Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index now at lowest point in its record

As many regular readers know, I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The abrupt step change seemed (to me) to be out of place with the data, and the fact that the sun seems so have reestablished at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered is an anomaly worth investigating.

From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little Ap magnetic activity there has been since. Here’s a graph from October 2008 showing the step in october 2005:

click for a larger image

However, some have suggested that this event doesn’t merit attention, and that it is not particularly unusual. I beg to differ. Here’s why.

In mid December I started working with Paul Stanko, who has an active interest in the solar data and saw what I saw in the Ap Index. He did some research and found Ap data that goes back further, all the way to 1932. His source for the data is the SPIDR (Space Physics Interactive Data Resource) which is a division of NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). He did some data import and put it all into a mult-page Excel spreadsheet which you can access here.

I had planned to do more study of it, but you know how holidays are, lot’s of things to do with that free time. I didn’t get back to looking at it until today, especially after SWPC updated their solar datasets on January 3rd, including the Ap Index. Looking at the data to 1932, it was clear to me that what we are seeing today for levels doesn’t exist in the record.

About the same time, I got an email from David Archibald, showing his graph of the Ap Index, graphed back to 1932. Having two independent sources of confirmation, I’ve decided to post this then. The solar average geomagnetic planetary index, Ap is at its lowest level in 75 years, for the entirety of the record:

ap-index-1932-2008-520

Click for a larger image – I’ve added some annotation to the graph provided by Archibald to point out areas of interest and to clarify some aspects of it for the novice reader.

The last time the Ap index was this low was 1933. The December 2008 Ap value of 2, released by SWPC yesterday, has never been this low. (Note: Leif Svalgaard contends this value is erroneous, and that 4.2 is the correct value – either way, it is still lower than 1933) Further, the trend from October 2005 continues to decline after being on a fairly level plateau for two years. It has started a decline again in the last year.

This Ap index is a proxy that tells us that the sun is now quite inactive, and the other indices of sunspot index and 10.7 radio flux also confirm this. The sun is in a full blown funk, and your guess is as good as mine as to when it might pull out of it. So far, predictions by NOAA’s  SWPC and NASA’s Hathway have not been near the reality that is being measured.

The starting gate for solar cycle 24 opened ayear ago today, when I announced the first ever cycle 24 sunspot. However in the year since, it has become increasingly clear that the horse hasn’t left the gate, and may very well be lame.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

354 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 4, 2009 11:47 pm

That “its” should have no apostrophe.
Interesting article.

Justin Sane
January 5, 2009 12:00 am

Yabut, wasn’t 1934 the hottest year on record? So a very low index in 1933-1937 would indicate that 2009 should be just as hot.

Jon
January 5, 2009 12:25 am

One should add that the 1930-50’s atmosphere, according DVI Dust Veil Index, was very clean of volcanic particles, and that the 1960-70’s was not.
Today’s atmosphere is mostly clean again like in the 1930-50’s, the last major eruption that had a large effect on the climate was Pinatuba in 1991.
If there is another large eruption now I think the UNEP/IPCC doctrine is dead?

Penguin
January 5, 2009 12:37 am

Thnaks Anthony !
I had been looking for some time without success for this earlier data. Obviously we will need more time to see what the longer tem trend shows. It would appear likely that a longer term low AP is needed before it shows up in the temperature trends as in the 70’s cooler period. A sharp drop from a higher point such as in 1933 may not have been sufficient to cause any noticeable temperature drop.
What I do find most interesting about the AP index is that it always tends to rebound sharply upwards after the SC minimums of the past. This time however the opposite has occured.

Leon Brozyna
January 5, 2009 12:55 am

Thanks for providing that link to SPIDR — I was wondering where the data was coming from for the pre-1991 period.
It is interesting to see low Ap indices matching up with solar minimums, especially during 1933 & 1996, two periods noted for record levels of heat. Which just goes to show that climate is a lot more complicated than pointing at levels of CO2 or various cycles of solar activity.
That being said, I think you may be onto something here. We may see the onset of a really protracted cold period as a result of the confluence of several events, including the negative PDO and a rather quiet sun. Should the sun stay at levels below NOAA predicted values and a negative AO/NAO kick in, I suggest we break out the longjohns.

Steve Berry
January 5, 2009 12:56 am

Justin. Oh, crikey – can we finally put to rest the idea that 1934 was the hottest year?!? It was…in the USA! I know Americans think the US is the centre (see what I did there) of the Universe, and I know those poor saps at Hollywood put every major disaster/alien-invasion/major event directly in the good old US, but there are a lot of other countries out there. The hottest year globally was 1998, so can we ALL remember that please? This isn’t yank-bashing. I’m English, and we actually have an affection for the US since 1942 (even though you were late and made poor excuses. But you did more than make up for it when you finally arrived). I know your media is to blame for insular reporting, so try and listen to the BBC world service a bit. Yes, I know they lie through their teeth on climate, but they get their politics pretty much spot on. Listen to ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ on Radio4. It’s fascinating stuff and gives a superb picture of other countries. But don’t listen to the ‘Today’ programme which is the Beeb at its worst.

Alex
January 5, 2009 12:59 am

Justin,
No that 1934 record was only in the united States.
Seems like something is going on, however there appears to be a 6-7 year lag with temp, the abrupt spike in 1992 correlates with the temp spike in 1998,, and the abrupt uptick in 1972 correlates with the abrupt end of cooling in 1978, and so perhaps even if the US record temp would be seen, the Ap uptick would be in around 1928/27
Just an observation, may be totally wrong, but seems interesting

Chris H
January 5, 2009 1:06 am

No, 1934 was not that hot globally, it was only the “hottest year on record” in the USA. Look at the global temperature since 1932 (same year range as the Ap graph) :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1926/mean:132/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1932/mean:12

Reply to  Chris H
January 5, 2009 1:54 am

There are those (including myself), that trust the North American temperature record more than the “Global Reconstructions” and believe it is possible that it represents Global temperatures better than the Global datasets.
1. The US and Canada have a large number of rural stations (and just many more stations) which may have helped to reduce UHI contamination of the record compared to the rest of the world.
2. The sea surface temperature bucket adjustments make the entirety of the sea surface records suspect.
3. While NA may be just 4.8% of the area of the Earth, we are 16.5% of the land area, and that’s getting to be more than statistically significant as a percentage of land-based records.
4. I simply do not trust Jones and the Hadley Centre, or Hansen and GISS, their adjustments and extrapolation do not improve accuracy, they simply make up false accuracy and data.
5. If Mann thinks he can reconstruct the world’s temperature to a tenth of a degree from a couple of stands of bristlecone pines in California, it makes far more sense that we can measure the world’s temperature using all of North America.
6. Much of the Global warming signal of the 20th and 21st centuries is found in stations suspect because they suffered discontinuities through Mao’s cultural revolution in China or were outposts under the Stalinist Soviet Union.
7. If you take a handful of sand on a beach and measure its composition it is a pretty accurate representation of the sand on the whole beach.
Personally I believe the 1930’s were the warmest decade on record since we started measuring.

January 5, 2009 1:10 am

“….lot’s of things to do…” doesn’t have an apostrophe as well.
So speak the grammar-Nazis.

des332
January 5, 2009 1:10 am

what happens if it hits zero?

John Finn
January 5, 2009 1:29 am

With respect to the Ap index graph (1932-2008)
1.There wasn’t a 1970s cooling period. The cooling began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s. The cooling began ~20 years before the dip in the Ap index.
2. As Justin Sane (post #2) points out the 1932 dip occurs just before the warmest period in the US record and at a time global temperatures were still rising.
Whatever the implications of the low Ap index, it doesn’t appear to have much effect on earth’s climate. I accept that is not what’s being implied in the article, but it’s certainly a connection David Archibald is trying to make.

K
January 5, 2009 1:33 am

Anthony:
It is hard to know what to say. I still don’t see much here. But congratulations about the work done with Stanko and Archibald. We now have a much longer set of data.
The argument you presented several months was a graph that indicated – to me at least – the current level looked roughly like 1995-1998. And I was one of those who said that big fall in 2005 didn’t seem important; this index jumps around quite a lot.
Now you have figures back to 1932 that show the current level is lower than any time afterward. Meanwhile you also got the benefit of a downward drift in the last several months. Impressive.
I’m glad to see the longest graphs back to 1932. I offer no opinion on what the low level might mean or foretell.

F Rasmin
January 5, 2009 1:59 am

Steve Berry (00:56:55) : ‘…even though you were late and made poor excuses..’ The Americans should never have bothered have turning up at all? Look what ‘winning’ did for you!

January 5, 2009 2:07 am

Over the next two weeks all agencies that report global temperature will post their numbers for December. Although this is off topic for this particular post I figured I might as well post my SWAG’s for these metrics.
UAH: +0.05°C +/-0.05°C
RSS: +0.08°C +/-0.05°C
NCDC: +0.37°C +/-0.1°C
GISS: +0.31°C +/-0.1°C
HadCRU: +0.27°C +/-0.1°C
We’ll see in about 12 days where these estimates stand.

January 5, 2009 2:15 am

I might as well include NCDC US data estimate for December as well.
NCDC US: -1.6°F (-0.89°C) +/- 0.2°F (0.11°C)

ad
January 5, 2009 2:15 am

Steve Berry, you sound like a flamin’ (hope I got that apostrophe right) [snip–I had to look that one up, and it may have been meant as a friendly cross cultural jest, but still a violation of blog policy ~ charles the moderator]

Alan the Brit
January 5, 2009 2:38 am

If we’re being Mr Picky today, is it not maxima & minima as opposed to maximums & minimums, I’m not a Latin scholar?
BTW it is jolly cold yet again in the UK today, more coal needed urgently it burns well & gives off something called heat! I do believe that we used to burn it to generate electricity before the lunatics took over the asylum!
As sunspot activity has for the moment ceased, I expect skirt lengths to start increasing – high sunspot activity in the sixties correlated with mini-skirt lengths pretty well! The Met Office are playing the “we thought this would happen” game before the raging heat of 2009 kicks in! I certainly hope it does soon. Brrr.
Was the Chaiten? eruption in Chille sufficient to assist in aerosol cooling anyone? It certainly looked to be a significant eruption to me.
BTW & slightly OT, Steve Berry:-) Yes, the US was a tad late joining the party, (& Hollywood always centres its disasters in the US rather predictably & the Brit always gets killed in the last 10 minutes by dying heroically), but don’t forget, that mighty “Sleeping Tiger” was keeping jolly GB in supplies well before 1942 or we would have gone under long before, & it is better to be late than never! They also designed & built for us that wonderful airframe that became the Cadillac of the Skies, the P51Mustang, to Air Ministry specs of course! It was perfectly produced with an excellent Allison engine with a ceiling of 15,000 feet, (Air Ministry specs again!). When it failed to perform above that height (needed to avoid air attack) – that equally wonderful design the Merlin engine was fitted to it. The rest is history fella! You are bang on re the Today programme, its bias towards the green lobby lets them avoid the science in favour of myth! I suspect there is a Ministry of Propaganda within the Beeb controlled by Richard Black & Roger Harrabin. As to the next Hollywood blockbuster disaster, which will presumably be yet another comet/asteroid crashing into the planet – in America of course, I hope they get the impact splash correct this time as in the last movie an angled object impacting into sea or land would NOT produce a vertical “splash”, & technically the US would have had little of a wave impact but Europe would have been awash! Poor show but a rip roaring yarn!

Mary Hinge
January 5, 2009 2:44 am

jeez (01:54:58) :
2. ………. make the entirety of the sea surface records suspect.
4. I simply do not trust …….. they simply make up false accuracy and data.
6. Much of the Global warming signal ……..suffered discontinuities through Mao’s cultural revolution in China………………. Stalinist Soviet Union.
Personally I believe…….

Thanks Jeez for furnishing the script for the next X Files movie….Spooky Mulder and his conspiracy buddies would have great fun with this!

Alex Llewelyn
January 5, 2009 3:22 am

“There are those (including myself), that trust the North American temperature record more than the “Global Reconstructions” and believe it is possible that it represents Global temperatures better than the Global datasets.”
Hmm… that makes sense. Yeah, why don’t we take data from 1.7% of the globe when we have data for (much) more than half… Yeah that makes sense.
“The US and Canada have a large number of rural stations (and just many more stations) which may have helped to reduce UHI contamination of the record compared to the rest of the world.”
The rest of the world (strangely) somehow also has rural stations. You know, what with America being a developed country and all that, developing countries tend to have more rural stations that America (!)…
“The sea surface temperature bucket adjustments make the entirety of the sea surface records suspect.”
But that’s no reason to disregard them entirely. The American data set is just as subject to strange adjustments anyway. If you’re so suspicious of it then just look at the land data.
“While NA may be just 4.8% of the area of the Earth, we are 16.5% of the land area, and that’s getting to be more than statistically significant as a percentage of land-based records.”
Actually the U.S. is 1.7% of the globe and 6.6% of land. Not statistically significant.
“I simply do not trust Jones and the Hadley Centre, or Hansen and GISS, their adjustments and extrapolation do not improve accuracy, they simply make up false accuracy and data.”
Funny. Because they’re the exact same people who run the American dataset… But of course they forgo their corrupt tendencies when doing it for the homeland. And it’s funny, because the satellites are in such good agreement with the surface data.
“If Mann thinks he can reconstruct the world’s temperature to a tenth of a degree from a couple of stands of bristlecone pines in California, it makes far more sense that we can measure the world’s temperature using all of North America.”
Well we know that his reconstruction is highly inaccurate, but at least you can argue he’s doing the best with what little he’s got. We have better and more extensive data than just America, so why not use it?
“Much of the Global warming signal of the 20th and 21st centuries is found in stations suspect because they suffered discontinuities through Mao’s cultural revolution in China or were outposts under the Stalinist Soviet Union.”
But they weren’t found BECAUSE of the discontinuities (which weren’t that big anyway), there just happened to be discontinuities. There’s been warming documented in many other places and in those places before and since.
“If you take a handful of sand on a beach and measure its composition it is a pretty accurate representation of the sand on the whole beach.”
…you know that’s entirely different…
“Personally I believe the 1930’s were the warmest decade on record since we started measuring.”
Well I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

Dale Chant
January 5, 2009 3:29 am

re its/it’s
…my name is famous
…your name is famous
…their name is famous
…her name is famous
…his name is famous
…its name is famous
No possessive pronouns have an apostrophe. It’s easy to remember.

January 5, 2009 3:32 am

Xavier Itzmann:
“That “its” should have no apostrophe.”
Anyone named Itzmann must know all about ‘its.’ And Xavier is, of course, correct. Here’s a useful graphic: click

Ben Kellett
January 5, 2009 3:42 am

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but if we are to accept that the solar actvity correlates closely with our temperature record, then surely the 1930’s should show up as a cooling phase as should the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. I know there is a “lag”, but this does’t seem to quite fit what we are seeing here.
If we accept also the 1970’s cooling happened as shown, then surely we should expect similar dips in global temps during the other periods I have highlighted. While I accept that we might be on the brink of experiencing a cooler phase due to the late 1990’s/early 2000’s dip in solar activity, how might we explain away the dip showing up in the 1930’s. Indeed, if we are to accept JEEZ’s contention that the 1930’s was the warmest decade on record, then our match of temp against sun seems pretty distant.
Having stated all of that, the extent of the recent dip in solar activity does appear a little alarming and it is difficuly not conclude that such an inactive sun won’t have some sort of effect on our climate.
Ben

Steve Berry
January 5, 2009 3:47 am

Think I should point out that I was pulling the yank chain – or perhaps that should be yanking the chain! I’m full of admiration for the US and all that it has given, and continues to give. No nation is perfect. Even though we (England) gave the world much, we also gave it concentration camps. So, yes I was just having a little fun, and no nasty stuff intended at all. Although I do wish Hollywood would set films (movies) in other countries. Close Encounters got close at the start of the film. But guess where the aliens chose to actually make contact. And then they re-set War of the Worlds in the US when the story is near Woking in Surrey (if memory serves). When we were just about to break the sound barrier the US said they’d give us all they knew about building a Hydrogen bomb if we gave them the secret of how to break through the sound barrier. Seemed like a fair trade at the time. Ah, now I can hear the sound of a Merlin V12. Go to youtube to listen.

Steve Berry
January 5, 2009 3:51 am

Parts of Britain to drop to -10 degrees C tonight!

braddles
January 5, 2009 4:01 am

Frankly, the correlation between that Ap index and global temperatures reminds me of the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 – largely non-existent. Look at 1998!

1 2 3 15
Verified by MonsterInsights