![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
Tnx to all, re xlate.
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
That is the clever and subtle part. Where the GSN goes wrong is not in 1848, but in 1885. So saying that GSN is ‘largely correct’ without strongly emphasizing ‘before 1848’ is misleading at best.
Hummm, another X class event just now.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov
OssQss says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Hummm, another X class event just now.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov
Which was predicted as a posibility five hours ago http://www.bbso.njit.edu/cgi-bin/ActivityReport
Hi, OssQss — thanks for telling us — lol, so THAT’s why I can’t make any phone calls… . 😉 — Hope today was a better day. J.
“Which was predicted as a possibility five hours ago…” —
Which was “predicted” by Piers Corbyn ten years ago… “I predict that there will be an X class event sometime in the next 10 years.”
Bwa, ha, ha, ha, haaa!
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
What we are interested in is the long-term behavior. Here is the ratio between GSN and WSN http://www.leif.org/research/GSN-WSN-Ratio.png
Apart from the very noisy early part the pre-1885 ratios generally fall within the red box, regardless of the possible deviation before 1848 [black box].
Leif, thanks for the link. I wish they had a notification capability there too. Perhaps a business opportunity there?
5 hour sooner notification could be a good thing for many who need it. Reminds me of the tornado warning systems improvements over time.
So, nobody ever responded to the question of X class event frequency at certain points in the solar cycle?
Data anyone?
Next up, “what is the climate impact of several large solar events in a short period of time” WUWT?
Ironically Janice, I was having difficulty with my phones 5g mobile hotspot (not a typo for you geeks out there) in the last several hours. Dunno,,,,,,,
OssQss says:
November 5, 2013 at 5:49 pm
So, nobody ever responded to the question of X class event frequency at certain points in the solar cycle? Data anyone?
They can occur at any phase, perhaps a bit more frequently during the declining part:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Archives/SolflarSC23.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm
New digitized Schwabe sunspot drawings provide evidence the GSN record is largely correct
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
—-
Really glad you said that Dr. S..
After reading the abstract, “Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848,”
my brain thought, oh know they didn’t have the Schwabe series.
As in, ..”However, the recently digitized series of solar observations in 1825-1867 by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, who was the primary observer of the WSN before 1848, makes such an assessment possible.”..
meemoe_uk says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:02 pm
..As you’ve pointed out to me a few times recently, plasma filled space is very conductive, so can hold very little voltage drop, so it acts like a conducting wire between an object in space and the other objects in space. e.g. the Earth is effectively connected to the solar corona electrically.
Why should Earth have the same surface voltage as the corona? The electric field of the Earth is a result of an external voltage and Earth’s natural voltage.
Why the Earth likes to be 10^7V to space is interesting to speculate. If the Earth was just an electrically dumb conductor it would just take roughly same voltage as space over a relatively short period of time. That’s it’s high voltage persists means it has its own emf generator, I reckon of subsurface origin ( not the water weather )…
—–
Now that is curious..
But Dr. S., might like the next article..maybe you too..meemoe…
“Measurements of Coronal Faraday Rotation at 4.6 Solar Radii”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.1727v1.pdf
Jason E. Kooi, Patrick D. Fischer, Jacob J. Buffo, Steven R. Spangler
(Submitted on 5 Jul 2013)
Many competing models for the coronal heating and acceleration mechanisms of the high-speed solar wind depend on the solar magnetic field and plasma structure inside the corona within heliocentric distances of 5 R_sun. We report on sensitive VLA full-polarization observations made in August, 2011, at 5.0 and 6.1 GHz (each with a bandwidth of 128 MHz) of the radio galaxy 3C228 through the solar corona at heliocentric distances of 4.6 – 5.0 R_sun. Observations at 5.0 GHz permit measurements deeper in the corona than previous VLA observations at 1.4 and 1.7 GHz. These Faraday rotation observations provide unique information on the magnetic field in this region of the corona. The measured Faraday rotation on this day was lower than our a priori expectations, but we have successfully modeled the measurement in terms of observed properties of the corona on the day of observation. Our data on 3C228 provide two lines of sight (separated by 46”, 33,000 km in the corona). We detected three periods during which there appeared to be a difference in the Faraday rotation measure between these two closely spaced lines of sight. These measurements (termed differential Faraday rotation) yield an estimate of 2.61 x 10^9 to 4.14 x 10^9 A for coronal currents. Our data also allow us to impose upper limits on rotation measure fluctuations caused by coronal waves; the observed upper limits were 3.3 and 6.4 rad/m^2 along the two lines of sight. The implications of these results for Joule heating and wave heating are briefly discussed.
lsvalgaard says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm
At the SSN workshop we construct ‘backbones’ and then link them up. We have a Schwabe backbone and a Wolfer backbone which overlap and are linked up without even using Wolf’s data:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
What the new paper shows is that the “workshop” has it wrong.
The Schwabe data is compared to the GSN and the overlap of the Schwabe and Wolf data is also compared. The data shows that Wolf’s reconstruction does not follow the Schwabe data and that the Schwabe data corresponds with the GSN record. Wolf’s reconstruction of most of the cycles before 1848 are too high.
The outcomes of the “workshop” is now seen as agenda driven by not looking into the WSN record pre 1848. The claims of the GSN being too low before Wolf are now shown to be wrong, unless the Leussu et al paper is shown to be incorrect, via a rebuttal paper. No other argument will suffice.
Unless this paper is rebutted, the old Lean TSI reconstruction will now be seen as accurate.
Leif,
Do you have plans to be at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco during the week of December 9?
John
Samual says:
November 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm
What the new paper shows is that the “workshop” has it wrong.
Did you ever even go there and check it out. Wolf’s assessment was for the entire Schwabe record 1826-1867 for which the factor he used was entirely appropriate. The Leussu et al paper only deals with a small part of that, and they find a different factor before 1835. Perhaps you missed that the workshop assessment does not use Wolf’s data for before 1849 at all: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
A rebuttal paper is not necessary as the Leussu et al paper changes nothing. It will, of course, be discussed at our next meeting in Locano next year as several of the authors are participants of the Workshop.
Unless this paper is rebutted, the old Lean TSI reconstruction will now be seen as accurate
Only by people who have an agenda of willing it to be so. Reasonable people will see through the spiel.
John Whitman says:
November 5, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Do you have plans to be at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco during the week of December 9?
Yes, I’m giving an invited paper SH23D-02 and chairing two sessions SH33E and SH41C.
———
Leif,
That is wonderful.
I will now plan be in the audience for your talk and sessions. I was in the audience for your talk at last year’s Fall AGU meeting.
John
John Whitman says:
November 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“Yes, I’m giving an invited paper SH23D-02 and chairing two sessions SH33E and SH41C.”
I will now plan be in the audience for your talk and sessions.
See you there. SH33E is a poster session, so lots of time to talk.
– – – – – – – –
Leif,
I reckon so. See you there.
John
I forecast higher solar activity for this October, and especially for a sharp rise in flares starting from around 21st-23rd October, when there was an acute heliocentric opposition of Mercury and Venus with Ceres. It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 6, 2013 at 2:01 am
It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.
In the business that is called the homeopathic principle: the smaller the body, the larger the effect. In fact, the largest effect you get with no body at all.
lsvalgaard says:
“In the business that is called the homeopathic principle: the smaller the body, the larger the effect. In fact, the largest effect you get with no body at all.”
So that’s why there are continuous X-flares when there are no such alignments, brilliant !!
Ulric Lyons says:
November 6, 2013 at 2:01 am
“…It is very curious how the Sun is so strongly sensitive to such a small body as Ceres.”
Strange how charge is always attracted to point objects, e.g. the sharp tip of a lightening conductor.
Janice Moore made some comments about Chicago time.
I looked up my copy of “Hopalong-Freud” by Ira Wallach, 1957 as I thought it was relevant; and indeed I found the following on page 55:
” 7
WORLDS IN COLLUSION
A significant theory, based on a new interpretation of ancient lore, which Immanuel Velikovsky somehow overlooked.
PREFACE
This book, ‘Worlds in Collusion’, is the third in a series of twelve volumes, which I have already completed. Following ‘Worlds in Collusion’, I will publish the seventh book in the series. This will be followed by the third, sixth and fourth in that order. Thus the sequence will be maintained.
THE AUTHOR
Discovery of America
IS IT TRUE THAT CHICAGO WAS ONCE ONLY 52 MILES FROM NEW YORK? Or is this purely myth? Let us see!…”
……. to an eventual conclusion:
“Two of the earth’s poles collided, and the impact was the “kitchen door slam” which collapsed the huge heaped-up terrain which brought Chicago and New York so close together.”
Wouldn’t this topic be more fun if Dr. S. talked to us about the solar hotspots, one in the Northern hemi and one in the Southern hemi and how they evolve over cycle.. Where is that article with the hotspots now up there somewhere..
Carla says:
November 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Wouldn’t this topic be more fun if Dr. S. talked to us about the solar hotspots, one in the Northern hemi and one in the Southern hemi and how they evolve over cycle.. Where is that article with the hotspots now up there somewhere..
Yes, but it would not quite be science. On the other hand, there may be some internal organization: http://www.leif.org/research/Hale-Flares.pdf
“We have confirmed, with far better databases, the association of large-scale photospheric magnetism and flare occurrence with the Hale boundaries of the interplanetary sector structure. The patterns we report emphasize the high degree of coherence in the organization of solar magnetic activity on large scales, something that may not be well understood theoretically, but which presumably links the sector structure to the deep interior of the Sun. The solar sector structure is organized and long-lived, and we have found that flaring also has the same degree of spatial and temporal structure.”
See also: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/The_Halloween_Flares_and_Large-Scale_Correlations
“Patterns of coherence have also been remarked upon in terms of Svalgaard’s “Hale sector” pattern”