The solar data from the NOAA Space Weather prediction center has been posted, and like the global temperature, there isn’t much change. Sunspot numbers are down slightly, but still up from most of 2012/2013. The double peak looks more prominent.
Solar radio flux shows a similar double peak pattern.
And the Ap Magnetic index is down 6 units, and continues to bump along the bottom compared to the last solar cycle. The solar dynamo continues to be sluggish.
parks says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:22 pm
The program is a casual educational project and it’s based on my own preferences
Jedem das Seine (or suum cuique if you prefer)
Just a bit OT but we have a Cyclone 5 Ita bearing down on Northern Queensland, with high seas winds and rain. Now is this a cause of El Nino or La Nina? Really everyone, the weather is the weather, and I fear for Cairns, as on high tides, the sea water runs down the gutters on the ocean front. But we have a very good warning system and people are evacuating already. Better to be sure than sorry, eh?
bushbunny,
These storms are dangerous, stay safe 🙂
Leif,
When you said “Each to their own” etc.. I noticed my previous comment may have still been in moderation, Sorry!
lsvalgaard says: April 10, 2014 at 7:08 pm
Questions:
1. Between Wolf and Wolfer, the difference is far more during the peak cycle time than it is during the quiet cycle time. Why is this so?
2. You have said that the A and B groups (which are small?) were probably left out by Wolf either deliberately if he was using the larger telescope or he couldn’t see them if using the smaller one. You have also said that the A and B groups make up almost half of all groups. What then is the weighted influence of the A and B groups on the Sunspot number? Since the Sunspot number is used as a proxy for the TSI or the Sun’s radiance, shouldn’t the larger spots have a greater influence than the smaller ones?
3. Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.
And possibly earlier also
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:43 pm
1. Between Wolf and Wolfer, the difference is far more during the peak cycle time than it is during the quiet cycle time. Why is this so?
The ratio, not the difference, is what is important and that ratio is constant because the regression data points lie on a straight line through the origin.
2. You have said that the A and B groups (which are small?) were probably left out by Wolf either deliberately if he was using the larger telescope or he couldn’t see them if using the smaller one. You have also said that the A and B groups make up almost half of all groups. What then is the weighted influence of the A and B groups on the Sunspot number? Since the Sunspot number is used as a proxy for the TSI or the Sun’s radiance, shouldn’t the larger spots have a greater influence than the smaller ones?
The weight factor was introduced by Waldmeier in 1947, so does not influence the ratio between Wolf [died in 1893] and Wolfer. And the larger spots have a larger influence [making the sun darker] which is more than offset by the surrounding magnetic field [making the sun brighter]. Furthermore, the factor we find is what the data tells us. We can’t do anything about that, whether we like it or not.
3. Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on. What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:48 pm
And possibly earlier also
Not really: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
What happened to my comment?
Mod ??
I’ll try once more.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:00 pm
And from 1800 on and from 1700 on
In response to “Even if we increase the previous numbers to homogenise with the modern ones we still find an upward trend from 1900 onwards.”
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
What is important is that in each century [Figure xx12] there is the same evolution of the sunspot number: small, then large, then down to small again with no significant difference between the centuries
When I look at your graph xx12, I do not see “the same evolution of the sunspot number”. In fact what you see as nothing significant, I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
@richard
Do try to refresh your screen to see all three of your comments
Sorry about that
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm
So then when some people say that part of the cause for the slow, but uneven, warming of the Earth since the Little Ice Age, including our current warming, may have been the slow but uneven increase in activity of the Sun, they may possibly be correct? And perhaps you should not be so dismissive of such an idea.
‘Part of the warming’ I can live with, like 10% or so. The point is whether the Sun is the Major driver or not. It is clear to me that its is not, in which case it is silly to be upset about anything.
Also bearing in mind that the Sunspot numbers do not extend till the Maunder Minimum, the statement that the numbers have increased from then till today would possibly still hold good.
The cosmic rays show that solar cycle modulation during the Maunder Minimum was as strong as today so the sunspot cycle was still operating. That we could not see the spots is something that need to be investigated.
Richard says:
April 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm
I see a quite significant variation of the Sun’s activity between quiet and dormant periods, and still, visually from your graph, a rise in total sunspot numbers from, at least, 1800 until today.
Not really: http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series-21yr-Run-Avg.png
Leif, have you a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison in x-ray and Ultraviolet?
Sparks says:
April 11, 2014 at 11:13 pm
Leif, have you a solar cycle 23 and 22 “phase shift” comparison in x-ray and Ultraviolet?
No, but in 17 GHz microwaves http://www.leif.org/research/Nobeyama-17GHz-Synoptic-Limb-Chart.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 12, 2014 at 3:26 am
“No, but in 17 GHz microwaves http://www.leif.org/research/Nobeyama-17GHz-Synoptic-Limb-Chart.png“
One 22 year magnetic cycle in the opposite side of the spectrum? Leif, you’re holding back. Interesting that it’s a 22 year magnetic cycle.. fantastic!
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Interesting that it’s a 22 year magnetic cycle.. fantastic!
There is no 22-yr magnetic cycle, just two 11-yr cycles with opposite polarity.
The Earth also changes polarity every million year or so [with huge random variability], yet we don’t talk about a 2-million year Earth magnetic cycle.
The magnetic pole changes all the time, according to pilots. There are Greens who fear the next shift. I knew someone a Green who told me we know there will be another ice age more than global warming, but we are concentrating on ethics and economics. Like the IPCC? Politics rather than science.
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm
“There is no 22-yr magnetic cycle, just two 11-yr cycles with opposite polarity.”
It takes the positive magnetic polarity of the sun 11 years to reverse, it then takes another eleven years for it to reverse again, which brings it back to it’s original starting point of magnetic reversal.. and if my calculations are correct… 11+11 := 22.
Sparks says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:09 pm
It takes the positive magnetic polarity of the sun 11 years to reverse, it then takes another eleven years for it to reverse again
That does not mean there is a 22-yr cycle, but rather just two rather independent 11-yr cycles back-to-back.We should only use the word ‘cycle’ if it is separate physical entity and not about two adjacent such. I know that the real thing is often dumbed down to a ’22-yr’ cycle, but we are about that low level, aren’t we?
Are we not arguing against each other?
lsvalgaard says:
April 13, 2014 at 9:14 pm
That does not mean there is a 22-yr cycle, but rather just two rather independent 11-yr cycles back-to-back.We should only use the word ‘cycle’ if it is separate physical entity and not about two adjacent such
One 360 degree rotation of a polarity, means one full cycle. It literally is one full cycle.