Guest post by David Archibald
Frank Hill’s summoning up of sunspots from the vasty deep of the Sun’s convection zone reminds me of some Shakespeare (Henry the Fourth):
Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
Frank Hill says that his sunspots will be with us in three to six months. The Ap Index suggests otherwise. There is a correlation between the geomagnetic indices (aa Index and Ap Index) at minimum and the amplitude of the following solar cycle. Earlier this year I produced this graph of the Ap Index plotted against solar cycle maxima when I thought that the Ap Index would bottom out at three, giving a maximum amplitude of 25:
This is June and the monthly average of the Ap Index is 3.1. What is interesting from that graph is that there will be no sunspots if the monthly Ap Index goes below 2. The heliospheric current sheet is telling us that the month of minimum is possibly a year off and the Ap Index is showing no signs of pulling out of its glide slope of 0.28 per month, as shown in this graph:
The Ap Index enters the no sunspots zone in October at its current glide slope. Will it pull out in time? The Sun is bleeding magnetic flux (for a very good reason), so I don’t think so.
Frank Hill has shouted (his words) that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate. Back in a time when those who studied the Sun were armed with not much more than an enquiring mind, William Herschel in 1801 noted the relationship between the number of sunspots and wheat prices. When there were fewer spots, wheat prices were higher. To bring that up to the current day, when there are no spots at all, wheat prices will be the highest ever.
Back to Shakespeare: Hotspur has some good advice for those who study the Sun and draw implications for public policy:
Hotspur:
And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil—
By telling the truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.
Leif Svalgaard writes in with some graphs of his own:
Using Aa which goes much further back than Ap, the relationship between Aa and the size of the next cycle has been used by many people to forecast the next cycle. [one of the standard methods]. The data point with the red dot is the predicted Rmax for SC/24 using the polar fields and is plotted at the 2009 yearly average so far of Aa [9.1]
No spots for Aa = 2.4
Aa = 0.2318 (B Vo2)0.9478
Where B is the interplanetary magnetic field in nT and Vo is the solar wind speed in 100 km/s units. E.g. for B = 4 nT and V = 350 km/s, thus Vo = 3.5, we have Aa = 8.55 and Rmax = 57.
Ap is about half of Aa, but the relationship is not quite linear: Ap = 0.2925 Aa 1.204
So Aa = 8.55 corresponds to Ap = 3.87.
If we plot Rmax for the previous cycle (purple plusses) there is no correlation
nofreewind (04:19:08) :
World temp.’s are flat for 12.5 years, here is a composite graph of 4 world temp.’s found on woodfortrees
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Actually, that’s just RSS not the woodfortrees composite.
Here’s a fun one though, all four show an approx 0.01C trend for the last 12 years. But Jim Hansen’s trend is opposite sign to the other three…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997.5/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.5/plot/rss/from:1997.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.5/plot/gistemp/from:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trend
David Archibald (07:45:03) :
The paper I linked to, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/694/1/L11 , is flagged:
Print publication: Issue 1 (2009 March 20)
Received 2008 November 28, accepted for publication 2009 January 12
Published 2009 February 23
The Journal wants $30.00 for it, I’m not curious enough to know if the
paper is a rehash of an old forecast or a new one.
Cooling will never occur indefinately, the climate goes in cycles and will get warm or cold depending on where you are in the cycle, we may have another little Ice Age later this century and then have a future equivalent of the Medieval Warm Period in the 23rd century.
Interesting to see these boxing matches between Archibald and Lief, about UAH there has been a small uptick in temps. recently, but it’s still below the yellow line and isn’t as sharp a rise as the last uptick. For our area we’re currently in the first extended heatwave of the year, but should be dissipating next week so it isn’t a record length by any means.
Can anyone locate an Ap graph superimposed upon sunspot number – for the last three cycles?
.
Ric Werme (11:31:33) :
I’m not curious enough to know if the paper is a rehash of an old forecast or a new one.
I was a reviewer of that paper. A preprint [not the final version] can be found here: http://www.leif.org/research/Wang-Sheeley-Geomagnetic-Precursors.pdf
It is basically the same story: The minimum value of Aa [or Ap] is a good predictor of Rmax for the next cycle. Since Aa for 2009 [~9] will be lower than that for 2008 [~14], their prediction should be scaled down correspondingly to make it closer to my Rmax ~70 prediction. There seems to be general agreement that the next cycle will be about in that range, not a super cycle and not a Grand Minimum, but ‘the smallest in a 100 years’.
ralph ellis (12:08:33) :
Can anyone locate an Ap graph superimposed upon sunspot number – for the last three cycles?
why three cycles, when seven cycles are available?
Leif Svalgaard (12:12:25) :
ralph ellis (12:08:33) :
“Can anyone locate an Ap graph superimposed upon sunspot number – for the last three cycles?”
why three cycles, when seven cycles are available?
A different way to look at this is to plot the data as a time series, here is Rmax (next) [red points] as a function of time for 13 cycles. Also plotted is simply 8 * Aa at the minimum preceding the cycle. As you can see it is not a bad predictor. You will note that there is also a pink curve. That shows the second largest sunspot number yearly average, and one could kind of take the average of the red and pink curves to obtain a smoothed value [although I’m only lukewarm for smoothing]. The last red point is the open circle, indicating that that is just a prediction, not observed [yet]. The Aa [Ap] method doesn’t look too bad.
Polar fields are still moving in the opposite directions; intensity of the South is now almost twice the North’s (67 vs 34 nT).
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PFdiv.gif
Judging by the previous cycles this minimum may not be over as yet.
>>why three cycles, when seven cycles are available?
Where? I have found them separately, but not superimposed.
It would help in seeing the trends.
Leif Svalgaard (12:22:33) :
http://www.leif.org/research/Rmax-From-Aa.png
perhaps the link would be useful, too…
vukcevic (12:27:03) :
Polar fields are still moving in the opposite directions; intensity of the South is now almost twice the North’s (67 vs 34 nT).
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PFdiv.gif
Judging by the previous cycles this minimum may not be over as yet.
This kind of wiggle matching has no signeificance. Try to plot the difference between N and S and watch how that moves all over the place, unrelated to the phase of the cycle. Also, plot the real data, not the filtered data. The difference N-S takes out the annual modulation, so no need for filtering.
vukcevic (12:27:03) :
Polar fields are still moving in the opposite directions; intensity of the South is now almost twice the North’s (67 vs 34 nT).
No, the values are -46N and 52S. Just where they should be, as we are close to the time of year where they should be equal [June 6th]. In the coming weeks the North will overtake the South as it always does as we move towards Fall, to eventually become twice as strong on September 7th. Do not become confused by end-effects of imperfect filtering.
Your making to much about the readings and your not considering the descending part of this cycle 23, which then would have an effect upon the developmental behavior of Cycle 24. So this is much different then saying A + B = C.
And maybe some of you have noticed that my forecast from a while ago, for an upswing in June, in which I said that it would the highest level since March 2008, is bearing fruit. But the experts still believe the sun is solely responsible for the peaks and valleys of it’s activity levels……LOL
The bottom line is if you are taught to think within the box then you will never be able to think outside of it. At least not naturally. Because your instincts unfortunately always pull you back in.
Yes, Richard Sharpe, as you say “at some time the good times will return.” That was my meaning of the word “indefinite”. Not defined. Chill, dude.
ralph ellis (12:30:24) :
It would help in seeing the trends.
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-and-Aa.png
might be helpful, then. I have marked the Aa-minima by red dots.
I had already submitted a response but the system seems to have lost it ……short version….I guess I should pinch myself because I find myself agreeing with what Leif has been saying on a couple of issues, AP readings , Polar fields differences, etc….
On another note. Many forecast are out there now as well as schemes. Some think they have merit, others do not. Even from within the solar field. But I always like to see results and this is why I have put out time periods over the years to watch for activity level spikes. Since 3-5 years, or even longer, is an awfully long time to wait for results. Both good and bad.
Now my forecast from a while back, that I even mentioned around here, is bearing fruit. I’m referring to my prediction that we would see the highest activity level since March 2008 in June.
But the experts within the field believe that the sun is solely responsible for it’s own behavior or cyclical nature…..LOL
Jim Hughes (12:58:55) :
an upswing in June, in which I said that it would the highest level since March 2008, is bearing fruit.
I think that the ‘experts’ have been expecting this upswing as well, so everyone can be happy. check e.g. the F10.7 trend: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
I grow apples, not commercially, but for fun. I grow them in the south of England. I grow some cookers (Bramleys) and some trees purchased from a farmer in Somerset; I don’t know what cultivar they are but they make the very best scrumpy (a powerful alcoholic beverage only distantly related to cider).
This year my Bramleys are half the size they should be. There’s no June drop (when the bigger apples force the smaller ones off the branches) as the Bramleys are still the size of golf balls, not bigger than tennis balls which they ought to be at this time of year.
The scrumpy apples (which need sun and heat to make the sweet juices) are producing little or nothing.
My apple trees are my measure of what the sun is doing, and the sun is simply not doing enough. No numbers; no speculation; just observation of nature tells me that something’s wrong.
>>It would help in seeing the trends.
>>http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-and-Aa.png
>>might be helpful, then.
As I suspected, Ap lags behind Ri sunspots. Thus sunspot numbers should recover before the low-point in Ap is reached. Ergo, one might say, we have not reached the minimum Ap/Aa as yet, and Archibald may be the more correct here.
Ralph
vukcevic (12:27:03)
“Polar fields are still moving in the opposite directions; intensity of the South is now almost twice the North’s (67 vs 34 nT).”
Leif Svalgaard (12:57:10)
“No, the values are -46N and 52S. Just where they should be”
A 20nhz low pass filtered values eliminate yearly geometric projection effects.
Here is a chart for last 5 years with both sides of the argument.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF2000-10.gif
As they say: “You pays your money and you takes your choice.” My choice is clear: filtered data.
Stephen Brown (13:38:00) : “My apple trees are my measure of what the sun is doing, and the sun is simply not doing enough. No numbers; no speculation; just observation of nature tells me that something’s wrong.”
About a month ago my cat (American long hair) started shedding more than usual. We have now had some really hot and humid temps for a couple of weeks and less rain than usual for this time of year. I blame in on wind direction, we have had a steady dose of north winds coming down the center of the state (Florida) rather than across from either coast. Less moisture, less thunderstorms, less rain, less cooling, more heat. Just weather.
ralph ellis (13:55:09) :
As I suspected, Ap lags behind Ri sunspots. Thus sunspot numbers should recover before the low-point in Ap is reached.
It is more complicated than that. The lag occurs for large cycles, but not for small cycles. The reason has to do with the evolution of high-speed streams and associated coronal holes. When the streams are dead, Ap won’t go any lower, which is happening at this minimum. Good examples are 1878-1879, 1901-1902, and 1912-1913, and I believe 2008-2009.
Leif Svalgaard (13:32:39)
Saying that an upcoming one is expected, because there is a good chance that we have reached solar minimum (Guessing this is your your reasoning with your upswing graph), is completely different than specifically calling for a June spike, and also saying it would be the highest since March 2008.
And I would have never forecasted the spike in late 2006 well out in advance if I worried about things like the usual descending or rising cycle trends
Mind you I know that you have a case because of the lack of details I supplied for my reasoning but that’s a whole different arguement altogether.
Leif, given…
1) the controversy regarding the counting of “sunspecks” that would not have been discernable with 17th/18th/19th century optics
2) Livingston+Penn’s observation of sunspot decline
3) Your observation in a guest post that the old relationship between the 10.7 flux and sunspot numbers has broken down
…would it not be better to make predictions about 10.7 flux, or Aa, or Ap or *ANYTHING BUT SUNSPOT NUMBER*? A broken yardstick is worse than useless. Can you change your predictions to 10.7 flux or one of the A indices, or at least make parallel predictions for them?
What worries me is that…
a) the NASA prediction group could claim to have properly predicted this cycles sunspot count, by adjusting the relationship
b) I believe Dr Hansen’s degree is in astrophysics. If anything, he has more credentials to talk about sunspots than climate. If we try to keep sunspots as a metric, the count will have to be adjusted somehow, and I could see NASA, and their employee Dr. Hansen, being involved in the process. GISS/Hansen-adjusted temperatures are controversial, as it is, We do *NOT* want to get into GISS/Hansen-adjusted sunspot numbers. Sunspots have served us well for 3 centuries, but they are now broken. Let’s retire them now, at least until the Livingston-Penn effect reverses.
vukcevic (14:02:30) :
Here is a chart for last 5 years with both sides of the argument.
Which also shows the undesirable side effect of introducing spurious end-effects. As the two values approach each other the filtered data diverges. Sometimes it pays to listen to reason.
Here is the up-to-date plot of the polar fields [every month] for the past several years: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO%20Polar%20Fields.png
The curve at the bottom is the difference N-S. It shows no strong divergence recently, if anything a slight decrease [as we would expect since cycle 24 has already begun to eat away at the polar fields].
As they say: “You pays your money and you takes your choice.” My choice is clear: filtered data.
cherry picking is what I call it.