NOAA Predicts Solar Cycle 24

NOAA via spaceweather.com ^ | May 8, 2009 | NOAA Press release

[ETL]

I'm no expert but I believe the two cycles usually overlap.

They do, for a year or so.

[Straight Vermonter]

I should have read the whole thread before responding. Lots of good info by the folks on this thread. More evidence of the breadth of knowledge on FR.

[Justa]

Cycle 24 has started. It began in Dec. The solar flux is also gradually creeping up. Don’t get discouraged though Cycle 24 is so weak it’s re-tracing the Dalton Minimum. Woohoo, freezing, famine and a Great Recession!

[PreciousLiberty]

"Cycle 24 has started. It began in Dec. The solar flux is also gradually creeping up. Don’t get discouraged though Cycle 24 is so weak it’s re-tracing the Dalton Minimum. Woohoo, freezing, famine and a Great Recession!"

Cycle 24 has not "started". It "may have started", and I'm pretty sure from the chart I'll link in a minute that the first article I linked was wrong in saying we hit minimum 12/2008. Check out this language from the NOAA press release on their prediction:

The panel also predicted that the lowest sunspot number between cycles—or solar minimum—occurred in December 2008, marking the end of Cycle 23 and the start of Cycle 24. If the December prediction holds up, at 12 years and seven months Solar Cycle 23 will be the longest since 1823 and the third longest since 1755. Solar cycles span 11 years on average, from minimum to minimum.

Note the use of "predicted", and "if the December prediction holds up".

Now, look at this chart:

There's no uptick after December, we're still deep in the minimum. In fact, there was an article to that effect on spaceweather.com, on April 1 (and no it wasn't a joke;).

[ETL]

Cycle 24 has not "started".

Have you once provided on this thread any evidence to support your ideas of when a new solar cycle officially begins? That is, according to some reputable source on the subject. Perhaps you did, I just don't recall and/or have time at the moment to recheck.

Also important to note (again), is that 'sunspot regions' appear dark only when the magnetic fields they are associated with are sufficiently intense. The intense local magnetic fields suppresses the heat energy. Dark = 'cool' (compared to the hotter surrounding solar surface)

[PreciousLiberty]

"Have you once provided on this thread any evidence to support your ideas of when a new solar cycle officially begins? That is, according to some reputable source on the subject. Perhaps you did, I just don't recall and/or have time at the moment to recheck."

ETL, detailed information was provided in #34 and #44. I went to some effort with #34 for your edification, I'm surprised you don't recall it a day later.

For someone who posts with such an authoritative tone I would have expected you to already be familiar with how solar cycles are defined. The information is out there, if you look for it.

For the record, the source I used in this thread was mainly NOAA, which is in charge of predicting Cycle 24.

[PreciousLiberty]

“Also important to note (again), is that ‘sunspot regions’ appear dark only when the magnetic fields they are associated with are sufficiently intense. The intense local magnetic fields suppresses the heat energy. Dark = ‘cool’ (compared to the hotter surrounding solar surface)”

Since you apparently didn’t read the first part of #34 either, the “darkness” of “real sunspots” (as opposed to the “invisible sunspots” to which you refer) is extremely significant, since historical astronomers couldn’t observe anything else.

So, when comparing to the historical record, in particular when considering the Minimums, “active regions”, “invisible sunspots” and so on are completely irrelevant, however interesting they may be in their own right (as mentioned in #34). What does matter is the traditional “sunspot number”, and the curves as expressed in #44.

Now at 12 consecutive days with no spots, all of May so far.

[Justa]

It’s started. Solar convection currents and the solar rotation’s lack of wobble (has to do with Jupiter and Saturn orbits) are making Cycle 24 a very muted cycle; the least active since 1823 as the article points out. Ergo, the Dalton Minimum. I realize you’re gunning for a Maunder-type minimum but we’ll see....

[PreciousLiberty]

“It’s started. Solar convection currents and the solar rotation’s lack of wobble (has to do with Jupiter and Saturn orbits) are making Cycle 24 a very muted cycle; the least active since 1823 as the article points out. Ergo, the Dalton Minimum.”

It hasn’t definitely started according to NOAA, who decide such things...as I quoted. The chart shows the same thing, again according to the traditional definition of when a solar cycle starts (after the minimum). We’ll see if things truly pick up, or if there are fits and starts like in December, where things pick up for a bit and then die back down to even deeper minimum-type conditions.

“I realize you’re gunning for a Maunder-type minimum but we’ll see....”

Ha. I’m not “gunning” for anything, I’m merely an interested and impartial observer (unlike, apparently, NASA). I must say I’m enjoying the idea of the potential effect of more cooling on the CAGW crowd, but that should happen regardless of when this minimum ends up actually bottoming (Cycle 24 is forecast to be weaker and longer than Cycle 23, which has been quite long and weak already).

As you say, we’ll see what the Sun actually does. Interesting science at any rate!

[ETL]

It's pretty faint, but it is there. You can just make it out in the 2nd image below.

From spaceweather.com for today, Thursday, May 14, 2009...

Scattered sunspot group 1017 materialized on May 13th from a formerly spotless active region. Its magnetic polarity identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24. Credit: SOHO/MDI

http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=14&month=05&year=2009
___________________________________________

Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
Realtime and archival images of the Sun from SOHO:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

[ETL]

Here's a zoomed-in screen capture:

[ETL]

Here's a deeper zoom-in. There are actually quite a few sunspots in this group (group 1017):

[PreciousLiberty]

Ha, well it did manage a spot after all. Yay!

Now, this is another interesting example of possible “sunspot inflation” compared with the Maunder observations, but they might have seen this one by 1700 or so. Of course, they didn’t monitor the Sun 24/7 the way we do today either.

Regardless, one spot/weeks is still very much in minimum territory. Remember it’s monthly-averaged sunspot number.

[PreciousLiberty]

“There are actually quite a few sunspots in this group (group 1017)”

According to NASA, there are two: the “sunspot number” is (10*group_count)+sunspot_count.

So, for this one it’s (1*10)+2 = 12. One group, and two spots.

[ETL]

Here in this extreme ultra-violet image of the Sun you can actually see the magnetic field lines associated with sunspot group 1017 looping from one spot to another. There's also something erupting along the solar equator which is about to rotate towards earth. Along the equator is where old Cycle-23 activity is still occurring. Also note the magnetic field 'spikes' jetting out from both solar poles (north and south/top and bottom). These are part of the Sun's primary/global magnetic field.

Source: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

[ETL]

Here is a zoomed-in screen capture of sunspot group 1017. Note the looping magnetic field lines connecting the spots:

[PreciousLiberty]

“Along the equator is where old Cycle-23 activity is still occurring.”

Yes, it looks as though that next active area will be Cycle 23. Very indicative of being “in the minimum”.

I’ll be interested to see at the end of the month, when they post the numbers, what the International Sunspot Number (based in Belgium) is for the 13th, 14th, and 15th. More of an effort to stay in line with historical numbers is made with the ISN, in other words it’s more conservative.

http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/