While the sun puts out a new and significant cycle 24 spot, the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years, and remained during September 2008. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below with the latest available data from October 6th, 2008:
click for a larger image
What I find most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.
Currently the Ap magnetic index continues at a low level, and while the “smoothed” data from SWPC is not made available for 2008, I’ve added it with a dashed blue line, and the trend appears to be going down.
However, it will be interesting to see if an uptick in the Ap index occurs, now that a significant SC24 spot has emerged. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait until early November for SWPC to update the data set.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The example I keep thinking of when you mention the step is of the internals of a relay. A relay is just a switch where the switch can be influenced by something – like an electromagnet.
If the circuit doesn’t trigger the magnet, it bumbles around in one area. As soon as it does trigger the magnet, the typical flow is altered. And remains altered until the magnet is de-triggered.
Very slight changes can be the piece that actually triggers the change. Which is where the whole business of arguing over whether TSI changes by 1-2% or 2-4% seems odd. If there’s a physical process on Earth that can ‘latch high’ or ‘latch low’, very slight changes can be the root cause.
Anthony,
What is your bottom line view of this with respect to its impact on earth’s weather and climate systems? Surely you must think it affects something as this past year you’ve dedicated a lot of threads on this subject.
REPLY: I do but cannot yet quantify it. I think there is, like the “relay effect” described above in comments, something like that, but more like a “transistor effect” related to earths climate, where a small change in in input(s) control a larger current flow. – Anthony
So maybe we will get that climate change warming again if cycle 24 starts up?
No more record early snofall in Idaho?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/530075.html
Can’t wait to see what happens this winter.
Doesn’t that look kind of similar to the “step down” in temps that took place, according to UAH, RSS, in Dec. 2008?
Just an, approx., 3 year lag.
Oops, I guess that woul be just a little over a Two Year Lag. Anyhoo . . .
Dr Leif, ..sorry
these are the criteria?
Dst 5 mV/m = V × Bs (vector)
Bs <-12,5 nT
wind +/- 400 km/s.
decrease in intensity of muons( ?????)
Dr Leif, ..sorry…ops
these are the criteria?
Dst 5 mV/m = V × Bs (vector)
Bs <-12,5 nT
wind +/- 400 km/s.
decrease in intensity of muons( ?????)
However, it will be interesting to see if an uptick in the Ap index occurs, now that a significant SC24 spot has emerged. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait until early November for SWPC to update the data set.
You can get both aa and ap in real time here:
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/on_line_gifs.html
Sometimes ap is a bit behind, but you can calculate it from aa:
ap = 0.2567 * (aa)^1.253 [R2=0.9723, for monthly means]
About the ‘step’: I do not think that is relevant [many such ‘steps’ before] and most importantly: it is likely that most of the step in ‘artificial’ in the sense that the Earth [and ap] is not a perfect proxy for solar wind conditions. If you look at solar wind conditions, e.g. as shown here: http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf you’ll see that nothing ‘special’ went on in October, 2005, that you can’t also see elsewhere. BTW, I’ll be updating the graphs this weekend.
Fernando (13:01:46) :
these are the criteria? Dst 5 mV/m = V × Bs (vector) Bs <-12,5 nT wind +/- 400 km/s.
decrease in intensity of muons( ?????)
Muons are secondary GCRs created when the primary protons [mostly] slam into the upper atmosphere. The conditions you mention are not quite what determine the GCR flux. First, Dst does not depend on V and Bs in that simple way [although you can find someone that claims it does – as always, you can find proponents for any claims, somewhere]. Second the quantities you mention pertain to the Earth or near Earth space, while the GCRs depend on the conditions averaged over the whole solar system and beyond. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about where you got the numbers and the idea from…
What I find most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
The drop comes about because of a single magnetic storm the 11-12th September, 2005. Here are the ap 3-hour values for that storm:
11-09-2005 94 132 179 94 132 56 80 39 101
12-09-2005 39 32 132 67 39 80 80 132 75
Just as a single month’s temperature does not define climate change, so does a single magnetic storm not signal a change in the Sun, and should not engender any speculations as to its significance.
My keyboard again…
[…]continuance at low levels.
The drop comes about because […]
In the 1933 timeframe, which was a very quiet time for number of sunspots at least (like now), the global temperatures fell. I didn’t really look for a time-lag between sunspot numbers and temperature deltas. It appeared to happen rather quickly… There are probably other factors to consider as well.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.jsp
There appears to be correlation between the sun’s magnetic field and number of sunspots on the . Has anyone calculated the correlation?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
AURORA WATCH: Sky watchers from Alaska to Scandinavia should be alert for auroras tonight. A solar wind stream is buffeting Earth’s magnetic field and causing high-latitude geomagnetic storms. http://spaceweather.com
Dst < -100nT
Coincidence….sunspot x geomagnetic storm ?????
This is the astronomical equivalent of watching the grass grow, and it is completely rivetting …..
Will the solar cycle come upon us with great force, or merely mekely show an ankle and discretely disappear to the bedroom?
Will sexual metaphores become the norm within the astronomical community?
But seriously, it must surely have increased the stock of solar science, when Wall Street stock is declining.
So, at what point will we have data that will help confirm (or refute) the theories of Svensmark?
–t
Fernando (15:04:33) :
Coincidence….sunspot x geomagnetic storm ?????
absolutely, yes. That spot did not cause the storm. Nor created the conditions that caused the storm. Nor had anything at all to do with this storm.
DR asks (actually Anthony) “”What is your bottom line view of this with respect to its impact on earth’s weather and climate systems? Surely you must think it affects something as this past year you’ve dedicated a lot of threads on this subject.””
Well as someone who has watched weather patterns, I would like to answer, not in opposition to Anthony, but as my own opinion. My daughter an I were discussing how that the clouds have come so much lower to the surface, and I mistakingly thought that it was due to climate cooling.
Thank God, I just watched the History channel’s Armegeddeon (sp)and found out that freezing on the Thames and Hudson bay and all over, was going to be due to us burning fossil fuels and global warming.
You can’t make this up!!!
I thought the cynics who predicted that IPCC climate change would mean that global warming meant freezing were, well, basically LYING. Well, bite my tongue, this is what they are proclaiming. The warmer it gets, if it doesn’t, the colder it gets, if it does, … because of CO2. Of course, they are quoting the Revelation of John. Apparently those who compare AGW to religion are correct.
Now they are doing volcanoes!!! Apparently volcanoes and CO2 are related to man’s CO2 sins. I repeat, you can’t make this up!
Snip at will!! I am to busy laughing to care. And to believe this is one of the best on cable right now. At least the SC23 SC24 cycle has something to grab your attention, and may actually pertain to observations and not belief.
I see that earlier in the record there are several places with leaps up or down of similar magnitude to the October 2005 drop. But the recent section is much smoother and bears little resemblance to the earlier large leaps.
I thought the cynics who predicted that IPCC climate change would mean that global warming meant freezing were, well, basically LYING.
It’s old hat. I’ve been hearing since the 1999 La Nina that when it gets hot, gets cold, or stays the same it’s all down to AGW.
There’s a legit theory, though, that increased CO2 (directly or indirectly) contributes to the cloud cover. But that just increases albedo and provides negative feedback and homeostasis.
It would help explain the temps over the last decade. (That plus the multidecadal cycles.)
OT… July 08 CO2 appears to be about 382 PPM here:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/282311main_PIA11194%5B1%5D.jpg
July 08 CO2 is about 386 here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I sure would like to see more of the AIRS pics month by month, at least.
Boise, Id just got it’s earliest snowfall since they started keeping records in 1898.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/530075.html
http://pluto.space.swri.edu/IMAGE/glossary/geomagnetic_storm.html
cite=””>Recurrent storms occur most frequently in the declining phase of the solar cycle. Non-recurrent geomagnetic storms, on the other hand, occur most frequently near solar maximum. They are caused by interplanetary disturbances driven by fast coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and typically involve an encounter with both the interplanetary shock wave and the CME that drives it.
So if Im reading this right recurrent geomagnetic storms could be caused by something like the coronal hole that has visible for some time now on the suns surface and other such non recurrent storms occur when the sun spits matter into space:) But neither have much to do with sunspots??
Anthony,
Would a rate of change plot of your graph above show anything
more about the step change you mention or rather observe.
@John F Pittman
…”Thank God, I just watched the History channel’s Armegeddeon (sp)and found out that freezing on the Thames and Hudson bay and all over, was going to be due to us burning fossil fuels and global warming.
You can’t make this up!!!”…
That is what it sounds like when someone is losing their audience and are now just trying to remain convinced themselves. By all recent surveys, Joe Public isn’t buying it anymore, not after 20 years of predictions of imminent disaster in which nothing has happened.
Panic-induced adrenaline doesn’t stay in the system for very long. It fades, and gets replaced by feelings of vague anxiety, which last until they run across information that puts it in perspective and indicates that it was probably all nonsense to begin with.
At that point, that person is lost to the “movement”. Anxiety is replaced by relief and they can get on with their lives without that vague dread in the back of their minds all the time.
The flip side, and kind of sad, is that for such a person ANY future issues put forward by environmental groups will be met with deep suspicion, and there remain plenty of legitimate environmental concerns that have been overshadowed by all this AGW nonsense.
Most here, myself included, remain concerned about pollution and resource destruction and other environmental issues. But watching History Channel and other so-called “science” channels these days, where its all about ghosts and UFOs and monsters and Global Warming and Nostradamus and Mayan 2012 or other end of days scenarios, anything thing of real concern just gets lost in all the noise.
Re – above plot suggestion, in other words virtually the same graph
but with the blue line “straightened”.
ie rate of change from the smoothed average Ap.