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
“If one is going to ‘convince’ the AGW bought crowd, wouldn’t this be the way to do it?” — R. Bateman
That would be true if they were rational, but by now we know that they are probably not.
Hi..this is not relevent to this article but am interested in the use of language around this topic..I am from Australia and there has been a subtle but significant change by those advocating AGW from “global warming” to “climate change”. The significance is obvious that “climate change” is much harder to prove or disprove than “global warming” and I am not sure if it ias deliberate or subconscious happening but in Austraia at least seems to me to be a positioning from certainty to uncertainty in AGW advocates..I would be interested to hear if this is an Australian only change.
Bobby Lane (12:26:10).
Link to this here, Bobby; and some expansion:
Investor’s Business Daily
Jeff L (17:26:48) : Nice peeve, Jeff. Impressed and educated this layman quite some.
Thank you!
crosspatch (10:00:22) :
Are there any data that go back beyond 2000 so we might be able to see if there were any previous “steps” of this sort? What I am particularly curious about is if there was a corresponding step up sometime in the 1970’s.
Yes we have a graph like that back to the 1840s [no typo] and there are lots of such steps. For a graph that I happen to have handy right now [I can update the graph both forwards and backwards if there is interest] check out: http://www.leif.org/research/IHV1882-2007.png
For the theory behind this, see: http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
Some comments are in order:
(1) monthly averages are not very good to use because of a month being a bit longer than the rotation period of the Sun [not to speak about the varying number of days in a month]. The proper averaging interval is one 27-day solar rotation. That is used in my graph.
(2) there is a semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity [due to the aspect of the Earth – nothing to do with the Sun], with peaks in March and September, so October is coming down from the normal peak [kinda the opposite effect of using September temps for October 🙂 ] adding to the ‘step’. This purely terrestrial variation has been removed from my graph.
George E. Smith (10:25:18) :
Does anybody ever do a Fourier Transform on this raw data, to see what its frequency spectrum looks like.
Figure 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-Index%20(JGR%20-%20Version%201).pdf
Don B (11:09:42) :
the linked graph of cosmic ray flux automatically update, and if not, how current is this graph?
It does not, but the data is only a couple weeks old. If I updated it, you could not tell the difference.
NASA recently announced the solar wind to be the weakest in 50+ years, and one would expect the cosmic ray count to go to record levels for the last 50+ years as well.
NASA forgot to mention that at every solar minimum things quiet down and this minimum is not special. It is like saying that every year the temperature fall from a July high of 90F to a January low of 30F, but this year it has fallen to the all-time low of 29F.
You can see for yourself looking at my graph what the CGRs have been doing the past 50+ years.
George E. Smith (15:56:18) :
Is the average, simply the average of those two sites
Yes.
Also, what are you using these days as a Neutron detector; and what is the energy range of these neutrons.
http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/background.html
I assume that the Neutrons are being generated in the atmosphere from charged particle collisions, rather than coming in from outer space (or solar)
Correct.
So what happens if you plot sunspot cycles on top of the Neutron flux.
Lower panel of http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:31:22) :
Stanford Uni have updated their solar polar strength graph showing continued weak strength and no indication of polarity change yet.
And you will not see a polarity change for another 5 years, as the polar fields reverse at solar maximum.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
I am still trying to find data on any apparent slowdown of the solar differential rotation rate but without success…but would like to put money on it.
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf has something on this, but don’t waste your money, though.
Meanwhile the planets align just like in the late 1790’s with matching sunspot activity, leading us into a mini Dalton?
The SC24 peak could be as early as Feb 2010.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
And if that doesn’t happen [Feb 2010] the theory is falsified, right?
Michael Hauber (18:41:38) :
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?
The AA index is wrong before 1957 [too low]. The solar wind [and the correct aa-index] during solar cycle 23 has been just as it was back during cycle 13, 107 years ago. We are just returning to that same condition.
MH: “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.”
Tom in Texas: “Was that before or after the data was Hansonized?
And what is “first 10 months of October” supposed to mean?
”
If you’d prefer the non Hansonised Hadley data then the temp difference between 1912 and 2008 (so far) is 0.8 degrees.
First 10 months of October is supposed to be the first 10 months of 2008.
Will the U.N. Chill Out on Climate Change?
The U.N.’s own observations show no warming trend, but things may still get hot and bothered in Poznan.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2NjZjg4YzMwMDU5YWE2ODYxMGJlNjkxOGNiMjc3ZjA=
Al Gore himself descends on Wednesday to personally bless the conclave’s work product — which, based on past history, we can be assured will range somewhere between flawed, fraudulent, and downright farcical.
Since Kyoto in December 1996, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped, even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen.
The U.N.’s own climate models have failed barely a year after they were made public. They have demonstrated a remarkable inability to even “predict” the present. Will 10,000 people in Poznan somehow ignore this?
It is obvious to the unbiased observer that the data is wrong. Computer models do not lie. Well maybe the programmers Finagle, Bougerre and Diddle fudge a little, depending.
-start quote
Coincidence? Perhaps. But I think investigation is needed to determine if there is any mechanism that would explain or exclude this correlation.
-end quote
Um, perhaps less solar activity leads to lower ozone levels (and ozone being a GHG) less heat retention? (Yes, rampant speculation…)
From http://www.ghgonline.org/otherstropozone.htm
“Tropospheric ozone can act both as a direct greenhouse gas and as an indirect controller of greenhouse gas lifetimes. As a direct greenhouse gas, it is thought to have caused around one third of all the direct greenhouse gas induced warming seen since the industrial revolution.”
[…]
“The largest net source of tropospheric ozone is influx from the stratosphere.”
I wonder if THAT is in the models ….
From old construction worker (19:24:05) :
David L. Hagen (13:51:37)
[…] President-elect Barack Obama declared, “The time for delay is over, the time for denial is over.” “ ‘
More ‘Gore Effect’
-end quote
I fully expect that Obama will be ‘on board’ with the AGW agenda right up until the snow is record deep in DC, the people are screaming about the cost of heating houses, and it’s been 2 years of near zero sun spots. Then I think you will see him politely and intelligently distance himself from AlGore and his message…
This was a trial balloon and sop to the looney left that he’s kind of hacked off a bit with his appointments. He’ll be happy to drop it as soon as the DOD hands him an emergency snow equipment request 😉 It was mere minutes for him to be on TV saying “Governor Who?”…
Gordon,
The change from AGW to Climate Change is deliberate and global. The excuse for it is that a slowdown of the gulf stream due to Greenland melting could cause cooling of Europe so it would be wrong to call it GW. Expect them to forget the ‘melting of Greenland’ predicate this winter when its terrible cold…
Yes, the AGW movement is (oh so slowly) getting bogged down. Hopefully fast enough that they can’t get too much damage done. It has taken me about 2 years to convince one very close (and somewhat left leaning) friend to step away from AGW and be a skeptic. I count that as a double! (me,now me+him). So if we each pick one person to educate…
I expect this year winter to start putting nails in the coffin lid. To help it along I try to ALWAYS talk about global WARMING and not about Climate Change. If someone does use C.C. I like to either say “doesn’t it always?” or else say “In what direction?”… Either answer leads into a discussion of the little ice age, the medieval optimum, Bond Events and other climate cycles.
Ric Werme (16:48:32) :
Emissions trading rocked as Norwegian company is left in limbo.
Quirin Schiermeier
As international climate talks began last week in Poland, the United Nations (UN) suspended the work of the main company that validates carbon-offset projects in developing countries, sending shockwaves through the emissions-trading business.
Based in Oslo, Det Norske Veritas has in the past four years validated and certified almost half of the 1,200 projects approved under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). At its meeting on 28 November in Poznań, the CDM’s executive board temporarily withdrew Det Norske Veritas’s accreditation after a spot check carried out in early November at the firm’s headquarters revealed serious flaws in project management.
The board did not specify which projects are affected, but cites problems with the company’s internal auditing processes, and says that one of its staff members was verifying CDM projects without proper qualifications. As a result, “validation activities could not be demonstrated to be based on appropriate sectoral expertise”, the board reports.
Until June of this year, I had worked for DNV in Oslo for 23 years. For reasons other than the above (poor management in general), I had for some time considered quitting. As you can imaging it was a difficult decision after so many years, as the work was interesting.
But my decision was made easier by our section manager (of more than 200 people) telling us that DNV had started to focus on ‘climate change’. His main point was that the sea level would rise 75m (yes, 75 meters) in the coming century. That helped me confirm my suspicion that management really had lost its remaining sense of reality, so I signed my resignation in May.
I think the claim of 75m was founded on an article in April in Norways biggest newspaper Aftenposten, where NASAs James Hansen is interviewed and quoted as saying (my translation from Norwegian) “Even the most ambitious climate cuts will lift the sea level by 75 meters, according to the opinion of the NASA scientist)
http://www.aftenposten.no/klima/article2353729.ece
The article was part of Aftenposten’s “Het klode” (“Hot globe”) series.
DNV is mainly a ship classification society (self owned foundation), that earns a living from ensuring ship and offshore structures are safe, by issuing certificates on behalf of governments. It has a long history since 1864. It should know better, as the work force is really well educated and focused on quality.
Read DNVs pages on climate change here
http://www.dnv.com/focus/climate_change/
Very sad, really.
People, I’d like to point out what Steve McIntyre has said on issues like this: that if you were a politician, you’d have no choice but to listen to the scientists and take their best advice.
Obama is doing no more than that. There’s no such thing as a “republican” or “democrat” scientist, at least their shouldn’t be with respect to their work. I do think however that the job of politicians should be to ensure strong audit procedures around those scientists that government takes advice from! It seems to me to be self evident that this would be a basic requirement and that whatever systems we currently have in place are a massive failure.
pkatt et al:-)
You Colonials must get used to the appropriate forms of terminology as we here in the Peoples (non)Democratic Republic of Europe have had to do! The climate is not & does not “cool” or show a “cooling”, it displays only a “lack of warming”! Rather like the IPPC do to explain the lower temps in the Antarctic.
It makes complete sense that the sea/oceans give up heat & absorb it from the atmosphere, rather than the atmosphere controlling its own temp. The argument all goes to pot when AGWers claim the oceans are becoming more acidic absorbing CO2 from the saturated CO2 atmosphere when it has to be the other way round through simple thermodynamics, although nothing is ever that simple I agree.
Love the snow & just love all those Gorey scary stories.
Some half-wit professor @ur momisugly Oxford has decided that it is time to prosecute power companies for crimes against humanity & the environment, some of which have yet to be committed?????? Oh well, must put another nob of coal on the fire to keep out the chilly weather we don’t have any more according to the Met Office.
‘The son has zero effect on global temp., only CO2 has.’
What about the Father and the Holy Ghost?
a tiny tim got the number 1009. So officially spotless days over.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1&page=30
If you look at 1911,1912 and 1913 you see the coldness around the years. 2007 and 2008 are in the top ten spotless years .(http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sunspotless_days.JPG) What gets me is the graphs I’ve seen of solar cycles, they all have a little hump at around 90 to 100 days from beginning of cycle followed by a decline to minimum, except we haven’t had the ‘hump’ yet.(http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp2.html)
I think it will be colder next winter. I’ve said it all here http://dreamofthought.blogspot.com/
Comments please? can anyone explain the freak weather of 1963?(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/winter.html)
Gordon Smith,
In Denmark both our prime minister and our ‘climate minister'(!) have stated clearly that their views on ‘climate change’ is based on ‘expert’ advice from IPCC and specific parts of the scientific community alone.
They public acknowledge the fact that scientists can have a complete different view of reasons to & levels of climate change in 10 years time. But they see the changes in energy technology as an golden opportunity for Denmark, not matter what scientist say in 10 years from now – We don’t have any car industry, but a huge (Danish huge) wind turbine industry and we are in general fast movers on tech – opportunity knocks!
The whole European Community (EC) also sees investments in the energy sector as an opportunity to free Europe from Russian or Middle-East energy supplies, and at the same time a way to invest Europe out of the current economical crises with public money.
So no one really cares about climate – It’s just an opportunity to drive needed changes & investments.
The problem ? – One can ask why the economical crises is accelerating and world trade is dropping.
Rapid changes in consumer behaviour, due to uncertainty of the future, is absolutely a driver.
– Consumers don’t know what technology to buy – E.g. what types of cars will be outdated, un-sellable, in 2 years time?
– Consumers don’t want to buy stuff that has been transported half way round the world with ‘co2 polluting’ ships
So although politicians sees the investments and energy changes in a 10-20 year perspective – Consumers are already, due to the politicians doomsday statements, making huge changes in behaviour and as a consequence destroying whole industries and diminishing world trade.
The world trade, that any economist will tell you, always has been the prime driver of global growth.
So, in my view, the AGW theory that the politicians adopted, as a little white lie, and as an excuse for changing energy technology & energy suppliers, is now turning out to drive the economical downturn. And the new technologies, that are supposed to replace the old worlds tech., are far from mature yet.
The little white lie that ran amok……
Robinson:” I do think however that the job of politicians should be to ensure strong audit procedures around those scientists that government takes advice from! It seems to me to be self evident that this would be a basic requirement and that whatever systems we currently have in place are a massive failure.”
The mission of politicians is to keep themselves in power so they can make the rest of us foot the bill for their own ideals and pet projects. They do this by either promising us everything or using scare tactics. In AGW we have both, scare us into thinking we are doomed unless we do something, then taxing us to death to get it done. They are actually pretty good at using the common person’s short attention span and general ignorance about everything to accomplish their “mission”.
Leif (22:15:18) “NASA forgot to mention thatt at every solar minimum things quiet down and this minimum is not special.”
Actually, NASA implies that this minimum is indeed special, since solar wind is the weakest in 50+ years.
Yes, I can read your graph which I refered to, and I was suggesting the cosmic count might go to new 50+ year records, a forward looking statement.
and one of the first to propose the change was Republican strategist Frank Luntz in a briefing memo to candidates back in 2002/3 …
“”Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
Luntz says this was a legitimate approach at the time but has since distanced himself from the Bush Administration’s position, saying that he now believes in the reality of MMGW.
Leif Svalgaard (22:15:18) :
And you will not see a polarity change for another 5 years, as the polar fields reverse at solar maximum.
Granted…but as you know there is an inflow that starts the process…that is not happening.
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf has something on this, but don’t waste your money, though.
Thanks Leif, but i am looking for current data…Aug 07 is not relevant, so i will hang on to my money.
And if that doesn’t happen [Feb 2010] the theory is falsified, right?
Not likely…the theory certainly doesn’t hinge on the solar maximum prediction, we both agree on the solar pole weakness for upcoming activity but i have a causation theory….whats yours?
People, I’d like to point out what Steve McIntyre has said on issues like this: that if you were a politician, you’d have no choice but to listen to the scientists and take their best advice.
Obama is doing no more than that.
—————-
Obama is not doing that, since there are many scientists who disagree with the positions he takes, and few scientists who take positions as extreme as those he takes.
What Obama has done is listen to the scientists who say what he wants to hear, and ignore the rest.
Interesting to look at the Cosmic Ray monitor at Oulu. This site allows you to plot neutrons across any time period since 1964. If you run a plot from Jan 2005 to Nov 2008, you can see a huge increase starting in about October 2005 (same time that the Sun’s magnetic field did that ‘step function’ thing). The site is titled ‘Cosmic Ray Monitor’ but, if it is only tracking neutrons it isn’t tracking all the particles that are Cosmic Rays. Interesting none the less.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/Request.dll?Y1=2005&M1=Jan&D1=01&h1=00&m1=00&Y2=2008&M2=Nov&D2=01&h2=00&m2=00&YR=00&MR=00&DR=00&hR=00&mR=00&PD=1
“The son has zero effect on global temp”
Said with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek I presume? We really need emoticons for this site. 🙂
Anthony…this is a top blog (my fav) and I know times are tuff. But is it possible to appoint more moderators to keep the conversation going…sometimes the wait for moderation just kills it.
REPLY: I had two on east coast time but they are dealing with personal crises due to economic downturn…I have to be very careful who I appoint, because the ultimate responsibility lies with me. – Anthony