The data from SWPC is in, and it is lethargic at best. Sunspot numbers took a hit, down to about 42, a delta of ~50 lower compared to the red prediction line.
10.7 cm solar radio flux took a similar hit:
The Ap Geomagnetic index was up slightly, but still anemic….
And the most interesting indicator, the plot of solar polar fields, shows a clear zero line crossing, suggesting that Solar max has been reached:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceThough in spite of that, NASA is now suggesting a “double peak”:
Solar Cycle Update: Twin Peaks?
Something unexpected is happening on the sun. 2013 is supposed to be the year of Solar Max, but solar activity is much lower than expected. At least one leading forecaster expects the sun to rebound with a double-peaked maximum later this year.
The quiet has led some observers to wonder if forecasters missed the mark. Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center has a different explanation:
“This is solar maximum,” he suggests. “But it looks different from what we expected because it is double peaked.”
Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum. At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares. At the other end, Solar Max brings high sunspot numbers and solar storms. It’s a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years.
Reality, however, is more complicated. Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular. For one thing, the back-and-forth swing in sunspot counts can take anywhere from 10 to 13 years to complete; also, the amplitude of the cycle varies. Some solar maxima are very weak, others very strong.
Pesnell notes yet another complication: “The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.” Solar activity went up, dipped, then resumed, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years.
The same thing could be happening now. Sunspot counts jumped in 2011, dipped in 2012, and Pesnell expects them to rebound again in 2013: “I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014,” he predicts.
Another curiosity of the solar cycle is that the sun’s hemispheres do not always peak at the same time. In the current cycle, the south has been lagging behind the north. The second peak, if it occurs, will likely feature the southern hemisphere playing catch-up, with a surge in activity south of the sun’s equator.
Pesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a blue-ribbon group of solar physicists who assembled in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next Solar Max. At the time, the sun was experiencing its deepest minimum in nearly a hundred years. Sunspot numbers were pegged near zero and x-ray flare activity flat-lined for months at a time. Recognizing that deep minima are often followed by weak maxima, and pulling together many other threads of predictive evidence, the panel issued this statement:
“The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle (Cycle 24) will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May 2013. Note, this is not a unanimous decision, but a supermajority of the panel did agree.”
Given the tepid state of solar activity in Feb. 2013, a maximum in May now seems unlikely.
“We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” comments Pesnell.
Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are in fact twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
No one knows for sure what the sun will do next. It seems likely, though, that the end of 2013 could be a lot livelier than the beginning.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 1:27 pm
1) Pesnell’s prediction of a twin peak in solar activity prediction is based on what?
You were referring to solar cycles in general. If you restrict yourself to Pesnell that is another story. The physics behind that prediction seems to be that magnetic flux must average to zero over longer time scales, so if we have had more flux in the North we would expect the deficit to be made up later in the South. Observations of many past cycles bear that out.
Is there any discussion of why solar cycle 24 is different from other solar magnetic cycles among specialists?
Yes, the prevailing view is that the cycle is not special in the past couple of centuries. I disagree with that in thinking that we may be in for a qualitative different regime as we had during the Maunder Minimum. There are lots of theories explaining the MM. [too many IMHO].
I do not see how your work on historic sunspot count invalidates Usoskin’s Nature published paper that used cosmogenic isotope analysis to support his assertion.
His analysis is based on calibration to the Group Sunspot Number, so is not independent of that.
The issue is past and recent solar heliosphere changes
We have now a good reconstruction of the heliospheric parameters back to the 1830s and they show that the recent past is not especially active.
The assertion that the sun was at its highest activity level and the longest time at high activity in 11,000 years explains the late 20th century warming and will explain the cooling, if there is cooling caused by the solar cycle 24 slowdown or interruption.
This is a circular argument and wishful thinking. And again you use the magic word ‘interruption’. I have asked you many times what that means and never gotten an answer. Perhaps this time you would be so kind as to provide one…
the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
Since you have not told us what you mean by ‘interrupted’ no discussion is possible.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Keeping citing that old, obsolete, and flawed paper does you no good.
If you want some duelling papers, read this one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima [so no ‘interruption’ whatever that means] Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
Sparks says:
March 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm
The first peak occurs when the magnetic field winds up and after the polarity reverses the second peak occurs when the magnetic field winds down.
‘No, the first peak [if there are more than one] results from one hemisphere being more active than the other. The second peak occurs when the other hemisphere catches up: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Matthew R Marler says:
March 6, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your replies.
You are welcome.
Eugene says:
March 6, 2013 at 1:58 pm
I believe we will finally have observations that can possibly help define the overall solar influence on the Earth’s climate and climate variability.
I will paraphrase, if I may:
I think we will finally have observations that can possibly help define the overall solar influence on the Earth on the Earth’s climate and climate variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L-L.htm
Now, now. . . let’s have a little sympathy for the solar cycle scientists. The poor bastiges do not have the advantage of the Climate “scientists” of being allowed to make predictions that can only be falsified once they are safely retired or under the turf.
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2013 at 2:14 pm
‘No, the first peak [if there are more than one] results from one hemisphere being more active than the other. The second peak occurs when the other hemisphere catches up:
There are two peaks, I agree one is usually more active than the other, I think you may have misunderstood my point, (possibly because you lifted a part of it out of context).
At the start of a solar cycle when the Magnetic field is beginning to skew around the sun the magnetic field ‘winds up’ around the entire sphere, the field will begin interacting directly with itself and observed activity increases, this activity continues until a point is reached where the polarity flips, the magnetic field then begins to ‘wind down’, during the beginning of this ‘wind down’ the magnetic field becomes loose and unwound and is observed as being chaotic, (in fact it is not) the ‘wind down’ of the field continues and this unwound chaotic phase will decrease, at this point the field will continue to interact directly with itself toward solar minimum.
Leif, if you remember, I brought up the possibility of a double peak awhile back, This was because at the time when I studied the timing of the current cycle and the peak of activity seemed to be out of phase.
Leif,
Do we currently see an asymmetry forming between the northern and southern hemisphere fields with this cycle?
In reply:
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Thank-you for the thoughtful comments.
An interruption to the solar magnetic cycle would occur if Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues, assuming the cause of that observation is a decline of field strength of the magnetic ropes that rise up from the tachocline to form sunspots on the surface and assuming the solar model noted below is correct.
The tachocline rope model assumes that the seed to form the next rope at the tachocline is residual magnetic field from past cycle sunspots. A minimum field strength is required for the past sunspots to survive their trip through the convection zone.
Unless there is observational evidence that indicates this abbreviated explanation is correct (i.e. an interruption is taking place) there is nothing for us to discuss. If an interruption is taking place, there is a problem which needs to be addressed.
Sparks says:
March 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm
At the start of a solar cycle when the Magnetic field is beginning to skew around the sun the magnetic field ‘winds up’ around the entire sphere, etc…
No, that is still not how it works. There is no ‘unwinding’ of the field.
William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm
An interruption to the solar magnetic cycle would occur if Livingston and Penn’s observation …etc
But what is an ‘interruption? You might just have said “hut-hut-hut occurs if L&P etc”. Is is disappearance of the cycle? Can’t be because we know that cosmic rays are still modulated during Grand Minima. Is it that the polarity of the poles don’t reverse? What? Be specific.
The tachocline rope model assumes that the seed to form the next rope at the tachocline is residual magnetic field from past cycle sunspots.
It is, but probably only from the last cycle, not several.
A minimum field strength is required for the past sunspots to survive their trip through the convection zone.
Just the opposite occurs: the weak seed field is amplified on its trip until it is strong enough to rise to the surface. On its way up it is shredded to pieces. Once at the surface the pieces reassemble to form a sunspot group. This process has been observed [it happens for every group] and the re-assembly has been known for more than 150 years. It is obvious for anyone simply watching.
The L&P effect is likely that the re-assembly process is operating less efficiently right now. We don’t know why, but there could be many reasons.
Ged says:
March 6, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Do we currently see an asymmetry forming between the northern and southern hemisphere fields with this cycle?
Here http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png is the activity plot for cycle 14 and for cycle 24 separately for hemispheres. North is blue and South is red. The thin lines are for monthly means and the thick lines are for a centered yearly mean. You can see that early in cycle 24, the North was much more active. Now the South has caught up [still some variation down in the noise]. I expect the South to eventually overtake the North to restore some balance [as it usually does], but with the Sun, you never know for sure….
Solar cycle 24 correlation with solar cycle 14. My thinkolator just buzzed. Novarupta erupted in 1912 at cycle 14 end. There was some extreme weather for a couple years in the NH. There was another huge eruption maybe equal in size at the other end of that solar cycle in Guatemala 1902, but it was a flank eruption without the altitude.
David Archibald comes to mind… saying we have a bigger chance of a large eruption. If we’re going to have cycle 14 déjà vu I hope the other doesn’t.
Anyone want to buy a small farm on top of a mountain?
So, the last time we saw a solar cycle with twin peaks was? Never? Wow, they appear to have an inside track on the SUN. Good for them.
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2013 at 6:45 pm
No, that is still not how it works. There is no ‘unwinding’ of the field.
I was describing how the Suns magnetic field behaves not how it works. My choice of words, if you wind a magnetic field around a sphere, flip the polarity it will unwind, how would you describe it?
Sparks says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:50 pm
I was describing how the Suns magnetic field behaves not how it works.
In my book there is no difference.It is always best to use words that are as close to what actually goes on as possible.
if you wind a magnetic field around a sphere, flip the polarity it will unwind, how would you describe it
It will still be wound. And, by the way, what flips at solar maximum are just the polar caps, not the rest of the Sun. Better describe things the way they actually are. Stop struggling against doing what is proper and right.
The sun will splutter and die. There will be a night lasting a week, the sun glowing a deep red like a piece of coal until it explodes into action again with a vengeance, scorching everything which can not hide in a hole. This is how the dinosaurs died.
So far it is just a theory, but I am working on it 🙂
Dr. Svalgaard:
I just went and had a good look at the image from your site that Anthony shows here… http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png I noticed something very strange. The blog post says…
> And the most interesting indicator, the plot of solar polar fields, shows
> a clear zero line crossing, suggesting that Solar max has been reached:
No it doesn’t. I copied the image into an image editor and zoomed in 2:1. Here’s what I see…
* the pink trace comes down to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK UP
* similarly, the red trace comes up to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK DOWN
At the very least, it would seem that we’re not at max yet, and will have to try the zero crossing again. Any comments on the implications of the trace?
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:13 pm
“In my book there is no difference.It is always best to use words that are as close to what actually goes on as possible.”
I may as well copy and paste from your website, but where would the fun be without a discussion and how will I ever learn 🙂
It will still be wound.
That is correct, until it becomes unwound, you seem to agree with my description of how the Suns magnetic field behaves, at solar minimum the suns magnetic field stretches well into the planetary solar system, this is when it is unwound. There is nothing wrong with my description of this.
what flips at solar maximum are just the polar caps
Yes, the polarity of the caps flip. What’s your point?
“Why would NASA “hope” for a particular level of solar activity?”
That’s easy.
1) because they predicted higher levels and don’t want to admit they were wrong, and
2) seriously decreased solar activity would lead to a conclusion of lowered temperatures to come, which would destroy belief in AGW and interrupt all of the funding and careers that are based on it.
Seriously, does anyone actually believe that NASA is a scientific organization and not a purely political one? The agency who said, at this time of a collapsing space program, that his top priority for his agency was “outreach to muslim countries”????
Science will be greatly advanced that day that NASA is defunded.
Walter Dnes says:
March 7, 2013 at 1:08 am
* the pink trace comes down to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK UP
* similarly, the red trace comes up to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK DOWN
The pink trace is just the mirror image of the red tract [the latter being the real data], and, yes, it bounces around a bit as it always does [look at some of the other crossings].
At the very least, it would seem that we’re not at max yet, and will have to try the zero crossing again.
The two hemispheres are often out of sync [at times up to two years] and it is an oversimplification to think that there is such a thing as a single, well-defined ‘maximum’. The North has reversed now, but the South is still about a year away. Here are the detailed story: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png as you can see there is a strong annual variation having to do with we see the South pole better in March [and the North better in September]. The difference [green curve labelled N-S] between the blue (N)orth and the red (S)outh eliminates the annual variation and gives a rough indication of the Sun’s ‘dipole moment’.
Sparks says:
March 7, 2013 at 2:20 am
until it becomes unwound
It simply does not ‘unwind’, and the Sun’s magnetic field pervades the solar system at all times. Your picture of winding and unwinding is not a correct description. If one wishes to [over]simplify, one can describe the solar cycle as a conversion from poloidal fields (at solar minimum) [running North-South] to toroidal fields (at solar maximum) [running East-West] back to poloidal fields. But even that picture is too crude. The wound up [toroidal] fields disintegrate and the debris moves to the poles where it slowly cancels out the old polar fields and builds a new one with opposite polarity, which is then wound up again. There is no ‘unwinding’.
It is often said on these pages that solar magnetic cycles continued during Maunder Minimum, based on the available C14 proxy data.
Let’s consider following:
a) C14 shows 3 cycles from 1650 to 1710 in duration of 18, 20 and 22 years, far too long to fall into same category as known sunspot magnetic cycles, in addition the C14 nucleation process is not sensitive to the solar magnetic field polarity
b) Data presented by Jackson & Bloxham show that the Earth magnetic field has (sub) oscillations with period of about 22 years in addition the C14 nucleation process is also modulated by the Earth’s magnetic field variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
Thus it could be concluded that the C14 data during Maunder Minimum, do not show solar but the Earth’s magnetic oscillations.
Supplementary: further questions arise regearding cause/s of oscillations.
I love the comments here. This is real science. Let all of the ideas see the light of day and have a robust discussion. Then sit back and observe. Then start the process over again. I love science when done properly.
vukcevic says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:29 am
It is often said on these pages that solar magnetic cycles continued during Maunder Minimum
And very true that is.
Let’s consider following:
a) C14 shows 3 cycles from 1650 to 1710 in duration of 18, 20 and 22 years, far too long to fall into same category as known sunspot magnetic cycles,
the 14C residence time in the atmosphere and biosphere is too long to show the fine structure with such precision. 10Be has a much shorter residence time and can show 11-year cycles, and it does: slides 16-17 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
So, your comment must be dismissed as wishful thinking.
lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:48 am
the 14C residence time in the atmosphere and biosphere is too long to show the fine structure with such precision.
Dr. S. data disagrees with your comment.
Strange that from 1600-1650, the C14 shows what could considered normal solar magnetic cycles (periods 12, 9, 10 and 14 years) then suddenly switches to cycles which are more in line with the Earth’s field (18, 20 and 22 years) than again post 1710 back to the normal cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
More credible explanation is required for the anomaly and I have offered one:
Thus it could be concluded that the C14 data during Maunder Minimum, do not show solar but the Earth’s magnetic oscillations.
Dr. S. you do need to do better.
>wws says:
>March 7, 2013 at 6:27 am
>“Why would NASA “hope” for a particular level of solar activity?”
>That’s easy.
NASA now knows that the solar activity controls the earth climate, and there is the higher the sunspots number, the higher the earth temperature. It is NASA’s hope the higher sunspots can cover up the flawed AGW “theory”.
vukcevic says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:05 am
Dr. S. data disagrees with your comment.
No, your faulty interpretation of the data does. The storage in the 14C reservoirs attenuates periodic variations depending on their period. This means that for 11-yr variations the amplitude of 14C variations is 100 times smaller than for 10Be. For the 2300-yr Halstatt cycle the attenuation is a factor 10. For a 22-yr cycle the factor is 50, so 11-yr peaks will only behalf of 22-yr peaks which means that the power spectrum will seem to be dominated by 22-yr peaks rather than 11-year peaks, thus misleading people [like you] who does not know the science. The 10Be data shows the 11-yr cycle very clearly as slide 16 of the link I gave you demonstrates. When will you learn to listen?
In Maunder Minimum, poleward migration rate of magnetic fields was about 0.7 m/s and solar cycle length was about 20 yrs.
V. I. Makarov & A. G. Tlatov: http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/21/193-196.pdf