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.
Should have added this link http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Tom Woods,
Thanks for the link.
But I’ll stick to my assertion.
Want to bet a six-pack of Sam Adams?
Ed Scott
Pay no attention to Hansen. He’s a just a nuke-industry stooge.
Honestly, I see no reason why the greenie wackos like him so much.
Leif Svalgaard (07:30:59) : “This is because the SWPC values are not correct.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
This is a perfect example of why much of the data used in the AGW debate is not exactly what it may seem to be.
More to the point, does NOAA know that these values are forecast values (er, preliminary estimates) or not? Apparently, large portions of the data available via NOAA are no where near as reliable as one would think. Quality control at NOAA seems to need a bit of management attention.
I can report that in my days of sending weather data to Offutt’s forecast center that all data was not of equal quality. Anthony’s poking around has brought light to this otherwise non-discussed subject. Thank you too, Anthony.
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
The step is due to a very large sporadic storm Sep. 9-15, 2005. See the solar conditions [big red dots=flares] at that time:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005,09,04
This was a one-off [although some people might try to convince us that it happened only a week before a syzygy of J+U+N+V or some such] event and does not portend the ‘end’ of SC23 activity.
As you can see from the first Figure at
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
solar wind magnetic field (B blue) has had a steady decline since 2003 and 2005 Sept-Oct does not show any special change. The steady decline is the main reason for a declining ap. Solar wind speed has been roughly the same with three progressively smaller bumps [2003, 2005, 2008]. Some three CME related spikes stick up, but nothing special [i.e. ‘out of place with the data’] happened Sep-Oct, The three bumps show up in ap. There is a simple formula that connects the variables: ap = 0.0404 * (B*(V/100)^2)^1.1642 [with R2 = 0.81], f.ex. if B = 4 nT and V = 400 km/s, ap = 5.1; B = 20 nT, V = 800 km/s will give you a major storm with ap = 167.
In my opinion, the is no significance to the ‘Oct 2005’ jump. The Sun did not undergo any qualitative change near that, just the regular decline we always have at the end of a cycle. Humans have a tendency to attach significance to random events, like “an eagle flew over the house the day my son was born, this must mean something”. Oct, 2005 was such an eagle.
Leif – I’m smiling.
Well.
It’s tough being human.
I’ve found myself irritated with your (Leif’s) unwillingness to clambor on board
with various assertions.
Now having read your latest statement – well . . . I’m humbled and smiling and taking a deep breath.
Your intelligent reasoning and knowing nod toward human foibles and calm encouragement to ” . . . carry on – we’ll get there” . . . .
It’s the best of our species.
It makes me smile.
Thank you.
I have a few questions that may or may not have been asked at some point in WUWT history:
1)The AP Index is a satellite-based magnetic field reading, correct?
2)How much of the sun’s B-field is caused by the solar dynamo current(s) and how much is caused by the rotation (26-ish days?) of the plasma ball?
3)Are there any other major contributors to the field?
If you look carefully at Anthony’s plot and compare it with the green curve [‘theoretical ap’] on the 1st Figure of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf you will notice that the ap plot has two ‘rabbit ears’ in March and September during 2007, which do not appear on my curve. You will find the same ‘ears’ in other years too [even in 2005]. This is a manifestation of the so-called semiannual variation [more at http://www.leif.org/research/geoact.htm ] and is likely due to the size of the Earth’s magnetosphere changing with how much it tilts into the solar wind. This is a purely terrestrial effect and has nothing to do with the Sun [the Sun does not know about March and September – except if you belong to the astrology crowd]. The September storm in 2005 that is responsible for the visual abruptness of the ‘step’ was artificially enhanced [leading to a larger step] because of the semiannual variation.
Trying to find a correlation between surface temperatures and solar activity is not as easy as some comments here imply. If you want to see an almost instantaneous change in temperature associated with solar activity, you can watch the sunrise on a clear day, I suppose. 🙂
This article indicates there can be a lag of 10 to 30 years in “regional” temperatures:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081219180532.htm
I wonder if the probable lag time for “global” temperatures is known.
Leif Svalgaard (08:47:38) :
Many scientists [most are people too] bask in and seek attention [and funding – the latter not a bad thing] and their organizations {NASA, etc] hype every little thing as a gigantic breakthrough [solar winds lowest ever, magnetic portals, elves, doozy solar cycles, you name it].
Would that list include also climate prediction models with positive feedback built in? Is that not the longest gravy train, receiving the most attention?
I don’t think you can say that, since we don’t know how the sun “should” act, just like we don’t know how global climate (as silly a concept as that is) “should” act.
Robert Bateman (09:19:17) :
From all the graphs and indices posting in this forum the last couple of days, it sure looks like SC24 has crashed through the guard rail and is to be found plunging down a steep embankment.
Leif Svalgaard (12:44:45)
Since my prediction [of 75] back in 2005, the polar fields have weakened a tiny bit, leading to a prediction that now stands at 71, but since that is not statistically different from 75, I do not foresee any change in my prediction.
Graph
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
suggests range 79-85 for late 2013, which is not far of Dr. Svalgaard’s prediction. As I am well aware he doesn’t think much of it, but as an overall amplitude assessment, the periodicity graph (blue line) gives a reasonable approximation since 1920 and the amplitude envelope (red line) from 1890 (except for SC 20 in both cases).
p.s. (periodicity graph phase has now been revised from 2pi/3 to 2pi/4, thanks to an anonymous contributor) Rest of the material on my website may be corrected in due course
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk
@TonyB
re, your (05:16:52) :
Tony, the link to tempature sets from switzerland (meteoswiss) you may have already.
but they changed their webpages recently – different link, so I add it here:
http://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch/web/de/klima/klima_heute/homogene_reihen.html
(has monthly temperature and precipitation data for twelve stations)
WetterZentrale has some longterm temperature and precipitation datas
– source unknown –
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/klima/index.html
DWD has monthly datasets here for 44 stations in Germany:
http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=_dwdwww_klima_umwelt_klimadaten_deutschland&_state=maximized&_windowLabel=T82002&T82002gsbDocumentPath=Navigation/Oeffentlichkeit/Klima__Umwelt/Klimadaten/kldaten__kostenfrei/ausgabe__monatswerte__node.html__nnn=true&T17403010631149843731916gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimadaten/Teaser/Daten__Beratung__teaser.html&T55200343671181104940198gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimadaten/Teaser/Veroeff.html&T17401010631149671087318gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimadaten/Teaser/Daten__Entgelt__teaser.html&T17400910631149670782053gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimadaten/Teaser/Daten__WiTech__teaser.html&T147600785081206012013169gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimadaten/Klimafaktoren/KF__Teaser.html&T19607931211153805139770gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/allgemeines/klimadaten/teaser__datenservice.html&T19607831211153805134368gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/allgemeines/klimadaten/teaser__stationsinformationen.html&T21400353661157011331648gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/allgemeines/teaser__klimadatenzentren.html&T17402110631149838814972gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KU1/KU12/Klimagutachten/Teaser/Mobile__Messungen__Teaser.html&T17402910631149843720977gsbDocumentPath=Content/Oeffentlichkeit/KU/KUPK/WetterShop/teaser__wettershop.html&_nfls=false
Datasets from Sweden/Finland here:
http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/day/temperature/
Datasets from russia here:
http://meteo.ru/english/data_b/
@tonyB
a good source for various data is the climate explorer fron KNMI, Netherlands
http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi
Rod Smith (10:17:11) :
More to the point, does NOAA know that these values are forecast values (er, preliminary estimates) or not?
Yes, I have [and other too, I’m sure] pointed that out to them several times, but to no avail. The usual reply I get is that there is complaint form on their website that I can fill out if I have a problem with their service. To be fair to them, they ARE understaffed [quantity and quality] because of low funding.
EDT (10:37:57) :
1)The AP Index is a satellite-based magnetic field reading, correct?
No, ap is derived from ground-based readings [there were no satellites – except the Moon back in 1932].
2)How much of the sun’s B-field is caused by the solar dynamo current(s)
All of it [as far as we know]
3)Are there any other major contributors to the field?
No, not that we know of. From time to time people have talked about a ‘relic’ field in the Sun’s core stemming from when the Sun was formed. This was particularly popular back when the ‘neutrino problem’ was a problem [that the number of neutrinos observed is only a third of what our models show are produced]. A magnetic field at the core would help [perhaps] in explaining this. Now we know that the problem is not with the Sun, but with the neutrino [there are three kinds and a given neutrino changes kind as it flies along – and the early measurements could only measure one kind]. Also helioseismology has shown us that the internal structure of the Sun is just what our models predict, so the core magnetic field idea is not in favor anymore.
TonyB,
Armagh data at:
http://climate.arm.ac.uk/contents.html
I used the raw data, but there is a period with months missing that I fell foul of initally in averaging. Also there are actually several series. I’m checking back to see which ones I downloaded (in October).
I can email the spreadsheet – left contact on your website.
Dear vukcevic .Really beautiful curves. I would like to hear how it sounds. Low amplitude phases seem like gaps in the octave.
“” F Rasmin (01:59:07) :
Steve Berry (00:56:55) : ‘…even though you were late and made poor excuses..’ The Americans should never have bothered have turning up at all? Look what ‘winning’ did for you! “”
Well yes very uncool Steve. Might I suggest that you Google the “Lend lease” program; and then tell our Yankee friends they were late to the big dance.
Yes UK deserves to be honored. for standing up for Europe when the others had folded; but without Lend lease, it would have come to nought. The manufacturing powerhouse that WW-II USA became (Rosie the Riveter) is what sealed the axis fate.
And as the moderator says; not in keeping with this forum.
George A. Kiwi
Leif
Having studied the “Duhau and de Jager paper – The Solar Dynamo and Its Transitions during the Last Millennium” I am struck by their assertion that there was a step change in solar activity in 1923. Having read all your comments here and on CA I feel that you would not agree with this. Am I correct?
@Leif
re: …there were no satellites – except the Moon back in 1932…
– I liked that, was funny –
@TonyB
Data from Denmark, Faroer and Greenland from DMI, Denmark
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/climat.htm
So can draw a relationship for the lowest point for Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index and the economy!? or the beginning of the green house effect? I want to know, as a scientist, what is the value of noticing the lowest Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index, and how to make a recommendation that we need to change direction.
Cheers!
Luigi
Ed Scott (08:54:35) : Wrote
Can Dr. Pachauri be far behind? Pun intended.
—————————————————————
A Carbon Tax For Animal Emissions – More Unintended Consequences Of Carbon Policy In The Guise Of Climate Policy
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/05/a-carbon-tax-for-animal-emissions-more-unintended-consequences-of-carbon-policy-in-the-guise-of-climate-policy/
———————————-
So it’s scientifically proven, debate over, that if you tax a cow, it stops farting ?? Wow.
Leif Svalgaard (08:47:38) :
“It is called error bars, confidence intervals, statistical significance. The public [and many posters on this and any other blog] don’t really understand this and endless [and fruitless] discussions ensue over things that are below the ‘messiness index’ limits.”
Excellent, excellent post, Leif. It should be the lead post of every discussion on this blog (conceptually, if not physically). If I had my way it would be nailed to the forehead of every alarmist, starting with Al Gore and James “saving the planet and creation ” Hansen.
This also caught my eye:
“…an informed public is vital to our civilization…”
Classic good news/bad news. 🙂
“” Mary Hinge (02:44:10) :
jeez (01:54:58) :
2. ………. make the entirety of the sea surface records suspect.
4. I simply do not trust …….. they simply make up false accuracy and data.
6. Much of the Global warming signal ……..suffered discontinuities through Mao’s cultural revolution in China………………. Stalinist Soviet Union.
Personally I believe…….
Thanks Jeez for furnishing the script for the next X Files movie….Spooky Mulder and his conspiracy buddies would have great fun with this! “”
Well Mary, I’m in total agreement with jeez on his number 2 point; except I’m not as charitable as he was. To me the the the historic record for 73% of the world’s surface (the oceans) prior to around 1980, is properly characterized (in a scientific sense) as “garbage”.
The story is often repeated as to how surfacew temperatures (at sea) were historically measured by tossing a bucket over the side; thereby grabbing a water sample from some totally uncontrolled water depth; and then measuring its temperature on deck where winds could cause evaporative cooling of the sample. Around 1922 or so I understand, they started measuring the temperature of engine cooling water from the sea; but now in the warmth of the engine room; thus causing a discontinuity in the temperature record; which anyhow was supposed to be a measure of the lower troposphere air temperature (see Anthony’s errant barn owl boxes).
Why anyone would believe that the near surface air temperatures and the oceanic water temperatures would be the same is way beyond my pay grade.
Well that issue was resolved in Jan 2001, in a paper in I believe Geophysical Research Letters, reporting on up to 20 years of data recorded from oceanic buoys which simulktaneously monitored temperatures in the water at a constant one meter depth, and air temperatures on a tower at 3 meters above the surface. With ocean currents perhaps a few knots, and wind speeds anything up to hundreds of mph, why would you expect the air and water to reach the same temperature. That 2001 paper reported that the warming observed during that 20 year period from water data, was inflated by 40% over what the actual air temperature measurements revealed, so the actual warming for that period was only 60% of what the water data claimed.
Now that does not mean that all the previous history needs to be corrected by that 60% factor.
The key piece of information from the buoy studies, was that the water and air temperatures ARE NOT CORRELATED.
So in fact the correct historic air temperatures over the oceans are not recoverable from the water data; and after all they only represent 70 odd percent of the total global surface.
So I don’t even care if the GCM climate models (video games) are correct or not; it is clear that the historic data that goes into them is pure garbage.
So I don’t believe any of this projected ancient history data; well at least no closer than the obligatory 3:1 climate modelling fudge factor. I would suggest that climate science as a science, probably goes back no further than the International Geophysical Year of 1957/58.
Even today when an oceanic research vessel returns to a set of GPS co-ordinates to take updated water temp measurments; there is no assurance that they are even in the same water as they were at some previous time; due to the meandering of ocean currents.
So when Jeez says “suspect”, I suspect he is too polite to say what he really believes.
Ben Kellett (04:44:14) wrote:
“…our views have to be as (if not more) robust, defendable, well reasoned and backed up with solid evidence, as those views supporting AGW.”
Constructive criticism seems to win out here, that and driving others to better and more accurate analysis. Cathy (10:32:36) I agree no one does it better – we’re priviledged aren’t we!
One thing though. There is a lot of discussion and analysis here. One thing scientists don’t always do well is communicate to to non-scientists (I mean the head-in-the-sand don’t-want-to-know-about-science general public). AGW has the hockey stick. While we’re looking for trends and influences to counter it, what images can be used that will stick in people’s minds if they get into to the MSM?