Another regime change indication – this time in solar data

Note: See also the 1997 regime change in global climate data by the same method, here

I’m happy to report that something I recognized and reported back in 2008 related to solar data has been independently confirmed by another source, and was a surprise when it showed up in my inbox two days ago.

Readers may recall that for some time I’ve been pointing out a strange anomaly in the Solar Geomagnetic Index that occurred in October 2005. In a story I wrote on Feb 13th, 2008 titled Where have all the sunspots gone? I plotted the Ap data and pointed out the event.

solar-geomagnetic-Ap Index

click for a larger image

I wrote then:

What is 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.

Since then, we’ve seen announcements like this:

BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill said. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

See the official press release here – “All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.”

Dr. Sam Outcalt : Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Michigan sent me this graph two days ago, showing his application of Hurst Rescaling to the Ap Solar Magnetic Index data. Using that method, he has independently identified the “step function switch off” I reported in Feb 2008:

The major regime transition is at the maximum of the integral at 2005.71, which corresponds to October 2005, the same date I identified.

Clearly the sun entered into a magnetic funk then, and has yet to come out of it.

We live in interesting times.

For more on Hurst ReScaling, see this paper: SIO_HurstReScale

UPDATE: As I expected he would, Dr. Leif Svalgaard takes exception to this characterization of the identification of October 2005 being a regime changepoint, saying:

While I agree that the sun is going quiet, the ‘step change’ is spurious. It is mainly due to a sporadic, single magnetic storm in September 2005: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c09%2c04 and here is the next rotation: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c10%2c01 You can find many such steps.

Such step changes happens all the time: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png They are just weather, not climate.

I don’t think his analogy holds promise, because after the step change the “climate” of the solar dynamo stayed low, and then produced the lowest value in the record going back to 1844. See Leif’s graph (click to enlarge) which I’ve annotated:

While this is akin to the sustained drop starting in early 1871, clearly this was something new in the entire record.If we use smoothing to remove what Leif describes as weather noise, and magnify, we can see how this looks to be unique in the last century of data:

While it could be argued that this was a “weather” event, the facts remain that:

  1. In the 14 months prior to Oct 2005, the Ap index was on the rise
  2. It was a very sharp drop spanning a little over a month.
  3. It has not recovered to the average values in the preceding 14 months since then.
  4. Weather events are usually short term dynamics. The 2 rotation periods of the sun Leif refers to aren’t capable of maintaining the step change for the years following October 2005.
  5. Following the event, the Sun produced the lowest Ap value in the record in Dec 2008.
  6. Projections by others, including Livingston, suggest the sun has entered into a quiet magnetic state.

While I defer to Dr. Svalgaard’s overall superior knowledge on the dynamics of sun, and agree there are many sharp transitions in the Ap record, this looks to me to be a step change event of merit based on the factors listed above. I’ve yet to see a fully convincing explanation that this was a spurious event rather than a regime changepoint. But, I remain open to seeing such an explanation.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to Another regime change indication – this time in solar data

  1. gopal panicker says:

    thats all good….but has there been any change in solar output

  2. Very interesting, keep us posted please Anthony.

  3. Alan the Brit says:

    Recall your post well, & still refer to it & the “step function” you alluded to! The wonderful (not) Met Office are bleating on about the “Jet Stream” & how it has moved south with all the expertise & knowledge of a quack, they haven’t said a word as to why it has shifted other than it “does it sometimes” – reminds me of a pimply faced yoof who after I purchase some expensive puter prog or device that then goes on the blink (grrr)!!!

    Congratuations to my cousins in the Virginian Colonies, for 4th July, & all that you have given the world, except for bubble gum & MacDonalds of course, but the rest, I thank you! ;-)

  4. Tucker says:

    I believe you wrote the story in Feb 2008, not 2005 as written..

    REPLY: Yes, typo fixed, thank you. -A

  5. vukcevic says:

    Geomagnetic indices based on measurements within Earth’s magnetosphere have degree of input from the short changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, which it is thought (in my view wrongly) by some of the leading scientists that do not exists.
    The main index of geomagnetic activity Aa, from which other derivations are made is a proxy for the strength and phase properties of the solar dynamo. Both Aa and the sunspot number SSN show an 11 year variation, however these variations are not the same (Feynman, 1986). Parts of the Aa index are associated with the toroidal and parts with poloidal solar magnetic field. The correlation between SSN and Aa is about 0.47.

  6. Thomas Gough says:

    Typo re dates near the beginning. Your report was 13th February 2008, not 2005. Otherwise fully agree. I have been doing my bit to try to educate people about the suns’ likely influence on the climate

  7. TomC says:

    “a story I wrote on Feb 13th, 2005″

    Shouldn’t that be 2008?

  8. Dr. Lurtz says:

    My Explanation:
    a) Hydrogen burning occurs on the surface of the Sun’s Core.
    b) Hot Sun [more fusion], Core expands making more H available from the Radiative Zone.
    c) When the amount of H becomes less available [near the Core's surface] , the Core starts to shrink [less fusion] and the Sun becomes cooler.
    d) Core shrinks until a new equilibrium is found [the Core is growing by fits and leaps -> it is the waste volume for burned H, that is, He].
    e) Repeat the process.

    Hot Sun [more fusion], massive inflowing H currents. Cool Sun [less fusion]. less inflowing H currents. Hot Sun, the H currents generate massive magnetic fields and produce Sun Spots. Cool Sun, the H currents are less, the magnetic field declines and, possibly, no Sun Spots.

    During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun was cool for ~50 years. Faint traces of a 2×180 year cycle in the climate record [?? is there such a thing ??].

    “Major regime transition” -> Sun cooling, core shrinking.

  9. Steve C says:

    (Typo: 2nd para, story date was 2008 not 2005, inferred from the link. Later mention of date is OK)

    Interesting times indeed. Is it that there are really rather a lot of these step functions switching on or off lately, or is it that we’re only just getting round to investigating them? You wait centuries for a step change, then a bunch of them all turn up together.

    And how many modest step changes in its component parts does it take to flip a pseudostable system into a different state? Hmm, wish I hadn’t thought that.

  10. polistra says:

    @Steve C: Most likely these step changes are not independent…. they’re just various observed responses to the single “original” step change in the magnetosphere.

  11. Steamboat Jack says:

    1. Alan the Brit says: July 4, 2012 at 4:01 am
    Congratuations to my cousins in the Virginian Colonies, for 4th July, & all that you have given the world, except for bubble gum & MacDonalds of course, but the rest, I thank you! ;-)
    *********
    I would point out that there has never been a war between two countries that have McDonalds. An extensive meta-study by the Jewett Institute of Serenity, Tranquility, and Peace has proven that these United States are bringing World Peace through McDonalds! It must be true: the consensus agrees!

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  12. feet2thefire says:

    Typo?

    In the last graph there seems to be a typo in the label that reads “1991.54″.

    It seems that it should read “1999.54″.

    Steve Garcia

    REPLY: Yes, correct, knowing how Dplot works, the graph labels were manually done by Outcalt, not automatically generated. Fixed, thank you. – Anthony

  13. John Day says:

    @Vuk
    >The main index of geomagnetic activity Aa, from which other derivations are made
    > is a proxy for the strength and phase properties of the solar dynamo.

    You’ve got that backwards, Vuk. Aa is derived from the k indices, which are both measures of “disturbances” in the Earth’s magnetic field (see Refernce below). They are not measures of the “strength” of the solar magnetic field, but are analogous to the so-called “Richter” scale for earthquakes, in the sense that these indices measure ‘tremors’ or deviations in the Earth’s magnetic field.

    The lowest k-index (= 0) corresponds to a deviation on the order of 5nT (nanoTeslas) or less, whereas the highest k-index (9, very rare) translates to a deviation of 500 nT or more. Since the Earth’s field is appoximately 50,000nT, you can see that the strongest geomagnetic disturbances correspond to a change of about 1%, or less, in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.

    Typical daily readings are much smaller, but have observed and documented routinely since the mid 19th century. Yes, before the 20th century, before electonic magnetometers existed. The first measurements were made by observing a light beam deflected from a mirror riding on a compass needle!

    As for the solar “proxy” you mention, I’m guessing that this is another one of your famous “correlations” which tend to be more numerlogy than science. The Aa index (as I shown above) doesn’t even measure the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, so how can it measure the Sun’s?

    Actually, there is a strong connection between these geomagnetic indices and solar activity in general. But it is coupled through the interaction of the Earth’s magnetosphere with the solar wind. So Anthony’s “step function” more likely reflects a change in the solar wind connection, and thus only indirectly correlated to solar activity.

    :-|

    Reference:
    http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/geomag/geomagnetism_indices.jsp
    k index
    The k index is a quasilogarithmic index of geomagnetic activity relative to an assumed quiet day curve for the recording site. k is a code from 0-9 that characterizes magnetic activity (0 being the least active field and 9 the most active field) over a 3 hour period.

    aa index
    The aa index is three hourly index of geomagnetic activity determined from the k indices scaled at two antipodal subauroral stations: Canberra Australia, and Hartland England. For each three hour interval, k indices measured at the two stations are converted back into amplitude. A three hour aa index is the mean of the northern and southern values, weighted to account for the small differences in the latitudes of the two stations.”

  14. The major regime transition is at the maximum of the integral at 2005.71, which corresponds to October 2005, the same date I identified.
    While I agree that the sun is going quiet, the ‘step change’ is spurious. It is mainly due to a sporadic, single magnetic storm in September 2005: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c09%2c04 and here is the next rotation: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c10%2c01 You can find many such steps.

    vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 4:22 am
    Geomagnetic indices based on measurements within Earth’s magnetosphere have degree of input from the short changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, which it is thought (in my view wrongly) by some of the leading scientists that do not exists.
    The indices can be accurately calculated using only solar wind data as input, so short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with the indices. See page 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Physics-based%20Long-term%20Geomagnetic%20Indices.pdf
    Sometimes it is wise to listen to leading scientists who know what they talk about.

    REPLY: Leif, thank you, I recall you giving this explanation before, but I am skeptical of it. I don’t see how such an event can show up in the Hurst ReScaling output unless it was a months to years long event. The fact is that the Ap output has been muted since then, and I struggle to understand how you can categorize that as spurious, especially with the Hurst ReScaling pointing it out too. But, I’m willing to listen. Please elaborate on how this storm managed to overcome 14 months of an upward trend in Ap in the preceding 14 months prior to October 2005. – Anthony

  15. Hu McCulloch says:

    This looks more like a change in instrumentation than a change in solar activity to me. Are you sure it’s for real?

    REPLY: I would agree – look for Occam’s Razor first, but there is no change in instrumentation on that date that I’ve found – Anthony

  16. steveta_uk says:

    “… occurred in October 2005. In a story I wrote on Feb 13th, 2005 …”

    Why does everyone assume a typo? I assumed that is means that Anthony has precognitive abilities.

  17. The major regime transition is at the maximum of the integral at 2005.71, which corresponds to October 2005, the same date I identified.
    Is akin to saying that the current heat wave is what global warming looks like. Weather is not climate.

  18. rgbatduke says:

    For even more on Hurst rescaling and Hurst-Kolmogorov transitions in climate science, please see any of a raft of papers by Koutsoyiannis, e.g. google up:

    Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty

    I’m glad to see people are finally jumping on the bandwagon he has been pushing all by himself for several years now. If I had anything like the time required, I would be working on a paper that attempted to demonstrate that a generic feature of a chaotic dynamical model in sufficiently high dimensionality with internal random noise, projected onto a single degree of freedom, often exhibits the platform transitions discovered by Koutsoyiannis in hydroclimate processes and subsequently observed elsewhere. I continue to point out that Tisdale has an “instant paper” if he applies this analysis to his SST series, because it is obviously a perfect match, and since SSTs account for 70% of the Earth’s surface it is an even more powerful statement about warming or cooling than analyzing e.g. HadCRUT or GISS.

    It even makes me want to revisit the issue of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. The projective geometry of high-dimensional dynamics wasn’t really computable the last time the question was really addressed some years ago, and I’ve never been convinced by some of the arguments for “true random” quantum processes. Especially lacking formal testing of the null hypothesis in a really, really good RNG tester (like the one I hope dieharder eventually becomes).

    rgb

  19. Tony McGough says:

    Well spotted. Pun intended.

    Have a happy July 4th, O transatlantic brethren. If you ever think that you would like an apolitical Head of State, to keep Politics out of Patriotism, then I am sure we would consider your application to re-enter the aegis of the Crown, since a wee while has transpired since that unfortunate War of Independence. In the modern world, none of us are independent of anyone else any more …

  20. Tom in Florida says:

    Steamboat Jack says:
    July 4, 2012 at 5:57 am

    “I would point out that there has never been a war between two countries that have McDonalds. ”

    Yes, making people fat, dumb and happy keeps them from wanting war.

  21. Would it be possible for people to stop pointing out every damn typo, it’s getting ridiculous scrolling through comments. Or could the mods just not approve them?!

  22. rgbatduke says:

    I would point out that there has never been a war between two countries that have McDonalds. An extensive meta-study by the Jewett Institute of Serenity, Tranquility, and Peace has proven that these United States are bringing World Peace through McDonalds! It must be true: the consensus agrees!

    We must make haste and ensure that McDonalds opens in India as soon as possible, then — I’m certain that the country’s billion or so Hindus won’t mind a restaurant serving beefburgers. It would be very useful to tie the acceptance of, say a dozen McDonalds outlets in North Korea or Iran to any other sort of aid or accommodations too, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps Pakistan and Afghanistan could use a few as well? But how will we arrange for the Sunnis to have Sunni Mickey-D’s and the Shi’ia to have Shi’ia Mickey-D’s? A conundrum at best…

    rgb

  23. JimB says:

    Interesting. I somewhat gather that the geomagnetic field affects the readings of the solar magnetosphere?

  24. Dave says:

    John Day > “there is a strong connection between these geomagnetic indices and solar activity in general. But it is coupled through the interaction of the Earth’s magnetosphere with the solar wind. So Anthony’s “step function” more likely reflects a change in the solar wind connection, and thus only indirectly correlated to solar activity.”

    Thanks for the interpretation. I take your comment re-”change in solar wind connection” as possibly indicating change in frequency of polar aurora and amount of energy carried by solar wind into TOA.

  25. Eric Webb says:

    If the sun doesn’t come out of this “magnetic funk” soon, we’re very likely to see a large and extended solar minimum, but only time will tell.

  26. Nick Shaw says:

    Though the graph does not go back in time far enough, it certainly seems to follow the leveling off or slight decline of the earth’s temperature since 1997, no?

  27. FerdinandAkin says:

    OKAY! Who forgot to pay the bill on time?
    Now the Utility Company has gone and cut us off. It could be a while before we can get this turn back on again.

  28. MattN says:

    Now THAT is a CuSum plot like I’m used to seeing. Difinitive and really undisputable change in 2005. Something happened…

  29. MattN says:

    I also remember Lief saying that absolutely nothing abnormal had happened with the sun at that time. Now we have statistical proof that something did indeed happen…

  30. Nick Shaw says:
    July 4, 2012 at 7:05 am
    Though the graph does not go back in time far enough, it certainly seems to follow the leveling off or slight decline of the earth’s temperature since 1997, no
    Here is Ap since 1844, there are many step changes, and they don’t mean regime changes:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png so no space climate changes, just space weather.

  31. sean2829 says:

    A few months back on the SolarHam.net message board, a commenter asked Dr. Svalgaard if the weakening magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn is what caused the Dalton minimum. Leif’s answer was most interesting. He saw the Dalton min. as part of the natural 100 year ebb and flow of weak and strong cycles. He then went on to say that the Maunder minumum was a manifestation of what L&P are observing now. This is the strongest suggestion I’ve seen from Leif that we may be headed into more than just a Dalton like minimum. Previously, Dr Svalgaard has said the probability we are headed for a Dalton type minumum is high but we only had a low probability for a Maunder type episode. If Dr. Svalgaard reads this note I’d like to ask him three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?

  32. sean2829 says:
    July 4, 2012 at 7:29 am
    three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?
    As the low solar activity predicted by us has come to pass, a small cottage industry [with several 'peer reviewed' papers - for what they are worth] has sprung up about a possible coming Maunder minimum. There is little doubt that at some time in the future a new Grand minimum will be coming our way. Whether it will happen real soon is anybody’s guess. At a recent international workshop that I convened this question was central. You can find most of the discussion chronicled in the presentations here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/1st_ISSI_Workshop
    The contribution by Lockwood has more references.

  33. sean2829 says:
    July 4, 2012 at 7:29 am
    three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?
    As the low solar activity predicted by us has come to pass, a small cottage industry [with several 'peer reviewed' papers - for what they are worth] has sprung up about a possible coming Maunder minimum. There is little doubt that at some time in the future a new Grand minimum will be coming our way. Whether it will happen real soon is anybody’s guess. At a recent international workshop that I convened this question was central. You can find most of the discussion chronicled in the presentations here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/1st_ISSI_Workshop
    The contribution by Lockwood has more references.

  34. MattN says:
    July 4, 2012 at 7:20 am
    I also remember Lief saying that absolutely nothing abnormal had happened with the sun at that time. Now we have statistical proof that something did indeed happen…
    Such step changes happens all the time: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
    They are just weather, not climate.

  35. GlynnMhor says:

    Then there’s the much maligned Theodor Landscheidt, and the prediction of a Grand Solar Minimum that arose from his efforts and those of Carl Smith in showing how they are coincident with perturbations in the rate of change of the Sun’s net angular momentum:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/

    Unlike the predictions and backcasting of the AGW models, his seem to work.

  36. vukcevic says:

    John Day says: July 4, 2012 at 6:04 am
    ………….
    Hi John
    My interest is in the data, particularly in the Aa, relationships between Aa,Ap Kp etc are defined by experts, which I am not, so if I got it wrong I stand to be corrected.
    Thanks for the .gov.au link, I hope it is more accurate than some of their climate related statements.
    As for the solar “proxy” you mention, I’m guessing that this is another one of your famous “correlations” which tend to be more numerlogy than science.

    Disappointingly not, I whish it was, I was quoting NASA’s JPL Dr. Joan Feynman’s paper
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/14449/1/00-0886.pdf
    so I shall leave it there.
    Some of the coincidental natural variations (or correlations) are often dismissed as irrelevant, but that isn’t reason why one should not have a closer look, and that is what I do. I appreciate that at least you got opinion of what I do, and of course you are entitled to categorize it as you see fit.

    From the coordinates on your website I see you track weather on the west coast of Atlantic.
    About a year ago , after one of my controversial posts, I was encouraged by a climate scientist to learn from the AMO – NAO relationship. As a result strong non-stationary correlation was found (not known, or if known ignored by climate science, far too apprehensive of the unknown), but with two strange abnormalities:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOandNAO.htm
    Questions:
    - How is it possible that that average SST could be responding or ‘mimicking’ with years delay the long gone atmospheric pressure.
    - Delay is apparently becoming longer and longer.
    Have you any ideas?

    I think both of the above ambiguities are now ‘explainable’ by a single catalyst, based on some matters discussed in this and similar threads.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2012 at 6:16 am
    The indices can be accurately calculated using only solar wind data as input, so short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with the indices.

    Could you explain how come that the Aa index spectrum has strong ENSO’s (affects LOD and possibly rate of Earth’s rotation and magnetic field ) ~5year period which is not present in the solar wind, and some other frequencies not present in the sunspot spectrum, but strongly present in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity variability.
    Mayaud, said something like ‘index should represent a single variable and should be simple to calculate’, perhaps he was asking for too much.

  37. phlogiston says:

    rgbatduke says:
    July 4, 2012 at 6:33 am
    For even more on Hurst rescaling and Hurst-Kolmogorov transitions in climate science, please see any of a raft of papers by Koutsoyiannis, e.g. google up:

    Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty

    Is this the same Kolmogorov who gave is the box-counting method for fractal dimension? Although this was in fact previously invented by Richardson.

  38. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 8:13 am
    “The indices can be accurately calculated using only solar wind data as input, so short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with the indices.”
    Could you explain how come that the Aa index spectrum has strong ENSO’s etc
    That Aa can be calculated accurately with a resolution of 3 hours solely from solar wind data is a FACT, the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture, so no explanation is needed.

    Mayaud, said something like ‘index should represent a single variable and should be simple to calculate’, perhaps he was asking for too much.
    No, he was right on.

  39. COB says:

    Tom in Florida says:
    Yes, making people fat, dumb and happy keeps them from wanting war.
    >>>>>>>>
    As opposed to starving, ignorant and angry.

  40. rgbatduke says:

    Is this the same Kolmogorov who gave is the box-counting method for fractal dimension? Although this was in fact previously invented by Richardson.

    I was thinking of the same Kolmogorov that gave us the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in statistics and some 20 or 30 other major contributions to mathematics and statistics, yes. Is there a point to your question?

    rgb

  41. GeoLurking says:

    ERR…

    Did anyone notice Figure 2 of the SIO_HurstReScale reference link?

    http://i45.tinypic.com/nwaovn.png

    And then notice a similarity to the included Dr. Sam Outcalt graphic?

  42. MattN says:
    July 4, 2012 at 7:17 am
    Now THAT is a CuSum plot like I’m used to seeing. Difinitive and really undisputable change in 2005. Something happened…
    Something happens all the time. Here is look at the solar wind [magnetic field B and speed V] and geomagnetic activity the last several years: http://www.leif.org/research/October-2005-Non-Event.png
    The arrows point to October 2005. The bottom panel shows how well we can calculate Aa from knowing only B and V. If the density and the angle between the fields were taken into account, the agreement would be so good that you could not distinguish the curves.

  43. GeoLurking says:
    July 4, 2012 at 9:34 am
    Did anyone notice Figure 2 of the SIO_HurstReScale reference link?
    Except that is not what the real sunspot activity has varied, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

  44. Douglas Cohen says:

    I looked at L. Sv. solar index going back over 100 years and noted two dips similar in size to the present dip at around 1880 and 1900. Here’s the solar index record (again)
    http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

    Then I took a look at temperature anomalies going back into the last quarter of the 19th century at
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

    and noticed a temperature downtrend in the last part of the 19th century with distinct dips at around 1890 and 1910 — that is, 10 years or so past the 1880 and 1990 dips in the solar index. Is this just a coincidence? I wonder.

  45. GeoLurking says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Except that is not what the real sunspot activity has varied, e.g.

    So what would be the Hurst Rescaling of the data using your refinement of the sunspot activity? It just seemed pretty flipping odd that the trace had a similarity to the roll off in Fig 2 from the paper.

    http://i45.tinypic.com/9k8nma.png

  46. Douglas Cohen says:

    That should be “… ten years or so past the 1880 and 1900 dips …”

  47. Douglas Cohen says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:15 am
    and noticed a temperature downtrend in the last part of the 19th century with distinct dips at around 1890 and 1910 — that is, 10 years or so past the 1880 and 1990 dips in the solar index. Is this just a coincidence? I wonder.
    Vuk will tell you that is probably a new important discovery :-) brought about by “A luxury strictly reserved for the spare time mental unproductive activity” \sarc [just in case you misunderstood]

  48. vukcevic says:

    Greetings to the reader from NASA, Huntsville
    Thanks for your attention, I hope you are intrigued as I was when I came across it.
    If you have a question or wish to add a comment privately, I have added my email address at the bottom left hand side.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOandNAO.htm

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2012 at 8:31 am
    the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture
    Agree. No point in restating what is well known and part of the accepted science.

  49. Max Beran says:

    I’m afraid the Georgia v Russia conflict over South Ossetia in 2008 spoils McDonald’s war-free record.

  50. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From rgbatduke on July 4, 2012 at 6:38 am:

    [From Steamboat Jack on July 4, 2012 at 5:57 am:]
    I would point out that there has never been a war between two countries that have McDonalds. An extensive meta-study by the Jewett Institute of Serenity, Tranquility, and Peace has proven that these United States are bringing World Peace through McDonalds! It must be true: the consensus agrees!

    We must make haste and ensure that McDonalds opens in India as soon as possible, then — I’m certain that the country’s billion or so Hindus won’t mind a restaurant serving beefburgers. (…)

    Already done!
    http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/ (graphical)
    http://www.mcdonaldsindia.net/

    April 2011 article:
    http://nrn.com/article/mcdonald’s-lessons-learned-india

    They serve neither beef nor pork, keeping Hindus and Muslims happy. Started in 1996, growing carefully and slowly, up to 210 stores at the article’s writing.

    Wasn’t around 1996 when Pakistan and India seemed destined for a nuclear arms race leading to at least a small-scale high-casualty nuclear war? Wow, the rhetoric in India has really calmed down since then. What happened? Was there a regime change?

  51. crosspatch says:

    Well, there is weather and there is weather. You can have a “cold snap” where temperatures are low for a while and return, or you can also have an exceptionally cold winter where the entire season sees temperatures mostly below normal but still doesn’t signal a fundamental change in climate regime. So — I think we still have to wait and see. That said, we should look very carefully at what goes on over the next 5 years or so. All of the signs, portents, and omens point to likelihood of colder weather coming over the next 20 years.

  52. GeoLurking says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:20 am
    So what would be the Hurst Rescaling of the data using your refinement of the sunspot activity?
    No idea specifically, and you may call that confirmation bias, but I basically agree with the author, as it is clear that solar activity is on the downslope. I was just pointing out that the Figure you referred to is misleading if interpreted as showing a direct measure of solar activity.

    vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:27 am
    “the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture”
    Agree. No point in restating what is well known and part of the accepted science.

    What you are claiming is not part of accepted science.

  53. GeoLurking says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:20 am
    So what would be the Hurst Rescaling of the data using your refinement of the sunspot activity?
    No idea specifically, and you may call that confirmation bias, but I basically agree with the author, as it is clear that solar activity is on the downslope. I was just pointing out that the Figure you referred to is misleading if interpreted as showing a direct measure of solar activity.

    vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:27 am
    “the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture”
    Agree. No point in restating what is well known and part of the accepted science.

    What you are claiming is not part of accepted science.

  54. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Holy Higgs boson! It’s even noted by Wikipedia!

    Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention

    In Thomas L. Friedman’s 1999 book The Lexus and the Olive Tree the following observation was presented: “No two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s”. While that statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, his point was that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. Regardless of whether the statement is true, the conclusions to be drawn are unclear. The global expansion of McDonald’s restaurants is a relatively recent phenomenon when put into the context of the history of warfare, and, with a few notable exceptions, has proceeded into relatively stable markets.

    The 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia is a counterexample to the theory, both countries having McDonald’s at the time (started in 1990 and 1999, respectively).[25] Other conflicts that provide possible counterexamples, depending on what one considers “a war”, include the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, the bombing of Serbia, and the Kargil War along with ongoing skirmishes between India and factions of Pakistan over the Kashmir region.

    The appearance of McDonald’s does not end an existing state of war: the states of Lebanon and Israel have been under a state of war since 1973, with South Lebanon occupied until May 2000 and a significant flareup in 2006, which did not hinder the establishment of McDonald’s franchises in Israel and Lebanon in 1993 and 1998, respectively. The two countries engaged in a brief war in the summer of 2006, although the Lebanese Armed Forces were not a party to the fighting, the Israel Defense Forces action being taken instead against the paramilitary group Hezbollah.

    Correlation is not causation, etc. But a cause does not have to yield an absolutely consistent effect to be valid due to confounding factors.

    And India and Pakistan have backed down from “the nuclear option”. McDonald’s correlates with pacification.

  55. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: July 4, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Vuk will tell you that is probably a new important discovery :-) brought about by “A luxury strictly reserved for the spare time mental unproductive activity”

    Possibly, possibly.
    “Never let the brain go idle. ‘An idle mind is the devil’s workshop.’ And the devil’s name is Dr. Alzheimer. ” GC.
    since the subject is the Ap index , here is bit ignored by the experts:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

  56. Douglas Cohen says:

    Douglas Cohen says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:15 am
    and noticed a temperature downtrend in the last part of the 19th century with distinct dips at around 1890 and 1910 — that is, 10 years or so past the 1880 and 1990 dips in the solar index. Is this just a coincidence? I wonder.
    Vuk will tell you that is probably a new important discovery :-) brought about by “A luxury strictly reserved for the spare time mental unproductive activity” \sarc [just in case you misunderstood]

    I agree it’s just a straw in the wind, the product of ten minutes idle curiosity, proving nothing at all, just like the idle observations of all those 18th and 19th century beginning geography students noting how neatly the bulge of South America fit into the concavity of Africa when they first saw a map of the South Atlantic. (Oh, wait..)

  57. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:29 am
    since the subject is the Ap index , here is bit ignored by the experts:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

    For good reasons as it is nonsense, the product of “mental unproductive activity”

    Douglas Cohen says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
    I agree it’s just a straw in the wind, the product of ten minutes idle curiosity, proving nothing at all, just like the idle observations of all those 18th and 19th century beginning geography students noting how neatly the bulge of South America fit into the concavity of Africa when they first saw a map of the South Atlantic. (Oh, wait..)
    somewhat pompous and pretentious to think that your ten minutes of idle curiosity will produce a similar revolution of science, but, hey, you can join Vuk in the genius department.

  58. vukcevic says:

    Hey Doc
    Take another look at Tromso, just added a bit.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

  59. Brian D says:

    I really don’t think we’ll know whether this is a true regime change or not until the next minimum and into cycle 25. It’s obvious that step changes happen all the time, its just what happens in the years after that that are of interest. So for now it is weather. If this is a new climate we’ve entered into, that’s awesome, because now we have it on tape. What’s new to us is old news to the old flame, though. Even nature has to take a rest now and again.

  60. crosspatch says:

    “Correlation is not causation”

    Well, I would say there is a very strong correlation between pirates and global warming. I mean, just look at what has happened since the pirates in Somalia started up.

  61. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    Take another look at Tromso, just added a bit.
    To paraphrase Ovid: Adding nonsense to nonsense and soon you have a big pile. As a ‘practical and experienced engineer’ [p.s. I would not let you build my bridge] you should now that changes in the external field on the time scale of changes in Ap cannot penetrate to [and into] the core where the main field is generated [look up skin effect].

  62. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    Take another look at Tromso, just added a bit.
    To paraphrase Ovid: Adding nonsense to nonsense and soon you have a big pile. As a ‘practical and experienced engineer’ [p.s. I would not let you build my bridge] you should know that changes in the external field on the time scale of changes in Ap cannot penetrate to [and into] the core where the main field is generated [look up skin effect].

  63. vukcevic says:

    Neither I would attempt to build one.
    Ignoring evidence, will not make it go away.
    I think Ovidius also said: I speak of facts, doubt is within you.

  64. rgbatduke says:

    Well, I would say there is a very strong correlation between pirates and global warming. I mean, just look at what has happened since the pirates in Somalia started up.

    Ah, a fellow Pastafarian. Cool noodlings, my brother!

    I reside in Beaufort, NC at the moment — one-time home to Blackbeard, home to an annual “Pyrate Invasion”, and summer residence of many graduates from East Carolina University in nearby Greenville. In other words, there are pirates everywhere you look. Although we had a cool (almost cold!) June, July has been scorching so far — for Beaufort.

    The evidence doesn’t lie.

    rgb

  65. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    Ignoring evidence, will not make it go away.
    Spurious correlations [that furthermore violate the laws of physics] are not evidence.

  66. Doug Proctor says:

    The warmists create their problem by insisting on the Unique Solution so fond of engineers: there is only one correct answer (one best) so anything else that might appear to be a solution is an error (or poorer) by definition … once you have selected the answer. This syndrome (USS) is useful when it comes to building bridges that don’t fall down under us, but not so useful is knowledge, rather than practicality, are your goals. It’s applicable here.

    Anthony could be right and Leif could be right. Same phenomenon, under X circumstance, leads to dead sun. Under Y circumstance, not-so-dead. Skeptics allow there to be more than one reason for an observed phenomenon.

  67. George says:

    Interesting in context, and it sent me on a __ hour browse re: Hurst coefficients. Fortunately, today is pack for vacation day, so the sidetrack was welcome.

  68. Douglas Cohen says:

    agree it’s just a straw in the wind, the product of ten minutes idle curiosity, proving nothing at all, just like the idle observations of all those 18th and 19th century beginning geography students noting how neatly the bulge of South America fit into the concavity of Africa when they first saw a map of the South Atlantic. (Oh, wait..)
    somewhat pompous and pretentious to think that your ten minutes of idle curiosity will produce a similar revolution of science, but, hey, you can join Vuk in the genius department.

    Never claimed to be a genius — just like all those beginning geography students weren’t geniuses.
    The point is that the naive amateur eye will notice things that the expert eye has learned to ignore because those experts have been carefully trained to look elsewhere for significance.

    Rather than trying to come up with some more prose designed “to put me in my place” — amusing as that may be to you, are you sure it improves your character? — you might want to estimate the probability that the correspondence in the two curves is just a coincidence. I wouldn’t be sure how to do it, but I’ll bet you could if you wanted to.

  69. Douglas Cohen says:
    July 4, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    The point is that the naive amateur eye will notice things that the expert eye has learned to ignore because those experts have been carefully trained to look elsewhere for significance.
    I think that is myth. Experts are experts because they are good at spotting significance.

    you might want to estimate the probability that the correspondence in the two curves is just a coincidence.
    Yes, there are standard ways of doing that. An expert can often do that simply by looking [having training in spotting significance]. But in judging, the expert also takes into account how plausible on physical grounds the correlation is. And that is where the correspondence fails in your case. Sometimes the experts are wrong [as with the case of the Africa-South America fit], but that is extremely rare, which is part of the determination of the overall probability.

  70. LC Kirk, Perth says:

    @ Kadaka 11.27

    Similarly, no two countries that ever joined the Euro have been at war since (though many of them were perpetually at war with each other prior to that). But how ironic, to be united in eternal peace by financial stupidity, culinary vulgarity and nutritional suicide. And how delightfully human. Aliens would be appalled..

  71. Keith Pearson, Formerly bikermailman, Anon No Longer says:

    Whether weather (of the terrestrial or space variety) or politically, not so sure I like living in interesting times. It *was* a curse, you know.

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    The step-change alone did not define the changepoint. It just happens to be the point where the integral crossed the deviation baseline. It was a big step. It covered a large range. That range intersected the baseline. However, that alone does not make a changepoint; there has to be persistence of deviations towards either vertical side of the baseline on either horizontal side of the baseline-crossing step. A polarity flip in deviation persistence is what defines a changepoint. This changepoint is not spurious. It is real. However (and this is important), the interpretation of what this particular changepoint indicates has been quite sloppy. Best Regards to All.

  73. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 4, 2012 at 9:01 pm
    This changepoint is not spurious. It is real.
    As far as solar activity is concerned, perhaps. The signature in Ap is spurious, just a coincidence, as there are many other Ap-steps not coinciding with any solar changepoints..

  74. rbateman says:

    Dr. Lurtz says:
    July 4, 2012 at 4:35 am

    Picard, working at the Observatorie de la Paris during the Maunder Minimum, claimed to have measured a slightly shrunken sun by means of his painstaking timing method. There being no others at the time capable of measuring the Solar diameter, it is hard to prove or disprove, unless the Sun once again falls into a prolonged period of spotlessness. That we may yet have opportunity to witness.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Precisely what one would desire, a lone coincidence whereby a root process might be discovered, rather than a tangled mess of indicators. Part of the process of elimination is already done for you.

  75. James Bull says:

    This is why I like this BLOG so much here in the middle of a serious discussion on the sun and what it is isn’t doing someone picks up and runs with a silly thread on McD’s and the two weave together and make for a great and informative read, if a little off the wall.
    James Bull

  76. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Spurious correlations [that furthermore violate the laws of physics] are not evidence.
    …….
    More likely something neither solar or the climate officialdom whish to know
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Aa-CAM.htm

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (July 4, 2012 at 9:23 pm) wrote:
    “The signature in Ap is spurious, just a coincidence, as there are many other Ap-steps not coinciding with any solar changepoints..”

    I suggest you take a lesson from Dr. Judith Curry and restrict yourself to expert commentary in areas where you actually have expertise.

    For example, when Tomas Milanovic wrote a guest post at Climate Etc. about ergodicity, Dr. Curry was honest & forthright in admitting the shortcomings of her knowledge in that area.

    With all due respect:

    Your misunderstandings &/or deliberate distortions of elementary stats fundamentals are misguiding naive members of this community.

    You can’t get away with arguing
    1 + 1 = 1984 (Law of Authoritative Ignorance &/or Deception).

    In the case at hand, you are AGAIN wrong AT THE LEVEL OF ABSOLUTE LOGIC. This time it has happened in a sufficiently simple context that more audience members than usual are capable of independently catching you red-handed and calling you on it.

    If you want to ague that 1+1 does not equal 2 then there is no basis for sensible communication and you are destroying trust at such a fundamental level that it is straight-up creepy.

    Reread what I wrote above more carefully ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/04/another-regime-change-indication-this-time-in-solar-data/#comment-1024740 ).

  78. vukcevic says:
    July 5, 2012 at 2:26 am
    More likely something neither solar or the climate officialdom wish to know
    More likely something nobody needs to know.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 5, 2012 at 3:58 am
    “The signature in Ap is spurious, just a coincidence, as there are many other Ap-steps not coinciding with any solar changepoints..”
    I suggest you take a lesson from Dr. Judith Curry and restrict yourself to expert commentary in areas where you actually have expertise.

    It just so happens that I do have expertise in the meaning and physics of Ap. Do you?

    So as I said: The signature in Ap is spurious, just a coincidence, as there are many other Ap-steps not coinciding with any solar changepoints..

  80. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Is it just me, or does anyone else picture Sheldon when reading Leif’s comments?

  81. cba says:

    so what is the correlation with Earth’s albedo?
    that is the 900 pound gorilla in the room that provides the equivalent to solar tsi variations, can vary dramatically, and is potentially subject to all sorts of internal and external influences via its primary contributor – clouds.

  82. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:30 am
    Is it just me, or does anyone else picture Sheldon when reading Leif’s comments?
    where is my Amy?

  83. cba says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:36 am
    so what is the correlation with Earth’s albedo?
    Hardly any that I can see. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Albedo-Since-1984.png is a plot of the Albedo since 1984 [from http://www.leif.org/research/Palle_Earthshine_2008.pdf ] . The black curve is from ISCCP FD data, while the blue curve is the albedo measured from earthshine on the Moon. The ordinate is the albedo anomaly [or simply difference] relative to the average 29%, so a value of +1 means 30%, and so on.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (July 5, 2012 at 4:21 am)
    “It just so happens that I do have expertise in the meaning and physics of Ap. Do you?”

    I do not falsely claim expertise in physics.
    You do falsely project expertise in stats.

    At the level of absolute logic you have erred above. That is a very specific & absolutely accurate grievance which you cannot escape.

  85. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:16 am
    More likely something nobody needs to know
    so naïve can be fooled forever by the ‘status quo elite’
    climate change is:
    nothing to do with the sun
    nothing to do with the Earth
    everything to do with CO2
    anything else is “spurious” !
    (first 5 commandments)
    For some even many it is fine, but for me not, I don’t by the ‘status quo’ science.
    Clear cut spectral response of sun-earth-climate indices shows differently:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Aa-CAM.htm
    -Nature abhors coincidences; it is ruled by cause and consequence-
    It’s time to realize, as old Winston said
    “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the
    time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (July 5, 2012 at 4:21 am)
    “So as I said: The signature in Ap is spurious, just a coincidence, as there are many other Ap-steps not coinciding with any solar changepoints..”

    You’re wrong on absolute logic. There’s no basis for communicating with you if you will not admit 1+1=2.

    Reread what I wrote above more carefully ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/04/another-regime-change-indication-this-time-in-solar-data/#comment-1024740 ).

    If you want to make a sensible argument, the only option is to contest whether the changepoint is significant in the long-term vs. the short-term. Interpreting it as significant at the scale of 1 solar cycle is eminently sensible, accurate, & RIGOROUSLY DEFENSIBLE. HOWEVER (and I think this is what has you all bothered), it’s way, way, way too soon to interpret it as being significant at long timescales. Rather than simply say this, you have opted to engage in obfuscation, furthering undermining the basis for trust.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:31 am
    I do not falsely claim expertise in physics.
    You do falsely project expertise in stats.

    Interesting difference there between ‘claim’ and ‘project’…
    The behaviour of Ap is not a question of statistics. On a finer time resolution there is nothing special about October 2005. The specific ‘step’ is caused by a single, sporadic magnetic storm in September 2005 overlaying the general decline in geomagnetic activity that happens in every solar cycle.

    At the level of absolute logic you have erred above.
    Tell us what is the difference between ‘absolute logic’ and ordinary logic?

    vukcevic says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:33 am
    you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
    You seem to labor very hard to try to do just that…

    Paul Vaughan says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:47 am
    If you want to make a sensible argument, the only option is to contest whether the changepoint is significant in the long-term vs. the short-term.
    Which changepoint? The Ap-one is spurious as there are many abrupt changes in Ap.
    it’s way, way, way too soon to interpret it as being significant at long timescales.
    It is just a coincidence and is not significant on any time scale.

    Rather than simply say this, you have opted to engage in obfuscation, furthering undermining the basis for trust.
    I’m not fishing for trust, and I have simply said repeatedly that the Ap-step has no significance that I can see [having expertise in Ap and its long-term behavior].

  88. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:31 am
    You do falsely project expertise in stats.
    The behaviour of Ap is not a question of statistics. On a finer time resolution there is nothing special about October 2005. The specific ‘step’ is caused by a single, sporadic magnetic storm in September 2005 overlaying the general decline in geomagnetic activity that happens in every solar cycle.
    Perhaps a [clearly labeled] graph will help you over the hump: http://www.leif.org/research/October-2005-Non-Event-Fine.png
    Since Ap is caused by the solar wind, the variation of its magnetic field [B] and speed [V] could also show you that there is no ‘changepoint’ in the solar wind either: http://www.leif.org/research/October-2005-Non-Event.png The arrows point to October 2005.

  89. MarkW says:

    Correlation is not causation, but it is often a good clue as to where to look.

  90. Laurie Bowen says:

    gopal panicker says:
    July 4, 2012 at 3:47 am “”thats all good….but has there been any change in solar output””

    Depends, . . . . .The data only goes back about “”The earliest surviving record of sunspot observation dates from 364 BC, based on comments by Chinese astronomer Gan De in a star catalogue.[7] By 28 BC, Chinese astronomers were regularly recording sunspot observations in official imperial records.[8]“”
    according to the “wickedpedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

    So that means we have been “measuring”, compared to the estimated age of the sun, for just an instant.

    I feel “confident” most would agree that there have been changes in solar output . . . what is “debate-able” is: how much change, was that change significant, and that ever populular question . . . were those changes due to human made causes???? . . .

  91. Laurie Bowen says:

    An afterthought: Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

  92. Laurie Bowen says:
    July 5, 2012 at 10:52 am
    An afterthought: Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    Very likely didn’t happen: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Leif Svalgaard

    1+1=1984. Loud & clear. (/sarc)

  94. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    1+1=1984. Loud & clear. (/sarc)
    Shirking away meaningful contributions, again.

  95. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Based on that Ap index graph, you could say that there is some longer-term cycle in play of 120 – 140 months. If that were so, the plot would only cover one and half of such cycles.

    Plenty of other places in the graph where a sudden, sudden decrease in index takes place. In particular, if you took the plot from month 40 to month 80, it’d be pretty similar to months 150 – 200.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, or that I know what’s going on, just looking at the graph and seeing what it tells me……..

  96. maxberan says:

    Rhys Jaggar (12:11 July 6) refers to longer term cycles. I don’t know if he refers to the Hurst or the raw Ap diagrams but if the former this was a recognized problem with this type of rescaled cusum analysis when it was in vogue in the hydrology literature in the 1970s. Because the graph uses the sample mean it is forced to zero at both ends and this imposes spurious long waves into the trace. Maybe things have changed but statistical significance tests of the time did not allow for this departure from true random walk and so led to false claims for the existence of long waves.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Leif Svalgaard (July 5, 2012 at 7:36 pm)

    Work obligations limit the time I have to volunteer comments here.

    I don’t take your commentary on stats seriously.

    FACT:
    If you take the integral of second order central differences, you’ll shift the wave a 1/4 cycle.

    This SHOULD be obvious to EVERY reader here.

    Since it is NOT (very unfortunately), you’ve managed to get the wool over innocent eyes yet again. Anthony’s strong common sense appears to have led him to some vague intuition about this. Regrettably, I don’t have to the time to develop a little course module to straighten every innocent (potentially gullible) reader out.

    I suggest everyone read the intermediate-level-stats comments P. Solar has volunteered to vukcevic over here:
    a. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/detecting-regime-shifts-in-climate-data-the-modern-warming-regime-ended-in-1997/#comment-1024136
    b. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/detecting-regime-shifts-in-climate-data-the-modern-warming-regime-ended-in-1997/#comment-1024282

    For more advanced readers, see here:
    1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/detecting-regime-shifts-in-climate-data-the-modern-warming-regime-ended-in-1997/#comment-1024301 (LCAM, CLT, TTG = tropical temperature gradient)
    2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/detecting-regime-shifts-in-climate-data-the-modern-warming-regime-ended-in-1997/#comment-1024320 (ACC, aggregation criteria)
    3. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/03/detecting-regime-shifts-in-climate-data-the-modern-warming-regime-ended-in-1997/#comment-1023997 (HCS)

    Now: Back to work developing a customized nonstationary anharmonic wavelet analyzer to explore hierarchically coupled frequency shifts in QBO & solar-terrestrial data…

    Best Regards to All.

  98. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 6, 2012 at 9:31 am
    FACT: If you take the integral of second order central differences, you’ll shift the wave a 1/4 cycle.
    And what has that to do with whether the October 2005 ‘step’ in Ap is spurious?

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Leif Svalgaard (July 6, 2012 at 9:55 am)

    In the integral of 2nd order central differences there are going to be 2 changepoints EVERY CYCLE.

    You’re attempting to authoritatively direct a narrative based on a step in the data to obfuscate the meaning of a changepoint in the integral.

    This will fool naive followers (e.g. Pamela Gray), but the costly tradeoff of your ongoing obfuscatory commentary is the undermining of trust from more advanced readers.

    Don’t waste anymore of my time.

  100. vukcevic says:

    It is often said (by ‘cranks’ and others) that there may be a link between volcanic and solar activity, I couldn’t find any using a volcanic index I constructed some time ago, since this is a thread about Ap, I decided to have another go:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
    Not much in it, but at least it is an improvement on what I got last time.

  101. Jim G says:

    vukcevic says:
    July 6, 2012 at 11:27 am
    “It is often said (by ‘cranks’ and others) that there may be a link between volcanic and solar activity, I couldn’t find any using a volcanic index I constructed some time ago, since this is a thread about Ap, I decided to have another go:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
    Not much in it, but at least it is an improvement on what I got last time.”

    One man’s crank is another man’s prophet. Dr. Iben Browning believed there was a connection between various solar system orbital positions, (not solar activity) and volcanism. He predicted the coming cooling back in the 1980′s due to tidally induced volcanic activity.

  102. vukcevic says:

    Hi Jim
    Being a prophet has a big disadvantage, not allowed to be wrong, as Dr. Browning found to his distress, so I should be happy with the alternative lesser status.

  103. Paul Vaughan says:
    July 6, 2012 at 10:59 am
    You’re attempting to authoritatively direct a narrative based on a step in the data to obfuscate the meaning of a changepoint in the integral.
    You might be delighted to learn that it was Anthony that tried to correlate the two: “I’m happy to report that something I recognized and reported back in 2008 related to solar data has been independently confirmed by another source, and was a surprise when it showed up in my inbox two days ago.
    Readers may recall that for some time I’ve been pointing out a strange anomaly in the Solar Geomagnetic Index that occurred in October 2005″

    undermining of trust from more advanced readers.
    I don’t need trust from people proclaiming they are more advanced.

    Don’t waste anymore of my time.
    nobody twists your arm forcing you to visit WUWT or to respond or to rant.

    vukcevic says:
    July 6, 2012 at 11:27 am
    It is often said (by ‘cranks’ and others) that there may be a link between volcanic and solar activity
    and every time that claim is debunked [confirming the crank status], e.g. by using a superposed epoch method that show volcanic activity around heliospheric current sheet crossings [that organize solar activity] or magnetic storms:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png

  104. Jim G says:
    July 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    One man’s crank is another man’s prophet. Dr. Iben Browning believed there was a connection between various solar system orbital positions, (not solar activity) and volcanism.
    The celestial body that raises the largest tides of all is the Moon. The tides are largest when the Moon is closest [at perigee], but there is no increase of Earthquakes at or around perigee or decrease at or around apogee: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquakes-Perigee.png
    One way out [to rescue the claim] is to deny that volcanism and earthquakes are related. You want to go there?

  105. aaron says:

    It looks like there was a dip, but after it looks like levels were where they’d be if it stuck to trend.

    However, the character of the data does change. The variance drops to something like 1/3.

  106. aaron says:
    July 7, 2012 at 6:14 am
    However, the character of the data does change. The variance drops to something like 1/3.
    This is because we were on the way to solar minimum. The variance is always lower at every solar minimum.

  107. Stephen Wilde says:

    From a source quoted by Leif:

    “Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and
    climatologically significant increases in the Earth’s reflectance from the out-
    set of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid-
    2000. After that and to-date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial
    albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years.”

    http://www.leif.org/research/Palle_Earthshine_2008.pdf

    Well I’ve been saying for some time that I observed that the jet streams were no longer drifting poleward around 2000 and that seems to ‘coincide’ with that increase in cloudiness.

    In fact I think there was a sudden small shift back equatorward at that time and/or an increase in jet stream meridionality.

    There may have been some stability in cloudiness after mid 2000 and up to around 2007 but to my mind the most recent data should show a further increase in cloudiness since I note more meridional jets than before over the recent couple of years and it is my contention that more jet meridionality gives more clouds globally.

    I see that the paper refers to data which only goes up to 2007 which is already 5 years out of date and does not cover the recent record low solar activity and record negative AO (which produced high meridionality and, I suspect, higher global cloudiness).

    So since that initial increase in cloudiness there must have been a reduction in solar energy entering the oceans and I note that the rate of increase in ocean heat content seems to have declined ( or ceased) around 2003 by some accounts.

    If we have had a further increase in cloudiness within the past 5 years then the rate of energy input to the oceans will have declined further which would presumably compound the tropospheric cooling effects expected from the now negative phase of the PDO (or rather Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation).

    So it appears very simple.

    The activity level of the sun somehow alters the zonality/meridionality of the jets and/or their average latitudinal position to change global cloudiness and the amount of energy entering the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    The ENSO process and the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation then modulate the energy leaving the oceans for the troposphere and also (for some 10 years or so) the temperature of the waters entering the Arctic Ocean in the flow that runs past Spitzbergenwhich has an effect on Arctic sea ice quantities.

    The level of solar activity alters the amount of energy entering the oceans. The oceans then control the rate at which that energy is released to the air.

    I have previously described how the sun could have such a top down effect on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere so as to shift the climate zones poleward or equatorward.

Comments are closed.