As many regular readers know, I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The abrupt step change seemed (to me) to be out of place with the data, and the fact that the sun seems so have reestablished at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered is an anomaly worth investigating.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little Ap magnetic activity there has been since. Here’s a graph from October 2008 showing the step in october 2005:
click for a larger image
However, some have suggested that this event doesn’t merit attention, and that it is not particularly unusual. I beg to differ. Here’s why.
In mid December I started working with Paul Stanko, who has an active interest in the solar data and saw what I saw in the Ap Index. He did some research and found Ap data that goes back further, all the way to 1932. His source for the data is the SPIDR (Space Physics Interactive Data Resource) which is a division of NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). He did some data import and put it all into a mult-page Excel spreadsheet which you can access here.
I had planned to do more study of it, but you know how holidays are, lot’s of things to do with that free time. I didn’t get back to looking at it until today, especially after SWPC updated their solar datasets on January 3rd, including the Ap Index. Looking at the data to 1932, it was clear to me that what we are seeing today for levels doesn’t exist in the record.
About the same time, I got an email from David Archibald, showing his graph of the Ap Index, graphed back to 1932. Having two independent sources of confirmation, I’ve decided to post this then. The solar average geomagnetic planetary index, Ap is at its lowest level in 75 years, for the entirety of the record:
Click for a larger image – I’ve added some annotation to the graph provided by Archibald to point out areas of interest and to clarify some aspects of it for the novice reader.
The last time the Ap index was this low was 1933. The December 2008 Ap value of 2, released by SWPC yesterday, has never been this low. (Note: Leif Svalgaard contends this value is erroneous, and that 4.2 is the correct value – either way, it is still lower than 1933) Further, the trend from October 2005 continues to decline after being on a fairly level plateau for two years. It has started a decline again in the last year.
This Ap index is a proxy that tells us that the sun is now quite inactive, and the other indices of sunspot index and 10.7 radio flux also confirm this. The sun is in a full blown funk, and your guess is as good as mine as to when it might pull out of it. So far, predictions by NOAA’s SWPC and NASA’s Hathway have not been near the reality that is being measured.
The starting gate for solar cycle 24 opened ayear ago today, when I announced the first ever cycle 24 sunspot. However in the year since, it has become increasingly clear that the horse hasn’t left the gate, and may very well be lame.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (08:03:10) :
Temperature on the Earth averaged globally. And on the Moon, too, and anywhere else in the Universe, for that matter.
Should add: where you add 1 W/m2 to a radiation field of 1361 W/m2, just to keep the nitpickers at bay.
I think Smokey is being harsh on the Royal Met Soc’s International Journal of Climate by saying it’s not peer-reviewed. Even if IJC required data were to be delivered up with the manuscript, as we’d all like to see, the peer review would most likely not even touch upon it. Unpaid reviewers are only rarely going to do more than read the paper over, and this is a issue for every journal. The problem is with peer review as a process rather than the IJC.
Finding out if a paper is right can only be done by replication, and the most we can ask of the journals to this end is that they make sure the tools – the data and code – are available.
Leif,
“If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 0.05K warmer… on the Earth averaged globally. And on the Moon, too, and anywhere else in the Universe, for that matter.”
1 W/m2 is potential energy. It only becomes kinetic energy once it is absorbed. There are many variations into how much is absorbed. It depends on which body and how much that body absorbs, to determine how much warmth is radiated.
“Temperature on the Earth averaged globally.”
The term average, when explaining precision, can only lead to variability.
Maybe I was a bit harsh. My apologies. But I stand by my demand that public archiving of taxpayer funded data [especially the raw data and the methodology used to support a submission] must be publicly archived. We’re not talking nuclear secrets here, it’s the climate. If data were publicly archived, there would be a lot more review.
P.S.: Don’t forget to vote for your favorite site today! click
RICH (11:20:45) :
1 W/m2 is potential energy. It only becomes kinetic energy once it is absorbed. There are many variations into how much is absorbed. It depends on which body and how much that body absorbs, to determine how much warmth is radiated.
“Temperature on the Earth averaged globally.”
If you know so much about it, why do you ask?
The variations from body to body do not change the order of magnitude. The correct way of looking at it is this: Let S be the radiation and T the temperature, then we have S = a T^4 or dS/S = 1/4*dT/T, so a 1% change in S gives you a 1/4% change in T. Since the nature of the body is already contained in what T is, we simply have 1 W/m2 is 0.07% of total S = 1361 W/m2, so the temperature change becomes 0.07%/4 = 0.018% of 288K = 0.053K. Where I have used T=288K for the Earth as the place we really care about. If you use another [real] body with different properties, the 288K would be somewhat different, but not by an order of magnitude, so the 0.05K would be a good ballpark figure no matter what body you have in mind.
Leif,
“If you know so much about it, why do you ask?”
Because when we ask, we learn.
“The variations from body to body do not change the order of magnitude. ”
I think it does. However I am not sure to what degree? If you look at quark energy, specifically the elusive higgs bosun, the point in time in which the particle flips its charge, its field of energy is changed. Around that moment when the flip occurs, it changes the amount of energy absorbed due to changes in its field, despite any constant potential energy. Like I said, it all depends on how much is absorbed… and radiated.
Earth is an atom. The moon is our electron, like an electron in the orbit of an atom. There is a lot of room for error, because there are so many unknown variables, such as changes to fields of energy.
So… why are why are super colliders built? Because when we ask, we learn.
“the 0.05K would be a good ballpark figure no matter what body you have in mind.”
Perhaps. But inside that ball park, would that be a bunt or a homerun? And if a homerun, how far out of the park?
0.05K added per year for 100 years leads to an average global temp rise of only 0.05K assuming that the body is at equilibrium and no other changes are expected. If the body is able to retain all of the extra energy, in 100 yrs it will be 5K above the average started at.
If the body is only able to retain the 0.05K for the first year and reaches a new equilibrium, then after 100 yrs the new average is 0.05K higher.
If a body receives 0.05K less radiative energy and continues to radiate what it did before it received less, then the loss will be cumulative.
What means is there currently to measure what the Earth now raditates out into space?
Oh, just a pun here: SC24 – Start here, Start Now. 8 goalpost moves and counting for the NASA prediction.
Leif,
“If you add 1 W/m2 for a year, the temperature for that year will be 0.05K warmer, if you add it for 10 years, the temperature for those ten years will be 0.05K warmer, if you add it for 100 years, the temperature for those 100 years will be 0.05K warmer.”
This ignores the possibility that even a small change in overall temp may result in climatic changes that could change temp even more, ie “natural variability”, which is your pick out of other reasons for last century’s temp increase, such as solar or co2.
Glenn (20:07:54) :
which is your pick out of other reasons for last century’s temp increase, such as solar or co2.
I asked Svalgaard a similar question awhile back…his answer:”The sun shines on the oceans that store the heat for future use”
RICH (15:34:34) :
Like I said, it all depends on how much is absorbed… and radiated.
In the long run, what is absorbed is radiated.
Robert Bateman (19:15:25) :
What means is there currently to measure what the Earth now radiates out into space?
Satellites measure the infrared radiation. F. ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Radiation_Budget_Satellite
Glenn (20:07:54) :
This ignores the possibility that even a small change in overall temp may result in climatic changes that could change temp even more
This works the other way. To suggest what you do, requires you to show that there is mechanism for this or empirical evidence for this happening.
Geoff Sharp (21:30:08) :
I asked Svalgaard a similar question awhile back…his answer:”The sun shines on the oceans that store the heat for future use”
This simply meant that the oceans are a damper of short term variations. This works with cold too. Like where I live [northern CA], the ocean is COLD and lowers the temperature significantly.
Leif Svalgaard (16:44:20) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:01:34) :
What is required is an accurate measurement taken during the lowest point of the Maunder.
First you tell me which year you consider the deepest part of the Maunder Minimum, then we’ll see…
OK…lets go for 1695 and compare that to 1959, probably the lowest and highest point in solar activity in the last few 100 yrs. What do you think would be the W/m2 difference between those 2?
Geoff Sharp (00:37:22) :
OK…lets go for 1695 and compare that to 1959, probably the lowest and highest point in solar activity in the last few 100 yrs. What do you think would be the W/m2 difference between those 2?
1.3 W/m2
Leif Svalgaard (23:11:33) :
This simply meant that the oceans are a damper of short term variations.
??? simply looks totally disconnected from your original answer. So what was your your answer to Glenn’s question “This ignores the possibility that even a small change in overall temp may result in climatic changes that could change temp even more, ie “natural variability”, which is your pick out of other reasons for last century’s temp increase, such as solar or co2.”
Leif Svalgaard (00:48:55) :
1.3 W/m2
Surprising answer considering that figure is based on SC21,22,23…can you elaborate?
Geoff Sharp (01:02:43) :
“This simply meant that the oceans are a damper of short term variations.”
??? simply looks totally disconnected from your original answer.
The oceans holds 1000 times as much heat as the atmosphere and change on much longer time scales [perhaps 30-60 years or longer].
which is your pick out of other reasons for last century’s temp increase, such as solar or co2.
neither one of the two in the large. Both of the two for small changes of the order of 0.1K.
This ignores the possibility …
If you posit a possibility you must specify a mechanism or direct experimental evidence, otherwise it is just speculation and I’m good at ignoring speculation.
Geoff Sharp (01:26:05) :
Surprising answer considering that figure is based on SC21,22,23…can you elaborate?
Absolutely:
1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23”. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.
2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ‘modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn�t change {see 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, on the time scale shorter than solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.
3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun�s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203-206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a ‘floor’ a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT [later revised to 4.0 nT], a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of ~ Weber, corresponding to a constant strength (∼ Ampere) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima: we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind (both source surface and MHD models) are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.
5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the ‘Magnetic Needle’, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). There is a weak trend in the amplitude of 10% since the 1840s that can be understood as being due to an increase of ionospheric conductance resulting from the 10% decrease of the Earth’s main field. Correcting for and removing this trend then leads to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a ‘floor’ in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.
6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have accurate measurements back to the 1820s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity in the last ~165 years [a bit more precise than the 150 years I quoted earlier]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].
Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Frohlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the ‘background’ TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of ‘floors’ in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The five lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a ‘hidden’ source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.
Leif Svalgaard (01:43:29) :
Looks like a cut and paste job full of diatribe…a simple answer would be better.
SC19 was higher in solar activity than SC21,22,23….you dont know how low 1695 was in W/m2 terms. The jury is out unless you can come up with some facts.
Leif Svalgaard (01:32:25) :
neither one of the two in the large. Both of the two for small changes of the order of 0.1K.
If its neither, what does that leave….and internal oscillations doesnt cut it.
Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Wrong. Back to the drawing board.
Jan. 14, 2008: One big puzzle revealed by previous flybys is the temperature of the sun’s poles. In the previous solar cycle, the magnetic north pole was about 80,000 degrees or 8% cooler than the south. Why should there be a difference? No one knows.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/14jan_northpole.htm
December 16, 2008. Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
NASA’s five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. The size of the opening and the strange way it forms could overturn long-held ideas of space physics.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
Leif,
“But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate.”
Absolutely, most definitely… maybe. Thank you for your insight sir. I sincerely appreciate your tremendous work.
Plenty for us to chew over there Leif!
The part which is particularly interesting to me at the moment, is the change in size the sun goes through during the solar cycle as a result of the buildup of these ‘corrugations’ you refer to.
Do these take the form of standing waves running around the sun parallel to the equator?
The 2 km increase of diameter making enough of a difference to irradiance to offset the cooler faculae of the sunspots is of the same order of magnitude as the amount of movement of the solar core up and down (around +/- 0.2km) produced by Jupiter’s changing declination relative to the solar equator as it circulates in it’s 11.86 year orbit. This motion (Identified and quantified by Ray Tomes) could account for the arising of the surface corrugations, being the boundary expression of pressure waves emanating from the core as it gets dispaced from the suns centre.
The characteristic ‘double peak’ at the maxima of cycles dominated by Jupiter would be the dip in amplitude of the corrugations occuring as the velocity of the core’s motion tops out and reverse,s as Jupiter’s orbit transits the nodal crossing point of the suns equatorial plane (during an ‘in phase’ cycle).
I’d be very interested in finding out if there is any data regarding the cross section of the ‘corrugations’ as I would expect them to vary in proprtion to the amplitude of the core displacement, it’s changing velocity and the suns rotational period.
My speculation may be developing a theoretical mechanism with supporting observations. 😉
Oops, right turn Clyde.
as the velocity of the core’s motion tops out and reverse,s as Jupiter’s orbit transits the nodal crossing point of the suns equatorial plane
Should read:
occuring as the velocity of the core’s motion tops out and reverse,s as Jupiter passes the point of it’s maximum declination relative to the sun’s equatorial plane. (7 degrees).
Geoff Sharp (01:59:22) :
>i>Looks like a cut and paste job full of diatribe…a simple answer would be better.
It is indeed an earlier post of mine. The ‘diatribe’ is a the elaboration you asked for. The simple answer is that “all our data shows that the Sun was not dimmer during MM than a recent minima”. There is no evidence to the contrary.
you dont know how low 1695 was in W/m2 terms. The jury is out unless you can come up with some facts.
I just explained to you the detailed evidence for the assertion that the wattage then was as today. The way you should deal with this is to take each of the points and explain in detail to us why you think that that particular point is mistaken.
RICH (05:48:16) :
“But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate.”
Absolutely, most definitely… maybe.
You missed the point that this was a rhetorical question, and that the answer was in the negative.
tallbloke (06:14:33) :
these ‘corrugations’ you refer to. Do these take the form of standing waves running around the sun parallel to the equator
No they are ‘small’ localized hillocks like pebbles on a beach. http://soi.stanford.edu/results/agu96b.html
Leif (01:43:29)
Quiz in the AM, folks; study up.
Don’t you think the ocean oscillations have enough self-centeringness to prevent whatever does vary about the sun-earth interaction from being too sensitive?
====================
kim (08:30:41) :
Don’t you think the ocean oscillations have enough self-centeringness to prevent whatever does vary about the sun-earth interaction from being too sensitive?
It certainly looks that way. Although one can question the ‘anthropomorphic’ language.