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.
” A 0.1% drop in solar input does indeed lower the temperature by 0.025%=0.07K. ”
Leif, .07K per what? Day, month, year/decade?
If the effect is to input less than that output, the loss would then be cumulative.
And most importantly, if there is a pinhole leak in the gas tank, how long will it be before you realize you are losing gas?
Equilibrium, of course, eventually gets reached, as long as the loss does not escalate.
Exactly what do we know, and what do we not know?
Anthony, Has 36% of the vote!!!!
We just might win this yet!!!
Yay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wheeeeeeeeeeee
I don’t believe the energy that soaks into the Earth at the surface is very large compared to energy transfer to the atmosphere and ocean. Dirt is a pretty good thermal insulator, so the sink is limited to a foot or two, in my opinion. The ocean, however, with its low albedo (at low to moderate zenith angles), huge mass, high specific heat, and good convective properties, is a dandy heat sink. The atmospheric heat sink is roughly 1/1200 th as effective as the oceans; the dirt heat sink, at maybe 50 cm thick, only about 1/80 th as effective as the atmosphere, and probably a lot less.
Found this over in Solarcycle 24:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/SSN_Predict_NASA.gif
It’s an animated gif that shows how many goalposts moves have been made.
(Hope this isn’t a banned site for the SNIP).
From my experience in underground mines, approx 50 feet in the rock temp is
constant for the altitude and region.
As you go deeper down, the temp rises linearly.
I think ” hotrod” raises a very valid point. Especially the point regarding other spectrums of light and energy. During an eclipse, does the temperature in the shadow not drop substantially on earth? What would happen to the earth if the sun were turned off, even for a short time ( a day, a week)? These are common sense questions that cannot be disregarded. I always enjoyed visiting with my fathers colleagues and had great discussions with them. It had to be within their field of study, otherwise they were lost. Sadly, truth be told, we are a long way from understanding the mechanisms, and a long way from knowing all the mechanisms. Humility insists we admit how little we actually know, and set our egos aside. What we would like to see happen must not cloud our vision from what is actually happening. I am not minimizing the scholastic efforts of anyone, in fact, it is crucial that we have people who know a great deal about a given subject. I really like what Leif said about moving forward carefully and not jumping to confusions( I am paraphrasing and I am hoping this was what he meant). Weather is analogous to science in that it can change quickly and without warning, but it can also change very, very gradually. I am ok with either. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go yet. Like looking at the stars at night, it is very humbling, yet at the same time uplifting and invigorating . Just my humble opinion.
Robert Bateman (19:37:53) :
” A 0.1% drop in solar input does indeed lower the temperature by 0.025%=0.07K. ”
Leif, .07K per what? Day, month, year/decade?
Per the time scale of the drop. Assuming that the drop is not too abrupt [e.g. hours]. The basic assumption is that what comes in must go out. Equating the two gives the rate quoted. If that assumption is violated, then you have to careful model where the heat goes. Just hand-waving won’t do. Talking about hand-waving, at the recent meeting in Napa in December, one speaker pointed out that there were many kinds of waves: sound waves, Alfven waves, shock waves, etc, but the most important waves seemed to be hand-waves judging from how often they were employed!
Robert Bateman (20:38:00) :
Found this over in Solarcycle 24:
It’s an animated gif that shows how many goalposts moves have been made.
Perhaps the last slide should read January 2009 and not 2008.
When I was young I kept my own temperature charts for 50 cities. I was shocked to see a partial eclipse in Sept. 1969 in Sacramento drop the daytime highs 10 degrees off it’s trend line and persist all the way into December.
One event.
Yes, it should be reading 2009 instead of 2008. Somebody just forgot to change the year.
Robert Bateman (21:05:55) :
I was shocked to see a partial eclipse in Sept. 1969 in Sacramento drop the daytime highs 10 degrees
I witnessed the total eclipse on June 30th, 1954 and still remember how quickly the temperature fell.
jeez (19:54:10) : Wrote:
Aww shucks, thanks, Smokey. At least I have an audience of one. My funniest post ever on WUWT went unnoticed a few months ago.
—————————————–
Audience of at least two actually, although you have to admit that there was some competition on here today. I’m not sure which was funnier, Mike’s comment, or Leif feeling the need to explain it.
I haven’t been on here long, but I take my hat off to Leif. Total, full-service explainer of everything:
Leif Svalgaard (13:30:00) :
Mike McMillan (12:36:47) :
Capitalized Nazis were the National Socialists, who believed in a charismatic leader and believed government should regulate otherwise free markets. Thank goodness those beliefs have faded into history.
Sounds very much like our government…
Yeah philincalifornia, although I personally liked the grammar nazi correcting the usage of Grammar-nAzi.
Perhaps, given the consensus on this forum that we may be entering a global cooling period, an update is warranted on the Wikipedia entry for “Global Cooling”, which takes a historical perspective on an apparently dead theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Hi all,
I’d just like to ask Leif if he has a link to the Potsdam Ap data. I’d like to be keeping track of the most ‘official’ stuff possible. That’s why I started using SIDC data from Belgium for sunspots.
Speaking of Aa values, I was able to download values of that index from SPIDR since 1868. It’s going quite a bit slower as there are 8 values per day * 365 days per year * 140 years… I’m sure you all get the idea.
While I don’t know for sure that we will encounter global cooling, it seems a reasonable possibility. Leif is quite correct in his calculation that a 0.1% drop in solar irradiance would create a mere 0.07K (or C if you prefer) drop in temperature. However, if we have a Maunder Minimum style event, are we really sure the drop in irradiance would be only 0.1%? I don’t recall there being too many pyranometers in the 1600’s. What if the drop is 1%, 2% or even an awe-inspiring 5%?
I do think we’re going to learn alot if this is a repeat of the Maunder Minimum. We might learn how it started, how closely it was actually related to the Little Ice Age, and all kinds of other great stuff. I’m looking forward to it with an open mind.
Thanks for all the thought provoking content you all place here,
Paul Stanko
Paul S. (22:17:22) :
I’d just like to ask Leif if he has a link to the Potsdam Ap data.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/gifs/apindex.html
However, if we have a Maunder Minimum style event, are we really sure the drop in irradiance would be only 0.1%? I don’t recall there being too many pyranometers in the 1600’s. What if the drop is 1%, 2% or even an awe-inspiring 5%?
There are good reasons for the Maunder minimum not being 5% lower: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470
Leif Svalgaard (19:16:08) :
Let the Sun be like that for 500 years, the reduced solar output would equate to roughly 35K, and the oceans would be frozen solid. Or for 5000 years and the oceans wouldn’t get 350K and would cool to below absolute zero, or for 50,000 years, etc…
If ‘the oceans didn’t get’ means that. But you may want to tell us that ‘didn’t get’ means.
Surprised I need to explain, but if we are at perpetual minimum the oceans are missing out on approx .1% of the solar input per day, year whatever. During the LIA we had approx 270 of those years, that has to equate to a decent reduction of thermal energy in our oceans.
SC21, 22 & 23 got the extra .1% that they might not have received going on history leading to the blow off valve situation with the 1998 ENSO event perhaps.
I wonder how this .1% figure is calculated, is it an average of all sunspot cycles?
I would expect quite a variance in solar output from trough to peak on the lowest and highest SSN this century.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (22:41:49)
I would expect quite a variance in solar output from trough to peak on the lowest and highest SSN this century.
Better fix that or the sarcasm would be deafening, meant over the last 100 years….
Paul S. (22:17:22) :
However, if we have a Maunder Minimum style event, are we really sure the drop in irradiance would be only 0.1%? I don’t recall there being too many pyranometers in the 1600’s. What if the drop is 1%, 2% or even an awe-inspiring 5%?
Interesting point, the aa figures seem to suggest during the Dalton that you can go lower than Svalgaard floor or normal solar cycle minimum (I am prob not looking at the Svalgaard adjusted aa count) and as the Dalton is no badboy, how low did we go in previous grand minima?
Ya know, if the guys that keep the records and use secret formulas to calibrate their data weren’t the same guys pushing their agenda I might be willing to buy into AGW more. Does conflict of interest ever come up with the IPCC + Hansen + Gore 3 Amigos?
If anyone can prove definitively that warming causes CO2 to increase and not the other way around they should speak up now or forever hold their peace. I know cold water can dissolve more CO2 but that doesn’t necessarily mean that CO2 lags temperature. Someone must have a 100% proof that will knock the IPCC off its High Horse and show the world it’s a Gore Ponzi con job.
Leif Svalgaard (21:05:31) :
Robert Bateman (20:38:00) :
Found this over in Solarcycle 24:
It’s an animated gif that shows how many goalposts moves have been made.
Perhaps the last slide should read January 2009 and not 2008.
The most amusing thing about the last slide is the ‘prediction’ of an Rmax=110.
Down 30% from Rmax=160 in the 2006 ‘prediction’.
You’re looking good on this one Leif. 🙂
By the way, thanks for your Ap graph. By my ever so accurate cursory eyeballing, it does seem that the C20th was generally more active than the C19th, which is only to be expected given the sunspot numbers. It’s interesting to note the continued high activity following the dropoff in cycle Rmax after 1950, and I think this goes some way towards explaining the disconnect between sunspots and temperature in the late C20th. I think the plot Paul Clark posted gives a good visual representation of the cumulative increase too.
Given the warmer weather which pretty quickly follows a rise in Ap, and the evident 4-8 year lag of longer term temperature averages behind Ap, it’s clear to me that the big ocean heat battery has been losing more than it is has been gaining for quite a few years now. And given that the effects of the ‘step change’ downwards in Ap noted by Anthony haven’t really hit yet in terms of their effect on long term averages, we can see which way it’s going to go:
A drop followed by a small uptick in temperatures somewhere between late 2009 and 2012, followed by a steep decline. For me, it’ll be fun listening to the warmista crowing about temperature recovery knowing what coming afterwards.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:37) :
Paul S. (22:17:22) :
I’d just like to ask Leif if he has a link to the Potsdam Ap data.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/gifs/apindex.html
However, if we have a Maunder Minimum style event, are we really sure the drop in irradiance would be only 0.1%? I don’t recall there being too many pyranometers in the 1600’s. What if the drop is 1%, 2% or even an awe-inspiring 5%?
There are good reasons for the Maunder minimum not being 5% lower: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470
Thanks, Leif! I bookmarked the Ap page and will use that one from now on.
I read through the TSI discussion and am left agreeing that a 5% decrease would be kind of a 3+ sigma event, not one we should ever expect to witness. My calculations using the Stefan-Boltzmann law indicate a 2% drop would cut the temperature by approximately 1.5 Kelvin. So, perhaps that gives us a first guess at a ceiling due to solar variability?
Paul
Hi everybody,
I’m sure Leif and probably some others knew this already, but for the rest of us… the Aa index was lower in at least the first 6 months of 1912 than it was at any time in 2008, at least in the spidr data. So, we may end up rivalling the 1911-1913 minimum, but probably not exceeding it. I’m still very interested to see SC25 though which, as I recollect, Dr. Hathaway at NASA forecast to be ‘the weakest in centuries’. Do I have that quote correct?
Later,
Paul
Ron de Haan 🙂
Thanks very much for that very interesting piece & very much appreciated, I learn something every day from this site, thanks also for the web links, I owe you a pint:-)
Jeff Naujok:-) I think I remember that now – the little grey cells aren’t what they used to be @ur momisugly half a century! It was probably my time to cook the supper that night so probably missed it first time round!
It is still very cold over here, yet another nob of coal Mr Crachet:-) I have a sneaky feeling that the weather forecasters are somehow regretting the climate scientists being under the same umbrella in the Met Office. It is all very well them saying the cold 2008 & this winter being “in keeping with our understanding of Climate Change, not every year will be warmer than the last one”. This seems to be in total contradiction to what the models have predicted/projected. I would venture to suggest that their “understanding of Climate Change” is rather limited!!!! Are we on track for a 0.2°C rise in global temps this decade?
“But it I sincerely believe people such as those at USGS greatly underestimate the amount of CO2 from oceanic volcanoes.”
Beck essayed that the 1812(Mayon? Some here so assert.) and 1815 Tambora eruptions raised the atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm in early measurements by chemists. This required a decade or so to return to the ~300 average for the cooler 19th century.
The Tambora eruption was a VEI 7, to which we are subject a few times every millenium. The ejecta amounted to 100 km^3, of which, the ultraplinian column requires 20% be H2O and CO2 gas for support (as well as minor components like SO2). CO2 can be as much as 50% but usually is less than 5% of the gas when measured.
Chaiten is to this point a VEI 6 with little SO2 and at very high latitude, both factors unlike Pinatubo which similarly ejected more than 10 km^3. Isn’t it odd that 10 Mtons or so of SO2 can get all this play with the warmeners where a Gton of CO2 (from Pinatubo) is ignored?
Isn’t it also odd that Pinatubo isn’t obvious in the Mauna Loa data, if in fact, the trend is anthropogenic?
Beck reported the measurements but did not attribute the rise to volcanism.