In my post from yesterday, I highlighted a paragraph from a NASA press release which touched on one of the final findings of the soon to be ended Ulysses spacecraft mission to study the sun:
“Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun’s poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history. “
A few months ago, I had plotted the Average Geomagnetic Planetary Index (Ap) which is a measure of the solar magnetic field strength but also daily index determined from running averages of eight Ap index values. Call it a common yardstick (or meterstick) for solar magnetic activity.
Click for a larger image
I had noted that there was a curious step function in 2005, almost as if something had “switched off”.
Today, since it is fathers day, and I get to do whatever I want, I chose to revisit this graph. Later I plan to take my children to launch model rockets, but for now, here are some interesting new things I’ve found.
First, I’ve updated the original Ap graph to June 2008 as you can see below.
Click for a larger image
Source data, NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
As you can see, the Ap Index has continued along at the low level (slightly above zero) that was established during the drop in October 2005. As of June 2008, we now have 32 months of the Ap hovering around a value just slightly above zero, with occasional blips of noise.
Since it is provided in the same dataset, I decided to also plot the smoothed Ap Index. I had noted to myself back in February that the smoothed Ap Index had dropped to minus 1.0. I figured it was just an artifact of the smoothing algorithm, but today that number remains there, and there doesn’t appear to be any change even though we’ve had a bit of noise in March that put the Ap Index back up to 10 for that month.
I also plotted my own 24 month smoothing window plot, shown in magenta.
Click for a larger image
I find it curious that the smoothed value provided by SWPC remains at -1. I figure if it is a software error, they would have noted and fixed it by now, and if they haven’t then perhaps they are standing by the number. Odd. One possibility may be that they are using a 12 month fixed window, instead of a moving window month to month. If so, then why show the -1.0 data values? Put nulls — in the dataset.
UPDATE: Astute reader Jorma Kaskiseiväs points out something I missed. The explanation is in the header for the dataset file, a short note: # Missing data: -1″. I was looking in the companion readme file for an explanation. Thanks for pointing this out. Surprising though that SWPC does not use a running average. Easy to do as I’ve shown.
While I was searching for something that could explain this, I came across this plot from NOAA’s NGDC which was used to illustrate solar storm frequency related to sunspots:
Click for original source image, a larger plot is here via FTP link.
But what I found was most interesting was the data file they provided, which had the number of days in a year where the Ap Index exceeded 40. You can view that data file yourself here via FTP link. The accompanying readme file for the data is also available here.
What is most striking is that since 1932, there have not been ANY years prior to 2007 that have zero data. The closest was 1996:
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
———————————————————–
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
———————————————————–
2005 3 0 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 18
2006 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5
2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0 0 0 0
Now we have almost two years.
Here is my plot of the above dataset:
Click for a larger image
I also decided to plot the 10.7 centimeter band solar radio flux, also a metric of solar activity. It is in the same SWPC dataset file as the Ap Index, in columns 8 and 9. Oddly the smoothed 10.7 CM flux value provided by SWPC also has dropped precipitously and stayed there. I also provided my own 24 month wind smoothed value which is plotted in magenta.
Click for a larger image
Like the smoothed Ap Index, it has also stayed that way a few months. NOTE: The data past Dec 2007 on the blue line from SWPC is not valid. The smoothed 24 month window is.
Either way it appears we continue to slide into a deeper than normal solar minima, one not seen in decades. Given the signs, I think we are about to embark upon a grand experiment, over which we have no control.
Speaking of the sun slowing down, the most recent images from SOHO show that the recent SC23 spot below the equator has faded. However, a new SC23 spot is just emerging over the sun’s horizon. It appears to be located on the equator.
As for man-made warming, nobody with any credibility is arguing that man-made emissions ALONE affects the global temperature. But it is a major contributing factor…
Yes indeed dennis, AGWers have been conveniently changing their tune as of late, and saying, yes, there are natural factors at work, including the sun (gasp), which can temporarily overwhelm man’s C02. They are simply grasping at straws now, desperately trying to hang on to a fatally flawed hypothesis.
C02 simply does not and can not drive temperatures. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect (95%) comes from water vapor. C02’s role as a GH gas is small, and decreases as it’s levels increase. The first 20ppm has more warming effect than the next 400ppm does. Furthermore, man’s contribution of C02 is only about 3.2%, making his contribution via burning fossil fuels negligible. C02 does play a very important role however, as plant food. Not only do plants require it, but the higher C02 levels go the more they thrive, which is why commercial greenhouses typically have levels of C02 of 1000ppm.
AGW is a nothing but a huge fraud, and is no longer about liberals vs conservatives. Many skeptics, myself included, used to believe AGW, and come from a liberal political background, but once we started looking at the actual science we could see how flawed it was.
Are you trying to make the claim that the scientists don’t fully understand dynamics of our atmosphere? If so, then I support your conclusion.
True. It is the degree that is arguable. It appears to me that the sun is probably the “largest” factor at play. I just can’t imagine the world being that hospitable of a place without the sun, but I can imagine the world with double the amounts of CO2.
Yeah, maybe that really really bright one. I’m pretty sure that we all support that conclusion. ; – )
Not so. I have been an AGW skeptic since college. In the early 90’s my professor was one of the people that helped implement the US temperature measurement system. If I recall correctly he worked on it during the 50’s and 60’s. He always claimed, “I have no idea if the planet is warming, but I do know that no one else can either based of the data we collect.” He was also an assistant to Clyde Tombaugh. He was quite the character.
Maybe you missed this comment by Leif:
He’s not asking anyone to take a leap of faith.
In the same way, no one that I know is arguing that man has zero impact on the global temperature. Just that it is probably neglible when compared to natural forces. Hence, not allowing poverty stricken countries to obtain the same standard of living as the western world is just
‘Cause the Sun is just so darned big. For me it’s really just that simple. CO2 levels rise and fall, the earth appears to know how to deal with it. But the earth appears to have zero impact on the cooling or warming the Sun.
Good advice for everyone. Might I suggest one that isn’t quite so geocentric and a bit more detached… say heliocentric.
Sorry if I am duplicating someone else’s name. Each time I post – I realize someone has already used it.
Intersting post regarding solar activity and climate:
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/
“Hence, not allowing poverty stricken countries to obtain the same standard of living as the western world is just”
I meant to say just… wrong.
“The only thing that will stop man-made global warming is a reduction in the number of humans. Any other action is bound to fail.”
OK, Dennis! You first.
Anyone pick up on the CME from the coronal hole yesterday? Bet it made some pretty lights up north. A quiet sun and a thin ozone makes me run for cover. At 52, I’ve already had 4 cancer spots removed from my face.
A very intriguing post, Anthony!
Clearly the AP index, Solar Sunspot count, and 10.7 cm flux share a common cause. The poloidal field? Why do the convective toroidal fields fascinate the savants so?
“What is most striking is that since 1932, there have not been ANY years prior to 2007 that have zero data. The closest was 1996:”
An unexpected result; revealing-or telegraphing-the coming change in regime (admittedly not enough for certainty without other clues)! The contrasts between 1996 and the current minimum are otherwise stark, e.g., daily sunsposts vis a vis 10.7 cm flux.
The Russians, Badalyan, et. al., will get all the Heliophysic acclaim for auguring this ‘sea change’:
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304005125a.pdf&code=5c626a9c92a416f4d36eebf438633b36
No praise will remain for others to apportion to their own paradigms.
Dennis,
#1. According to peer-reviewed papers, the sun was extremely active, by some measurements, during the period you cite.
#2. There is a lag between solar radiation and temperature (because of the earth acting as a “black body”). That is why, in the Northern Hemisphere, the hottest period is usually July-August rather than June when solar radiation is at its greatest.
Mike
Raven, you asked if anyone knew anything about the history of CA initiatives in the energy sector. This article provides a pretty reasonable overview:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html
Note that historically, CA concentrated on policies that improved energy efficiency, not so much inventing new energy technologies. But it does bring up the question… what qualifies as a “new technology”? It seems to me that new technologies are most often reorganizations of old technologies, then figuring out how to design, manufacture and deploy them cheaply and efficiently. Said in another way, it’s usually the case that “new technologies” result from new ways to think about a problem, not new things to think about. There’s nothing fundamentally new about a wind turbine, or a solar thermal array, or even a solar PV panel — although in the last case a good argument could be made that materials and efficiency improvements in recent years are a result of new technologies, just not ones specifically directed at them.
Dennis Ward,
“So how come that temperatures ROSE from 1985 to 1998 when the sun ’s activity DECLINED? How could anybody believe in a theory in which the correlation was totally the opposite of what was expected?”
There are several things to consider in an answer this question. First, 1985 was near the minimum between solar cycles 21 and 22. Solar cycle 23 began in 1996, and solar cycles display a characteristic shape in which the ramp up to maximum is quicker than the decay back to minimum. So by 1998 the ramp up to the maximum of solar cycle 23 is in full swing. So it is hardly correct to say that this is a period during which solar activity declines. You’ve got one full cycle, with all of its ascending phase, and part of the ascending phase of the next, so you’ve got more of the upside of solar cycles going on than you do of the downside.
Second, we do not really know what kind of the “sun’s activity” is the driving factor, and there are two 22 year cycles in play that are 180 degrees out of phase. During any period in which one might cherry pick to show declining sunspot activity, cosmic ray flux is on the increase. So even if you had picked a period for your argument which matched only a period of declining sunspot activity, anyone who thinks that cosmic ray flux is the climate driver would think you have made their case for them.
Third, there may well be lags between changes in solar activity and climate to consider, but until we understand better the driving factor no one can say this for sure. But it cannot be ruled out.
So, you really haven’t demonstrating anything convincing against a solar-climate connection.
What has me persuaded that there is a solar-climate connection is all the evidence of bidecadal oscillations in terrestrial climate found in all kinds of climate records and metrics: rainfall and drought records, lake levels, tree rings, varves, and a variety of temperature records. The only reason why this isn’t uniformly recognized as establishing a solar-climate link is the lack of an accepted physical process to explain it. But it — the 20-22 year cycle in climate — is there. It is not the only cycle in climate — there are shorter ones like ENSO, and longer ones like NAO or PDO. But even these must ultimately have the sun as a first cause.
As for the warming of 1985-1998, part of it was a longer term trend for which there is not yet a good understanding. I could say it is just the continuation of a trend that began with the earth came out of the LIA, but that doesn’t explain why the earth came out of the LIA and continues to warm. But 1985-1998 captures the better part of a 20-22 year solar cycle that was also unusually warm, and my current belief is that it will eventually be seen to have been just another case of “natural variation” in climate. We’re now seeing the other side of that — unusually warm cycles are often followed by cool ones, in a climactic expression of the tendency of data to revert to the mean.
The sobering truth here is how little we really know about all of this. That’s what makes the certainty of the strongest AGW proponents come off as nothing more than hubris.
poetsam and evan,
you make me feel like Vizzini!
“No More Rhyming now, I mean it!!!”
(anybody want a peanut???)
Dennis,
I agree with you, at least in part. I do not believe that the Global Warmists have proved their case, but on a political level I believe that it is prudent to pursue a policy of no regrets. If excess CO2 does cause global warming then we would regret pumping so much of it into our atmosphere, at the same time we would regret investing in worthless technology like wind farms and limiting our industrial growth, financial well being and personal liberty whether this turns out to be a hoax or not.
Creating a big mess like cap and trade is plain old Soviet Style Central Planning at its worst. A far simplier and perhaps more beneficial approach would be to create a tax on coal and oil which would get progressively larger as time goes on. I’m no fan of taxes, but I like Taxes much better than increasing consumer costs through legislation while forcing them to buy an inferior set of goods for more money, wind and solar are perfect examples of this. While a Tax could be used to balance the budget and slow the great fall of the dollar, and might someday even be used to pay down the debt that our politicians insist on saddling our future generations with.
A cringe every time I hear John McCain try and sell Cap’n Trade as a free market approach to the “problem” of Global Warming. The only true freemarket approach is to tax carbon, but not artifically limit its use. If the government would use this money to become more financially solvent, we would not regret paying this tax and it would naturally allow the power companies to choose the most cost effective solution for themselves, and consumers to selectively reduce their energy use. Its simple, straight forward and does not serve any special interest group hoping to profit from Global Warming without providing a benefit to the people it serves.
dennis ward, the only fact you cite concerns the northern hemisphere. You then go on to talk about global warming.
The southern hemisphere (half the globe) has had no warming for the entire satellite data era.
Funny kind of global warming that only affects (less than) half the Earth.
Dennis Ward – Population reduction to something less than today’s status is likely in the long term (30-100 years), but how much fossil fuel we use per person has much greater implications in the shorter term. Ecological impact grows more in response to a combination of energy use per capita and inefficient technologies than population alone, and governments of the developed countries would be better advised to assist developing countries build their new power plants with the most efficient technologies available (as well as with family planning and education/economic assistance).
Population will continue to grow and birthrates will continue to be high in the 50 least developed countries until their standards of living and average education levels improve. I believe those are the two factors that correlate most closely with reduced birthrates. When birthrates decline it still takes a lifetime, 70 years or so, before the effects on total population become really evident, so we are in for a long, stretched-out bump in global population before it subsides to a more easily sustainable level. The challenge is to lay the groundwork for decreased birthrates while we help all developing countries adopt more efficient technologies the first time around.
Short term focus and lack of long term planning will make the next few decades tougher on everyone, unfortunately, but smarter choices and the reasoning behind them can be taught and encouraged. That is something to tell our elected representatives (they won’t know what we want unless we tell them, but they hear from special interests every day …)
http://www.timprosserfuturing.wordpress.com
Looks like a sunspeck is rotating into view today. On the equator, so #23 still going…..
Remember negative PDO is with us for 3 decades and weep Boeotians:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CORNUS.jpg
Civilization itself will be challenged. We’ll have to be content with the simple survival of Humanity.
While not an expert on climate or the sun, I don’t see the 2005 “off switch”. The drop pointed to is very much in the charts natural variability. (std dev) What I do see after 2005 is a much smaller std dev, meaning to me that something is now constraining the variability. I’d call this an “on switch” because something is suppressing the standard variability.
If we compare the sun as the earth it would seem to me that we could compare the sun spots to super cells here on earth. For supercells to form, there needs to be a “cap” layer that keeps the energy bottled up in the atmosphere. Eventually the cap will erode and if it erodes quickly enough, you’ll get one heck of a show. Similarly on the sun, the magnetic storms still have their genesis at lower layers, but can only cause problems when they break through the capping layer.
To me, the chart does not indicate factors of sun spot production diminished, but rather sun spot propagation to the top layers is being suppressed. Is there a way to measure released energy of the sun spot? I would be curious to see if the remaining 23 cycle spots are releasing more or less energy for their size.
“Never mind that AGW has be disproven, we’ll still need to limit carbon output to try to protect the world as we know it.” is what the AGW proponents will say.
Dennis the Menace,
“It will be interesting to see , if , despite this lower solar activity, global temperatures rise, what will be the next sceptical theory that…”
You’ve hit it square on the nail. That’s what we’re all watching now. Will temps go up, or down? And looking at the temperature data of the last several years, I’d say you alarmists have got a lot of explaining to do. Temps have been dropping.
The question should be what will the alarmists’ theory be should global temps continue to drop? You guys hollered yourselves blue in the face warning everyone that the science was settled and that unless we return to the comforts of the stone age, temps will rise 2-6°C over the next century and that sea levels will rise dramatically.
Now how stupid are these alarmists going to look should the opposite happen? (It’s already beginning to happen).
Hey, Bobw2!
Saw your post – no prob! I’m going with Bob W in NC, if that’s OK. So, keep BobW if you like, and I’ll go with BobW in NC.
Now – a question. I am totally unfamiliar with many of the terms used in this blog, as well as their significance – sorry, y’all. Can someone describe the significance of the AP Index as it is related to sunspot number and 10.7 cm flux, so I can get a better understanding of what this is all about?
Many thanks!
Manmade CO2’s role on the climate is about the same as a single hair in a wig factory.
In Wes Jackson’s “Altars of Unhewn Stone” he has an essay on whether ecosystems always trend to higher energy flows and diversity. He takes us to the Pacific Coast to look at the Coastal forests which have been uplifted over time and whose geology forms successive benches which can be compared. Some of the forests were intitally quite substantial but today many are almost bonsai. He points out that nutrients have been lost or locked up over time and the ecology is running down.
What’s my point?
Today’s biosphere is stunted compared to the Cretacious.
Maybe human beings are the Earth’s way of saving itself from oblivion due to a CO2 trending to zero.
What is the minimum CO2 required for Earth’s biosphere? What is the minimum for evolution to proceed and for diversity to increase? Is 450 ppm better than 350? Is 1000 better than 450? Why does that CO2 have to be locked away like the nutrients in the Pygmy forest?
Looking at the last 6 years, I see a big U-Turn in the works.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
[…] thing I know June 16, 2008 — Troed Sångberg … is this diagram. It’s from probably the best climate blog I’ve ever read, and while there’s no question of the author’s own opinions […]