As many readers know, I follow the Average Magnetic Planetary Index (Ap) fairly closely as it is a proxy indicator of the magnetic activity of our sun. Here is the latest Ap Graph:
I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005.
click for a larger image
David Archibald thinks it may not yet have hit bottom. Here is his most recent take on it.
The low in the Ap Index has come up to a year after the month of solar cycle minimum, as shown in the graph above of 37 month windows of the Ap Index aligned on the month of solar minimum. For the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition, the month of minimum is assumed to be Ocotber 2008. The minimum of the Ap Index can be a year later than the month of solar cycle minimum, and the period of weakness can last eighteen months after solar cycle minimum.
The graph also shows how weak this minimum is relative to all the minima since the Ap Index started being measured in 1932. For the last year, the Ap Index has been plotting along parallel to the Solar Cycles 16 – 17 minimum, but about four points weaker. Assuming that it has a character similar to the 16 – 17 minimum, then the month of minimum for the Ap Index is likely to be October 2009 with a value of 3.
The shape of the Ap Index minima is similar to, but inverted, the peaks in neutron flux, which are usually one year after the month of solar minimum.
David Archibald
January 2009
and the machine code would be MUCH more understandable if one had to ‘dig’ for optimizing . also, the C to asm interface is quite nice, for those routines that crunch numbers and therefore must be opt.
I think Al Gore wins no matter what. If this AGW theory turns out to be bogus (which seems to be), his notoriety surely will rise to rival Mr. Ponzi’s and outlives his mortal time on earth. Gorified science?
All the wind generators in the UK mentioned above remind me of the stunt that was put on the ballot in California. It got a resounding boot by the general vote, the Dem and the GOP parties for it’s obvious drawback: A huge landgrab resulting in one man playing Eminent Domain God.
Not to worry about the public getting mislead: Al Gore is responsible for grabbing attention to the climate. Others such as David Archibald hand the public what it needs to sort out what is happening around them in a manner befitting true Science.
Observe and consider.
Observe the descending cold.
Consider what is going on and compare it to past events.
Come to a conclusion not driven by those who wish to profit from our misfortune.
Al Gore has suceeded in drawing attention to the Earth’s Climate.
Inquiring minds by the billions will figure things out for themselves.
Just give them both sides of the Equation.
If you are going down the C road, I would recommend C++ and write it in a modular / OOP architecture, especially if you are looking to involve multiple developers. Management of the project would be much easier and coding could be much more concise and require far less documentation while maintain clear readability.
My personal preference would be to write it in Java. Although the performance would not be quite as good (probably still better than Fortran/Python however), it would be a lot easier to publish on a J2EE server, create a java servlet filter, create a web interface and allow the public to play with the model. This may be a pie in the sky idea, as it could potentially require horsepower that I do not possess, but it may be worth a try anyway.
I personally believe that there should be a legal mandate (and perhaps there is) that would require Hansen’s team (and any other publicly funded projects) to create their models in such a fashion, and require them to do such publishing, so that the public (their employers) could actually use the software that we keep paying for. I have always thought it to be incredibly ridiculous that these guys have been able to hide a lot of this stuff from us. I believe (although I am not of legal background) that if one really investigated thoroughly, one would find that Hansen and others have been violating several laws concerning full disclosure of this kind of research, paid for with tax payer dollars. Hansen, et al, have not historically been forthcoming. What’s Obama’s new buzz word? “Transparency”
I am curious about solar magnetic influence on climate.
Solar magnetic field strength impacts TSI to some extent.
Also, the Svensmark effect is another mode of impact.
But I am curious as to what is the contribution to the
earth’s energy budget from solar magnetic field strength
in the form of geo-magnetically induced currents(GICs)?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008SW000388.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetically_induced_current
The number is not zero, but is it significant?
The solar magnetic field interacts with the earth’s
magnetic field which in turn induces electric current
in the earth (and oceans). Electric current flowing
through some resistance generates heat.
This is the same principle used for induction cook stoves
now becoming popular.
The magnetic fields and electric currents are small,
but the effect is global. I know the effect is non-zero,
but could it be on the order of 1 W/m^2? 0.1W/m^2?
Ooops, there I go, mouth opens, both feet rammed firmly in!
Sun merrily flipping its magnetic poles.
Ed Scott, err, there is a Greenhouse effect inthe earth’s atmosphere, otherwise we’d be at a balmy 15 below zero C
“The natural greenhouse effect is a myth, not a physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however, is a manufactured mirage”
A mountain of male bovine excrement there old chap.
Few scientists would argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, the debate is to what extent AGW exists.
The shape of the Ap Index minima is similar to, but inverted, the peaks in neutron flux, which are usually one year after the month of solar minimum.
So…. Could the history of neutron flux via some geologic proxy be used to ‘reconstruct’ the probable Ap index into the past? And could that be used to validate the sunspot minima dates during times of poor observations or missing spots (like grand minima or very long ago…)?
Or is it just too many degrees removed from reality with no suitable proxies?
E.M.Smith
Good work!
“So that would lead me to believe that a simple cross check dataset can be made by taking the NOAA UHI adjusted data directly and doing station to station comparison graphs.”
Probably not, unfortunately. NOAA does not actually make UHI adjustments to the data, but make an allowance in uncertainty instead, from what SteveM has been able to find.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901
I agree and open source re-write then let them tell us if or where your code varies from the original source code. If they don’t protest the new coding (with ample comments for future reference) it would be a service to the entire debate and a demonstration of how good scientific coding should be done.
It also might highlight some questionable issues in the original code such as false precision as mentioned above or other manipulations that will not stand up to open analysis.
It is a left handed way to force them to document their code, since they refuse to give proper documentation of the how and why in their processes.
Larry
It might also lead to some enterprising computer science majors who might want to start an open source project, on the model codes themselves, to at least comment the code and analyze the code blocks and what they are doing.
I imagine there are several masters thesis sitting there for the taking, for math majors and computer science majors, and physics majors to dig into the major climate models and produce annotations and analysis of their methodology. Open source documentation of how they work, and the limits of their accuracy from a pure mathematical, physical, and statistical point of view would be invaluable to the world community.
Larry
“E.M.Smith — Why not propose an open source rewrite of the data reduction program? There must be enough programming types here to do that, in short order. And why not use PYTHON or BASIC, something almost everyone can read? I have often wondered why not just do this in the open for ourselves. Hey, someone could write a book documenting the process and code.”
Try Visual Basic…if Microsoft hasn’t changed it beyond all recognition. I used it several years ago to build some programs that analyzed Diesel engine performance. The language allows inclusion of Active X controls, of which there were many build by independent programmers and companies. Some of these controls were pretty sophisticated graphing routines. There were even fuzzy logic and neural net controls; I played around with some of this to see if I could detect time to failure on an engine component. Visual Basic was easy to write in and debug and the compiled programs ran pretty fast—fast enough to actually control a Diesel engine via remote radio over about 5 miles with complete safety shutdowns. Version 6 should be still around and fairly cheap, likewise various Active X controls. Of course, this is a Windows based tool and the programs compile (using Microsoft’s C compiler engine) to run in Windows.
sdk (09:31:49) :
my vote would be to use C, and a procedural approach ! the results would be quite readable and maintainable, if coded from pseudo code viewed that way.
C++, perhaps used as “a better C” to keep it simple would be my choice. Much better support for strings and other useful things like containers and classes that improve readability enormously. But C and C++ goes well together. It is also possible to mix C++ with existing Fortran if needed, I wrote a tutorial on it a decade ago
http://arnholm.org/software/cppf77/cppf77.htm
An open source library for climate data processing is indeed a good idea.
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Ed, that is a very technical paper and difficult to follow. I think the argument is put in layman’s terms nicely by Essex and McKitrick in their revised edition of “Taken by Storm.”
Ed Scott — thanks. The Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper summary should be read by all here. At this time the warmists claim that most scientific societies endorse the greenhouse garbage. One would hope that physical research groups would be the first to defect to the rational side if the AGW theory (or propaganda) is as fundamentally flawed as G &T claim. And, if there is someone here who is qualified to critique G & T, lets see it.
Perhaps readers of this blog can help to promote a high level debate at the national academy of sciences here and its equivalents wordwide. So far, the AGW people have essentially disorganized and unfunded opposition, while the warmists have multi-millions in grants and media support. They are, in a sense, winning by default. High level critiques might help, but the ultimate rebuttal may come from nature over the next several years.
Re the effect, if any, of atmospheric CO2 on the climate.
I posted this link a few weeks ago, but it may be useful here again.
A prominent PhD and Professional Chemical Engineer, Dr. Pierre R. Latour, wrote on this from a process control viewpoint (see link below).
My earlier post was criticized by some because Dr. Latour supposedly is paid by “the oil companies,” and that makes his opinion invalid. Yes, Dr. Latour has worked for oil companies and others, as have I for many years. However, the control principles he states, the engineering and physical principles he states, are not debatable. They are applicable and applied in many industries, not just oil.
To sum up his argument, to control a process one must choose a manipulated variable that is independent, and has a measurable and consistent causal effect on the variable one wants to control. CO2 in the atmosphere, whether natural or man-made, meets none of the criteria.
Or, in my native cowboy-speak, “If yall are gonna control the global temperature, yall better git a better handle than CO2. That dog won’t hunt.”
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=715446&ISS=25220&GUID=D5E78EC9-18EA-4C76-9A48-D4D9279140FB
and scroll down to “Author’s Reply.”
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California. Where it is raining yesterday and today. And a 3.4 earthquake was centered 3 miles offshore yesterday at 7:43 p.m. local.
I don’t understand half of whats is said here at this blog but I keep reading and learning little by little a bit more each day.
And I can’t stop reading about this stuff, it’s an addiction.
Now my latest confusion is on this greenhouse effect, I have read laborisly though some papers arguing that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect outside of a real greenhouse. To sum up as best as I can, in a greenhouse the sun heats the objects and air, the hot air rises but is trapped because of the glass. But outside it is different, the sun heats objects and the air, the heats rises and continues to rise because there is nothing to stop it, maybe slow it down but no stopping. After all heat flows from hot to cold and if it is colder at higher altitutes than heat must continue to rise until it escapes our atmosphere.
So where’s the greenhouse? I’m confused
I would think this is basic stuff and the answers should be settled but there seems to be an argument about this simple concept.
Ed Scott:
Thanks for the reference to “The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”. In contrast to Dave L, I think this physics is essential for most of us who read WUWT, but I can only appreciate it from a non-scientist perspective. In particular, it seems to me that the history of the idea of the atmosphere acting “as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system”, i.e., the green house effect”, goes back to 1824. From the perspective of the historian, 1824 to the present has given us many years for a mistaken idea to permeate many levels of society. To a gardner a greenhouse is a lovely, intuitive idea for our beautiful earth and its atmosphere.
As a constant reader of WUWT, I would appreciate further information about the physics. The paper emphasizes “that until today the ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’ does not appear:
The general public is going to understand this to the extent of that which they are able to follow. For those that connect with them, there will be increasing support.
For those that bury everything in deep heiroglyphical mumbo-jumbo and secret models known only to a select few, there will be nothing but scorn and dismissal.
Thier senses tell them something is going down, and it’s not what mainstream is telling them.
Thanks Ed Scott,
I was just going to look for some real discussion about CO2 as a GHG. I know from documented exchanges between serious climate scientists and coders ( http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=yW-wkCtdLZM& ) and other references to the information that the empically derived properties are 10’s of orders of magnitude different than the IPCC’s assumptions by backward calculating with GIGO ‘creative accounting’ statistical models to some silly number. Now you’ve just made my intellectual life almost too easy 😀
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
A link worth repeating.
—–
The state of the Sun and its magnetic field is interesting, but not alarming. It may lead to a grand minimum, but the change in Total Solar Irradiance is small so don’t count on a solar driven little ice age.
—–
It’s interesting to see what people contemplate whilst fishing in the Florida keys, but perhaps during the next fishing trip CaptDallas2 should also contemplate what evidence we have regarding the TSI during the Maunder minimum since the SORCE satellite was not in orbit during the 1600’s. It may be that solar irrandiance remains high during a grand minimum but the only way to rule this out is through measurement of such an event. Using data from 2003 as guide makes for a big assumption.
My greenhouse is attached to my house. The last 2 years it has served us well as the growing season starts later. It certainly is NOT outside.
I think re-engineering the code would be a huge service.
If you will allow a small observation from a gray-hair:: this is the type of application for which object-oriented languages are really poorly suited. Java is a great language, and so is C++. You don’t need objects here – in fact, you will have to work around the OO aspects of the language in order to get a decent implementation.
For this sort of problem, Fortran is a good choice. Even better would be a functional language like Lisp or ML.
I teach part-time and I always tell my students: a programming language is a tool. Would you hire a mechanic who only owns a screwdriver? It may be a really nice screwdriver, but sometimes you need a wrench. Any really good programmer will know several completely different programming languages, and know when each one is appropriate.
Ed Scott:
Thanks for the reference to “The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”. In contrast to Dave L (and Adam Gallon), I think this physics is essential for most of us who read WUWT, but I can only appreciate it from a non-scientist perspective. In particular, the paper suggests that the idea of the atmosphere acting “as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system”, i.e., “the green house effect”, goes back to 1824. From the perspective of the historian, 1824 to the present has given us many years for a mistaken idea to permeate many levels of society. To a gardner a greenhouse is a lovely, intuitive idea for our beautiful earth and its atmosphere.
As a constant and grateful reader of WUWT, I would appreciate further information about the accuracy of the physics. The paper emphasizes “that until today [2007] the ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’ does not appear: in any fundamental work of thermodynamics; in any fundamental work of physical kinetics; in any fundamental work of radiation theory” (p. 44) If the atmosphere were a greenhouse, then we would need a glass-wall effect rather than gravity, wouldn’t we? Is CO2 imagined as this glass wall, and is this imagination part of what has given the idea its power? If so, more science education for all our citizens!
And to Ric Werme, “that October 2005 drop is no big deal….” Is it no big deal because it does not provide a possible indication of significant cooling soon?