Jump to content
theartist

Recent Cycle #25 Sunspot

Recommended Posts

Yesterday (on February 13, 2019), a small sunspot emerged on the solar disk.  The 'official' sunspot counters in Belgium counted the spot, http://www.sidc.be/silso/eisnplot . However, space weather sites (e.g., spaceweather.com, sunspotwatch.com) did not acknowledge the spot.  Neither did spaceweatherlive.com.  Why is that? 

Yesterday's sunspot appeared to be associated with Cycle #25, as explained further here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr9HiIClSVM .  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sunspot number is determined by the SIDC, the sunspot regions are determined every midnight UTC by SWPC. If at that time that small region hasn’t been observed it won’t be acknowledged as an official region. If that region would last one more day it would get numbered eventually but as with every new region it depends on when it has emerged. 

New cycle regions will appear more frequently as the sc24 ends.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that information, and thank you for your website!  (Now I'll scurry off to SDO to see if the spot was still visible on the HMI Intensitygram at midnight UTC.😁)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The STAR is indeed a very good reference too, it also knows that NOAA isn't always that right and has it's own analysis and region designation as @Kaimbridge already noted. I always check them out for extra info so keep it in your bookmarks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new sunspot near the equator, associated with Cycle #24, emerged on the solar disk today, and another area, currently possessing more north-south polarity alignment rather than east-west alignment, formed in the Northern Hemisphere.  

The area of the Cycle #25 sunspot that briefly emerged on Feb. 13 has come back around the eastern limb, and appearing a bit larger now; it will be interesting to see whether it produces longer-lasting sunspots, going forward. 

In the attached photos I've highlighted the areas discussed.

latest_1024_HMII-3.jpg

latest_1024_HMIBC-4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The area in the Northern Hemisphere mentioned above is now producing sunspots.  I'll go back and check to see whether it is possible to tell if the little spike in the GOES 15 1.0-8.0 Angstrom (plot attached) that occurred in the last 1/2 hour is associated with those new spots breaking through the photosphere.  🙂

latest_1024_HMII-4.jpg

goes-xray-flux-6-hour-3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 3:19 PM, Vancanneyt Sander said:

The sunspot number is determined by the SIDC, the sunspot regions are determined every midnight UTC by SWPC. If at that time that small region hasn’t been observed it won’t be acknowledged as an official region. If that region would last one more day it would get numbered eventually but as with every new region it depends on when it has emerged. 

Vancanneyt Sander, new SC24 sunspots formed by 16:00 today, 3/17/19.  Let's see if SWPC acknowledges them if they are still there by 00:00, 3/18/19.  Or did you mean they have to remain for over 24 hrs, in addition to existing at midnight UTC, in which case, they would still have to exist by 00:00, 3/19/19 (i.e., a duration of over 30 hours in this particular case) in order for SWPC to acknowledge them?

Photos of the newly formed sunspots (on 3/17/19) are attached.  (The resolution of the images degrades from uploading, probably due to storage and bandwidth considerations.  Higher resolution images can be found here:  https://imgur.com/Pn09iAT , https://imgur.com/EX3CmI5 . ) 

latest_1024_HMIBC-6.jpg

latest_1024_HMII-5.jpg

On closer examination, the plages I've labeled as SC25 in the above images, may actually be associated with SC24.

Edited by theartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

When do most models have Cycle 25 activity increasing? One I looked at looked like late 2019.

Thanks in advance.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome James. I did not do all that much research to be honest about this but this is all I can tell from what I know.

The SIDC has two models which you can find on the website. https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle. One calls for a solar minimum pretty much this month with a sharp onset later this year with a very short minimum (which could indicate a SC25 that is likely stronger than SC24) and one model with a slow onset beginning in 2020.

I looked at the graph on the SWPC site but that looks like it has solar minimum in 2023 (!!!) but that must be some kind of error on their model. I do not think this is correct. https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

We also have some news items that might interest you. https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/367/20190102-solar-cycle-25-and-the-107-cm-radio-solar-flux and https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/364/20181111-are-we-at-the-beginning-of-solar-cycle-25

To top it of, this is also an interesting read http://www.stce.be/news/417/welcome.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcel de Bont, Super!  I was in the process of dropping the following plot when you posted:94119319_ScreenShot2019-03-18at9_08_00AM.thumb.png.d897a55eaabbb26bf087c91102030635.png

The last time I updated that plot was back on Jan. 25.  I was going to ask JB1 if he wished to eyeball-it.  😆

The source of the plotted data was from here:  http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/solarflux/sx-5-en.php  .

2 uren geleden, Marcel de Bont zei:

I looked at the graph on the SWPC site but that looks like it has solar minimum in 2023 (!!!) but that must be some kind of error on their model. I do not think this is correct. https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

Which has even led me to question whether SWPC may have some internal parties with a cognitive-bias toward the idea of an impending 'Grand Solar Minimum' (i.e., a drastically quieting sun), and thus, a possible explanation for their hesitation to count all of the sunspots being counted by the 'official' counters in Belgium (http://www.sidc.be/silso/eisnplot). 😱

EDIT:  Here is the updated plot of F10.7cm Flux, with data since 1/25 added to the previous plot:

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 9.53.05 AM.png

Below is a (draft version) plot of the F10.7cm Flux and Sunspot # (data sources http://www.sidc.be/silso/datafiles and http://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/solarflux/sx-5-en.php) against Carrington Rotation for the last seven solar cycles (plotted data was last updated on 1/25/19):

 

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 10.01.42 AM.png

 

Note, the F10.7cm data plotted in the last graph above was averaged over the Carrington Rotation, as compared to the daily flux values plotted in the previous two graphs.

Higher resolution images of the previous two plots are found here: https://imgur.com/sGApbi5 ,  https://imgur.com/EHwo3ty .

Edited by theartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 uren geleden, theartist zei:

Vancanneyt Sander, new SC24 sunspots formed by 16:00 today, 3/17/19.  Let's see if SWPC acknowledges them if they are still there by 00:00, 3/18/19.  Or did you mean they have to remain for over 24 hrs, in addition to existing at midnight UTC, in which case, they would still have to exist by 00:00, 3/19/19 (i.e., a duration of over 30 hours in this particular case) in order for SWPC to acknowledge them?

SWPC has numbered the region, so that would mean that after midnight it will be in the sunspot list. 

4 uren geleden, JB1 zei:

When do most models have Cycle 25 activity increasing? One I looked at looked like late 2019.

The current prediction model of SILSO (SIDC) has indeed a few models as Marcel has explained. There is no prediction yet for the full cycle, we do not know if a committee will be called together as there was with SC24. Currently there is no signs of a grand solar minimum and it also can't be predicted. At the end of SC23 some voices already said the same thing as there is now so nothing has changed :P .

Also, not only sunspots are an indicator of the cycle so the models always use several methods. And each model has a bit of different output which led to big discussions with the SC24 prediction in the past (that's why the SC24 prediction had two predictions: low solar max and high solar max to be short). 

A very interesting page to keep your eyes on (because it's updated once and a while) is the study of Jan Janssens who follows the cycle up close and has interesting comparisons and data. Also there's an interesting look at the SC24-SC25 transition. Be sure to look and read all about it: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.html 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reconstruction of Total Solar Irradiance since the Maunder Minimum - L. Balmaceda, Max-Planck-Institut fur Sonnensystemforschung

Abstract "Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa-index. The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of 1.3 Wm2" 

aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2007/19/aa6725-06/aa6725-06.html

maunder-minimum.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In therms of solar irradiance you can see at the end of the graph the modern maximum that since cycle 15 occurred. Also clearly the Dalton minimum shortly after the year 1800. As of current solar irradiance we are still in the modern maximum ages so it’s pretty doubtable we would be heading towards a grand minimum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among climate scientists, is there even agreement as to how cold the planet was during the "Maunder Minimum"? I ask the question because Steven Belcher is on record stating the "little ice age in the Middle Ages...(was) probably just a European phenomenon; there's no evidence that that occurred in other parts of the world so it's not a global ice age it's just a local deviation".

[From his bio, Professor Stephen Belcher, is (was?) the Met Office Chief Scientist in the UK, providing leadership of the Met Office Science Programme, a team of more than 500 research scientists which has earned a world-wide reputation for excellence in weather and climate science and the translation of this science into weather and climate services.]

So I put this out there for consideration.  I know little more about the credibility of Belcher than what I posted above.  His quote was taken from here (starting at 50min48sec): 

 

5 hours ago, Emilio Petrozzi said:

The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of 1.3 Wm2" 

 

Thank you Emilio Petrozzi.  The major takeaway from the work you cited is this:  Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has only increased by 0.096% since the Maunder Minimum.

If the sun has been that extremely consistent in its TSI over the most recent centuries, does it not follow that any dramatic changes in weather/climate occurring here on earth in recent times have to be almost solely attributable to what is going on with planet earth, rather than trying to blame these changes on 'sun changes' that simply are not happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artist, I think since the Maunder Minimum

The total TSI increase of 0.096% which you had shown me  has to be considered as an influence on weather mechanics, but as far as blaming weather phenom on TSI... I think is untenable, since the lasting effect of total irradiance is based on that count of particles which have a current (real time) effect during solar irradiance, the planet cools at night and the ionosphere fluctuates the dispersion of (recieved spectral radiation) only effects that weather in which the increased irradiance reacts with at the time. Hence, comparing TSI

alongside other weather related phenom

from the past has to be calculated to consider the other factors such as coal carbon SO2 emissions, deforestation,

Co2 increase and of course Hfcl and Other hydro flouro carbon combinations.

When the Thames froze in the 17th century global coal use was on the increase in western Europe, Heavy metal smelting and the massive amounts of Galena ore burned by Scandinavian countries to produce iron steel between 1259 and 1799 was also very high, huge amounts of heavy metals were burned althroughout Europe in the search for High quality Iron for armaments in the

Beginnings of the industrial revolution,

Waiting 30 hours for sunspot registry is smart because it gives a valuable length of Solar irradiance to measure, if the spots last over 24hours and returns on the limb, then you can bet that there will be a small if not marginal short term effect on weather phenomena to a "cummaltive end"😆 Being able to predict WHEN the spots will return is the Big Fish! You guys are way smarter than me!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, theartist said:

Among climate scientists, is there even agreement as to how cold the planet was during the "Maunder Minimum"? I ask the question because Steven Belcher is on record stating the "little ice age in the Middle Ages...(was) probably just a European phenomenon; there's no evidence that that occurred in other parts of the world so it's not a global ice age it's just a local deviation".

[From his bio, Professor Stephen Belcher, is (was?) the Met Office Chief Scientist in the UK, providing leadership of the Met Office Science Programme, a team of more than 500 research scientists which has earned a world-wide reputation for excellence in weather and climate science and the translation of this science into weather and climate services.]

So I put this out there for consideration.  I know little more about the credibility of Belcher than what I posted above.  His quote was taken from here (starting at 50min48sec): 

 

Thank you Emilio Petrozzi.  The major takeaway from the work you cited is this:  Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has only increased by 0.096% since the Maunder Minimum.


I think the precise figures still need to be quantified...

"The Sun is the predominant source of energy input to Earth. Solar radiation ensures the maintenance of the appropriate range of temperatures for the sustenance of life on Earth, by driving land surface heating, plant productivity, and oceanic and atmospheric circulations. It is also the main driver for several water cycle processes, ranging from evaporation and cloud formation to precipitation, although it can also introduce certain adverse influences, such as harmful ultraviolet radiation and production of ozone through photochemistry. Because of the Sun’s dominant influence on Earth’s function, it is important to accurately measure the solar input to Earth or solar irradiance. 

Measurement of the total solar irradiance (TSI) is essential for quantifying Earth’s energy budget. NASA has maintained continuous measurement of TSIsince 1978 through successive missions: Nimbus-7/ERB, the ACRIMSat series, SORCE, TCTE, and the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 (TSIS-1), which was launched to the International Space Station on 15 December 2017. With significant technological improvements in TSIS-1 relative to heritage missions, scientists at NASA and the scientific community worldwide expect to refine our knowledge of how much energy we get from the Sun, both in total and spectrally, and how the Sun affects our Earth and various processes that are important to mankind now and in the future". https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2659/four-decades-and-counting-new-nasa-instrument-continues-measuring-solar-energy-input-to-earth/

Edited by Emilio Petrozzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emilio Petrozzi said:

I think the precise figures still need to be quantified.

Emilio, the paper you cite backs up what has already been quantified.  NASA started taking the accurate evaluation of TSI very seriously in the *mid-1960's, when they wanted to better understand temperature discrepancies they were observing in spacecraft back then (*sorry, I don't have the citations immediately at-hand).  

The key point we hopefully can come to a better understanding and agree upon (based on apolitical, unbiased-scientific principles), is that the 'solar constant' really IS pretty constant, varying less than 0.1% over the solar cycle.  Consequently, any significant changes in "land surface heating, plant productivity, and oceanic and atmospheric circulations",  are NOT due to changes in the sun's TSI, because the sun's TSI is simply not changing that much.  Do we agree?  

Do you suspect NASA is now claiming something to the effect that although the overall TSI hasn't changed in significance, nonetheless, the sun's distribution of that energy in the different spectral bandwidths has changed from what it was several decades ago?  No, I would suggest that changes in earth's atmosphere (e.g., the harm to the ozone layer) would have a much larger effect on the spectral energy distribution through the atmosphere's stratified layers, thus affecting "circulations", "plant productivity", etc. Changes in the latter are not due to changes in the sun, but rather, changes (man-made or other) happening here on earth.  Does anyone here, particularly the professional solar physicists, disagree? (Note, to be clear, I would like to hear any reasoned viewpoints on this issue, regardless if one is a 'professional solar physicist'. 🙂)

Edited by theartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth’s Energy Budget

G. Kopp, in Comprehensive Remote Sensing, 2018

5.02.5 TSI Effects on Earth Climate

5.02.5.1 Correlations With Solar Variability

Evidence for the climate influence of solar cycle irradiance changes is apparent in surface and atmospheric temperatures (Lean 2010; Gray et al., 2010). Global surface-temperature increases of about 0.1°C are associated with irradiance increases during recent solar cycles, with larger regional changes occurring in some locations (Lean and Rind 2008).

Solar Changes and the Climate

J.S. D'Aleo, in Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition), 2016

2.1 The Sun Plays Direct and Indirect Roles in Climate

The Sun changes its activity on time scales that vary from 27 days to 11, 22, 80, 106, 212 years, and more. A more active Sun is brighter due to the dominance of faculae over cooler sunspots, resulting in increased solar irradiance. The amount of change of solar irradiance, based on satellite measurements since 1978 during the course of an 11-year cycle, is only 0.1% (Willson and Hudson, 1988), causing many to conclude that the solar effect is negligible. Cycle 23 has declined 0.15%. Over long cycles since the Maunder Minimum, irradiance changes are estimated to be as high as 0.4% (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Lean, 2000; Lockwood and Stamper, 1999; Fligge and Solanki, 2000).

However, this does not take into account the Sun's eruptional activity (flares, solar wind bursts from coronal mass ejections, and solar wind bursts from coronal holes), which may have a much greater effect. This takes on more importance since Lockwood et al. (1999) showed how the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901. This eruptional activity may enhance warming through ultraviolet-induced ozone chemical reactions in the high atmosphere or ionization in higher latitudes during solar-induced geomagnetic storms. In addition, Svensmark (2007), Palle Bago and Butler (2000), and Tinsley and Yu (2002) have documented possible effects of the solar cycle on cosmic rays and through them, the amount of low cloudiness. 

Dating Methods I
Raymond S. Bradley, in Paleoclimatology (Third Edition), 2015

3.2.1.7 Radiocarbon Variations and Climate
A number of authors have observed that periods of low solar activity, such as the Maunder minimum, correspond to cooler periods in the past (e.g., Eddy, 1977; Lean et al., 1995). As minor variations in radiocarbon production seem to be related to solar activity, it has also been argued that 14C variations are inversely related to worldwide temperature fluctuations (Wigley and Kelly, 1990). This implies that solar activity, radiocarbon variations, and surface temperature are all related, perhaps through fundamental variations in the solar constant (i.e., low solar activity = high 14C production rate = low temperature). If so, then the 14C record itself, as a proxy of solar activity, would provide important information on the causes of climatic change, and indeed, many investigations have simply used the record of 14C or 10Be variations as a proxy for solar irradiance (e.g., Magny, 1993; Bond et al., 2001; Hodell et al., 2001; Neff et al., 2001). 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

xLZNZZf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    Earlier in this thread, I submitted images on March 4 of the area producing sunspots again today (shown in the attached image).

latest_1024_HMIBC-8.jpg

latest_1024_HMII-8.jpg

The Belgium sunspot counters (http://www.sidc.be/silso/eisnplot) have not yet acknowledged the spot @1214 UTC.

To clarify, this is the area I labeled "Cycle 25 Area?" and "New spots associated with Cycle #25? or #24?" in a couple of the images posted earlier on March 4. It was later known as AR2734. 

Edited by theartist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful post Artist thank you!  And thanks for all of the information.

I'm still not sure we are that close to Solar Cycle 25, but will be keeping an eye on updates from you and petrozzi

Here. That sun sure throws a surprise every now and then, I've learned not to take myself to seriously when making predictions,  your careful observations are excellent, and will prove to be the best way to understand our star, careful, daily observations. Great work everybody !!  thank you.

Mr. Fractal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.