
Thank your for the correspondence Leif. Much appreciated. I haven’t read your book, but i doubt your on the ball with this subject.
You in a debate against Lyndon Larouche about monetarism?
Now that would be fascinating. How do you think you fair Leif?
As for your comments about red-shift, i think you need to go into further detail. So far all i see is another dismissive hand waving exercise contrary to the actual paper and it’s detail.
“E.g. the question: “how do all the stars in a galaxy know to have the same red-shift?”
Help me out Lief, from where in the paper did you pull this from?
Steve R W says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
You in a debate against Lyndon Larouche
One cannot debate people that are wedded to an agenda. They don’t listen. Since the Larouche cult is based on irrationality, a rational debate is useless, don’t you agree in your heart?
“E.g. the question: “how do all the stars in a galaxy know to have the same red-shift?”
Help me out Leif, from where in the paper did you pull this from?
Perhaps you should read the paper. This is from section 2:
“how does each individual star of that galaxy know to emit light of the same intrinsic redshift? Or, more simply, since each star is emitting its own light, how do they all act in harmony to a single effect?”
Steve R W says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
“how does each individual star of that galaxy know to emit light of the same intrinsic redshift?
The paper is a good illustration of the lack of basic scientific knowledge [by the authors and by you]. Stars do not emit light with a redshift [apart from a tiny gravitational redshift suffered by the photons when they climb out of the star’s gravitational well – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift – due to alteration of time itself by gravity]
The redshift we observe from distant galaxies is not created by the stars and is not intrinsic to them. It is due to the stretching of space between us and the stars. A different observer at another distance from the stars or at a different time would see a redshift different from what we see. That the authors do not know this makes their paper not worthy of consideration.
Steve R W says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:00 am
You in a debate against Lyndon Larouche
One cannot debate people that are wedded to an agenda. They don’t listen. Since the Larouche cult is based on irrationality, a rational debate is useless, don’t you agree in your heart?
Cult? Where do you get off posting such commentary. A cult Leif? That is ridiculous. Why do you say this?
How does such an educated man such as yourself come up with such commentary. The question i now have to ask is where and what information have your based this from?
I’m not affiliated in any such way with the group, but you suggest otherwise and imply that i am.
As for Red-Shift i did read the paper …. perhaps you should read it again.
Steve R W says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:55 am
A cult Leif? That is ridiculous. Why do you say this?
Because it shares the same characteristics: a charismatic leader of a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society.
I’m not affiliated in any such way with the group, but you suggest otherwise and imply that i am.
So you acknowledge that there is a ‘group’. What your affiliation is has no bearing on whether the paper is garbage. But you seem to be taken in by the message of the ‘group’. Many people believe weird things, so you are in good company.
As for Red-Shift i did read the paper
But, apparently you didn’t understand how bad it was. And you seem to have missed: “how does each individual star of that galaxy know to emit light of the same intrinsic redshift?” and the nonsense derived from that. There are many other errors. Which errors do you wish me to comment on in detail?
Steve R W says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:55 am
A cult Leif? That is ridiculous. Why do you say this?
What is baffling is why bad science as justification for an essential ideological stance. The point seems to be that of extreme alarmism [ranging from solar storms to galactic mayhem] to justify a ‘defense of the Earth’ with attendant policy changes and elitist governance.
vukcevic says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:36 am
.. Well I would respectfully disagree.
My formula for pre-1800 (with 90 degree phase switch) shows it clearly
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle4a.htm
not to mention the sunspot group number, which I am sure you will tell us that is wrong too.
90 deg phase switch..funny you should say that..been thinking about phase shifts recently and other things that might vary a sun like star.
Was reading a recently published article(s) lately.
Better mapping technique for Cosmic Microwave Background CMR.
Tells us the local Interstellar Magnetic Field ISMF is coherent and consistent with an inner arm configuration.
Voyager1 tells us no bow shock in front of the heliosphere.
Interstellar M F, shapes the heliosphere at nose (3-4 u gauss) Interstellar M F is moving, rotating slowly ~.25 deg per parsec.
He flow, ecliptic longitude velocity vector increased with time over past 40 years.
Linear fit is ~.19 deg. per year in the ecliptic longitude of the He flow.
At this rate the Local Interstellar Cloud LIC flow would change by 90 degs in 500 years. Heliosphere configuration should vary significantly over century-length time scales.
(spec. thx Priscilla C. Frisch 2013 )
Readfield and Linsky still finding more clouds..
Maybe.. Dr. S could tells us about magnetosonic interactions? N. Pogorelov mentions this interaction occurring at da nose.
In addition..Readfield and Linsky may have already seen the Heinrich blowin in the tailwind..sarc on/off
1phobosgrunt says:
February 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Maybe.. Dr. S could tells us about magnetosonic interactions?
The magnetosonic waves area mixture of ion acoustic and Alfven waves. At the nose both the sound speed and the Alfven speeds are very low [because the temperature and the magnetic field are low that far out in the solar system]. The bulk solar wind flow is orders of magnitude higher so effectively prevents magnetosonic waves propagating upstream [towards to Sun] and thus excludes any influence on solar activity. This is the standard problem with all ‘mechanisms’ that posit such ‘backflow’.
Thanks Dr. S.
The “standard problem”?? Like try and picture ol Sol without the galaxy it is embedded in.
Lots of new data and info from 2012 until now.
Instead of a bow shock we have instead magnetosonic interaction hmm.