Despite some small upticks on sunspot and 10.7cm radio activity, the magentic activity of the sun is still bumping along the bottom.
A slight uptick was seen in sunspot count.
A similar slight uptick occurred in radio flux.
Note how the Ap magnetic index remains low, down 4 units from last month:
Oddly, there seems to be a slight drop in total solar irradiance. It may just be temporary, or an indication that we have passed solar max:
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Most Recent 3 Month Plot
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceTotal Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Full SORCE Mission- 2003 – Present
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceMore at the WUWT Solar reference page.Solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 5/1/13:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm
okay, I know math is hard. I often get the figures confused myself. This year is 2013, plus 5 is 2018.
The top panel goes through 2019, so I failed to predict only through 2018….
Perhaps you are done embarrassing yourself…
S.E.Bailey says:
May 7, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Within the range of the data presented, is there any reason to theorize that we may be about to enter a grand minimum, and if so what would be the primary indicators?
Perhaps: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
From lsvalgaard on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm:
Goes well with “Solar Sector Structure: Fact or Fiction?”
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.ppt
(In 2011 you presented the evidence for what you were discussing as fact back in 1974?)
28 day cycle clearly visible on slide 4 graphs.
Slide 6 also answers old questions about what is the Heliospheric Current Sheet. But what is the tilt angle?
Found a 2009 WUWT post all about it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-heliospheric-current-sheet-as-solar-cycle-proxy/
Which has suffered severe link deterioration, sole remaining graphic in the Archibald section, below the link and similar to a Stanford tilt chart of recent cycles:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
Ah, down in the comments is a link to a 3D presentation of the solar magnetic fields, etc:
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
Which is 1978 “3D” for those with good imaginations, showing why model makers and B&W photographs were still popular for quickly conveying concepts in print.
*sigh*
lsvalgaard: I am not talking about predictions. I am talking about the actual data for April. Monthy sunspot number is 72.4, that is much better and more timely than NOAA’s graph. http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
The top panel goes through 2019, so I failed to predict only through 2018….
Perhaps you are done embarrassing yourself…
>>>>>>>>
No way, I am never afraid of embarrassing myself when I seek the truth.
Your “top panel” does not extent to 2019.
Don’t hide behind numerous links. Just fill in the simple chart for 2018== TSI, plus monitored wavelengths. It’s not that hard, unless you are trying to obfuscate…..
Thanks, Anthony.
Yes, bad tidings from the Sun. We shall have to wait an see. The UAH temps (and all others) begin to show a decline.
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm
in response to lsvalgaard
“(Hint–Solar activity includes all TSI, including all wavelengths. Your move, and you have no penalty moves left….)”
You do realize to whom you are commenting, don’t you?
periwinkle says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:21 pm
I am talking about the actual data for April. Monthy sunspot number is 72.4, that is much better and more timely than NOAA’s graph. http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
You can get the official international number every day in real time from http://sidc.be/products/meu/
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
No way, I am never afraid of embarrassing myself when I seek the truth.
And you do that to the hilt. Now, seeking the truth is fine, but does require some thought and attention. You can’t empty the well of truth with a leaky bucket [as Eddington once said].
Your “top panel” does not extent to 2019.
Click on it or look again.
monitored wavelengths.
The sunspot number is counted in white light [i.e. all wavelengths].
Tom, he started it, he can finish it, if he is able.
I (am most of us) am (are) here to learn. No real scientist appreciates “magicians”. If the established science does not support it, then years of observable, documentable, predictable data must support, or it is dogma.
Tom in Florida says : You do realize to whom you are commenting, don’t you?
This ridicule statement made me comment here.
As anyone can see, the trend could as well be performed with a simple spectrum analysis as would be done to any oscillatory signal. The deviation from the main harmonic of 11 years would be easy to detect, and maybe this is the way the “clever” NASA prediction does ?
Sorry Leif buddy, but the link has not changed.
If you want to verify yourself, fill in the simple chart for 2018, for monitored wavelengths–High, low, average, will do, Doctor.
Now over forty minutes of waiting later…
So if the moderators aren’t checking the “awaiting moderation” queue continuously as they used to, and apparently even less often than they used to check the spam filter, what is the moderation staff doing in this age of whitelisting? Planning a weekend office kegger?
Geran,
Stop embarrassing yourself. The top graph goes through 2020 for crying out loud. That graph IS a legitimate proxy for sunspot prediction through 2018. Enough already. The moderators need to take some of this rubbish off Leif’s back from time to time. It’s becoming unbearable to read and too much like the Alarmists mantra for my blood. Stop the witch hunts please.
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:52 pm
years of observable, documentable, predictable data must support
And that is what the data indeed support, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Sorry Leif buddy, but the link has not changed.
Being sorry is no help in seeking truth. Here is the top panel by itself: http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count-Large.png
Your ‘monitored wavelengths’ phrase does not make much sense, so you must be more specific. As almost all solar activity indicators correlate so highly, it doesn’t really matter which one is shown.
Recommend a change in eyeballs or monitor; perhaps the Samsung Siii does not have the resolution to see the data-line out to 2019?
.
Okay, okay, OK, OKAY, OKAAAAAY,
I understand what you are saying.
I was expecting more than the conventional graph. But that was my fault.
(The “monitored wavelengths” referred to NASA data. I did not mean to confuse the issue.)
Hi Leif, appreciating your Research page and your patient answers here. Hoping you will soon update your WSO-Polar-Fields chart, counting down to the polar field flip.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm
(In 2011 you presented the evidence for what you were discussing as fact back in 1974?)
The sector structure and its various properties are observed facts [then and now]. What is still not resolved is whether the structure is a cause or an effect. I.e. is there are deep internal long-lived structure or are we over-interpreting surface patterns?
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:20 pm
I was expecting more than the conventional graph. But that was my fault.
You got more than the conventional graph. You got activity separated by cycles [different colors].
The “monitored wavelengths” referred to NASA data
what NASA data? I’m on the NASA/NOAA panel predicting solar cycles and I have no idea what you are talking about.
NZ Willy says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Hi Leif, appreciating your Research page and your patient answers here. Hoping you will soon update your WSO-Polar-Fields chart, counting down to the polar field flip.
Ii is: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Livingston and Penn have the good data. Let’s hope that the rest of the Solar Statisticians will use that data. As soon as “others” produce results as good as theirs, we will rank them as equals.
By the way, a statistical model is only valid if the results are continuously up/down, or other repetitive motions. A real model would be based on the underlying physics, and would be verified by statistical results. Bottom line, one can’t build a model from statistics without the complete underlying physical model.
By the way, the existing Solar Dynamo model only takes into account the Convective Zone. It treats the Radiative Zone as a “constant”. And the Core as a “point source” non-varying.
The place where the “energy” is produced is the Core. Yes, it takes a Photon a 100,000 years to travel to the surface; but, the pressure waves happen 100,000s of times faster. I suppose that explosive pressure wave have nothing to do with energy output /sarc.
I would continue, but “Dogma is Dogma” and the latest old, wise ones will need to retire before change occurs. Study the theory of plate tectonics to see how the old, wise ones treat new ideas.
lsvalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:30 pm
what NASA data? I’m on the NASA/NOAA panel predicting solar cycles and I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>
yeah, it’s so hard when they keep it from ya—-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/light-wavelengths.html
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:42 pm
yeah, it’s so hard when they keep it from ya—-
1) they don’t keep it from anyone
2) it is not hard to contemplate the different views that we get at different wavelengths
3) the all vary closely as the sunspot number: you predict one, you predict them all
4) since you are here to learn it is time that you start learning
1) obviously, since I linked it to you.
2) But, you cannot predict.
3) QED
4) Thanks, I will take that advice, certainly…..
LMAO
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm
2) But, you cannot predict.
The point is that we can reasonably well.
i>LMAO
Juvenile…
The point that we are reasonably well, but are too accepting of corruption and perversion, yet few recognize this.