First this news: The Ap Index continues to fall. While the January 2009 data is not out yet, the December 2008 data is and is an Ap value of 2 according to SWPC. While this number may be lower than other sources (Leif will fill us in I’m sure), I’m plotting it for consistency since I’ve been following the SWPC data set for well over a year now.
I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The sun has been running at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered. It 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 December 2008 showing the step in October 2005:
Additionally David Archibald writes with a new idea on how to use the Ap Index to predict the maximum amplitude. See below.
In late January, I contributed a post predicting that the Ap Index would have a minimum of 3 in late 2009. There is a good correlation between the aa Index at minimum and the amplitude of the following solar cycle. This also holds for the Ap Index:
The Ap prediction results in a prediction of maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 24 of 25. This would be the lowest result since the late 17th century.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is David’s prediction for global warming in the next 5 months – http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf.
This forecast WILL be a spectacular failure.
Excuse me if I have difficulty taking his work seriously.
Please pardon my ignorance of the significance of this, but “. . . the lowest result since the late 17th century” seems to be a rather profound statement. What does it mean? Does this explain something of the present, serve as an indicator of future conditions or trends, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
Layman question. Which is more important in a given solar cycle; magnitude/intensity of spots over a period or total number of spots between minimums?
Looks like the AGW sunspot counters for cycle 24 will be singing ” O’ Lonesome Me”. I have a suspicion that soon they will be sliding off their high horse and landing on a bit of reality. If those of you whom I speak are reading, its not so bad on our side. We’re rather nice people in my opinion.
Hmm… Unless we can work out a mechanism for why this would be, I’m sceptical that this correlation would necessarily hold. After all, we only have 7 data, so there is a reasonable chance this correlation could have arisen by chance.
On the other hand, even if it is true correlation, we don’t know enough about it to say that the correlation will be exactly linear or that it will hold for very low AP values. It’s also difficult saying where the minimum is, and as there is considerable variability month to month, that may have significant bearing on this prediction.
Anyway, it’s interesting, but I think it probably isn’t too useful with our current knowledge of this.
wow 25!!? I was thinking more 75-ish…
I’m not a solar physicist but there are a few predictions out there which put the max at around 70-80…
Only time will tell!
Is this bad?
Maybee another little iceage if we also have a period with larger volcanic eruptions?
[snip]
I’m gona-change my nappies…. 🙂
Reply: Implied, or misspelled profanity is still prohibited ~ charles the moderator
Interesting.
I think I’d better book my flight south before the energy czar .
I think I’d better book my flight south before the energy czar removes my travel rights.
OT: Arctic species of ctenophore has invaded the Black Sea.
See here.
Nice one, thanks a lot great piece.
I really really hope you’re wrong, David.
What the world doesn’t need right now is another Little Ice Age
Anthony, I think the SWPC data needs checking. The BGS data says 4.3 for January and 3.2 so far for February. http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/cgi-bin/apindex
There was also a change in character in the F 10.7 radio flux from April 2008 that I will follow up.
Number of eminent solar experts believe that the strength of the polar magnetic fields at the time of SC minimum, is a precursor for intensity of the next cycle. According to the data from two solar observatories (Mount Wilson and Wilcox) over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining; at the current minimum it is at its lowest value recorded. This indicates that next cycle is going to be low, further more; I believe that decline is going to continue for at least next 2-3 cycles (projected probability more than 90%).
This is in line with the predictions by Livingston and Penn.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField.gif
It might be a coincidence Anthony, but that 2005 step down you keep referring to just happens to be the period when the Sun enters its grand minimum retrograde action. We are firmly inside the inner circle now which is quite different to the normal path….except at times of type “A” grand minima of course.
Diagram here:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/02/carsten.jpg
I like simple modeling approaches. The one proposed by David Archibald is not simple enough, though. The curve fitted implies negative sunspot numbers for AP index <2. We know (correct me if I am wrong) that both variables cannot become negative. If there is a simple linear relationship I would assume that it is of a linear homogenous type. Thus I would drop the intercept and force the curve through the origin. This would result in a prediction of about 50 max amplitude for solar cycle 24, conditional on the ap index minimum predicted by David.
DJ (23:06:27) :
This forecast WILL be a spectacular failure.
Its nice to make statements, but this is a scientific blog, please back up statements with some kind of reference.
Richard111 (23:13:33) :
Layman question. Which is more important in a given solar cycle; magnitude/intensity of spots over a period or total number of spots between minimums?
—–
Layman’s answer. I’d recommend treating the sunspots not as a “cause” (nor strictly speaking, as a symptom or result either) of the solar minimum, but rather as a separate (highly visible!) indicator of the solar trend.
Example: You can measure temperature as an indicator of a person’s relative health (high fevers indicate sickness – rather, the body’s RESPONSE to an internal sickness) but the high fever or flushed skin or swollen glands or lack of energy themselves are not the CAUSE of the illness.
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Just as the solar poles are declining in strength so is the amount of angular momentum. I haven’t seen a scientific reason for this slow decline in polar strength, especially since each cycle is supposed to be a roll of the dice according to dynamo theory?
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/ultimate_graph2all.jpg
Its a prediction based on peer reviewed science, unlike David’s work which avoids peer review.
Lets revisit this in June – even better – let’s have David himself revisit in on this site in June.
I really really hope you’re wrong, David.
I guess you aren’t speaking for the 300 Australian’s who died this week in the hottest more extreme fire storm episode ever observed or the 7000 people who lost their houses, or the Inuits whose houses are disappearing into the Arctic Ocean, or the Tuvaluan’s who are being swamped by king tides. Its very easy to being a sceptic when no responsibility sits with you…
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (02:42:30) :
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining;
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
b) Magnetospheric electromagnetic interaction feedback, but this possibility has been resolutely rejected by Dr. Svalgaard.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (02:42:30) :
vukcevic (01:51:18) :
over the last 40 years, strength of the polar fields has been steadily declining; ……..
Since the correlation appears to be so strong, and it is directly referring to J & S orbital properties,
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
I assume it could be only one of the following two:
a) Direct response to the rotating vector sum of the J & S magnetic fields. The resultant vector changes its orientation according to the combined heliocentric longitude of two planets (due to the Sun’s and J & S equatorial planes inclinations).
b) Magnetospheric electromagnetic interaction feedback, but this possibility has been resolutely rejected by Dr. Svalgaard.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarField.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
Wolfgang K. (02:18:55) :
I like simple modeling approaches. The one proposed by David Archibald is not simple enough, though. The curve fitted implies negative sunspot numbers for AP index <2. We know (correct me if I am wrong) that both variables cannot become negative. If there is a simple linear relationship I would assume that it is of a linear homogenous type. Thus I would drop the intercept and force the curve through the origin. This would result in a prediction of about 50 max amplitude for solar cycle 24, conditional on the ap index minimum predicted by David.
Sounds like a sensible approach and a more realistic result to me.
Fits better with Landscheidts prediction from 1988 too. Nice graphic Geoff, it looks like Theodor had a better handle on SC24 back then than Hathaway does now…