Jump to content

Synoptic Magnetograms; SC24 Minimum Forecasting


theartist

Recommended Posts

On 11/6/2019 at 6:07 PM, theartist said:

Recently on the thread titled, "F10.7cm Solar Minimum Analysis",  "The Norwegian" stated, "I bet 2019 will be one year with over 280 days without sunspots. 2020 will have not less that 265-270 spotless days :)".  The following graph depicts that forecast:

336315077_SpotlessDays.thumb.jpg.07128dd130dec2170624f1e9fdd6dcb5.jpg

 

On 11/7/2019 at 12:15 PM, theartist said:

But the quick conclusion we can draw here is that since the ‘Nadir’ has likely not passed, ’The Norwegian’ forecast on spotless days looks quite plausible.

Edited November 7 by theartist

Summing up the spotless days according to the expected trend gives us an estimated total of >950 spotless days for the SC24/25 transition (i.e., all spotless days are summed between cycle maxima), and the following SILSO chart (found here) has been annotated to reflect the expected outcome:

1869264997_Spotlessdays(SILSOgreengraph).thumb.jpg.35a8b7fb87cbc5907b90777a662f4f9f.jpg

In the above graph, all cycles with more than 800 spotless days have been labeled; they are:  SC7, SC12, SC14, SC15 and SC24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graph for 'Spotless Days per Cycle vs. Cycle Amplitude' is very informative in several ways.  We are currently at about 645 spotless days for this (24-25) transition.  The running total 2004 thru 2010 for the 23-24 transition appears to be 513 thru the end of 2008.  Using 'The Norwegian's' estimate of ~265 for 2020 would raise this to about 910.  The tentative  extrapolation to >950 is based on the comparator of transition 23-24 dropping from 260 in 2009 to 48 in 2010.  In reviewing late transition annual data for cycles 7,12,14 & 16 the post peak drop off has not be as precipitous as seen 2009 to 2010.  If one uses the post-peak fall of SC7 or SC12 instead of 2010 a projection closer to 1125-1175 can be extrapolated.  This would put this transition closer to SC6 or SC7.

We do not have reliable Sunspot counts leading into the Maunder, no less the Sporer, minimums... only the Dalton minimum.  The descent into Dalton is less steep and certainly less deep measured against both temperature and TSI surrogate markers for Sporer and Maunder.  TheArtist's critique of NOAA's projection of SC25 as being the same as SC24 and "AVERAGE" is completely well founded and well argued. Certainly nothing in the Space Age cyclic averages comport with what we've witness over the last 11 years. And certainly nothing in the last century.  It also seems that most model use only visible wavelength as the measure of TSI, ignoring both Infrared, Ultraviolet...

2020 will be greatly clarifying in both its predictive and comparator values to previous cycles... but 2021, in many ways, may have even greater value.  We then may know better if SC25 is beginning of the GSM many are suggesting, or the last 'Low Normal' Cycle before a truly deep and persistent solar quiescence.  

Image result for the novitiate meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Novitiate said:

The tentative  extrapolation to >950 is based on the comparator of transition 23-24 dropping from 260 in 2009 to 48 in 2010. 

Yes, I did not wish to overstep, so I just placed a 'greater than' sign in front of the 950.  My point at the time of writing was simply we will be at 'spotless days' levels at least comparable to SC12 and SC14. Additionally, only being above 800 spotless days can still result in a cycle magnitude like SC24.  However, even with 'spotless days' at those levels, one can see there is potential for significant variability on the peak SSN outcome, witness SC15.  But regarding trying to draw conclusions from earlier cycle sunspot data, I keep in mind a comment made by both K. Strong and I. Kitiashvili, which is that sunspot data is less reliable before SC10.

3 hours ago, The Novitiate said:

In reviewing late transition annual data for cycles 7,12,14 & 16 the post peak drop off has not be as precipitous as seen 2009 to 2010. 

What is the "annual data" you are referring to?  Is it the sunspot number, and if so, the monthly mean?

3 hours ago, The Novitiate said:

We do not have reliable Sunspot counts leading into the Maunder, no less the Sporer, minimums... only the Dalton minimum. 

See my earlier comment regarding sunspot data before SC10.

3 hours ago, The Novitiate said:

TheArtist's critique of NOAA's projection of SC25 as being the same as SC24 and "AVERAGE" is completely well founded and well argued.

I wish to correct your statement here. My critique had nothing to do with the projection magnitude of NOAA/'The Panel', nor have I made a strong case on forecast magnitude (my view at the time of the latest NOAA release, which I thought I had made clear to readers of this forum, was that SC25 will be in the vicinity of SC24, but biased weaker than SC24; however, I'm still working on it and wish to consider more evidence.)  Rather, my critique with the recent NOAA release was them calling SC24 levels as "AVERAGE", which I think is a gross error, if not bordering on outright 'historical revisionism'.  The average of the Smoothed maximum ISN for SC1-SC24 is 178.7, which is considerably greater than SC24's value of 116.4.

4 hours ago, The Novitiate said:

It also seems that most model use only visible wavelength as the measure of TSI, ignoring both Infrared, Ultraviolet...

Please clarify how you came up with a conclusion that TSI ignores Infrared or Ultraviolet.  Please cite the source, because I have seen some very seriously wrong claims on the internet/youtube in the past about what TSI represents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

My great blue bedroom, the air so quiet, scarce a cloud.
In peace and silence. I could have stayed up there for always only.
It's something fails us. First we feel. Then we fall.

   --James Joyce:  Finnegans Wake

1.  In referring to THE PANEL's statement that SC25's projection would be comparable to SC24 & "AVERAGE" the intention was to simply state (even to a novice) saying SC24 was AVERAGE was a non-starter.  What do they mean?  Average compared to what?  I believe 'theartist' raised this issue, and my impression was that such a challenge non-clarity was well founded.  It was not my intention to make broader or harsher claims or criticisms.  The process which guided The Panel's Update seemed rather imprecise or unclear. This led me to attribute my confusion either to my relative lack of scientific sophistication on this subject or to their opaqueness in communicating their rationales.

2.  "Please clarify how you came up with a conclusion that TSI ignores Infrared or Ultraviolet"  You are correct to question this.  In 1972 I took Relativity Physics & Quantum Mechanics working on a BS in EE.  My specialty is the treatment of Clinical Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders... hence my screen name.  I will attempt to go back and distill the Spotless data onto a spreadsheet and tabulate the annual post minima nadir counts to demonstrate that the drop from 260 (2009) to 48 (2010) is atypical.  This may take a few days as the spousal unit is encouraging me to expedite my remodeling the master bathroom suite which is currently in serious disarray.  

Image result for the novitiate meme

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

   1 hour ago,  The Novitiate said: 

1.  In referring to THE PANEL's statement that SC25's projection would be comparable to SC24 & "AVERAGE" the intention was to simply state (even to a novice) saying SC24 was AVERAGE was a non-starter.  What do they mean?  Average compared to what?  I believe 'theartist' raised this issue, and my impression was that such a challenge non-clarity was well founded.  It was not my intention to make broader or harsher claims or criticisms.  The process which guided The Panel's Update seemed rather imprecise or unclear. This led me to attribute my confusion either to my relative lack of scientific sophistication on this subject or to their opaqueness in communicating their rationales.

I think you dropped a pretty good summary there, where I added emphasis in the above.  The "confusion", "obfuscation", "sensationalism" in these matters does not need to be, and they just add to it when they make gross errors, like calling SC24 as "average".

   1 hour ago,  The Novitiate said: 

I will attempt to go back and distill the Spotless data onto a spreadsheet and tabulate the annual post minima nadir counts to demonstrate that the drop from 260 (2009) to 48 (2010) is atypical. 

You answered my question, thank you, as to what you meant by "annual data".  I wasn't sure if you may have been referring to other data (e.g., Ap Index). 

   1 hour ago,  The Novitiate said: 

"Please clarify how you came up with a conclusion that TSI ignores Infrared or Ultraviolet"  You are correct to question this.  In 1972 I took Relativity Physics & Quantum Mechanics working on a BS in EE. 

This one I do ask that you please provide the source of information that is indicating that "TSI ignores Infrared or Ultraviolet".  Even with your degree, I find it hard to accept that you pulled that out of thin air, without doing any research on the matter (unless you heard it from a source that you thought, at the time, could be 'trusted').  Are you sure you have not heard that from 'questionable sources' on the internet?  Here is a place to start research on how TSI is measured: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#history.  

Now that said, the following statement at that link is something I previously was not aware of: "Of the mentioned TSI instruments, the VIRGO is the only one from prior to the SORCE launch that continues to make observations."  Really NOAA/NASA?  Where is that current VIRGO data?  Let us compare it alongside the current TSI data.  Is NASA going to stand behind the following SORCE measurement?:

1958535471_ScreenShot2019-12-26at5_52_19PM.thumb.png.c86fcc683c2979947d7f9ae566dd2b53.png

I raised the issue of the above graph over on the thread titled, "Solar Minimum per SORCE SIM".  That particular frequency is supposed to be "a Red Light frequency used to reveal the magnetic map at the photosphere".  Does it not suggest the magnetic field on the solar surface is dramatically plunging in comparison with the SC23 minimum epoch?  You stand behind this measurement, NASA?  Do you have another source of TSI measurement, waiting in the wings, in the event that instrument is going 'belly-up'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2019 at 5:16 PM, theartist said:
Now that said, the following statement at that link is something I previously was not aware of: "Of the mentioned TSI instruments, the VIRGO is the only one from prior to the SORCE launch that continues to make observations."  Really NOAA/NASA?  Where is that current VIRGO data?  Let us compare it alongside the current TSI data.  Is NASA going to stand behind the following SORCE measurement?:

1958535471_ScreenShot2019-12-26at5_52_19PM.thumb.png.c86fcc683c2979947d7f9ae566dd2b53.png

I raised the issue of the above graph over on the thread titled, "Solar Minimum per SORCE SIM".  That particular frequency is supposed to be "a Red Light frequency used to reveal the magnetic map at the photosphere".  Does it not suggest the magnetic field on the solar surface is dramatically plunging in comparison with the SC23 minimum epoch?  You stand behind this measurement, NASA?  Do you have another source of TSI measurement, waiting in the wings, in the event that instrument is going 'belly-up'?

I looked into VIRGO - didn’t find anything other then an old FTP site and an indication it had been turned off a while back to preserve battery life of SOHO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory

 Also - see the response here re: data validity- https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1575-solar-minimum-per-sorce-sim/?do=findComment&comment=11312

 

Further - SOURCE/XPS and Solstice seem to be less affected then SOURCE/SIM.  With XPS reflective of observed cycles  - and Solstice somewhat.   My overall observation though is that we don’t have any reliable data for irradiance from UV to radio wavelengths (300 nm to 10 cm) as measured outside of the atmosphere.  
 

(and to be clear - UV via SOURCE/XPS seems to be mostly accurate as well as 10.7 from earth - it’s jus everything in between that isn’t....)   Which is sort of a problem.   

 

 

Edited by cosnow
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, cosnow said:

I looked into VIRGO - didn’t find anything other then an old FTP site and an indication it had been turned off a while back to preserve battery life of SOHO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory

Also - see the response here re: data validity- https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1575-solar-minimum-per-sorce-sim/?do=findComment&comment=11312

Further - SOURCE/XPS and Solstice seem to be less affected then SOURCE/SIM.  With XPS reflective of observed cycles  - and Solstice somewhat.   My overall observation though is that we don’t have any reliable data for irradiance from UV to radio wavelengths (300 nm to 10 cm) as measured outside of the atmosphere.  
 

(and to be clear - UV via SOURCE/XPS seems to be mostly accurate as well as 10.7 from earth - it’s jus everything in between that isn’t....)   Which is sort of a problem.   

Great post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.