Solar Cycle 24 Main Discussion X

[solarstormlover54]

So far April is turning out similar to March in terms of overall activity.
Solar flux so far 113.
Spot count so far 57
Taking into account the difference between the 81(this site) and 56(prediction chart) ssn from March into account
BTW where can I actually get that sunspot number, I can only seem to find the higher of the two

a new region is growing and a few new regions will rotate into view in the next few days.
Thus activity will increase towards the end of the month

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 27, 2011 8:00:33 GMT solarstormlover54 said:

So far April is turning out similar to March in terms of overall activity.
Solar flux so far 113.
Spot count so far 57
Taking into account the difference between the 81(this site) and 56(prediction chart) ssn from March into account
BTW where can I actually get that sunspot number, I can only seem to find the higher of the two

a new region is growing and a few new regions will rotate into view in the next few days.
Thus activity will increase towards the end of the month

The International [official] Sunspot Number is [by convention] only 60% of the raw count, hence the difference. You can find the official count here: sidc.oma.be

[loly]

CME was seen but it will most likely pass to the north of the Earth (3 UTC aprox.)

A second CME is observed between 8 and 12 UTC




2012buscadelaverdad.foroactivo.mx/t20p240-ciclo-solar-24-seguimiento-y-actualizacion#1220

[loly]

[sunspotboy]

Dr Isvalgaard,

I read the article about the difference between the change of the Northern and Southern field of the sun.
In the middle of 1957 the Southern field changed and in November 1958 the Northern...
Where can we find the differences from the changes from the cycles since then?
This way we have an idea when the Southern field will change... And give us the top of this cycle...
According to you the Northern field changed late January...

Thank you!

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 29, 2011 7:42:06 GMT sunspotboy said:

Dr Isvalgaard,

I read the article about the difference between the change of the Northern and Southern field of the sun.
In the middle of 1957 the Southern field changed and in November 1958 the Northern...
Where can we find the differences from the changes from the cycles since then?
This way we have an idea when the Southern field will change... And give us the top of this cycle...
According to you the Northern field changed late January...

Thank you!

Here is the difference between the North and the South [the 'dipole' moment of the Sun]:
and here are the data since 2003:

The Wilcox Solar Observatory measures the polar fields every clear day: wso.stanford.edu/#Other
www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
and
www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf

[bradk]

Look how much weaker they have been of late, versus prior. Also, looks like we are getting close to the shift. Does that denote the true mid-cycle, Leif?

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 29, 2011 12:24:43 GMT bradk said:

Look how much weaker they have been of late, versus prior. Also, looks like we are getting close to the shift. Does that denote the true mid-cycle, Leif?

'True mid-cycle' is perhaps a bit pompous; the Sun is a messy place. But it does look to me that we are closer to solar max than most predictions will have it [2013-2015].

[bradk]

Pomposity not intended.

As you know, I have felt we are closer to peak than most have stated, but it is based on amateur stupidity more than any true analysis - although the equatorial positioning and movement of spots do tacitly, if not statistically, support this.

Would we expect a later prediction for cyle peak based on current models than we would see during a "L & P" period? If I understand the models a little this would be true and thus the early peak might further support our movement toward a real minima, as you have predicted.

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 29, 2011 16:18:24 GMT bradk said:

Pomposity not intended.

As you know, I have felt we are closer to peak than most have stated, but it is based on amateur stupidity more than any true analysis - although the equatorial positioning and movement of spots do tacitly, if not statistically, support this.

Would we expect a later prediction for cyle peak based on current models than we would see during a "L & P" period? If I understand the models a little this would be true and thus the early peak might further support our movement toward a real minima, as you have predicted.

I don't know what we would expect for L&P [that is the exciting part]. Statistically, a small cycle ramps up slowly and maximum is later than for a large cycle, so everyone expects a late maximum. On the other hand, the polar fields reverse at maximum and are in the process of doing that right now, so perhaps maximum is now. All this is speculation, though.

[bradk]

You are the expert -that said -

If I understand, a cycle with an L & P effect will have fewer visible spots, and smaller visible spots. This will cause the cycle to be viewed as starting later than it actually did (because the early spots cannot be seen or seen in the expected numbers) and thus a peak prediction will also be made that will be later than it actually will be (as the cycle will be thought to have started than it did and to be ramping up more slowly than it is), for those using spot numbers for predictions. Other measures of cycle progression will function normally and thus disagree with sunspot numbers on when mid-cycle will occur - which is exactly what we are seeing now with the polar polarity shift and the equatorial positioning of the sunspots.

If the L & P effect only effects visible spot size and visible spot number as the magnetism per spot drops it should be entirely predictable from a visible spot measure at least.

Finally, shouldn't this be more predictable than a small cycle without an L & P effect from a cycle prediction standpoint? Essentially this is a normal cycle but it is not perceived to be so.

Now for other effects like we may be seeing - those are unpredictable and their effects on our little planet even more so.

Just a thought...

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 30, 2011 9:12:50 GMT bradk said:

You are the expert -that said -

If I understand, a cycle with an L & P effect will have fewer visible spots, and smaller visible spots. This will cause the cycle to be viewed as starting later than it actually did (because the early spots cannot be seen or seen in the expected numbers) and thus a peak prediction will also be made that will be later than it actually will be (as the cycle will be thought to have started than it did and to be ramping up more slowly than it is), for those using spot numbers for predictions. Other measures of cycle progression will function normally and thus disagree with sunspot numbers on when mid-cycle will occur - which is exactly what we are seeing now with the polar polarity shift and the equatorial positioning of the sunspots.

If the L & P effect only effects visible spot size and visible spot number as the magnetism per spot drops it should be entirely predictable from a visible spot measure at least.

Finally, shouldn't this be more predictable than a small cycle without an L & P effect from a cycle prediction standpoint? Essentially this is a normal cycle but it is not perceived to be so.

Now for other effects like we may be seeing - those are unpredictable and their effects on our little planet even more so.

Just a thought...

Being an expert is not much help when faced with something unprecedented, so I'm sure what the L&P would do. That said, the other solar indicators also show a significant increase. And remember that the solar cycle has a number of 'episodes'. Comparison with cycle 14 is instructive:

The yellow curve is the daily SSN, the pink one, the 27-day running mean, and the black curve the annual running mean. In the plot for SC24, the green curve is F10.7 scaled to the sunspot number. Nothing here is really out of the ordinary. The only thing that is strange is that the polar fields are reversing, thus signalling maximum conditions. Now, we don't really know if the polar fields also reversed that early for cycle 14. We surmise [from data 1950s to now] that polar field reversal is a sign of maximum, but that is still just an assumption.

[bradk]

Well ,as you have stated - bold predictions are what make this fun, so I am still betting on an early 2012 peak and and that we are closer to the original March 2006 prediction for this cycle as it relates to cycle start, end and maxima temporally but not in magnitude.




We can see if I am right in 2014 or 2016

[lsvalgaard]

Apr 30, 2011 14:37:57 GMT bradk said:

Well ,as you have stated - bold predictions are what make this fun, so I am still betting on an early 2012 peak and and that we are closer to the original March 2006 prediction for this cycle as it relates to cycle start, end and maxima temporally but not in magnitude.

We can see if I am right in 2014 or 2016

Statistically, Waldmeier found that the rise time is related to the maximum sunspot number:

For SC24 a predicted maximum of Rmax=72 would predict a rise time of 63 months [this is without L&P], putting maximum sometime in 2014. We have no other 'solid' method for predicting the rise time. The original NOAA prediction is junk

[vukcevic]

Latest data for the polar fields

www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm