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
Peter Salonius (09:43:47) :
Looking at the (admittedly flawed) Vostok ice core data (trace of temperatures during the last ~400,000 years) it would seem that deglaciation/warming occurs much faster than glaciation/cooling –BUT I can not figure out why the warming is so STEEP and the cooling is so gradual.
My guess, and that’s all it is, would be that the air can warm quickly even if a glacier is near by, then warm rain can melt the ice fast; but to make the glacier takes may years of snowfall… (Warm air and rain can deliver heat at a rate faster than cool air and snow can deliver physical ice).
I see it too. And I also see that it is from 23. I saw the area this morning and wondered if it would produce a spot.
And where does the ocean gets it heat from?
From the sun – but any additional forcing could have been from decades earlier. Also it might be a re-distribution of heat rather than additional heat.
O.T and just for the record:
Another cycle 23 sunspot is building according http://www.spaceweather.com/
John Finn (00:49:58) :
And where does the ocean gets it heat from?
From the sun – but any additional forcing could have been from decades earlier. Also it might be a re-distribution of heat rather than additional heat.
I suspect all the climate drivers are feeding from the Sun in different ways and use that energy in different time scales. I have raced Go karts for several years and have learned, its the sum of small things that make you go fast. Small changes in solar output taken up by many drivers probably determine our climate. There is no other heat source apart from under our feet.
In my opinion, continued research on what regulates the Sun remains one of science’s most important projects.
“Another cycle 23 sunspot is building”
I guess I played 23’s dirge prematurely. Two specks in as many weeks!
The Earth is not a “small change” entity. My hunch is that given the fact that water circulates around the globe, and it takes a bit to go ’round, air circulates around the globe, ozone circulates around the globe, water vapor circulates around the globe, and all the other stuff in and around our planet circulates and is not well mixed, the Sun is the constant source while the Earth owns the rather variable weather drivers.
How long did that spot last? Did it last as long as other specks (23 or 24) that got numbers?
Chile is experiencing more activity. And Chaiten threatens GW: “Moreover, there has been a predominance of water vapour and volcanic gases of the H2S type”
There are several posts on this site about solar effects on the weather / climate and I feel I’m missing something basic. From what I gather, low solar activity has some correlation to lower temperatures. Is this correct? What exactly does this have to do with the weather / climate effects of CO2 (if any)? Thanks.
Look at this: Pavel Hejda, Ivanka Charvátová, Jaroslav Střeštík http://geomag.usgs.gov/iagaxiii/posters/Variability_and_predictability_of_geomag_activity_Hejda.pdf
“…further evidence supporting the idea that the SIM modulates and governs
the geomagnetic activity (the aa-index)”
Regarding the negative effective-sunspot-number (SSNe) on our web site. The SSNe is derived by fitting a climatological model of the ionosphere to global ionospheric conditions. The fitting is accomplished by adjusting the SSN fed to the model (its only input other than day-of-year and hour-of-day), and the SSN that provides for a zero mean difference between model and observations is the SSNe. When SSNe is negative, that just means the global ionosphere is at lower density than was observed globally when the SSN was zero in the data set used to generate the climatology. Second order effects fold in from geomagnetic disturbances and spatial distribution (of input data) effects.
Hal Romans (06:04:45) :
There are several posts on this site about solar effects on the weather / climate and I feel I’m missing something basic. From what I gather, low solar activity has some correlation to lower temperatures. Is this correct? What exactly does this have to do with the weather / climate effects of CO2 (if any)? Thanks.
The summary would be: The sun is where we get most all of the energy that drives the climate system. There are some folks who think that variation in solar output (beyond just the light) can make us hotter or colder. Other folks don’t see a mechanism for this, so they look elsewhere. Low sunspots have a fairly well demonstrated correlation with cooler times, but not enough to prove causality. The best mechanism I’ve seen proposed is this:
Lower sunspots (so less solar output) gives a trivial reduction in light, but the magnetic field and some parts of the UV can drop much more. This weak mag field lets more cosmic rays hit the earth (CRF or GCR Cosmic Ray Flux or Galactic Cosmic Rays). These make more clouds (like in a ‘cloud chamber’ used in nuclear physics labs). At the same time, the lower UV makes less ozone and the GCR’s help break down what there is.
Ozone blocks the 9 to 10 micrometer IR spectrum, so if there is less of it, more heat can radiate out into space. More clouds in the tropics with less sunshine means less heat in, while less O3 means more heat out. You cool off.
Issues:
The GCR / cloud (Svensmark) theory is relatively new and needs some observation and testing to confirm it. The ozone theory is also fairly new. It’s a nice theory, but we don’t have confirmation yet.
The sun doesn’t shut down all that much. Trivial percentages. For this to work there has to be rather a lot of amplification in the process.
There are times in the record of sunspots (via proxies in some cases) where the sunspots have gone low and the climate didn’t get much cooler. Other times things get cool and sunspots are still high. There is some randomness in the process.
The weather and climate effects of CO2 are largely unrelated to the solar theories. To some extent they are antagonistic theories. (At least the proponents can be antagonistic ;-0
The only connection I can think of is that the IR loss of heat from the planet runs into a wall of absorbing gasses in the air. Each gas plugs up some parts of the spectrum. Water vapor and CO2 have a lot of overlap, so add CO2, but lose water: nothing much happens. Add water or CO2 and it’s already mostly blocked. But Ozone is all most all alone at the 9-10 micrometer range. To the extent that it is a greenhouse gas, the GHG theories may be right, but have the wrong gas (O3 not CO2) and the wrong ‘driver’ (Sun not Us). CO2 and Ozone (and thus solar output) are connected in the GHG blanket theory.
Add to this long duration cycles in fluids and heat on the planet (like ocean hot spots with names like PDO, ENSO, AMO…) and you can have 30 year ocean cycles and 11 year solar cycles interacting. This makes it very hard to sort out!
This is OT but there is an interesting article in the March issue of Astronomy magazine about gravity and what is not known about it. For example, the Astronomical Unit (AU) distance is increasing about 23 feet per century. So if we wait long enough all of our alleged warming problems will cease (tonque-in-cheek).
Adolfo Giurfa (09:26:42) :
Look at this: Pavel Hejda, Ivanka Charvátová, Jaroslav Střeštík http://geomag.usgs.gov/iagaxiii/posters/Variability_and_predictability_of_geomag_activity_Hejda.pdf
“…further evidence supporting the idea that the SIM modulates and governs
the geomagnetic activity (the aa-index)”
That paper was rejected during peer-review for inclusion in the proceedings of that meeting.
Leif Svalgaard (17:17:01) :
Adolfo Giurfa (09:26:42) :
Look at this: Pavel Hejda, Ivanka Charvátová, Jaroslav Střeštík http://geomag.usgs.gov/iagaxiii/posters/Variability_and_predictability_of_geomag_activity_Hejda.pdf
“…further evidence supporting the idea that the SIM modulates and governs
the geomagnetic activity (the aa-index)”
That paper was rejected during peer-review for inclusion in the proceedings of that meeting.
Any idea why? Or are reasons for rejection kept quiet? I saw some, er, non-standard English that needed a polish, and it looks like yet another ‘we found a correlation, no causality though’; would that be enough?
It will be interesting to see if their predictions of aa are at all close…
Pamela,
“The Earth is not a “small change” entity. My hunch is that given the fact that water circulates around the globe, and it takes a bit to go ’round, air circulates around the globe, ozone circulates around the globe, water vapor circulates around the globe, and all the other stuff in and around our planet circulates and is not well mixed, the Sun is the constant source while the Earth owns the rather variable weather drivers.”
It’s mind-boggling isn’t it? Fortunately the GCMs have it all figured out…
Mike Bryant
(sarc/off)
Very well put…
E.M.Smith (17:29:03) :
“That paper was rejected during peer-review for inclusion in the proceedings of that meeting.”
Any idea why?
I can think of several:
1) The idea that solar activity is determined by planetary alignments [or patterns of solar ‘motion’] has been described in the literature as the authors note [but mostly by themselves] and one should directly correlate sunspot numbers with the motions, rather than the indirect measure that the aa-index is.
2) Does the contribution acknowledge and cite previous work of relevance?
No, it mainly lists the authors’ own work, except for the standard
references to Mayaud and the like. There are no references to works critical of the SIM ideas [perhaps mostly because scientists do not bother comments on this type of papers being ‘not even wrong’]
3) Is the content new and original? No, similar ideas have been put forward by Landscheidt and by Fairbridge, and others.
4) The suggestion in the paper that support for this idea would improve if just the data had higher quality begs the question of the viability of the idea in the first place.
5) The paper hangs on the coincidence of the ‘good’ fit in Figure 7, but the two 4th-order polynomia have only three degrees of freedom so it is hard to become excited about that the ‘match’. They certainly do not match in size of the aa-index [likely due to aa being wrong in the first place]
Adolfo Giurfa (09:26:42) :
Look at this: Pavel Hejda, Ivanka Charvátová, Jaroslav Střeštík http://geomag.usgs.gov/iagaxiii/posters/Variability_and_predictability_of_geomag_activity_Hejda.pdf
“…further evidence supporting the idea that the SIM modulates and governs
the geomagnetic activity (the aa-index)”
This report is spot on and is rejected by those who refuse to see the facts. If Hejda et al went back further they would see the Sun’s path goes into “chaotic” mode nearly every 172 years depending on angular momentum strength…this is obvious in my latest results.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/95
Here is a chart showing the Suns path in current time, as you can see its going into the “chaotic” phase at the exact point where Neptune & Uranus cause the disturbance in Carl’s Angular Momentum graph (right now), just as it is in the Hejda et al paper. This will most likely bring on a Grand Minimum and a certain drop in aa activity. The chaotic path happens every 172 years if the angular momentum is strong enough (most times), my research shows this happening for the past 11000 years and happens every time Neptune & Uranus come together.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/02/carsten.jpg
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/sunssbam1620to2180gs1.jpg
The evidence is mounting for planetary influence, many papers that may have been rejected in the past will be revisited after this Grand Minimum.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:25:58) :
This report is spot on and is rejected by those who refuse to see the facts. If Hejda et al went back further they would see the Sun’s path goes into “chaotic” mode nearly every 172 years depending on angular momentum strength…this is obvious in my latest results.
A current scientific view of Grand Minima:
Solar Phys. DOI 10.1007/s11207-008-9293-6
Grand Minima of Solar Activity and the Mean-Field Dynamo
I.G. Usoskin · D. Sokoloff · D. Moss
Received: 1 September 2008 / Accepted: 9 November 2008
Abstract We demonstrate that a simple solar dynamo model, in the form of a Parker migratory dynamo with random fluctuations of the dynamo governing parameters and algebraic saturation of dynamo action, can at least qualitatively reproduce all the basic features of solar Grand Minima as they are known from direct and indirect data. In particular, the model successfully reproduces such features as an abrupt transition into a Grand Minimum and the subsequent gradual recovery of solar activity, as well as mixed-parity butterfly diagrams during the epoch of the Grand Minimum. The model predicts that the cycle survives in some form during a Grand Minimum, as well as the relative stability of the cycle inside and outside of a Grand Minimum. The long-term statistics of simulated Grand Minima appears compatible with the phenomenology of the Grand Minima inferred from the cosmogenic isotope data.We demonstrate that such ability to reproduce the Grand Minima phenomenology is not a general feature of the dynamo models but requires some specific assumption,
such as random fluctuations in dynamo governing parameters. In general, we conclude that a relatively simple and straightforward model is able to reproduce the Grand Minima phenomenology remarkably well, in principle providing us with a possibility of studying the physical nature of Grand Minima.
@nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:25:58)
Geoff —
It is fascinating to watch the interplay between your models and real developments in world climate as we speak. Are there any other models that predict an imminent minima?
Keep up the great work, keep your “cool” under the provocation of those who dismiss the sun’s role as the prime driver, and keep us all informed as the work develops. Assuming your current predictions hold, which to my layman’s untutored mind seems to be unfolding, you and Carl et al are about to have your day in court.
@Gary Young gulrud (06:52:06) :
“Another cycle 23 sunspot is building”
I guess I played 23’s dirge prematurely. Two specks in as many weeks!
Things looking cooler and cooler, aren’t they?
Cheers,
psi (an interloper from the humanities)
psi (17:25:01) :
Keep up the great work, keep your “cool” under the provocation of those who dismiss the sun’s role as the prime driver, and keep us all informed as the work develops. Assuming your current predictions hold, which to my layman’s untutored mind seems to be unfolding, you and Carl et al are about to have your day in court.
Thanks for your support, there are a few predicting an imminent grand minimum, but none using angular momentum controlled by Neptune & Uranus as far as I am aware. I think in time science will accept the inevitable conclusion that the planets do control our Sun, the evidence is building by the day. Perhaps we need some input from the Astronomy section of science who might be better equipped to understand the principles involved.
Updates are happening daily at the moment with so much information coming to hand.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/95
Leif Svalgaard (14:36:40) :
[…]
A current scientific view of Grand Minima:
Abstract We demonstrate that a simple solar dynamo model, in the form of a Parker migratory dynamo with random fluctuations of the dynamo governing parameters and algebraic saturation of dynamo action, can at least qualitatively reproduce all the basic features of solar Grand Minima […] We demonstrate that such ability to reproduce the Grand Minima phenomenology is not a general feature of the dynamo models but requires some specific assumption, such as random fluctuations in dynamo governing parameters.
I don’t know what ‘dynamo governing parameters’ are, but is there no room here for delta angular momentum / dt to induce some ‘randomness’ into them?
Is it not at all possible that both are true? The basic mechanism is as described in this article, but a bit of randomness comes from the orbital partners via tides et.al.?
E.M.Smith (20:22:25) :
I don’t know what ‘dynamo governing parameters’ are, but is there no room here for delta angular momentum / dt to induce some ‘randomness’ into them?
Is it not at all possible that both are true? The basic mechanism is as described in this article, but a bit of randomness comes from the orbital partners via tides et.al.?
The parameters governing the dynamo are things like the speed of plasma flows and the amplitude of waves. It is very possible [mandatory, in fact] that the planetary influences have some effect. The one problem is the energetics: the planetary influence is many orders of magnitude smaller than the regular solar flows and forces. An ant being run over by a truck does deflect the truck, but not by much.
Leif Svalgaard (21:19:27) : The one problem is the energetics: the planetary influence is many orders of magnitude smaller than the regular solar flows and forces. An ant being run over by a truck does deflect the truck, but not by much.
Which would require postulating some significant feedback mechanism which is increasingly unlikely in direct proportion to the degree of feedback needed which makes the whole thing extremely unlikely… and puts me right back where I was before I asked the silly question in the first place. Drat.
Once the probability of something approaches the probability of ‘then magic happens’; it becomes hard to believe.
So I guess the only question remaining is: How many times will Kohai wish to test the hardness of this floor? …
I know, following up you own postings is tacky… but …
E.M.Smith (19:22:49) : So I guess the only question remaining is: How many times will Kohai wish to test the hardness of this floor? …
I can’t help seeing myself saying “Oooohhh! LOOK! The Shiny Thing!”
1/2 😎