We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.
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 included it below with the latest available update from December 6th, 2008:
click for a larger image
What I find 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. Read on for more.
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.
Currently the Ap magnetic index continues at a low level, and while the “smoothed” data from SWPC is not made available for 2008, I’ve added it with a dashed blue line, and the trend appears to be going down.
As many regular readers know, I’ve always pointed out the sharp drop in 2005 with the following extended period of low activity as an odd occurance. Our resident solar astronomer Leif Svalgaard disagrees with this. But I’d also like to point out that this was the time when global sea level as measured by the JASON satellite and reported by the University of Colorado began to lose its upward trend.
Source: University of Colorado, Boulder
Coincidence? Perhaps. But I think investigation is needed to determine if there is any mechanism that would explain or exclude this correlation.
(h/t Joe D’aleo
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I blame global warming….ohhh wait a minute!
Of course, like global warming that isn’t global, there is no “the” sea level. Oceans rise in some places, and lower in others. Nothing to sea, er, see here…
Richard Sharpe (15:02:00) It appears Mary is ‘technically’ correct, looks like the smoothed line is up about 9mm since early this year. However, that is probably less than 2 standard deviations from the regression line, or just noise.
Lol, I guess they don’t occur about every 300,000 years, then. So much for predictability.
@Jeff Id (11:22:15) :
What the heck – buy a Toyota!
@Jeff Id (11:22:15) :
The US Govt may mandate what sort of car is built by the US Auto Industry – but will they be able to mandate that people buy them…
Oh you silly people. Isn’t it fortunate that we have Barack Hussein O’Bunko to “save the planet?!” He’s not going to let any old stinkin facts get in his way. He believes “what the scientists have been saying.” So, stop making up lies based on facts, and get with the fantasy program, OK! //SARC = OFF//
We are in for a rough four years.
And yes, the snowfakes are distracting. I’m glad other commented on them because I was afraid my computer might have picked up a virus that was doing that.
Hasse@Norway (10:29:47) :Considering the huge difference in mass between the atmosphere and the oceans. The atmosphere has only 0.384% of the mass of the oceans (if memory serves me correct).
…. and that doesn’t even take into account the specific heat differences – water has a specific heat just over 4 times greater than air (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity ). So if we are looking at specfic heat differences – which is ultimately what matters in translating energy to temperature – then the ratio reduces to 0.096% or so (assuming the 0.384% is right – if you have a reference, please post as I have always wondered what that number is). Basically what that says is that the energy carrying capacity of the oceans is just over 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. When you look at it that way, the atmosphere itself has very little to do with it’s own temperature – it can’t – it doesn’t have the heat capacity to do that.
Anyone who has been to the ocean experiences this. At night, does the temperature of the water change? No. Why? Because of it’s high heat capacity & high density (relative to air)- it contains a lot of energy that doesn’t instantly dissapate. What about the air temperature – anywhere? What happens at night? It quickly cools down. Why? Very low heat capacity & low density- there isn’t that much energy there to dissapate. What about nitefall in a dry area vs a humid area? Which cools down faster? The dry area. Why? Less moisture, lower heat capacity, less energy to dissapate. What air mass is more energetic / unstable? A dry air mass or humid air mass? The humid air mass. Why? Again, more moisture = higher specific heat = more total energy. Are seasonal temperature variations near the ocean higher or lower than continental areas at the same latitude? Take Denver & San Franscisco for example. Same basic latitude. How many times will San Francisco get below 32 F in the winter? How many times will it get above 90 F in the summer? Same question for Denver? There’s no comparison in the climates. Denver has way more variability. Why? Same answer again – the ocean temperature moderates the air temperature, NOT the other way around – due to total energy content (density & specific heat capacity).
The list could go on & on. This is thermodynamics 101 &/or Meteorology 101. The fact that the world wide ocean temperatures have a profound influence on world wide atmospheric temperature should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has thought about it for even a few minutes. Even most laymen can relate & have experienced these effects.
…. in case you didn’t notice, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
I have been planning some graphs for sunspots in bleak years, such as 1821, 1954, etc. that show a repeating pattern of March-April and Nov-Dec as remnant solar activity bumps.
We have the same scenario playing out in 2008. Going to be a while before I get them plotted out, but I can already see the similarities. On really bum cycles, the pattern disappears, and that’s when things get really cold.
Then there is the issue that Anthony brought up months ago …. how many of the spots that we count today would have been considered spots in 1911??
I’m not familiar with the advance in technology of astronomy, but it would seem to me that the satelite instumentation we use today would be significanly more powerful than a telescope used in 1911. You also have these neat little magnetic signatures we observe today as well. I’m certian that didn’t exists 100 years ago.
I think old Landscheidt is going to be vindicated at some point on all this. He predicted that 24 will be weak, and 25 weaker still, with maunder minimum like climate by 2030. He also predicted that La Nina’s would return, and it doesn’t take a scientists to notice even by the eyeball that the PDO has changed.
“Lol, I guess they don’t occur about every 300,000”
I think they occur on AVERAGE every 300,000 years which means they probably never happen every 300,000 years but sometimes at a much shorter interval and sometimes much longer.
Steven Hill (13:22:20) :
“The son has zero effect on global temp., only CO2 has.”
Odd statement there. Somebody else’s conclusion, perhaps?
See, for the past 10 years CO2 has been steadily rising, yet temperatures have been steady for 5 years, and have declined for 5 years (1998-2000) and (2007-2008). One would think, if your statement is correct, that the reverse would have happened.
Further, from 1935 through 1972, CO2 rose for 35 years, and yet temperatures fell 1/2 of one degree.
So the sun has been nearly as quiet in 2008 as it was back in 1912 (as measured by sunspots)?
Or even quieter if we talk AA index? Or is the low AA index value only low when compared with as far back as 2000?
Average temperature according to GISS in 1912 was -0.3.
Temperature for the first 10 months of October was 0.405, or 0.7 degrees warmer.
Maybe next year will be colder?
Yeah, I figured that. If that’s the case, the average is going way out of whack if/when it happens again. Once again, so much for predictability.
Robert A Cook PE:
Correctomundo, Robert. As a famous philosopher once said:
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
~George Orwell
The digital camera (a la CCD) is far more powerful in acquiring sunspots at the limits of detection than the human eye looking at projections. I aslo see evidence of another form of enhnancement, and that is from the use of Magnetograms, H-Alpha and bands outside the visible to indicate the presence of sunspots while either negligently or conveniently failing to mention that the spots observed were through ‘enhanced’ detection.
David L. Hagen (13:51:37)
‘.After huddling with former Vice President Al Gore about climate change, President-elect Barack Obama declared, “The time for delay is over, the time for denial is over.” “ ‘
More ‘Gore Effect’
In the news the meeting between elect Barack Obama and Al Gore was over shadowed by Illinois Governor being arrested.
@Jeff L
Here’s what I found, which agrees with your estimates.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatCapTable.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/LouiseLiu.shtml
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtm\
And, I agree. I have long said I don’t believe the scam because IT GETS COLD AT NIGHT.
However, that’s just a gut feeling. For a more accurate test there is this experiment that was prefored in 1909 at a cost of probably a few dollars, at most.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2007/12/03/greenhouse_effect_disproved_in_1909
I don’;t know if anyone has duplicated his findings, but it would seem that should be the very fist place to start.
yonsaon (19:41:29) :
The link http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtm did not work. The other 3 did
old construction worker
I posted the link to that above, but as an html so people may have missed it. Here it is again.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatCapTable.html
Sorry, I cut off the “l” at of the “html”
Check out that video of the three stooges, Obama, O’Gore and O’Biden, telling us that the science is settled and how reducing emissions will make it all better. We know how he intends to do it, and it’s not going to improve the quality of anyones life (except to make a few crooks a little richer in the short term) or improve the security of America, but just the opposite, G-d help us!
oops, that’s
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml
and it was the truncated suffix that caused the problem
“Average temperature according to GISS in 1912 was -0.3.”
“Temperature for the first 10 months of October was 0.405, or 0.7 degrees warmer.”
Was that before or after the data was Hansonized?
And what is “first 10 months of October” supposed to mean?
Sounds like fertile ground for some much needed experimentation, with various filters that allow or block IR (the 1909 exp.).
What effect would wind (fans) have on the exterior of the test enclosure, etc.
If one is going to ‘convince’ the AGW bought crowd, wouldn’t this be the way to do it?
Unfortunately the warmers will say the current cool period is weather, or that climate change effects different places differently, or that once the La Nina is over we will be back to out of control rising temps. The only way this is going to stop is if we A. enter an ice age, or B. Have a about 10 more years of neither hot or cold but non-discript temps without either a Nino or Nina to drive the temps. If temps dont go out of control with no Nina to blame it on .. then their house of cards will fall.
While I believe the sun has effects on our climate I think you will find it is more subtle than a sunspot count. There is a lag time, meaning the quite sun we see today might not be felt on the Earth for a couple of years. Dont forget that the last ice age had a volcanic helper(s) to drive down the temps even more. Just as it takes a while for the boiling pot to cool, it will take a while for our oceans to cool too. Mostly the earth has moderate warm and cool cycles, only occasionally is the climate driven to an extreme by and additive event. What kills me is that the fact that other planets experienced the same warming trend we did is totally ignored.
Personally I am praying it doesnt get colder, I dont like cold. But I would settle for some non discript “normal” years. We need to get our scientists back to scientific method and observation rather than predictors with a magical crystal ball (models).
Off topic a bit but Obama met with Gore today. I hopped on the change.gov site http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision and put my two cents in immediately. If a bunch of us did that maybe they would get the idea that were not buyin into the scam.