All things Solar

[WXinCanton]

looks like it might get interesting.. maybe we can get some action pointed our way

[aslkahuna]

Pretty impressive solar flares that are captured on a picture

http://photoblog.msn...ammy-on-the-sun

One was a flare and the other an eruptive prominence. Neither CME was Earth directed.

Steve

[Wannabehippie]

Yeah I know that they weren't earth directed.

However I did not know there was a difference between the two solar storms, appreciate the info.

One was a flare and the other an eruptive prominence. Neither CME was Earth directed.

Steve

[Matt Rogers]

The January sunspot number came in at 19.0.

This continues to increase the distance between this solar cycle and the first cycle of the Dalton Minimum (cycle 5).

Scary stuff!

[WeSuck]

This really needs to be let out and put into the media. I feel like there are people trying to hide this from the normal public. All I know is if this winter has been a sign of things to come regarding the quiet sun then we better watch out!

[Clifford]

Thanks for the wonderful graphs.

I've started following the F10.7 Radio flux as it looked like it might be better at capturing the essence of the activity (no judgements on big vs small sunspots, groups, and etc).

Apparently with eclipse data, they've demonstrated a correlation between the radio flux and the sunspots.

Anyway, here is the Feb 3, 2011 F10.3 graph.

Data Source:

http://www.spaceweat...ca/sx-4-eng.php

I decided to look at the 1AU adjusted data as it should be more representative of what is happening on the sun. I have a corresponding terrestrial graph if desired, as well as importing the Hathaway Oct 2010 predictions (also not shown).

I can say that the current cycle looks like no other cycle since 1947. What I've noticed is that the slope is much lower than previous cycles (since 1947). And there seems to be less variation in solar activity.

You are comparing the sunspot activity to sunspot cycle 5.

Sunspot cycle 6 may actually be a better match, at least for the radio flux values which seem to have hit a very low between cycle minimum, and a very low upward slope. Now, if I could only get the historical data, and figure out how to correlate sunspots to F10.7, I'll start whipping up some comparative graphs.

http://www.warwickhu...com/blog/?p=181

I also ran into this paper yesterday.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/...401/0401107.pdf

Very interesting information.

This paper seems to have a bit more thorough discussion, but the equations still are somewhat arbitrary empirically derived, and only roughly match the observed cycles.

http://www.vukcevic....olarcurrent.pdf

Mr. Vukcevic has additional files on his website:

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/

Apparently when Mr. Hathaway was predicting a HIGH solar cycle in 2006, Mr. Vukcevic had already realized that the solar activity was declining. (published January 2004). It may still be high, but it looks like he was on the right track.

[wxmx]

Thanks for the wonderful graphs.

I've started following the F10.7 Radio flux as it looked like it might be better at capturing the essence of the activity (no judgements on big vs small sunspots, groups, and etc).

Apparently with eclipse data, they've demonstrated a correlation between the radio flux and the sunspots.

Anyway, here is the Feb 3, 2011 F10.3 graph.

Data Source:

http://www.spaceweat...ca/sx-4-eng.php

I decided to look at the 1AU adjusted data as it should be more representative of what is happening on the sun. I have a corresponding terrestrial graph if desired, as well as importing the Hathaway Oct 2010 predictions (also not shown).

I can say that the current cycle looks like no other cycle since 1947. What I've noticed is that the slope is much lower than previous cycles (since 1947). And there seems to be less variation in solar activity.

You are comparing the sunspot activity to sunspot cycle 5.

Sunspot cycle 6 may actually be a better match, at least for the radio flux values which seem to have hit a very low between cycle minimum, and a very low upward slope. Now, if I could only get the historical data, and figure out how to correlate sunspots to F10.7, I'll start whipping up some comparative graphs.

http://www.warwickhu...com/blog/?p=181

I also ran into this paper yesterday.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/...401/0401107.pdf

Very interesting information.

This paper seems to have a bit more thorough discussion, but the equations still are somewhat arbitrary empirically derived, and only roughly match the observed cycles.

http://www.vukcevic....olarcurrent.pdf

Mr. Vukcevic has additional files on his website:

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/

Apparently when Mr. Hathaway was predicting a HIGH solar cycle in 2006, Mr. Vukcevic had already realized that the solar activity was declining. (published January 2004). It may still be high, but it looks like he was on the right track.

Correlation between Observed sunspots and 10.7 flux is faltering this cycle. Even with the dampened 10.7 flux, spots are getting smaller. Syntethic SSN is the SSN derived from 10.7 cm flux.

L&P could be the culprit

Sunspot and radio flux have flattened their tendency

Compare it to SC 19

[Matt Rogers]

Wow, thanks guys, fascinating stuff and definitely showing that we are moving into something we have not seen in our lifetimes.

I compared to Cycle 5 because that was the start of the Dalton Minimum and Hathaway seems to be matching that peak. What concerns me is that we are under-performing that comparison, but Clifford makes a great point that the second cycle of that minimum did indeed have a much slower start like this year.

I believe this low solar activity is behind our record AO/NAO behavior since 2008.

[WeSuck]

Wow, thanks guys, fascinating stuff and definitely showing that we are moving into something we have not seen in our lifetimes.

I compared to Cycle 5 because that was the start of the Dalton Minimum and Hathaway seems to be matching that peak. What concerns me is that we are under-performing that comparison, but Clifford makes a great point that the second cycle of that minimum did indeed have a much slower start like this year.

I believe this low solar activity is behind our record AO/NAO behavior since 2008.

I concur with your statement regarding the record AO/NAO behavior since 2008.

[Clifford]

If you go by the Vukcevic cycles, graph above.

His prediction is that we should have 1 more mid-range cycle before reaching the minimum.

Either way, it is quite likely that we'll have at least 2 solar cycles in the minimum.

So, cycle 5 is a reasonable enough comparison.

As mentioned, I've been following the F10.7 Radio Flux progression of Cycle 24.

Since we only have Radio Flux data since 1947 (the technique was discovered using military surplus equipment), here is a comparison between cycle 20 and 24.

The question, of course, is how to get the alignment just right.

I selected aligning February 13, 2010 to Dec 15, 1964 (with a 15 day running average).

It aligns the first two major activity cycles. However, as noted in the inset, it may overlay some of the earliest cycle 24 activity with the latest cycle 19 activity. With this alignment, we are obviously much later with the beginning of the cycle, but still close to the early progression of cycle 19.

[Clifford]

Well, it looks like we have a flurry of activity on the Sun.

One sunspot just rounded to the back (right).

Another seems to be approaching from the left.

A couple of Coronal Holes, Flares, and Sunspots facing us now (although most of them are a bit more tranquil than this image leads one to believe).

I saw a spike in the F10.7 Radio Flux from about 80 to about 90 earlier this week (today's data is still to come out).

The X-Ray data seems to also show a flurry of activity, but is now quieting down again... at least a little.

There seems to be about a week delay for the TSI data from Colorado to come out

Overall, solar activity is still low, since the beginning of the solar cycle in about 2009, and activity (TSI & F10.7) are relatively unchanged since early 2010, with perhaps a slight upward drift of the minimum "background" activity, but no appreciable change in the peak activity.

[aslkahuna]

Region 1153, the one responsible for the M class event on the 9th, is the one that rotated over the limb.

Steve

[LakeEffectKing]

Phenomenal animation of our latest (X2.2 flare producing) sunspot group from SDO......(from A. Watts):

[Clifford]

I thought I had posted my TSI graph here, but I guess it was under a different heading.

http://www.americanw...are/page__st__8

I'll refrain from submitting an update until the end of the month, or slightly thereafterwards.

It was interesting.

The TSI hit a peak on Feb 7.

The started declining on February 8,

The exact same day that both Sunspots and F10.7 Radio Flux shot up to the highest in the current solar cycle.

Data is delayed, but the TSI is still low as of February 14.

Anyway,

What I wanted to post was something a bit different.

I found some Polar Magnetic Field Strength Information.

Updated about once a month... so last updated 1/28/2011.

The magnetic field strength is out of phase with the solar cycles.

I projected lines (black) indicating that the next solar maximum could be as early as January 1, 2012.

Looking at past solar maxima, the maximum occurred essentially at the cross-over between N&S magnetic fields.

The slope of the change in the magnetic field (on average) seemed to accelerate as it neared the cross-over point.

In most past years for which we have records.

One of the poles seemed to briefly cross the axis, then return to the original polarity.

It then went through about a 1 year cycle in which the other pole crosses, then the first one crosses a second time.

So, since the "N" crossed the axis around January 1, 2011. I'm projecting a possible peak solar cycle one year later on January 1, 2012.

The 20nhz low pass filtered values (yellow) also seem to be heading towards the crossover point.

Of course, nothing has progressed according to "schedule" this solar cycle. It would be interesting if it happened to not reverse polarity.

[Jesse]

Looks like a big ramp up in activity lately.

Today saw the highest SFI reading since July 2004.

How is this all tracking with predictions for a supposedly weaker SC 24 peak?

[Clifford]

Looks like a big ramp up in activity lately.

Today saw the highest SFI reading since July 2004.

How is this all tracking with predictions for a supposedly weaker SC 24 peak?

I can't tell...

We've had some serious spikes on the F10.7 Radio Flux.

When I graphed the comparison between 2011 (cycle 24) and 1965 (cycle 20), I plotted a 15 day running average. Unfortunately that weights current activity much higher than past activity, until the averaging can kick in.

The other issue is the determination of the alignment. We now have greater activity than early 1966, similar to early 1967.

I'll post a comparison in a few days.

As seems to happen during cycle progression, the F10.7 never returned to "baseline" between the last two spikes (January, tended to be less than 80. After the late February spike, it only returned down to 86 before increasing again.

Wilcox only posts their solar polar field strength information every 10 days with about a 1 month lag, of which I've only received 1 data point since the last posting (February 7), Different parts of the sun rotates at different speeds, but I think the 10 days may be a complete polar rotation.

I haven't figured out how to get comparative data from the Wilcox observatory.

The TSI has been very interesting. It lags behind by about 1 week, so we just received February 28^th data this morning.

Overall, the TSI has continued to be very flat.

The previous spike in the F10.7 was virtually mirrored with a DECREASE in the TSI.

There was a slight decrease again on February 28th (same day as the beginning of the most recent F10.7 spike). I'll post an update shortly.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm interested in the Magnetic Flux more than anything in regards to global climate.

[Clifford]

Here is the TSI data (with the 1 week delay).

One of the larger sunspots has just vanished over the horizon.

Activity still seems to be high, with another sunspot to show up on the right horizon in the next couple of days.

There has been absolutely no increase with the TSI with all the latest sunspot activity.

In fact, it has been most interesting to observe it. The TSI seems to increase, then right when we get a flurry of sunspots, the TSI drops off, giving the effect of mirroring the F10.7 activity.

[Clifford]

Here is the F10.7 and Hathaway Predictions.

Note, the recent activity has exceeded his predictions. However, the predictions are based on average activity, not spikes.

Between the activity spikes, we returned down to an activity of about 86 which is within the range of the prediction.

Prior to the activity spikes in mid February and early March, the activity was on the low side.

[Jesse]

Here is the F10.7 and Hathaway Predictions.

Note, the recent activity has exceeded his predictions. However, the predictions are based on average activity, not spikes.

Between the activity spikes, we returned down to an activity of about 86 which is within the range of the prediction.

Prior to the activity spikes in mid February and early March, the activity was on the low side.

Interesting, thanks for posting this stuff.

[Clifford]

Here is my current comparison graph between Solar Cycle 20 & 24, 10.7 Radio Flux.

We had a recent flurry of solar activity, followed by another lull.

The spike in activity would be seemingly higher than we had at the equivalent time in 1966. However, as I had noted earlier, I may have been as much as 6 months to a year off in the alignment of the the two cycles, which I have chosen not to readjust at this moment for consistency.

I would also note that due to the magnetic polar activity, we could be less than a year from the solar maximum (see discussion earlier). That would also indicate that the comparison should likely be with 1967 rather than 1966.

As we progress through the solar cycle, the base level of activity will slowly creep up.

We've returned down to 86.2 (1AU)

This puts us consistent with May of 1966 which dropped to 86.6 (1AU).

Looking at the current X-Ray Plot, it looks like we are near a local minimum of solar activity, so I'm not anticipating the activity to continue to drop significantly.

[Mencken_Fan]

Until recently, I've never had much interest in things solar because empirically the sun seems so benign. But now with climate being a big story and then this unusual solar minimum, well....heck, the sun is interesting to this layman after all.

As I slowly learn more about the sun's properties and relationships with our planet I find myself coming across people and websites touting the sun's relationship with earthquakes. Personally, I'm unaware of any such relationship and furthermore find such a relationship to be illogical, or at least unlikely - based on my limited knowledge.

If anyone could help sort out my confusion, I'd be most appreciative.

Thank you.

[BethesdaWX]

Until recently, I've never had much interest in things solar because empirically the sun seems so benign. But now with climate being a big story and then this unusual solar minimum, well....heck, the sun is interesting to this layman after all.

As I slowly learn more about the sun's properties and relationships with our planet I find myself coming across people and websites touting the sun's relationship with earthquakes. Personally, I'm unaware of any such relationship and furthermore find such a relationship to be illogical, or at least unlikely - based on my limited knowledge.

If anyone could help sort out my confusion, I'd be most appreciative.

Thank you.

There is no evidence...in my view Solar = Earthquakes is a crackpot theory.

[valkhorn]

There is no evidence...in my view Solar = Earthquakes is a crackpot theory.

At least there's a possible mechanism, however remote. If solar flux changes the geomagnetic field, then, because the Earth is mostly Iron, it could shift the tectonics slightly enough to cause a swarm of minor earthquakes, but it would eventually balance out.

I'm certainly not saying that this is likely, possible, or even has a snowballs chance in hell, but there could be a chance however remote because there's a mechanism there. If someone actually found evidence for it, then it could be a major breakthrough, but we aren't monitoring the ground underneath us enough to even be able to accurately predict them, let alone forecast them.

At least it's not as far-fetched as relating geomagnetic flux or solar rays to climate...

[Clifford]

Both the moon and the sun cause oceanic tides. Likewise, I believe they cause tidal forces in the tectonic plates which would lead to earthquakes.

As far as solar flares, and etc... that seems unlikely as a major factor as the earthquakes themselves are caused by a release of tension that has built up due to the movement of the tectonic plates. Although, it is possible there would be complex trigger mechanisms.

[Mencken_Fan]

Both the moon and the sun cause oceanic tides. Likewise, I believe they cause tidal forces in the tectonic plates which would lead to earthquakes.

As far as solar flares, and etc... that seems unlikely as a major factor as the earthquakes themselves are caused by a release of tension that has built up due to the movement of the tectonic plates. Although, it is possible there would be complex trigger mechanisms.

Well I had done some research before posing my question and from what I read, the only gravitational effects relating to earthquakes are the oceanic tides themselves. That is, there is no statistical correlation between the moon's phase and quakes, but there are more quakes at low tide than high tide. (I believe the factor is something like 10%.) This is apparently due to the fact at low tide there is less weight above to hold a fault in place.

It is the solar flares I was referring to; and like you, I find such a connection unlikely. One would think if there's a connection, the world of science would have noticed it by now. Unfortunately, there's a large world of pseudo-science that feasts on the internet today, and the victims are lined up as if waiting for a carnival ride (so strong is the human nature to believe what we would like to believe instead of what's actually so.)

Thanks for the replies here; I'm going to file away this solar/earthquake business in the pseudo-science cabinet.

[Clifford]

Well I had done some research before posing my question and from what I read, the only gravitational effects relating to earthquakes are the oceanic tides themselves. That is, there is no statistical correlation between the moon's phase and quakes, but there are more quakes at low tide than high tide. (I believe the factor is something like 10%.) This is apparently due to the fact at low tide there is less weight above to hold a fault in place.

The moon's phase sounds like a good way to correlate the combined sun/moon tidal effects.

What I was referring to is that gravitational forces from the moon, and to a lesser extent the sun, causes the planet's crust to be tectonically active. I.E. not necessarily determining the timing of an individual quake, but causing the gross movement of tectonic plates which eventually release pressure resulting in earthquakes.

There is also likely to be an effect of thermal expansion/contraction which might be attributable to the axial tilt of the planet.

I found that NOAA has a great resource of Earthquake data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1

I downloaded all earthquakes, latitude 10 to 90.

There seemed to be no significant correlation of month to earthquake occurrence (so much for thermal expansion). Perhaps I should try limiting my search to higher latitudes, as well as southern hemisphere (phase shifted).

I found an article suggesting the correlation of Flares and CME's and earthquakes. The Japanese Earthquake did follow an X-Class flare, CME, and terrestrial magnetic field disruption. However, there have been many earthquakes in the last few years, and no X-Class flares.

[Clifford]

Here are a few updated solar charts, as it has been a while since any updates have been posted.

Looking at the first chart.

We had a recent flurry of solar activity which now seems to be decreasing. I never have been certain that I wasn't about 6 months or more off with my alignment of the charts so I'm not declaring the comparison as being busted yet.

In fact, if you look at the minimum that occurred in late May of 81.8 (1AU, before averaging), it was lower than one would expect at this point in the solar cycle.

Yesterday we had a pretty spectacular solar flare. See:

http://spaceweather.com/

http://spaceweather....v?v=Q_3u_0NN7OM

http://spaceweather....un11/cme_c3.gif

But, overall the sun seems to be returning towards a state of the lowest activity in several months.

After little change for almost a year, the TSI has once again jumped higher, and seems to be remaining high. Note, of course, that this dataset is somewhat truncated, and starts late in the previous cycle, rather than at the solar maximum.

We haven't had any strong solar flares to drive the TSI down significantly, although perhaps yesterday's flare will make a difference.

Looking at the Solar Polar Field Strength. I had posted earlier that N (which I think is magnetic North), had crossed the mid point in January, and stayed high until about now. S will likely follow shortly.

I had predicted that the next solar maximum would be around the end of this year (or at least reaching a plateau around that time).

Other predictions I've read indicated 2013.

Perhaps because the strength of the magnetic fields is lower than normal, then the slope of the change will also be lower than normal, and thus, it might be an explanation for the weaker solar activity.

[ORH_wxman]

Some interesting stuff on the state of the sun

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

[LakeEffectKing]

Some interesting stuff on the state of the sun

http://www.space.com...olar-cycle.html

One thing to point out....if the insinuations/predictions are true, (that the global climate will cool due to the predicted diminishing solar activity) then climatoligists will have to not only admit that a stronger solar influence is leading a "cooler than expected" result, but they will also have to go back to the previous several decades and account for the the stronger than expected solar influences that they've "poo-poo" upon relative to the global temps (mostly attaching themselves to the small TSI variance argument).

We have MUCH to learn about 'ole Sol wrt climatic impacts.....not to mention the interaction of the atmospheric/oceanic system and the moderating effect therein.....Oh....and the feedbacks!

Yet our fate is somehow sealed??? Only in the minds of the arrogant, IMO.