Guest essay by David Archibald
The latest image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) shows our sun as a blank canvas. No sunspots. Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years
According to NASA’s Spaceweather.com:
Sunspot number: 0
Updated 30 Jun 2016
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
2016 total: 11 days (6%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
The last time sunspots vanished for a whole week was in Dec. 2010–a time when the sun was bouncing back from a long Solar Minimum. In this case, the 7 week interregnum is a sign that a new Solar Minimum is coming.
The sunspot cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth every 11-years or so between times of high and low sunspot number. The next low is expected in 2019-2020. Between now and then sunspots will become increasingly rare with stretches of days, then weeks, then months of “billiard-ball suns.”
The F10.7 flux has been in a disciplined downtrend for nigh on 18 months now. It is now only nine units above the immutable floor of activity of 64:
Figure 1: F10.7 flux 2014 – 2016
We have F10.7 data from 1948. Plotting up the whole solar cycles since then, Solar Cycle 24 has been following Solar Cycle 22:
Figure 2: F10.7 flux of Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 22
In Figure 2 above, Solar Cycle 24 (red line) has been following the activity of Solar Cycle 22 (black line) for the last two years. If it keeps following Solar Cycle 22’s activity, that will make it a weak, short cycle. Strong cycles such as Solar Cycle 22 are generally shorter than average and weak cycles are generally longer. The other solar cycles are shown as dotted lines.
The solar polar field strength divergence continues to build and is unprecedented in the record:
Figure 3: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere
Finally, Figure 4 following shows that the peak of the F10.7 flux in Solar Cycle 24 was in February 2014. The Oulu neutron count duly turned up a year later (inverted in Figure 4) in March 2015.
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux and Inverted Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
What is interesting from Figure 4 is that there has been a consistent increase in the neutron count relative to F10.7 flux over Solar Cycle 24 relative to the relationship in the previous four cycles.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
ABSTRACT:
Based on a quantitative study of the common fluctuations of 14C and 10Be
production rates, we have derived a time series of the solar magnetic
variability over the last 1200 years. This record is converted into
irradiance variations by linear scaling based on previous studies of
sun-like stars and of the Sun’s behavior over the last few centuries.
The new solar irradiance record exhibits low values during the well-known
solar minima centered about 1900, 1810 (Dalton), and 1690 AD (Maunder).
Further back in time, a rather long period between 1450 and 1750 AD is
characterized by low irradiance values. A shorter period is centered
about 1200 AD, with irradiance slightly higher or similar to present
day values. It is tempting to correlate these periods with the
so-called “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”, respectively.
An accurate quantification of the climatic impact of this new
irradiance record requires the use of coupled atmosphere-ocean
general circulation models (GCMs). Nevertheless, our record is
already compatible with a global cooling of about 0.5 – 1 C during
the “little ice age”, and with a general cooling trend during the
past millennium followed by global warming during the 20th century
(Mann et al. 1999).
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt
lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 6:41 pm
———————————————-
Don,t suppose you looked at the current models of the interstellar magnetic field config around the heliosphere?
TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016
This is just a hobby for me.
The sun is the central part of this solar system.
But, just a speck on the ‘you know what’ of the galaxy.
Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.
Or for that fact if we are near where the two are merging.
Now wouldn’t that be a hoot, if a cue ball bigger than our sun, was headed our way soon?
That would be, bye bye to Ol Sol the so called neighborhood ruler.
Just my hobby asking inquisitive questions.
wow
Just my hobby asking inquisitive questions.
They are always the same, and you don’t seem to learn anything from the answers.
Carla,
“Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.”
We are in the milky way… Andromeda did have a part in our galaxies formation, that goes back to when two pressure differences collided.
Sparks July 5, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Carla,
“Scientists are not even clear as to whether or not we are in the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy.”
We are in the milky way… Andromeda did have a part in our galaxies formation, that goes back to when two pressure differences collided.
——————————————
Can’t find the original article.
The two articles below might give you the idea on why scientists do have a degree of uncertainty of which galaxy we might be in. They ‘think’ we are on a spur arm of the Milky Way. A spur..
Caution: subject to change with each passing new galaxy found to be merging with the Milky Way. Not to mention the a current topic about gravitational waves. Get out your surf board Dr. S. and catch the wave.
Hundreds of Galaxies Were Found Hiding Behind Our Milky Way
The objects may help explain why our galaxy and its neighbors are hurtling towards a seemingly blank zone called the Great Attractor
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/hundreds-galaxies-were-found-hiding-behind-our-milky-way-180958078/?no-ist
by Brian Handwerk smithsonian.com
February 9, 2016
“””Hundreds of galaxies have been playing a cosmic game of hide and seek, and astronomers just tagged them “it”.
Using radio telescopes to peer through the dense plane of the Milky Way, researchers have spotted huge galactic gatherings that have long been obscured from view. These galaxies lie a mere 250 million light-years away—and they will only get closer, because they appear to be pulling us towards them at breakneck speed.
Scientists had suspected that galaxies existed in this region, says study co-author Renée C. Kraan-Korteweg of the University of Cape Town, South Africa. But seeing them with traditional telescopes presents a challenge.
“It was not really not that surprising, because the stars and dust in our own Milky Way block a not insignificant part of the sky from our view, in optical light that is,” she says. “So yes, we did expect that many galaxies would be lying behind the plane of the Milky Way, or the so-called Zone of Avoidance. However, we did not know anything about their distribution in space.”
“””…This galactic cornucopia represents a huge amount of mass, which makes the team suspect that the objects play a role in the intergalactic draw of a strange region called the Great Attractor.
Decades ago, astronomers noted that our galaxy and its neighbors are headed towards a largely blank spot on the cosmic map at some 14 million miles an hour. That rate is not consistent with the speed at which the universe is thought to be expanding. Instead, the motion suggests something we can’t see is pulling us with the gravitational force of a million billion suns….”””
DAILY NEWS 14 April 2016
Never-before-seen galaxy spotted orbiting the Milky Way
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084438-never-before-seen-galaxy-spotted-orbiting-the-milky-way/
By Ken Croswell
“””The galaxy’s empire has a new colony. Astronomers have detected a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milky Way whose span stretches farther than nearly all other Milky Way satellites. It may belong to a small group of galaxies that is falling into our own.
Giant galaxies like the Milky Way grew large when smaller galaxies merged, according to simulations. The simulations also suggest that whole groups of galaxies can fall into a single giant at the same time. The best examples in our cosmic neighbourhood are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, the Milky Way’s two brightest satellites, which probably orbit each other….”””
doit doit doit lookin out my back door..
I cannot see the shed in my backyard because my house is in front of it, so no surprise the Milky Way hides background galaxies.
But this is highly OT and has nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.
I have recently been reading up on how some (or all?) globular clusters are thought to be the remnant cores of small galaxies which have merged with the Milky Way. (I first became interested in the topic when a globular cluster was the cover artwork on a album by the band called Mahavishnu Orchestra. I am including a pic of the one i think it was below…Messier 80).
BTW, Carla…even when two galaxies merge, the odds of a collisions between any two stars is incredibly remote. A star like the Sun may be a million miles across, but the distances between them, even in the incredibly dense globular clusters, is still vast by comparison. In the core of such clusters, stars are thought to be separated from on another as closely as the Sun is to outer planets like Pluto. OK, OK, dwarf planets like Pluto.
In our neck of the woods, the distances are much more remote. The closest star to the sun is Proxima Centauri. To get an idea of the relative size and distances involved, it has been pointed out that if the sun were a ping pong ball in Philadelphia, Proxima would be a pea in Nashville.
Or if the two stars were cars in their lanes, the lanes are wider than the Earth. You would need to be a mighty bad or unlucky driver… (Ok, I made that last one up…just a wild guess)
But we will have a long wait for Andromeda to merge with the Milky Way…count me as one who does not expect any humans will be around in five billion years to see it.
Off Topic.
Please do not pollute WUWT any further.
lsvalgaard July 6, 2016 at 9:08 am
But this is highly OT and has nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.
____________________________
The Milky Way is full of stars. Each having their own type of activity cycle, based on size, location, age etc..
The faster rotating stars seem a bit scary to me…eeek Still alot to be learned out there, even by you.
And may you also continue to do so for a long time.
Have a nice day ..
The faster rotating stars seem a bit scary to me…eeek Still alot to be learned out there
It is the slower rotating stars that have significant stellar cycles.
There is nothing to be learned from your drive-by OT comments. Not even you learn anything.
The rotational velocity of some of those pulsars and magnetars is very interesting to me, but I am not sure why anyone would be “scared” of something so far away that you need powerful machines to even know they exist, or anything about them.
No, I think we have a lot of potential world ending disasters much closer at hand and more likely.
Now, the prospect of a Eta Carinae sort of star exploding in our vicinity may be a tad worrisome. Or even if it’s ultraviolet laser comes a-shinin’ our way, it could be a bad day…but I think the southern hemisphere would take the worst of it, and they could use a little thawing down there.
Jonesingforozone [real(?) name Michael H. Webb m-h-w@cox.net, although picture associated with that email address shows a Miguel del Rio] claimed that:
You data series for TIMED SEE and SEM is based on the adjustment algorithm that Emmert et al[2014] proposed in their thought experiment. and that I did not actually use the data on the experimenter’s website.
Miguel has since complained to JGR about my paper [actually accepted by Solar Physics, not JGR] misrepresenting things.Nothing could be further from the truth. One wonders what compels some people to push such blatantly false assertions. But I guess that there are many nasties out there, and now and then they show up here.
I recently compared the EUV and F10.7 with the magnetic flux on the solar disk measured by our satellites [SOHO and SDO] and found that both are very well described by the magnetic flux. It is generally accepted that variations of the EUV [and F10.7] are simply reflections of variations of the magnetic field of the sun.
First you go and read our HMI Nugget at http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1510 that concludes “We plot the computed F10.7* flux derived for the magnetic flux and the observed F10.7 flux in Fig. 1. There is a remarkable agreement between the observed and calculated microwave fluxes, lending credence to the accuracy and physical significance of both. Repeating the analysis using the radial magnetic flux yields the same amazing agreement; in fact, even slightly better. Using the magnetic data from Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) yields a similar result, attesting to the stability of the measurements at Stanford. We have also used the result to detect changes in the calibration of the SOLIS series. We suggest that the F10.7 record can serve as an almost absolute reference scale for the solar magnetic field.”
Then we can plot the TIMED EUV flux integrated over the range 0-103 nm and compare that with the MDI/HMI magnetic flux [and F10.7] and find an almost perfect match [plot below]. Hence TIMED/SEE is a VERY good measure of the magnetic flux, which is what we really want to ascertain, so that we can interpret the geomagnetic response rY in terms of the magnetic flux [and EUV] back to 1740.
http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-HMI-F107-Flux.png
Then Miguel tries to use a strawman: the ionospheric fof2 critical frequency anomaly, but geomagnetic response is due to currents in the E-layer, not the F-layer(s), so dragging in fof2 is a strawman.
The response rY is very well described by the correct EUV and F10.7 fluxes, which is just what theory predicts:
http://www.leif.org/research/rY-EUV-F107.png
Everything fits nicely, and there are no anomalies, except for the anomalous SEM record which is a problem with their data and reduction. Their recent re-analysis of SEM also shows increased degradation compared with version 3.1, but the new series is not on their website. [One wonders why].
If you match SEM up with TIMED at the beginning of the TIMED mission [attachment 1] you can clearly see the degradation of SEM. Needless to say, SDO-EVE matches TIMED very well:
http://www.leif.org/research/SEM-vs-TIMED-EVE.png
If you compare SEM with the Magnetic Flux [aligning at the beginning of the mission in 1996] you can also clearly see the SEM degradation [attachment 2] and also that the TIMED correlation with the magnetic flux is stable, while SEM not having a stable correlation is drifting over time:
http://www.leif.org/research/SEM-Not-Matching-Magn-Flux.png
There seems to be little reason to keep flogging that dead horse [and to be a nasty person hiding behind false IDs and names]. SEM needs correction. As science is self-correcting, this will eventually be rectified so we can get on with real science.
Can the WP-savvy explain why linking to a Figure:
http://www.leif.org/research/SEM-vs-TIMED-EVE.png
works her, but not in the above comment?
and why it all the sudden works. It didn’t when I posted the comment.
Ah, well, one bends to the tools.
As the solar data keeps going in my direction, wonderful!
george e. smith June 30, 2016 at 11:49 am Edit
Sure. According to CERES, it varies by 15.7 W/m2.
Indeed. The TOA solar varies by about 22 W/m2.
Well, you can see the difference above. However, looking at the whole planet obscures things. You’d likely get a better view by hemispheres.
w.
6th of July : sunspots are back on http://spaceweather.com/
Impossible to see these sunspots without SDO satellite .. even .. with SDO you must have a certain amount of imagination.
Statement : sunspots count today can not be compared with old sunspots count.
Even if Mr Svalgaard try to make you believe that we count in the same way, this is the evidence that not !
impossible to see these sunspots without SDO satellite .. even .. with SDO you must have a certain amount of imagination.
Not so, here is Locarno (world reference station) with an aperture of 8 cm [same as Wolf’s in the 1850s]:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2016/loc-d20160706.JPG
Statement : sunspots count today can not be compared with old sunspots count.
Yes they can because we compensate for differences in telescope technology:
see http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspots-with-Ancient-Telescopes.pdf
Be careful with making statements not based on facts.
It will not matter or does not matter ,what matters is how weak will the solar parameters get gong forward.
It is a waste of time to talk about how sunspots are counted.
Going towards the next solar minimum, solar activity will dwindle to practically nothing like it does at every minimum. The Ap index will increase to a peak just before the minimum as it always does. None of this has any predictive value as activity repeats this pattern at every minimum.
It seems that, since there were no sunspots, they have now begun to number the specks of dust on my computer screen:
http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm
Hmmm, that does not work, since the image changed when they updated it, which was apparently about ten seconds after I copied and pasted the link.
Here is the jpg image of the dust specks, from the archive:
http://www.solarham.net/pictures/archive/jul6_2016_disk.jpg
If the spot is visible at Locarno it is a bona fide spot. And would have been counted even a hundred years ago.
Yes, and I believe you Dr. Svalgaard, having no reason to think otherwise.
I was just drawing attention to how paltry the activity is (slow news day I suppose).
But, since we are on the topic of small spots, I thought I would ask about something related i was wondering about: Is a small spot that does not persist for very long counted the same on the trend charts as a small spot that persists for longer? And do they account for size? Is any account taken of the absolute area of the spots? Are many spots in a group counted differently than the same number of spots spread out in different groups? And are some spots “darker” than others?
Is the size, persistence, and number of spots in a group, directly proportional to any parameter of magnetic activity?
Thanks in advance if you care to respond to any of these questions.
Many questions. The answers are mostly ‘yes’. Rudolf Wolf’s genius was to realize that the appearance of a new sunspot group [even if it only has a tiny spot] was much more important than the appearance of a new small spot in an existing group that already may have many spots. Wolf therefore fashioned the ‘sunspot number’ as R = 10 * number of Groups + total number of spots, to indicate the importance of groups. Most spots [about 40%] are tiny and live only a day or two. Statistically, there is a good relationship between the area of all the spots and the sunspot number, so the area is important too. The sunspot number is a very good measure of solar activity, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf
From Stenflo’s presentation http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf :
“This example shows that the average unsigned vertical magnetic flux density has a remarkably tight correlation with the sunspot number, but only when we average the magnetogram over the whole solar disk.”
Small spots are important if they form their own group. Small spots are counted like large spots: one spot, one vote. The sunspot number [Rudolf Wolf’s clever definition] is R = 10 * number of groups + total number of spots in all groups. There is a good statistical relationship between the so-defined sunspot number with all solar parameters: area, magnetic field, etc. The sunspot number [when correctly calibrated] is a VERY good indicator of solar activity. As you may know, we have made considerable progress in the calibration of the sunspot number. Naturally, there will always be people who are whining and squirming about any changes, even if justified.
Thank you for the link…good info!
I like the part about making as few rules as possible.
And agree that what is important is consistency in the method used.
There is more than one way to skin a ninja cat.
Funny!!!
The sun is years away from it’s minimum according to the predictions and yet all of the solar parameters (who some said it can’t happen) are already just about reaching the low average values I have called for.
The mode of operation of the sun changed post 2005 from an active mode post 1840 to an inactive mode post 2005.
Until the data shows otherwise this inactive mode seems to be in place.
I think it is hard to use predictions for what the sun may be doing moving forward based on when the sun was in an active mode which would be from 1840-2005, this despite relative weakness in solar activity in and around solar cycle 14.
The mode of operation of the sun changed post 2005 from an active mode post 1840 to an inactive mode post 2005.
No, this is pure supposition. There is no such thing happening.
The data going forward will determine if indeed the mode of the sun has changed.
Time will determine. The point I have been trying to make for years.
Solar Flux which is not biased is a much better indicator od solar activity then sunspots which are counted every which way. I don’t use them in my criteria to measure solar activity.
Have you been able to determine when the minimum will take place?
Willis responded to the question below regarding the surface solar energy.
The difference in average monthly teperature between the coldest (-8C) and warmest (16C) month in Sweden is 24C.
Assuming a seasonal variation of solar energy by 15.7 W/m2, can’t we roughly calulate the temperature response to solar energy by: 24/15.7 = 1.5
1 W/m2 increased solar energy => 1.5C temperature increase?
“Willis; I don’t remember if you have addressed this or not.
Does the total SURFACE solar energy that makes it past the clouds, for the total earth, show any annual (seasonal) cycle ??
Sure. According to CERES, it varies by 15.7 W/m2.”
lsvalgaard July 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm
From Stenflo’s presentation http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf :
“This example shows that the average unsigned vertical magnetic flux density has a remarkably tight correlation with the sunspot number, but only when we average the magnetogram over the whole solar disk.”
___________________________
Hi Dr. S., the hobbyist, inquisitor with attitude, back again.
Not trying to discredit this sunspot revision. And its not hard to see the overall importance of having an accurate account of this record.
But my question is:
If sunspots preferred formation region is in the more central portion of the solar disk, why then is it necessary to average the flux density, over the whole disk and not just the central spot forming region?
Attitude asks, who the heck is basal? Basal flux tripped me up some. And this is just related to the ‘unsigned’ vertical flux density.
Note to sparks
Sparks July 5, 2016 at 11:24 pm
——————————————–
My first encounter with Rings round the Milky Way
Running Rings Around the Galaxy 2007
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/news/875-feature07-07-Running-Rings-Around-the-Galaxy
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/uploaded_files/images/0008/2304/sig07-008_Ti.jpg
If sunspots preferred formation region is in the more central portion of the solar disk, why then is it necessary to average the flux density, over the whole disk and not just the central spot forming region?
Sunspots can pop up and form everywhere [except the polar regions], so are not confined to the central spot. ‘Basal’ means the magnetic flux when there are no sunspots. The unsigned flux is used because both negative and positive magnetic fields are measures of solar activity.
Thank you Dr. S.
On another note.
Images of the ancient telescopes were a hoot..hoot..too by the way. thx