![latest_512_4500[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/latest_512_45002.jpg?quality=83)
Looks like a double peak for cycle 24 is forming
As many WUWT readers have noted in comments, October 2013 has been significantly more active than the previous several months, and we have not seen this level of activity since October 2011.
At right, is the sun today showing several sunspots of significant size. No splitting hairs on “sunspecks” is needed to elevate the count.
NOAA’s SWPC has updated their graphs, and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:
![sunspot[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sunspot1.gif)
The gain from last month is the largest uptick in solar cycle 24 so far.
Similarly, there was an uptick in 10.7cm radio flux, though it is not even close to the maximum gain seen back in mid 2011.
![f10[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/f101.gif)
However, the Ap index, a proxy for the sun’s magnetic dynamo, continues to bump along the bottom, some thing it has been doing since October 2005, when a significant step change occurred. None of the peaks seen in Cycle 23 in 2004 have yet to be seen.
![Ap[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ap1.gif)
Steve Davidson writes of his analysis:
I created, from Belgium’s official counts, a graph very similar to NASA’s “Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression” graph maintained on WUWT’s “Solar Page”.
In my story I also review the current status of Solar Cycle 24 predictions and highlight Leif Svalgaard’s contributions to Cycle 24 understanding.
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/october-2013-sunspots-huge-jump/
David Hathaway has also updated his page at NASA Marshall saying:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 65 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been flat over the last four months. 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.
His plot:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
As always, there’s more of interest on WUWT’s Solar Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On the German MSM, they are now saying scientists are fearing a new possible iceage, omg-omg !!
https://www.focus.de/wissen/weltraum/astronomie/tid-34401/schwaechster-sonnenzyklus-seit-100-jahren-warum-eine-neue-eiszeit-bevorstehen-koennte_aid_1143696.html
Well, can’t get get Firefox ( google translate ) to work so i can read your link, Matt, any chance you have a source in English ?
Janice Moore November 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Anthony, what time is it in Chico? 😉
And while you are at it what time is it in Harpo?
I wonder what triggered that descent into the bit bucket?
Steve in Seattle says: …
Stick the title , in quotation marks, into google. Then click of ‘translate’ option.
Janice Moore says:
Okay. It has been over 2 hours since anyone but me has posted. I hope it’s okay to go ahead and post a birthday greeting to CODE TECH.
====
perhaps you could save that kind of inane drivel for Facebook, Twitter or something. It would be nice if posts here had at least something to do the subject.
lsvalgaard says:
[cite] Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:32 am
The “official” smoothing formula gives practically the same weight to 13 successive monthly means, which is rather odd.[/cite]
No doubt, the official formula is not very good, but it is ‘official;, so people stick with it.
===
Perhaps next time Dr. Svalgaard is involved with NASA Group B or NOAA he could suggest they adopt a more appropriate filter.
If we can spend billions of dollars studying solar activity, it seems pretty dumb to invert the results in the final step by using a crappy filter.
Sure is a shame the Lief’s rather remarkable prediction was correct but looks wrong because someone can’t “smooth” the data.
Steve:
https://www.focus.de/wissen/weltraum/astronomie/tid-34401/schwaechster-sonnenzyklus-seit-100-jahren-warum-eine-neue-eiszeit-bevorstehen-koennte_aid_1143696.html
Forscher befürchten neue Kleine Eiszeit
Der aktuelle Sonnenzyklus gibt Forschern Rätsel auf. Er war der schwächste der vergangenen hundert Jahre und zeigt weitere ungewöhnliche Veränderungen. Sollte sich der Trend fortsetzen, könnte eine neue Kleine Eiszeit bevorstehen.
Translate:
Researchers fear new Little Ice Age
The current solar cycle gives researchers a mystery. It is the weakest of the last hundred years, and shows other unusual changes. Should the trend continue, a new Little Ice Age could be imminent.
The article continues:
Das genstupit globalen varmista est einen groupen de nazistupen unt das puppygenschtompers.
Sorry, my German is a bit rusty – I can’t quite decipher the last part. ;-}
Greg says:
Sure is a shame the Leif’s rather remarkable prediction was correct but looks wrong because someone can’t “smooth” the data.
___________
Actually, within reasonable accuracy Greg, I suggest that Leif was correct.
From memory:
Leif predicted SSNmaz for SC 24 in 2005 at 75. The current prediction is 65 and may be revised slightly upwards – close enough in this business.
In 2006, NASA (Hathaway et al) predicted SC24 SSNmax at circa 160 – not so good.
Regards, Allan
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
November 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm
William Astley says:
November 4, 2013 at 10:59 am
Leif has a proposed an alternative mechanism to create flux tubes where the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone.
This is not my proposal, but the mechanism favored by an increasing number of solar physicists. The major blow to the tachocline-mechanism is the [now firm] observational data showing that the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the seed-field down below the convection zone is actually not deep enough and doesn’t go that far down, but is instead more of a surface phenomenon. There are also good theoretical reasons and modelling for a shallow dynamo or at least a dynamo working through the whole convection zone and not at the tachocline: http://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/12842
William:
A paradox is an observation or an analysis result that cannot be explained by a mechanism/hypothesis. A paradox indicates that the hypothesis or mechanism is incorrect.
The hypothesis that the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the convection zone was rejected as the magnetic flux tubes are buoyant; which is the reason why the magnetic flux tubes rise up from where they are created to form sunspots on the surface of the sun. Sunspots have a magnetic field strength of 1500 gauss to 4000 gauss. There is not sufficient time (it will rise up to the surface of the sun too soon) for a magnetic flux tube to form with sufficient magnetic field strength in the convection zone; there is no physical mechanism to hold the forming magnetic flux tube in the convection zone.
It is for the above reason that the standard hypothesis for the formation of the magnetic flux tubes moved from the convection zone to the tachocline, the interface between the convection zone and the radiative zone which is believed to be narrow region with minimal turbulence.
As you note very recent seismological analysis has found the meridional circulation that was supposed to carry the residue sunspot from a previous cycle down to the convection zone to form the seed to form new sunspots doesn’t not now go deep enough, the meridional circulation does not reach the tachocline and hence does not now carry the seed to form the magnetic flux tubes in the tachocline.
There are now multiple paradoxes: magnetic flux tubes of sufficient magnetic field strength cannot form in the convection zone as they are buoyant and the magnetic residue of sunspots is no longer being carried down to the tachocline to form the magnetic flux tubes there. As noted, however, it is possible the observed height of the meridional circulation is a change and normally the meridional circulation does reach down to the tachocline. It is possible we are observation a rare once in 8000 to 10,000 year special state the sun moves through.
Now in addition to the above paradox there is a requirement that whatever mechanism forms the magnetic flux tubes must explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspot is decaying linearly which logically requires the magnetic flux tubes that form the sunspots to decaying linearly. Observationally and as expected theoretically a consequence of the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes declining linearly is that the flux tubes are being torn apart in the convection zone so what forms on the surface of the sun is a complex sunspot group with mixed polarities and what forms is smaller and smaller sunspots. If the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes continues to decline the magnetic flux tubes will no longer be able to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone. They will be torn apart in convection zone and what will form on the surface of the sun will be regions of higher magnetic field strength not sunspots. That is in fact what is observed in large regions of the solar northern hemisphere.
Now we do not need to speculate how the sun will change next, that question can be answered by observation. Observations will likely also explain how the solar magnetic cycle restarts, assuming the magnetic cycle moves into a very deep minimum.
n general the behavior of the Sun
All that is in the sun around the sun appears , such as sun spots, eruptions, solar wind , magnetic storm , the reconnection of magnetic poles of the sun , and the like , not all of it together enough to comprehend the underlying causes of such phenomena . None of these phenomena can not provide enough information for it to be predictive of future behavior. These causes are much deeper and must be sought in the constellation of the solar system and the mutual relations of his body. There are logical and true challenger different rotation poles sun and its equatorial belt , and the appearance of sunspots and shifts polarity poles and much anything. So to figure out something , we need to take a completely different way of thinking, but as it is practiced today . I am now working on checking my assumptions . I do it by comparing the data going from Maunder’s minimum, until today. If it came true my guess , many scientific institutions will have their hands full to fill them in programs that will be able to show many changes in almost all times.
Allan MacRae: “Actually, within reasonable accuracy Greg, I suggest that Leif was correct. ”
Yes, he was still very close. It’s just ironic that it’s not his estimatiion that was off but the sloppy data processing.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/ssn_filters/
No shortage of auroras:
http://www.universetoday.com/105973/recent-sun-activity-spawns-stunning-aurorae/
William Astley says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:29 am
explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspot is decaying linearly which logically requires the magnetic flux tubes that form the sunspots to decaying linearly
No, that does not follow logically. It is possible, in fact likely, that the flux tubes are formed as usual but that the process on the surface that concentrates the shredded flux tubes [they are ALWAYS shredded] into visible sunspots is operating less efficiently.
explain how the solar magnetic cycle restarts
It has never stopped, so nothing to restart.
***
Michele says:
November 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Largest jump in Solar Cycle 24 …..
It is simple …. planets
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Configurazione-planetaria-23-10-2013.jpg
Venus, Earth approaching Jupiter with transit of Mercury
***
Yes, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. It is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Age of Aquarius…….
This just in: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1311-0844-Polar-Fields-Upton.pdf
“The Sun’s polar magnetic fields are directly related to solar cycle variability. The strength of the polar fields at the start (minimum) of a cycle determine the subsequent amplitude of that cycle”
Leif- Has this paper changed or advanced your thoughts or views in any way? Significance of paper?
Birdieshooter says:
November 5, 2013 at 7:52 am
Leif- Has this paper changed or advanced your thoughts or views in any way? Significance of paper?
The paper is a nice confirmation of the basic proposal of a decade ago [actually all the way back to 1978] using the latest data. Such updates are needed from time to time.
A pox on these scientists who double-peak.. A rat-cage for the ones who double-think!
Leif
‘But I have not had time to read their paper yet. Do you have a link to a copy?”
I think you can register and get a copy for free
Steven Mosher says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:01 am
‘But I have not had time to read their paper yet. Do you have a link to a copy?”
I think you can register and get a copy for free
I’m going to my office at Stanford tomorrow and can get it there. The paper is a clever and subtle rearguard action, as the issue with the Group Sunspot Number is not what happened in 1849, but instead is what happened in 1885.
Steve,
Try this translation from google: http://translate.google.com/#de/en/Forscher%20befürchten%20neue%20Kleine%20Eiszeit
Hey, Gail! Glad to see you back. Hope all is well. J.
Dear Greg,
I’m sorry that I missed your birthday.
To make up for that a bit, here is a little cheer…
from me to you (it’s even on-topic #(;)):
Life can be so sweet, on the sunny side of the street.
And, HAPPY BIRTHDAY — early!
With a smile,
Janice
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 9:16 am
I’m going to my office at Stanford tomorrow and can get it there. The paper is a clever and subtle rearguard action, as the issue with the Group Sunspot Number is not what happened in 1849, but instead is what happened in 1885.
The pre print version is available from:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8443
If the data holds up this paper will be more than a rear guard action. New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct and the Wolf values pre 1848 are too high by 20%.