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
Leif (22:15:18) To expand on what I said above, in Svensmark and Calder’s “The Chilling Stars,” they write “There is usually a delay of a year or two from maximum sunspots to minimum cosmic rays, ..” And so I assumed the maximum level of cosmic rays for this 50+ year period is yet to come.
“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 only upside to that is that Hansen will now fly over to the UK to testify…
Maybe he’ll start to really like it over there?
We’d miss him.
Terribly.
Really.
JimB
Meanwhile Artic Ice extent appears to be accelerating. At the top of extent for this decade http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png and approaching the 1979-2000 average, certainly far ahead of the 2007 extent. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
For the bloggers who claim that the sun has very little to do with our climate I refer you to the paper called LINKAGE BETWEEN SOLAR ACTIVITY, CLIMATE PREDICTABILITY AND WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT by
W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse
TECHNICAL PAPER
JOURNAL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
Vol 49 No 2, June 2007, Pages 32–44, Paper 659
This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed
hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than
half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years
in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage
between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms
observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years.
It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage
between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the
acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a
diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed
to human activities.
The above paper can be found at
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
Note also that there is rightnow an enormous coronal mass ejection heading towards jupiter. See the animation on space weather :
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/08dec08/cme_c3_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=si98gul2idvrr6jngj7djn0e27
Sorry Gordon, but that’s been going on for a few years now. Guess the news was a little slow to reach down there 😉
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost have complete control. I am glad you are having fun with my typo of Son vs. Sun. It’s good to smile, I laugh at UN everyday.
Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders would focus on coping with whatever weather we get instead of stopping it?
Anna v,
I’m no expert in these matters, but I don’t think that is a “Tiny Tim.” I had no doubt I was looking at a genuine sun spot when I saw it.
I just woke up to this. I guess ol’ sol heard us talking, and woke up a little bit too. 🙂
Basil
Looks like a SC23 spot has just poked through.
Sorry science guys.
This lawyer will not let you slide. I don’t care what political stripe a politician wears, the way law and politics works is that the law and government must rely on scientific consensus for answers. In a court of law, as in politics, often it is impossible to wait for scientific certainty before decisions must be made. In both politics and law, you have to make decisions based on the consensus of scientists at the time.
If the scientific consensus is wrong, and proved to be wrong, the law and the government will then go with the “new” consensus until it is proved to be wrong.
That is the way the law and politics works, and frankly has no choice but to work.
The scientific community still has not changed the “consensus” on global warming.
I hear every day that the scientific “consensus” is that we are facing global warming on a catastrophic scale.
The scientific community just needs to raise more hell and come up with better answers.
Part of the problem is that there is no working theory that has yet to get enough traction to challenge anthropomorphic CO2 as a contender for scientific consensus. Just saying that natural variations account for what has happened, will probably not work as a challenge to CO2. Some specific theory about natural variations has to become the new consensus.
That is why I think the sun’s magnetic field’s influence on cosmic radiation is an exciting idea. It is easy to sell this theory to the public if the evidence for it becomes more concrete. It is easy to explain to the public that the sun is not just a giant thermonuclear furnace, but that it is also a giant magnet. And while the temperature of the thermonuclear furnace may not change much, the sun’s magnetism varies greatly, and it is the variation of the sun’s magnetic output that causes climate change. I can sell that story till the cows come home. Actually, I find that most people are genuinely fascinated by it.
So Svensmark and Kirkby need to really crank up this CLOUD experiment at CERN and need to have more vocal support from the scientific community. This project keeps getting delayed and the silence surrounding what is going on with it is deafening. There needs to be support for these guys to finish this project and some heat put on them to get the results out.
If their ideas pan out, and especially if the earth continues to cool, this paradigm will shift and shift quickly. If you want to change politics, change the scientific consensus first.
Is it getting delayed? I thought they were still in the prototype building period. Data collection is supposed to begin in the 5th year, around 2011 thus. And in the absence of any result, I understand the “deafening” silence around it. BTW, I think they got all the support they needed: around 12 million dollars.
Bill Illis (16:16:48) :
The graph you linked to has not been seasonally adjusted (the sea level has a yearly cycle, reaching a peak in the Southern hemisphere summer and a dip 6 months later). You will notice that this years ‘dip, is higher than last years so, as I said before, the rate of sea level rise is increasing again.
Errr…that’s why we use mean levels…
Enisor
Delayed in the sense that it was first proposed about 2000 and didn’t really get started till late 2006 or early 2007.
Also:
Initially they thought they would have some results by 2009 and now I understand its 2011.
If I am wrong about this please someone correct me.
“davidgmills (07:20:26) :
Sorry science guys.”
Great post. I need to think on it more.
I agree that it IS that way…just not sure it has to STAY that way.
You can show something is clearly WRONG without having to prove what’s RIGHT.
I don’t have to prove WHO murdered someone in order to prove someone DID NOT murder someone.
JimB
Don B (04:38:42) :
“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.
NASA is economical with the truth. Here is a plot of all the solar wind observations ever made. The top panel shows coverage. The rightmost point goes to zero as only a few hours worth of data go into the latest 27-day average, so ignore that in the lower panels. The next panel shows the magnetic field strength, then the solar wind speed, and bottom, the ‘pressure’ of the solar wind.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:46:29) :
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.
The ‘inflow’ comes from new SC24 spots, and is happening. It just about a year for the flux to get up into the polar cap, so you don’t se it there yet, but the flux is on its way as we can see by looking at lower latitudes.
Thanks Leif, but i am looking for current data…Aug 07 is not relevant, so i will hang on to my money.
The changes don’t happen from month to month or from day to day or from minute to minute.
we both agree on the solar pole weakness for upcoming activity but i have a causation theory….whats yours?
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
Now, let people compare this with yours…
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:28) :
Here is a plot of all the solar wind observations ever made.
Here is the plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/OMNI-data1.png
Which is pretty much meaningless. Taking the mean of things that aren’t homogeneous gives you something that is worthless in this context. The same as taking a mean global temperature. Climate is regional, there is no “global” climate.
jonk,
That’s a cycle 24 spot. Southern Hemi black-white == Cycle 24 Northern Hemi white-black == Cycle 24.
*See. I have paid attention to previous posts*
Don B (05:51:48) :
Svensmark and Calder’s “The Chilling Stars,” they write “There is usually a delay of a year or two from maximum sunspots to minimum cosmic rays, ..” And so I assumed the maximum level of cosmic rays for this 50+ year period is yet to come.
You confuse max and min, perhaps. Anyway, no need to be confused:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux3.png
matt v. (06:31:06) :
For the bloggers who claim that the sun has very little to do with our climate I refer you to the paper called LINKAGE BETWEEN SOLAR ACTIVITY, CLIMATE PREDICTABILITY AND WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT by W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse
This paper is total garbage as has been pointed out many times, both here and elsewhere.
davidgmills (07:20:26) :
David, the problem isthat the science HAS BECOME politicised. It no longer is providing reasoned answers, but politically convenient ones.
JimB, exactly right!
Skeptics don’t need to provide an alternate explanation for any warming, since it has yet to be shown that we’re seeing anything out of the ordinary, or that anything we are seeing is due to human activity (beyond minor regional effects due to land use changes).