So far, SC24 solar magnetic activity has been in a relative funk. See my post on this very issue from last month.
Leif Svalgaard points out this new paper in AGU from Keating, and kindly placed a copy on his own website for us to examine: Link to Keating-Bz.pdf
The crux of the paper is a forecast, which extends significantly into SC24, even though there is just a small number of observed data points:
There seem to be two schools of thought on the activity level of SC24, those who think it will be very low, and those that think it will be higher than normal.
Dr. Svalgaard goes on record here on this blog in saying:
I’ve been predicting that SC24 would be the smallest cycle in a century, so it is no surprise that it starts out weak and anemic.
While I’m certainly no solar expert, based on what I’ve seen thus far, I’m inclined to agree. I think that Keating’s prediction will not be realized.
This graph of Ap magnetic index will be updated in a few days, with the uptick this month in SC24 spots, perhaps we’ll also see a corresponding uptick in the Ap Index.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below with the latest available data from October 6th, 2008:
click for a larger image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anybody else find it more than a little duplicitous to show a “see, it’s normal, don’t worry!” projection that takes up the whole image, point to 5% agreement with the first part of an 11-year projection and then expect people to be convinced? Well, the first part matches, so the rest of it should be fine. *dusts off hands* Problem solved, nothing to see, move along.
This is kind of like predicting that a measured level of activity that is currently very low but cyclically becomes very high will increase in the future.
Here’s a cookie, Einstein.
[…] New essay claims- “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing” October 31, 2008 Posted by honestclimate in Uncategorized. trackback New essay claims- “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing” […]
I sincerely believe nature works in cycles. If the sun remains spotless for the next decade or more we will suffer another climate minimum. Heaven help us as lots of people will starve and perish.
I’m gobsmacked.
Is the model they are using for the projection “good enough” to project a two year series (that could be dominated by noise) into a 12 year projection?
Am I missing something?
This graph of Ap magnetic index will be updated in a few days, with the uptick this month in SC24 spots, perhaps we’ll also see a corresponding uptick in the Ap Index.
While the Ap values held at 5 for the past two months, I noticed an increasing number of double digit days this month. However, since there were still a large number of low single digit values for the month, my SWAG is for an Ap value this month of at least 7 or 8.
Forgot to add that the numbers I’m most interested in seeing about now are your WordPress statistics for this past month. Should be available in what, a couple hours?
REPLY: It will end up slightly less than last month’s total, but ahead of the reduced adjusted data I presented last month accounting for the 2 day SPAM attack traffic. Probably about 830K – Anthony
Keating’s steep rise does not seem to have begun (so his forecast seems to not be correct), but when activity does begin it will be impressive if it behaves at all like his pattern.
Leon Brozyna (15:11:14) :
my SWAG is for an Ap value this month of at least 7 or 8.
I think 6.8, but there are sometimes a difference between the NOAA Ap and the ‘real’ Ap from Potsdam.
In assessing ap keep in mind that because of the geometry, the Earth will observe ap values that are 20% higher near the equinoxes [i.e. late September, early October] than during the solstices. This has nothing to to with the Sun, and should ideally be subtracted away.
Leif Svalgaard (15:55:44) & Leif Svalgaard (16:40:22)
I bow to your greater wisdom. I didn’t realize that the value would be greater during the equinoxes. That explains why my SWAG for Sept (+5.5) was greater than the actual 5 SWPC has listed. The actual SWAG I got for Oct is 7.3, so, if I should adjust it to account for the equinox, it’s closer to your 6.8
In the figure heading of the graph, the authors explain “The correlation between the two is due to the fact that the McNish-Lincoln method uses actual data when available”. I tried looking up abstracts for the bases of this model to see if it was based on theoretical physical concepts – but I was unable to come up with any. This graph looks like it was generated by a computer program trying to correlate some function with past data points. Can someone tell me whether the McNish-Lincoln model is physics based, or is it just a math construct?
Let me get this straight…they have hope that the solar magnetic activity will pick up so they can continue the global warming rampage?
They’ve got IMF data since the end of 1963, which gives them five full cycles, and from that they make a smoothed average IMF cycle. That is then scaled on the (y axis) to give the best fit to the current cycle data. The cycle length seems fixed at 11 years. I’m not sure how many points they used to do this best fit. According to the paper, only ones since late 2007. They must think that’s enough since their 90% confidence bands are pretty tight. Are they overconfident?
They should plot this like the ice extent curves so we can cheer this cycle on.
I sincerely believe nature works in cycles. If the sun remains spotless for the next decade or more we will suffer another climate minimum. Heaven help us as lots of people will starve and perish.
If the sun remains spotless that long (a big if), then we will see if there is another climate minimum (an even bigger if).
When I read that paper I just laughed and laughed and laughed. It is wishful thinking from the science fantasy section of warmer theology, solar deniers group. Actually, that is being too generous. It is just a lie. http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
That is the Omniweb site. Anybody can go to it and download interesting data. If you do download the IMF and Bz data, it shows that it might still be in downtrend. It certainly hasn’t pointed up. So the little bit of point up on the Keating graph is a fabrication from their methodology. The last data point for a 27 day rotation is 4.3, the previous one of 3.9 was the lowest for 43 years. Meanwhile, back at Oulu, the neutron count is still climbing, and we may be still six months off the month of solar minimum. It is a beautiful world.
Yet another psuedo prediction and wishful thinking that ignores the fundamental lack of field magnetivity driving solar activity. The fact remains that field magnetivity has hit bottom by all indicators and has shown little promise of increasing substantially anytime soon, as they say. Penn and Livingston have demonstrated the opposite. I’m not buying it.
David
But Leif has already called the solar minimum has having occurred on one of his posts. I assume you disagree?
Old Coach (17:43:16) :
Can someone tell me whether the McNish-Lincoln model is physics based, or is it just a math construct?
just the latter. [I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘physics’ based though]
Pet Rock (18:47:23) :
David Archibald (18:57:07) :
If you do download the IMF and Bz data, it shows that it might still be in downtrend.
The ACE spacecraft [which is part of the data that goes into the OMNI dataset] has real time data. The last years’ worth of 27-day rotations show:
BR 2380 B 4.418 BZ 1.271
BR 2381 B 4.502 BZ 1.432
BR 2382 B 4.435 BZ 1.455
BR 2383 B 4.348 BZ 1.565
BR 2384 B 4.386 BZ 1.583
BR 2385 B 4.269 BZ 1.346
BR 2386 B 4.140 BZ 1.202
BR 2387 B 4.149 BZ 1.296
BR 2388 B 4.338 BZ 1.353
BR 2389 B 4.056 BZ 1.305
BR 2390 B 4.409 BZ 1.564
BR 2391 B 4.183 BZ 1.447
pretty flat with no trend at all.
Meanwhile, back at Oulu, the neutron count is still climbing
No, it is falling: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
and at Moscow it has been falling for a while, too: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/main.htm ,
so we may be past minimum. It is a cruel world.
Wow, what a method McNish-Lincoln have devised. Tack a prediction onto a set of actual data so that a casual inspection makes anyone think that the prediction runs from the beginning and there is 100% agreement so far. This is wonderful – every global warming model can be completely validated by events (if you don’t look at them all together)
My rubbish detector is twitching
Just to play along with this ‘let’s pretend’ exercise…is there any historical precedent for that degree of increase? Granted, I’m no solar scientist [but I do work in analytical chemistry…], but that level of increase, from 1.4 >2.6…would there not have to be some precursor [or trigger…] to cause a magnetic surge of that magnitude?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it previously stated [here] that the dynamic for the decrease (an Ap of 21 going to 7, approx.) of Oct. ’05 was yet to be fully explained? That being a given, how could anyone predict with reasonable certainty that the reverse will occur; for an energy state to make that degree of change…that would imply one hell of a ‘kick in the pants’.
Nice of them to mention Hathaway who has everything well in hand, including the piece in the 2009 Farmers Almanac. Just keep refining that model and sooner or later you’ll get it right in 20-20 hindsight.
They forgot to mention that the big difference between 1954 and 2008 is that there have been ‘other’ troughs as well extending back into 2007.
Today’s hot sunspot (1007) is mushy and looks not to last.
After multiple false alarms, it’s going to take more than wishful thinking to dig this one out of Lodi, including Catania cheating.
SIDC (Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, Royal Observatory of Belgium) monthly mean sunspot number for October 2008 is…
2.9
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
I just happened to stumble onto this report in the German FAZ newspaper
http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EA76668E9105E490AAEE2DE0CE7CC317C~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
via a sceptic German site.
Summing the main points of the report in English:
1. Two researchers at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich have determined that the Earth’s magnetic field and earth climate are coupled.
2. Whenever the earth’s magnetic field was weak, average global temperatures increased slightly.
3. In laboratory trials Alexander Pazur and Michael Winklhofer studied seawater’s capability to absorb CO2. They subjected a cylinder filled with seawater to varying magnetic field strengths.
4. The solubility of CO2 in seawater goes down as magnetic field strength decreases. If magnetic field strength drops 10%, then seawater absorbs 5% less CO2.
5. In times of weak magentic fields, CO2 remains in the atmosphere – and thus leads to slightly higher temps. Statistical analyses have confirmed this mechanism.
6. The researchers do say, although measureable, the effect is very small, i.e. a 1% weaker magnetic field leads to 1 ppm more CO2 in 10 years.
7. Their work is featured in Geophysical Research Letters.
Now why do I have doubts about this?
Leif Svalgaard (00:26:18) :
“No, it is falling: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
and at Moscow it has been falling for a while, too: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/main.htm ,
so we may be past minimum. It is a cruel world.”
Actually, it is back up today, though the overall trend the past few days has been downward. But really, it is too early to discern that we’re past minimum based on the cosmic ray flux. It was lower back in February and May:
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_hour&y1=2008&y2=2008&m1=1&m2=11&d1=1&d2=1&h1=0&h2=23&mn1=0&mn2=59
But you did say “so we may be past minimum.” It is hard to refute that. When you put it that way, even if you are wrong, you are right. 🙂
I’m amazed by the lack of scope in so many studies regarding the sun. What of the spotless days trend that’s edging toward the 2nd SD of the Dalton Minimum? Taken in conjunction with low solar magnetism it points in a very different direction from a sudden heliomagnetic renewal.
Were it me, having learned what I have, I wouldn’t be making forecasts in such a situation at all, I’d be advising everyone remain more equivocal for a time until the evidence piles up for or against model A vs. model B.
When I worked as a lab assistant the tales of scientific egos in the university were legend. I see the sciences haven’t changed much in that regard in the past 20 years …. 😉
I would think the recent decline in the neutron count at Oulu is caused by a temporary increase in solar wind as a result of the recent coronal hole oriented at the earth. I bet that in the next few weeks the count continues it trend upward and Archibalds world will be good again.