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.
It’s [that’s right I think] not just about cold weather. Sun spot activity increases the radiation we receive from the sun, which affects just about everything in life on Earth.
So LACK of activity/radiation is going to be felt in everything. It may be temporary, as I suspect it has happened before, but watch out for the other effects – food quality and production, insect and animal behaviour, including migration, political and social unrest, yes, the weather trends, especially wind, disease and epidemic outbreaks, human mental health [depression], and so much more. As all of life is cyclical, I am optimistic that an increase in activity will follow. Unfortunately I can’t predict when.
As in all statistics, they can either show what you are looking for or only give a partial picture. Trends are better than the statistics themselves, I feel.
Wear a hat when it’s cold, even in bed.
Wendy Salter
Justin Sane (00:06:52) Look at the ice core data Gore used, it’s right there, fully ignored.
Paul S (02:14:30) :
…
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.
I think it might be more accuratet to refer to it as a “Black Swan”
I’d like to know what mechanism could possibly lead to that kind of decrease.
Justin Sane:
“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”
You can prove it definitively: Just put a coke in hot water for a while (because you are in wintertime) and open it afterwards…
A little OT but I just have to post this local article. http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=e25537cf-e677-4c20-a61c-8584a406604d It’s been a very long cold snap indeed.
tallbloke (00:27:52) :
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.
Some comments:
1) the average before 1900 is 13.9, after 1900 14.9, so the difference is not great.
2) before 1900, the observatories often lost the strongest storms [trace went off the record]. You can see that in the diminished number of spikes in the curve. I have not yet ‘made up data’ to compensate for that.
3) the Earth’s magnetic field has decreased by 10% since the 1840s. This makes the Earth a bit more sensitive to the solar wind and slowly inflates Ap [and aa] as time goes by. I have also not yet compensated for that effect.
So it is quite possible [likely in my opinion] that there is no real difference.
Paul S (02:29:00) :
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.
The ‘official’ Aa-index from SPIDR [and elsewhere] is too low [by some 3 units] before 1957.
After doing checking, I’m inclined to agree with Leif that the December Ap value from SWPC is erroneous, and I’ve made a note in the post. – Anthony
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (22:41:49) :
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.
The 0.1% is the variation from max to min for the time where we have actual data [1978-2009]. It scales pretty well with the size of the cycle, so for the small cycles early in the 20th century it should be something like 0.05%. The cycle average would be about half of the max swing, so 0.05% for recent cycles and 0.025% for the small cycles.
Smokey thanks. I’ve calmed down now. You cheered me up. Lost my head a bit there. This site is the best. Its wonderful to read everyday. Thanks to everyone. All the best, Ed.
Over the past 10 years global temperatures have decreased, despite increasing amounts of CO2.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
I wonder if (wink-wink) the sun has anything to do with it? I suspect that as sun spot activity picks up again, so will temperatures.
HOWEVER…we are witnessing an ‘eerily’ quite sun. This may result in decreased amount of activity for SC 24. Fewer sunspots next cycle may result in a flattening or downturn of the recent temperature trend, depending on how far back you measure.
Our planet is a particle that absorbs and radiates the suns energy. The RESULT of this absorption is the atmosphere and biosphere. Everything is feedback from this mechanism of initial absorption. It is impossible for CO2 alone to destroy our progression, when our progression has been a result of CO2.
Question:
What is higher on the food chain, frogs or alligators?
–
–
–
–
Frogs are. They are plentiful, adapt and survive in various conditions. When humans stop cancer and disease, then and only then, will we be on the top of the food chain. Will we ever?
Think about this. The planet has already solved the cure for cancer. Through the light of God, our planet will always find a way to create life. A perfect self-stabilizing and life giving system. Did you think we could destroy the planet?
“The planet isn’t going anywhere! We are.”
-George Carlin
To reiterate. The science against carbon, is science achieved through carbon. What can I say, we are living in strange times.
One aspect of the volcanic eruptions is that large amount of sulphur dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere, where it combines with vapour to create a highly reflective layer.
Some ‘clever scientists’ from Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, have suggested to do precisely that in order to combat global warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.endangeredhabitats
Leif Svalgaard (07:21:05) :
Joseph (05:58:47) :
what happens if it hits zero?
Good question. Does anyone know the answer? Would it be something of significance, or is reaching zero somehow impossible?
ap can be zero. It is measured every three hours and a 3-hour value is often zero. Sometimes all eight 3-hour values in a day are zero, then ap for the day [called Ap] is zero. It has never happened [yet] that Ap for every day of a month has been zero.
An ap value of zero simply means that geomagnetic activity has been too weak to measure for that 3-hour interval. The 1st and 2nd of December 2008 had Ap=0, so did 12 Oct 1954 and 23 Dec 1935, but such day are rare.
I wonder, Dr. Svalgaard, as you have said here and elsewhere that the current solar minimum is unremarkable, if you could speak to the ap value of zero occuring twice, on consecutive days, in December, having only, according to the information you have provided, taken place twice before, and then separated by nearly 19 years?
Bad ital job. Here’s that again:
Leif Svalgaard (07:21:05) :
ap can be zero. It is measured every three hours and a 3-hour value is often zero. Sometimes all eight 3-hour values in a day are zero, then ap for the day [called Ap] is zero. It has never happened [yet] that Ap for every day of a month has been zero.
An ap value of zero simply means that geomagnetic activity has been too weak to measure for that 3-hour interval. The 1st and 2nd of December 2008 had Ap=0, so did 12 Oct 1954 and 23 Dec 1935, but such day are rare.
I wonder, Dr. Svalgaard, as you have said here and elsewhere that the current solar minimum is unremarkable, if you could speak to the ap value of zero occuring twice, on consecutive days, in December, having only, according to the information you have provided, taken place twice before, and then separated by nearly 19 years?
I give up. Too tired to create itals…
Still curious!
Gary Gulrud:-)
Thanks for responding to the volcano question. At the risk of opening the flood gates I owe you a pint too, they may have to be virtual ones. Very interesting response. I was fascinated by Chaiten’s eruption but reports all seemed to go quiet news wise over here, & I don’t think it made much of a splash on tv news either!
One of the four responses IPCC spokespersons made midway about the cooling of 2008 was volcanic activity, has there been sufficient eruptions in the last two years or so to cause any as I understood that it took around 12-24 months to have a full effect in the atmosphere. They also mentioned natural variations in the climate system, & reduced solar activity, which was something they appear to consistently play down.
Good point George Carlin!, we could turn gw´rs back into carbon (at the stake?).
As seen from above, at 45000 feet altitude, humanity, that mold which together with other living species colour a few spots on the surface of the earth, can not change anything. However we can wonder, seek and find how things work
Nice to see such a simple question as heat loss per what was totally sidestepped.
I’ll ask it again: This .0.1% drop in TSI, you say it translates to .07K heat loss.
Per what?
Year.
Month.
Solar Cycle
Day.
Harold Ambler (08:51:58) :
I wonder, Dr. Svalgaard, as you have said here and elsewhere that the current solar minimum is unremarkable, if you could speak to the ap value of zero occuring twice, on consecutive days, in December, having only, according to the information you have provided, taken place twice before, and then separated by nearly 19 years?
Geomagnetic activity [as many other natural variables like temperature or air pressure or sunspot numbers] has a large degree of ‘conservation’, that is: if one day is low [or high] then there is very a large chance that the next day will also be low [or high], so two consecutive low days are not two independent events. Furthermore, looking at days is not really appropriate because the Universal Time day is arbitrary. If one looks for intervals of eight consecutive zeroes [not constrained to fit into a day] there are many more of these [eight times as many from simple statistics]. Scientists are trained to take all such points into account. I grant you that the general public including you is not, and that you therefore often draw misleading conclusions.
current solar minimum is unremarkable
The current solar minimum is getting down to where many other ones have been, for instance, in 1901 more than half of all three-hourly intervals had a K-index [which is used to derive ap] of zero. Granted that these values are likely to be generally too low [see http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf ] it is certain that there were very many more zeroes back in 1901 and 1902 [and 1913]. More than we have seen in the current minimum.
The main point is that the Sun is just getting to where it has been a century ago [and many, many times more in the past]. For us that may seem remarkable, for the Sun not.
Robert Bateman (09:28:08) :
Nice to see such a simple question as heat loss per what was totally sidestepped.
The question was not sidestepped, it was ill-posed. 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.
Gary Hladik (12:02:24) :
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.”
My opinion of the “messiness” and “endless discussions” on WUWT is not concerning “error bars, confidence intervals, statistical significance” They are associated with but not limited to, complex statistical procedures employed to prove an agenda (for example, sigmoidal or sinusoidal cyclomania and the Mannian EVI, the errors of which you ascribe to), algorerithms which are not disclosed, and associations erroneously purported to prove causation.
BTW, algorithm was intentionally misspelled and no apostrophes were harmed in this message. That being said, though well-educated, I reserve the right to make numerous mistakes, in whatever incorrect fashion I chose. I speak for myself as a physically handicapped typist (two non-functional fingers) and for the foreign contributors to this blog. Since it takes so long for me to type without error, Anthony has already posted another thread before completion. So GRAMMAR NAZIS, please SHOW SOME PATIENCE. This blog is not a peer-reviewed publication.
Oh yes it is! I daresay it gets more rigorous review that most climate science papers these days by the journals to which they’re submitted.
No possessive pronouns have an apostrophe. It’s easy to remember.
Simple rule – re: its v. it’s – unless it is, it isn’t.
🙂
Leif
Did you get the Duhau and de Jager paper and if so do you have any comments?
See my post of 5/1/09 (15:30:34) if you missed it.
Thanks again.
It’s Robert’s award
It’s the statisticians’ award