The Ap Solar Magnetic Index remains low, going on 4 years

It has been awhile since I’ve looked at the Ap Index. The last time was April of 2009.

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 my graph from September 2009 SWPC Ap data:

Ap-Index-090109

Click for a larger image

For a longer perspective,  David Archibald, has a graph of the Ap Index back to 1932. The solar average geomagnetic planetary index, in Dec 2008, Ap was at its lowest level in 75 years:

ap-index-1932-2008-520

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,, 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 remain low, though some signs of a slight rebound are showing.

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 Hathaway have not been near the reality that is being measured.

As Leif Svalgaard points out, Ap is just one of several indices that describe geomagnetic activity. There are several others [aa, am, IHV, …] that  go much further back in time [to the 1840s]. You can get more info from:

http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-UCLA-ESS288.pdf

For those that follow the sunspot number (SSN) I’ve graphed the Ap and SSN together. As you can see, we’ve been in a reduced state of solar activity now for quite some time. It has been almost 4 years since the prominent drop in Ap in October 2005. SSN mirrors the decline of the Ap index since then.

Ap+SSN_090109

Click for a larger image

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 since then the data seems less “active”, with reduced amplitudes. And then we have the fact that the sun seems to have reestablished at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that October 2005 step change and has not recovered now in almost 4 years. It seems to me to be a noteworthy event.

UPDATE: Thanks to Leif Svalgaard, we have a more extensive and “official” Ap dataset (NOAA’s SWPC has issues, see comments) that I’ve plotted below. The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of this year is the lowest for the entire dataset.

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

And I’ve also plotted the 1991 to present data from BGS/Svalgaard to compare against the NOAA SWPC data:

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

Advertisements

213 thoughts on “The Ap Solar Magnetic Index remains low, going on 4 years

  1. I don’t know Anthony….with your well established influence on sunspots, writing something like “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,” might be enough to bring us to solar maximum tomorrow.

  2. Which scientists was it a while back reported here being confident that subsurface something-or-other showed that the Sun was getting ready to burst forth out of its slumber? If they can be coaxed out from under their beds, it might be interesting to hear how their readings are doing now.

    I alternate between exasperation and pity towards the solar scientists these days (and for the last year, really). On the one hand, I sometimes want to yell “maybe given how utterly wrong you’ve been you ought to just stfu with the predictions until you’ve really got something solid”. Otoh, welcome to the scientific method, and appreciate that at least these are predictions that can be tested in the near term, however bright red faces get at the results, rather than after pension and retirement have been safely achieved, ala the climatologists.

  3. I have so many questions, and so few answers. As our Sun’s magnetic pulse decreases, does the the ability of our Sun in deflecting incoming Milky Way cosmic rays decrease? Do higher Earth atmospheric cosmic ray amounts really seed more low clouds? Do more low clouds cool the Earth? What are the exact physics and chemistry within our Sun that is actually causing the decreased energy output? During solar minimums, do our ocean temperatures also decrease? Could changing ocean temperatures change jet stream patterns? Could changing jet streams move air masses that result in years of weather changes that create climate change? Is the science of climate change really completely understood? Is it prudent to tax CO2 emissions trillions of dollars when so many questions are left unanswered? Can science really discuss and modify climate change theories openly without the threat of billions of dollars of research money being taken away? I am dazed and confused, please enlighten me.

  4. Point of clarification, please: Is the Ap Index what is shown on your dashboard — and at fascinating solarcycle24.com site — as A-Index?

    Craig

  5. Mad dogs & Englishmen.

    We can thank our lucky star for showing us who is boss when it comes to actual climate change. This solar minimum reminds mankind that we are tiny little players living in a variable universe.

    Common sense is shouting from the rooftop telescopes people.

    We are in for some nasty weather. Our climate will do what it has been observed doing in the past. Lower solar activity means less life giving warmth on the planet.

    And know one can tell you when the sun will decide to warm back up. This solar inactivity could last decades. Decades of bitter cold weather does not sound like a warm climate to me.

    Think about little ice ages as if they were an Atlantic hurricane. Are we or are we not in the warning cone of prediction? We know ice ages come & go. They will come again. We may be entering one now as we are certainly not warming.

    And yet we are a senate vote away from further rationing of our energy supply. The very energy supply that allows us to warm our bones and enlighten our lives.

  6. Is ‘radio flux’ same as ‘solar flux’?

    Is ‘SSN’ same as ‘Wolf’ number?

    If 1934 was one of the hottest and driest years, is there a disconnect with low Ap index in 1933/34?

  7. Leif,

    – I read that L&P do three measurements: of temperature, magnetic splitting and continuum brightness. How can they have a “continuous” spectrum if they have to look to a place in the photosphere which is by definition a spectrum with absorption lines?
    – L&P write in “Sunspots today: a Cheshire Cat”, p. 2, “Yet all new cycle number 24 spots that we have observed have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (e.g. Figure 1). I suppose some cycle 24 sunspots had a penumbra?
    – Possibly it is normal that during a solar minimum we see only small sunspots. Am I right?
    – What do L&P mean when they conclude in the same paper : “there is not a unique relation between sunspot brightness and magnetic field”? Looking at the figure (3), I see a clear relation between both: a higher sunspot brightness corresponds with a lower magnetic field.
    – Is the following interpretation correct? “When the sun’s activity diminishes, (from solar max to solar minimum) it is normal that: 1) the magnetic field of the sunspots diminishes; 2) thus that the temperature of the umbrae rises.”
    – Is this statement right: “Large sunspots have a large magnetic field, small ones have a small magnetic field.”? Is there any relation between both?

    So I have a lot of questions. I presume the unusual behaviour of the sun stimulates us to a more profound study. Thanks!

  8. some sings of a slight rebound are showing.

    (Maria again bounds across the hilltop and sings) “The Sun’s alive, with the sound of music…”

  9. Anthony

    There appears to be a similar, but not as stark, step change around month 40. The period that followed did not get as quiet but it is quite similar otherwise. If we use that as a model, then I would expect the Sun’s magnetic activity might have hit bottom last December (about 35 months after the downward step change. Maybe the Sun has a 14 year cycle that you have just discovered?

    Bill

  10. I keep reading your articles and see your reference to David Archibald, Leif Svalgaard, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr. as well as others and would like to know more about these men. Any chance you could bring many of us novices up to speed?

    [Reply: use the search function to find articles by those individuals. ~dbstealey, moderator.]

  11. Sorry for the math error, 175 (step change in ’05) minus 40 (previous step change) is only 135 months, which is 11 1/4 years, right in line with the typical solar cycles.

  12. Minor nits:

    “some sings of a slight rebound are showing.”

    “the sun seems so have reestablished”

    REPLY:
    fixed thanks, wrote this in the wee hours of the morning during a bout of insomnia. Spell checker didn’t cath those. – A

  13. minor typos

    “though some sings of a slight rebound”, signs I’m sure

    “he sun seems so have reestablished”, to I’m sure

    So, do you think the October 2005 step change was some sort of sensor malfunction or recalibration?

  14. Meanwhile Catlin has tapped WWF for cash to speed up ‘analysis’ of the data in time for Copenhagen. Why bother when we all know what that data will ‘reveal’?

    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

    “Fresh Arctic evidence for climate summit
    Posted by Dominic Hilton

    * del.icio.us
    * StumbleUpon
    * Facebook
    * Live
    * Google
    * Reddit
    * Digg
    * E-mail this story to a friend!
    * Print this article!

    Wednesday, 12 Aug 2009 00:00

    Scientists are busy analysing data from the Catlin Arctic Survey. The data will provide important new evidence for the crucial climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

    The Catlin Arctic Survey team returned this May with unique new measurements of the thickness and extent of sea ice in the Arctic. The University of Cambridge’s Polar Oceans Physics Group is currently analysing the data, with initial results already suggesting that the sea ice is newer and thinner (and therefore more liable to melt) than expected. The results will help climate scientists around the world to understand how quickly the dwindling summer sea ice will melt and to predict more accurately the effect this will have on the global climate.

    WWF are providing funding to help the research team speed up their analysis. It’s crucial that the results are available in time for the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, as they will strengthen WWF’s calls for a strong global climate deal. Governments must take action urgently to keep global temperature rise below 2°C, the threshold beyond which most scientists predict climate change could become catastrophic.

    “Climate change is happening now and nowhere is it more evident than in the Arctic,” said WWF’s head of climate change, Keith Allott.

    “Sea ice is a critical part of Earth’s climate system and the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is happening decades ahead of most predictions. We cannot predict all of the effects of this ice loss, but scientists foresee severe disruption to the natural world on both a local and a global scale.””

  15. What what does it all mean?

    As a skeptic layman I was that thinking low sun activityi will drive some significant cooling.

    But it does not seem that this summer was cooler than usual globally. Does it mean that the cosmic-rays – cliemate theory is not so solid?

    Or maybe there is supposed a lag between low sun actitivity and lower temps and we will see the effect in the coming months?

  16. “NaperBoy (08:26:09) :

    If 1934 was one of the hottest and driest years, is there a disconnect with low Ap index in 1933/34?”

    I assume that because this drop was very quick and did not last long it had little effect.
    Also it was one of the hottest for the USA, not the world.
    I am suspicious of the link to the 70s cooling in the above graph though. What is interesting is that if the Ap Index indicates a weak cycle 24 maximum then that’s when things could get interesting.
    The funny thing is that just 5 years ago many were talking about how recent sunspot activity was the most active in 1000 years; 5 years down the line things have changed completely.
    It just proves how unpredictable the sun is and that one can only speculate as to what may happen in the future.

  17. The SWPC values of Ap are not correct. There are two problems: 1) the values for each day are not the ‘official’ values, and 2) the monthly means are truncated rather than rounded, so the ‘2’ for December 2008 was really ‘2.9’ and should have been rounded to ‘3’.

    The official values for Ap are provided by GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) Potsdam, Adolf-Schmidt-Observatorium für Geomagnetismus, Niemegk, Germany on behalf of the International Service of Geomagnetic Indices (ISGI) of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA).

    Below is a table for comparison. The first value is the official Ap, the second value I’ll discuss below, and the third value [without decimal point] is the SWPC truncated value:

    2008   1   7.8   9.6   6
    2008   2   11.0   12.2   9
    2008   3   11.1   11.2   10
    2008   4   9.2   9.3   9
    2008   5   6.3   7.0   6
    2008   6   6.7   8.0   7
    2008   7   5.4   6.3   6
    2008   8   5.0   5.3   5
    2008   9   5.6   5.6   5
    2008   10   6.5   6.9   6
    2008   11   4.2   5.0   3
    2008   12   4.5   5.8   2
    2009   1   4.3   5.3   3
    2009   2   4.5   5.0   4
    2009   3   5.3   5.3   4
    2009   4   4.4   4.4   4
    2009   5   3.9   4.3   4
    2009   6   4.1   4.9   5
    2009   7   4.4   5.1   5
    2009   8   4.6   4.9   5

    Now for the second value: There is a semiannual modulation of Ap due to the geometry of the interaction between the Sun and the Earth. At the solstices, the interaction is reduced and Ap is reduced about 20%, so if one wants to use Ap as an indicator of solar activity, this reduction must be corrected for. That is the second column. So, in December 2008, Ap was not 2, but rather 5.8.

  18. I am new to your web site, and find it very interesting. I am aware that you are a controversial figure with many in the AGW community, but apart from a few moans here and there, I have been very pleased by how much balance you show. Until this. I read this review of one of Archibald’s publications, checked on some of the issues raised and the complaints seem substantive. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
    Here is my compliant. You do a great job on this web site, but that depends on your credibility. There are many credible scientists out here whose research is soundly based, fully peer reviewed, and will still support your viewpoint. Avoid the specious, otherwise it gives the informed justified reason to question anything and everything you publish…. and from what I have seen so far that is not justified; as for the uninformed, don’t we all have an obligation to direct them to the best and most credible research? This one is wide off the mark… even if this particular article is true… with Archibald you can not accept anything without checking everything he does.

  19. Rik Gheysens (08:26:23) :
    How can they have a “continuous” spectrum if they have to look to a place in the photosphere which is by definition a spectrum with absorption lines?
    Between the lines there is the ‘continuum’

    I suppose some cycle 24 sunspots had a penumbra?
    – Possibly it is normal that during a solar minimum we see only small sunspots. Am I right?

    Here are all the spots of SC24 so far: click
    Some of the larger spots have both penumbra and umbra.
    And there can be large spots at solar minimum. E.g. at the last minumum: ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1996/dr961124.gif

    – What do L&P mean when they conclude in the same paper : “there is not a unique relation between sunspot brightness and magnetic field”?
    Just covering their backside. There is a good correlation.

    “When the sun’s activity diminishes, (from solar max to solar minimum) it is normal that: 1) the magnetic field of the sunspots diminishes; 2) thus that the temperature of the umbrae rises.”
    Not in general, but it is something one has to look more careful at now.

    – Is this statement right: “Large sunspots have a large magnetic field, small ones have a small magnetic field.”? Is there any relation between both?
    Yes, this is generally true: larger spots, stronger field.

  20. David Kitchen (10:27:30) :
    with Archibald you can not accept anything without checking everything he does.
    That is true with most things on the internet, and as you point out, in particular with Archibald’s stuff.

  21. David Kitchen (10:27:30) : This site posts a number of articles that might not otherwise see the light of day . Those that are specious or spurious (insert any other word for false , if you choose) usually get caught out in a hurry . This in itself makes WUWT worth reading .

  22. The weather over land is far more influenced by the oceans than any other heating/cooling mechanism. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to live on the west coast of any larger land body for at least a year and study daily weather charts.

  23. But it does not seem that this summer was cooler than usual globally. Does it mean that the cosmic-rays – cliemate theory is not so solid?

    Or maybe there is supposed a lag between low sun actitivity and lower temps and we will see the effect in the coming months?

    I have read studies that put the lag at 3-12 years. This is because the oceans hold much heat (correct me if I’m wrong, but something like 400x the heat content of air) that it takes a while for warming/cooling to manifest itself in warmer/cooler air temps.

    Ocean temp is a much better indicator of global temperature than air temps.

  24. Being a simple red neck proletarian, I have a question.

    As I understand Dr. Svalgaard’s theory, a reduced solar/earth magnetic field will result in increased cosmic rays. The increased cosmic rays results in increased clouds. The increased clouds increases the albedo of the earth, more energy from the sun is reflected into space and the earth cools.

    We can measure in one way or another, the various magnetic fields, the cosmic rays, the albedo, and the earth’s temperature. We are seeing a reduction in solar activity which has happened in the past, but for the first time we can measure the changes taking place.

    Dr. Svalgaard’s theory sounds reasonable to me and I am curious to know what values “we” are looking for to “prove” or “disprove” the theory.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  25. Pamela Gray (11:05:37) :

    Always like to start off these things with the latest weather happenings.
    I am 50 air miles from the Pacific Coast, and today, almost noon, a front (dry) from the North Pacific is blowing across here, it’s almost noon, early September, and I have my sweater on. It ain’t warm out there, ocean or my door.

  26. When Science admits it “doesn’t understand” and then has an open-mind to various theories, and actually investigates “all comers” that have a modicum of scientific evidence supporting them, only then does Science advance.

    And laymen can feel secure that the scientific establishment is healthy.

    When scientists say, “investigation is unnecessary, our ideas are correct,” and in turn disparage competing ideas, the laymen should know there is “rot” in our scientific establishment.

    Which is it at this point in time?

  27. David Kitchen (10:27:30) :

    I read this review of one of Archibald’s publications, checked on some of the issues raised and the complaints seem substantive. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

    David, your “reviewer” has an obvious agenda in trashing Archibald, as shown by his final comment:
    “Anyway, onwards and upwards……..some real science is on its way; IPCC AR4 part I.”

    Some folks just seem to froth at the mouth whenever Archibald’s name is mentioned. Wonder why.

  28. Mark Wagner (11:40:18) :
    but something like 400x the heat content of air)
    Actually 3227 times more than air. This is why it is impossible to have that “piggy heat bank” which was supposed to appear over the tropics, as expected by J.Hansen et al….It was but a “night summertime dream”

  29. Leif Svalgaard (10:27:27) :

    Any way to have those graphs updated with the corrected values? No sense in plowing down the road with the map wrong.

    Now, how did SWPC end up with a value so far out of whack with the corrected value?

  30. jon Jewett (11:55:11) :
    The increased cosmic rays results in increased clouds. The increased clouds increases the albedo of the earth, more energy from the sun is reflected into space and the earth cools.

    The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays [GCR], and the Earth’s magnetic field does as well. The latter modulation is much larger than the former. From 5000 BC to 500 AD, the Earth’s field was increasing and GCRs were therefore decreasing, and temperatures should have increased, but they decreased instead. That change of the GCR flux was ten times larger than that the Sun causes.

  31. In order to enhance the “Watts Effect”, for the welfare of humanity, there must be a daily post on solar issues in WUWT, otherwise, considering a time lag of 6-8 years we´ll be in troubles around 2013. :-)
    BTW these posts are the ones which congregate more bloggers.

  32. Can’t question the gods, eh?

    Wattsupwiththat? How bout anyone answering the questions I posed?

    Wattsthepointwiththiswebsite?

    I will post anywhere I please. Your editorial comment told me and many others to take it or leave it. Be respectfull as our civilization is being destroyed.

    Mad Dogs & Englishmen I dare say. And your scientific response is to tell me I am uncivilized. Tell me Leif, or anyone else, what does our prospects as a civilization look like through the eyes of your telescopes?

    If this were not so serious it would be laughable. Scientific observation is being ignored for what purpose again? Excuse me.

    Post elsewhere indeed….how bout you cancel your own damned subscription?

    REPLY: Mr. Lama, you made a comment that called a respected scientist a fraud, but offered nothing to back it up but additional ad homs. Thats why you were snipped. I’ve left this post up to demonstrate to others how emotional you are.

    “Wattsthepointwiththiswebsite?”

    See the “about” and “policy” pages under the masthead.

    “I will post anywhere I please.”

    Um, actually no. In all blogs that are moderated, comments are passed at the discretion of the moderators. Yours didn’t, get over it. You won’t change any attitudes with your current approach. You are welcome to ask questions, just lose the snark.- Anthony

  33. James F. Evans (12:02:55) :
    Which is it at this point in time?
    Clearly healthy!

    rbateman (12:13:57) :
    Any way to have those graphs updated with the corrected values?
    Yes, how far back would you like it? I can go back to 1844.

    Now, how did SWPC end up with a value so far out of whack with the corrected value?
    They have their own ‘preliminary values’ because Potsdam does not issue real-time values. And SWPC never bother to go back and replace them with the official values. SWPC is short on funding and people and expertise, remember :-)

  34. Leif Svalgaard (12:22:29) :

    From 5000 BC to 500 AD, the Earth’s field was increasing and GCRs were therefore decreasing, and temperatures should have increased, but they decreased instead.

    Which might also imply that the background level of the GCR’s was higher, since the temperature did not increase, according to that line of reasoning.
    We are just assuming here, for sake of simplicity, that GCR levels pre-filtered from interstellar space remain constant over millenia. I propose a lander with an ice-core drill on a TNO such as Sedna (free from the magnetic-rejection fields of Sun & Earth) to hopefully find accretion evidence to map out long-term GCR data.

    That change of the GCR flux was ten times larger than that the Sun causes.
    ???? You were thinking of something here, but I’m unable to determine what.

  35. If the Ap index indicates a cooler sun, AND if a cooler sun translates to a cooler climate on earth (as implied in the second figure in the ” 70s cooling period” caption), I’m a bit confused about the low reading of the Ap index in 1933. Weren’t the 1930s a warm time period — the Arctic warmer, warmer HADCRUT surface temperatures, the dust bowl? If memory serves, weren’t sunspot numbers reasonably high in the 1930s? If this is so, then wouldn’t sunspot numbers have a better correlation with temperatures on earth than the Ap index?

  36. The sun will remain quiet for at least another year – that is, if you believe the theory of the planets influencing the sun’s activity. I know dr Svalgaard does not believe this…

  37. Fine Anthony,

    restrict free speech as you wish. Delete then my first assertion. Nowhere did I say Leif Svalgaard is a fraud. I called him a phony.

    But have the courage to answer the basic questions. Websites like these are meant to enlighten. Tell me if I a rube. Tell me I am wrong.

    But don’t tell me I am being uncivil when our own government tells us it is warming when it is cooling. Don’t tell me I am being uncivil when I dare say that scientists cook the climate books. We have all seen to much of it with our own eyes to know better.

    “Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.”

    George Orwell

    “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.’

    Barry Goldwater

    And posting on Wattsupwiththat is up to caring men who no better than thou.

    REPLY: I stand behind Charles The Moderator’s decision to snip you. We try our best to catch and restrict cases of libelous/slanderous speech, just as a newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station does, and that’s the sort of thing you wrote initially. Try writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper calling a locally well respected person a “phony” (or a fraud) without having anything to back it up. It will see the same fate. Be upset about it all you want, but you are the one in the wrong here and quoting Orwell and Goldwater won’t change that fact. You simply violated the site policy.

    Just suck it up and move on. I’m not going to waste any more time on the issue with you. Be civil or be snipped, your choice. – Anthony

  38. Leif Svalgaard (12:35:44) :

    Just the part from 2005 onwards. I would like to see Anthony’s step function as well as where we currently sit, properly corrected.

    SWPC is not the only underfunded or non-funded entity here.
    When one takes the pay to do a job, one assumes responsibility for any follow-up.
    Nobody gives a lot of us a penny for what we work on, and I am quite sure that you yourself have done much work in your lifetime that nobody paid you a dime for. You did it because there’s more important things in life than simple profit.

    As for pre-1957 corrections, that year was marked by a fundamental shift in visible Solar Phenomenon. White-Light Faculae fell underneath both Whole-Spot and Penumbral Area.
    It then proceeded to leave outstrip the Whole-Spot/Penumbra in SC20. That would make the time-frame a wildly fluctuating one.
    1937: the year that the highest recorded WLF monthly means occured. It is on par with the late 1950’s Sunspot Area measurements as taking the proverbial cake.
    How those things affect the AP Solar Magnetic Index I am unable to say.

  39. David Kitchen (10:27:30) :

    Avoid the specious, otherwise it gives the informed justified reason to question anything and everything you publish.

    Being informed means reading things that don’t support our views as well as those that do. We are quite capable of making up our own minds of what we think is valid and what is not.

    as for the uninformed, don’t we all have an obligation to direct them to the best and most credible research?

    Who decides who is uninformed and what is credible research. Of course there are many fruit cake ideas out there such as the garbage that comes out of the The U.K.’s National Academy of Sciences but we have to learn to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    with Archibald you can not accept anything without checking everything he does.

    Where ever possible I always check everything I read regardless of who is posting. I’m sure plenty of others do as well. Anthony acts as a gate keeper. He selects things he thinks we might find interesting or funny.

    He has no “obligation” to direct us to the best and most credible research in anything. We are not sheep and he is not the shepherd. I find his blog entertaining, informative and open to a diverse range of opinions.

    There are many credible scientists out here whose research is soundly based, fully peer reviewed,

    And there a lot of scientists out there who are shysters whose research passes peer review by lazy or ethically bankrupt peer reviewers. We are left to our own resources to weed them out.

    David Archibalds contribution to this thread is a graph of the long term AP index. I know It’s accurate because I checked it. You can find the data here.

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/GEOMAGNETIC_DATA/INDICES/KP_AP/

  40. rbateman (13:00:08) :

    Leif:
    That change of the GCR flux was ten times larger than that the Sun causes.

    ???? You were thinking of something here, but I’m unable to determine what.

    I think Leif is saying that the Earth’s geomagnetic variability has 10 x more effect on the level of the GCR flux at Earth’s surface Than the sun’s cyclic variability does.

    BIMBW

  41. Denny, thanks for your “right on” comment. Peer review is like Churchill’s view of democracy. To twist his famous quote, “Peer review is the worst form of review except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Like democracy, we need to be careful to undermine the imperfect for want of a better system.

    This does not take away from my criticism of this posting. And sure, the review I posted was by a AGW advocate. No apologies, as most scientists are advocates (yes I know, for sure, not all!) if you do not listen to, or decide to disregard, one side in this argument, we are all at risk of missing what we all say we want… the truth? I know Chis Horner (Red Hot Lies) would have us all believe the academic community in the USA and across the world is part of some great socialist conspiracy , but really, I had hoped that fear of the intelligentsia died with the Cultural Revolution…..

  42. Leif Svalgaard (10:44:47) :

    David Kitchen (10:27:30) :
    with Archibald you can not accept anything without checking everything he does.
    That is true with most things on the internet, and as you point out, in particular with Archibald’s stuff.

    Leif,
    I regard this a bias remark, consididering all the warmist climate crap that is produced by NASA.

  43. The current magnetogram’s as dull as a sheet of grey linoleum. Sun’s obviously transitioning into the helium burning phase.

  44. And yet no anwers. Were the questions just too hard or just too obvious?

    I take back any personal opinions of the personal opinions of Leif.

    Now can he be questioned or is my persistence just an uncivil nuisance?

    I admitted my foul. I understand the measures you took. And yet no answers.

    Remember, I am just an unwashed heathen. So when I question authority I may come across as a brute. I took it on the chin in print by this site’s host himself.

    But in all fairness, where is the beef?

    Clara Peller ~ American Patriot

    REPLY: OK now that you’ve admitted your error, phrase the questions minus the snark in a civil manner, and then they’ll be worthy of attention. – A

  45. Anthony, thank you for keeping before us information about important aspects of our funky Ol’ Sol. (I continue to think that some of the significant cold temperatures around the years of the Maunder Minimum also involved the large number of volcanic explosions in the 17thc. I was going to list a number of them, but the list became too large. Later.)

    My respectful question is why isn’t WUWT using the official values for Ap for its charts? It seeems this would be more helpful in educating your readers. Also, sometimes David Archibald seems intent in producing a hockey stick in reverse with “low” solar activity as “the one and only cause”, more hopefully than with clear evidence.

    REPLY
    : Actually there’s a method to my madness. Pointing out regularly that NOAA isn’t using updated information has merit in the overall scheme of NOAA data presentation. Plus there’s an operational issue (an maybe NOAA has the same problem) Leif gave me a link to the “official” data:

    http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/gifs/apindex.html

    But it was designed to be as annoying as possible. To get Ap for any month you have to submit a form AND your email address each time…they don’t appear to have the whole data set in the open. The time I would have to spend to get it all would be enormous.

    If I’m in error, and a complete downloadable Ap dataset file exists somewhere from these folks, feel free to point it out and I’ll plot it. – Anthony

  46. rbateman (13:00:08) :
    We are just assuming here, for sake of simplicity, that GCR levels pre-filtered from interstellar space remain constant over millenia.
    The inverse relationship between the dipole moment and the 14C ‘concentration’ is consistent with no great change of the interstellar flux:

    John (13:17:02) :
    (as implied in the second figure in the ” 70s cooling period” caption),
    That is just Archibald jumping to conclusions.

    If this is so, then wouldn’t sunspot numbers have a better correlation with temperatures on earth than the Ap index?
    possibly, but more likely neither of them correlates with temperature.

    rbateman (13:23:05) :
    Just the part from 2005 onwards. I would like to see Anthony’s step function as well as where we currently sit, properly corrected.

    MartinGAtkins (13:25:58) :
    David Archibalds contribution to this thread is a graph of the long term AP index. I know It’s accurate because I checked it.
    There are some inaccuracies. E.g. it mentions a ‘1933 low’. The low was in 1934 and [a deeper one] in 1936. It claims to be 5-month smoothed, but the last few points, where is really dips are not smoothed…

    tallbloke (13:27:22) :
    I think Leif is saying that the Earth’s geomagnetic variability has 10 x more effect on the level of the GCR flux at Earth’s surface Than the sun’s cyclic variability does.
    yep

    Ron de Haan (13:38:47) :
    I regard this a bias remark, consididering all the warmist climate crap that is produced by NASA.
    Should we accept other crap, just because NASA produces some?
    Crap is crap.

  47. David Kitchen, 13:29. If the fear of the intelligentsia is not alive and well in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, then you, we, are not keeping our eyes open. Earth does not have a Greenhouse, it has an atmosphere with water vapor the most important gas. What is the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere? Who are those elites on the IPCC who pick and choose their evidence to support their purpose of imposing debilitating regulations on the developed world, with malice aforethought? Who are those scientists burying their heads in the sand in order to continue to receive their funding and who are those who have simply sold their scientific souls to the intelligentsia devils. I not only think we should be very afraid, but I think we should be naming names, in large part so that we can honor those who have remained true to their scientific professions.

  48. rbateman (13:23:05) :
    Just the part from 2005 onwards. I would like to see Anthony’s step function as well as where we currently sit, properly corrected.
    I did from 1991 on, to be comparable with the other Figures:

  49. “Be civil or be snipped” lol — could fit a number of contexts…

    I hope this is civil.

    Anthony,

    Awhile back you promised an updated graph of CO2 concentration vs temp. rise. Did I just not see that or are you still working on it?

    REPLY: This one is a larger project than I expected, still working on it. -A

  50. Leif,

    As I understand them, Svensmark, Shaviv et al claim that the significant galactic cosmic rays for low cloud formation are only the high energy ones that produce energetic muons that can penetrate deep into the lower atmosphere. They further claim that variations in the strength of the earth’s geomagnetic variability do not affect these high energy cosmic rays much at all, while variations the strength of the solar magnetic field do. Am I wrong in that? If not, citing data on total cosmic ray flux does not really address the validity of their hypothesis does it?

  51. Leif Svalgaard (14:22:22) :
    REPLY: Thanks. Just out of curiosity, does the source offer such a complete dataset? – A
    No, but I have had one for a long time. The official dataset has three-hourly resolution. So, one loads that one [can be found in many places] and then calculates the monthly means. The monthly mean table I don’t think is out there, except mine :-)

    Peter Hartley (14:38:44) :
    They further claim that variations in the strength of the earth’s geomagnetic variability do not affect these high energy cosmic rays much at all, while variations the strength of the solar magnetic field do.
    In both cases it is a magnetic field that deflect the cosmic rays. This deflection is inversely to the energy of the cosmic ray, high-energy rays are deflected least, so the solar modulation is mostly of the low-energy rays.

  52. Leif Svalgaard (14:12:05) :

    Thanks. The 2005 step function is still there. I’ll see what I can cook up from here.

  53. wattsupwiththat (15:26:15) :
    Leif. In your 1991 to present Ap plot what does “demodulated” refer to?

    There is a semiannual modulation of Ap due to the geometry of the interaction between the Sun and the Earth. At the solstices, the interaction is reduced and Ap is reduced about 20%, so if one wants to use Ap as an indicator of solar activity, this reduction must be corrected for. So, in December 2008, Ap was not 4.5, but rather 5.8. The demodulated graph has this correction.

  54. rbateman (15:21:41) :
    Thanks. The 2005 step function is still there. I’ll see what I can cook up from here.
    The ‘step’-function does not have any particular significance. It is caused by a single strong geomagnetic storm period centered on Sept. 11, 2005, click
    that makes that monthly mean stick up.

  55. Leif,

    If Livingston and Penn are correct that means that Leif, Hathaway, Jansseen, Archibald, Hoyt are wrong. Do we start over or say what in the present physical model of the sun can explain this. I am looking at this from a “Re-Do” perspective and not attacking anyone. The current model is wrong, needs “tweeking”, right but an unknown observed effect? I just don’t known myself looking at this from a clean perspective.

  56. Leif 15:09:29

    Shaviv, for example, claims that the Earth’s magnetic field only stops cosmic rays below 10GeV in equatorial regions, and lower energies at the polar regions. He further says these rays are not strong enough to produce charged particles in the lower atmosphere, so even if we had no geomagnetic field the atmosphere would still shield us from these GCR. As you say, however, that should also mean variations in the sun’s magnetic field strength also do not affect the high energy cosmic rays. Reading more, I see that I also was wrong in claiming that Shaviv, Svensmark et al attribute attenuation of the energetic cosmic rays to the solar magnetic field. It seems they actually claim the solar wind does it. Do we have readily available measures of the strength of the solar wind?

  57. John (13:17:02) :

    If the Ap index indicates a cooler sun, AND if a cooler sun translates to a cooler climate on earth (as implied in the second figure in the ” 70s cooling period” caption)

    There wasn’t a “70s cooling period”. The cooling began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s. Temperatures actually began to rise in the 1970s.

  58. Jim Arndt (15:54:45) :
    If Livingston and Penn are correct that means that Leif, Hathaway, Jansseen, Archibald, Hoyt are wrong…
    L&P do not say that solar activity will go away, just that sunspots will be invisible because their magnetic field is [just?] below a value where the contrast is one. You see, magnetic fields below 1800 Gauss [or so] are bright, and above 1800 G are dark, so right at 1800 G, they cannot be seen, but they are still there. The solar cycle is still going, the dynamo is still working. No ‘re-do’ is needed.
    A sunspot is formed by coalescence of many magnetic flux elements. The elements are created by the dynamo and the L&P effect may be related to the process that compacts the elements to form a spot. Ken Schatten has some ideas about this: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf

    Peter Hartley (15:59:26) :
    It seems they actually claim the solar wind does it. Do we have readily available measures of the strength of the solar wind?
    It is the magnetic field of the solar wind that deflects the cosmic rays, so indirectly it is just the solar magnetic field. We have a good idea about what the magnetic field of the solar wind has been the last ~170 years: http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf

  59. Leif Svalgaard (12:35:44) :

    “James F. Evans (12:02:55) :
    Which is it at this point in time? [state of Science]
    Clearly healthy!”

    “magnetic reconnection” — “The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”

    “‘Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations,’ says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31aug_mms.htm?list1065474

    Leif Svalgaard (paraphrase): “magnetic reconnection happens, those that challenge it are pseudo-scientific”

    Many scientists say AGW is established scientific fact and those that challenge it are pseudo-scientific.

    No, Dr. Svalgaard, I beg to differ in your assessment.

    But perhaps where you stand depends on where you sit.

  60. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/archibald-the-ap-index-says-there-will-be-no-sunspots/

    TomLama (08:00:36) :

    “The Sun is bleeding magnetic flux (for a very good reason), so I don’t think so.”

    Hi David,

    I missed the “very good reason” of why the sun is bleeding magnetic flux. Do you mind repeating it for those of us who missed it?

    Leif Svalgaard (08:17:55) :

    TomLama (08:00:36) :
    “The Sun is bleeding magnetic flux (for a very good reason), so I don’t think so.”
    I missed the “very good reason” of why the sun is bleeding magnetic flux. Do you mind repeating it for those of us who missed it?

    Might be hard to do [so I’m also curious]. The Sun is not ‘bleeding’ magnetic flux. On the contrary, the new cycle activity is adding flux to the photosphere.

    Ahhhh……hemmm….hawwwwhhhh….

    Questions for thee but not for me, eh Leif?

    Seems to me that the entire point of this thread is that, in fact, the sun is indeed bleeding solar flux.

    “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 Hathaway have not been near the reality that is being measured.”

    All I have been doing is not so humbly asking for someone to put up. I never asked them to shut up. I do not have the editorial skills of Wattsupwiththat. As a fan all I ask for is some simple answers to basic questions.

    The questions have been asked, and censored, and not answered.

    Only you have the discresion to allow them to be openly aired.

    “REPLY: OK now that you’ve admitted your error, phrase the questions minus the snark in a civil manner, and then they’ll be worthy of attention. – A”

    Repeat my questions to Leif without the snark then.

    You scientists are a touchy bunch, eh?

    REPLY: All I’m asking you to do is put your questions in a simple set like this:

    1. Question a
    2. Question b

    X Question x

    Why? They also don’t exist anymore. They were deleted along with your snark and ad homs. If you want answers, then please ask the questions. If you just want to toss snark please go elsewhere. It is just that simple.

    – Anthony

  61. Further to the comment at 15:59:26

    Reading some more, I see that Svensmark does talk about the solar magnetic field too, but it is not the strength of the solar magnetic field in the vicinity of the earth that he discusses but rather its strength at the heliopause where, he claims, most of the high energy galactic cosmic rays are deflected. The strength of the geomagnetic field would be irrelevant to this. I think your comparison, Leif, of the relative strength of the solar and earth magnetic fields was only in the vicinity of the earth. Svensmark seems to say that the solar wind somehow carries the solar magnetic field to the heliopause, but I am not sure how that happens if it is as weak as you say.

  62. John Finn (15:59:48) :

    There most certainly was a cooling scare in the 70’s, and some rather prominent figures are common to today’s scare.
    There was also an extended plateau of elevated neutron monitor counts for the 70’s. The plateau, however, did not reach the heights of today’s levels. There was another extended (but more rounded) plateua in the 90’s. In between cycles are sharp peaks. Expectations of a rapid plunge to this cycle prior to experiencing a plateau would break the mold.
    Will it be broken?

  63. Peter Hartley (16:41:19) :
    Svensmark seems to say that the solar wind somehow carries the solar magnetic field to the heliopause, but I am not sure how that happens if it is as weak as you say.
    The solar wind carries the sun’s magnetic field all the way from the sun to the heliopause. On its way it passes by the Earth where we can measure it.
    The relative strength of the solar wind magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field is not relevant, because the deflection of cosmic rays by the two fields is done by different mechanisms.

  64. James F. Evans (16:31:27) :
    “magnetic reconnection happens
    Goldstein did not say that he [we] doubt that it happens [because reconnection is observed] just that we do not understand the details.

  65. Leif Svalgaard (12:22:29) :

    The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays [GCR], and the Earth’s magnetic field does as well. The latter modulation is much larger than the former. From 5000 BC to 500 AD, the Earth’s field was increasing and GCRs were therefore decreasing, and temperatures should have increased, but they decreased instead. That change of the GCR flux was ten times larger than that the Sun causes.

    This statement is disingenuous, there are just as many records showing the earth cooled 7000 years ago compared with the earth warmed 7000 years ago. I dont think we can be too confident about temperature records that far back.

    Also the GCR effect is just one “possible” component of a climate regulator. There is the separate solar contribution to the GCR shielding along with TSI and UV factors that need to be included, there may be other factors not known of course.

    7000 & 5500 years ago there was a very similar period of heavy grand minima like we have just recently came out of.

  66. Jim Arndt (15:54:45) :

    Leif,

    If Livingston and Penn are correct that means that Leif, Hathaway, Jansseen, Archibald, Hoyt are wrong. Do we start over or say what in the present physical model of the sun can explain this. I am looking at this from a “Re-Do” perspective and not attacking anyone. The current model is wrong, needs “tweeking”, right but an unknown observed effect? I just don’t known myself looking at this from a clean perspective.

    Solar science is definitely in a messy place right now. The failed Babcock-Leighton model is the root cause in my opinion.

  67. rbateman (16:58:53) :
    There was also an extended plateau of elevated neutron monitor counts for the 70’s. The plateau, however, did not reach the heights of today’s levels. There was another extended (but more rounded) plateua in the 90’s. In between cycles are sharp peaks.

    Thule [in Northern Greenland] has monitored the neutron count since the 1950s:

    At the present time we are at one of the sharp peaks.

  68. Geoff Sharp (17:15:53) :
    This statement is disingenuous, there are just as many records showing the earth cooled 7000 years ago compared with the earth warmed 7000 years ago.
    It is not about the single year 7000 years ago, but about the trend since. Here is one compilation:

    The word ‘disingenuous’ is not appropriate in serious discussion.

    There is the separate solar contribution to the GCR shielding
    Please elaborate

    Geoff Sharp (17:19:40) :
    The failed Babcock-Leighton model is the root cause in my opinion.
    The B-L model predicts a weak cycle 24, so cannot be said to have failed.

  69. Ah, rounded and sharpened peaks, my favorite. I still think there is going to be two of one type of peak and one of the other in each phase of the PDO, and that the correlation will harbor causation. But these are very weak effects, as I’ve been reminded repeatedly by Leif.
    ==============================

  70. I think it is of interest to trace Leif’s comments in this thread on the Svensmark/Shaviv et al hypothesis. The original statement Leif was commenting on at 12:22:29 was:

    Jewett (11:55:11) :
    The increased cosmic rays results in increased clouds. The increased clouds increases the albedo of the earth, more energy from the sun is reflected into space and the earth cools.

    which draws Leif’s comment:

    The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays [GCR], and the Earth’s magnetic field does as well. The latter modulation is much larger than the former.

    Then we had the comment at 14:03:02:

    tallbloke (13:27:22) :
    I think Leif is saying that the Earth’s geomagnetic variability has 10 x more effect on the level of the GCR flux at Earth’s surface Than the sun’s cyclic variability does.

    which interpretation Leif confirms:

    yep

    I then pointed out at 14:38:44 that the GCR theory pertained only to high energy GCR, which are not affected by the geomagnetic field at all, and not those below 10GeV that are so affected. This would make the comment on the relative strengths of the geomagnetic and solar magnetic fields irrelevant to that theory. Leif then says:

    In both cases it is a magnetic field that deflect the cosmic rays. This deflection is inversely to the energy of the cosmic ray, high-energy rays are deflected least, so the solar modulation is mostly of the low-energy rays.

    Note that this statement still does not directly contradict the Svensmark/Shaviv et al hypothesis. That the solar magnetic field “mostly” modulates the low-energy rays, and even then to a lesser extent than the geomagnetic field does, is irrelevant to what modulates the high energy cosmic rays, which is all that matters for the hypothesis. Knowing that Svensmark and Shaviv have actually discussed this issue I read some more and find that they talk about the solar wind and deflection at the edge of the solar system, not the vicinity of the earth. Thus, the relative strengths of the earth’s and sun’s magnetic field in the vicinity of the earth are also irrelevant to the hypothesis. Then at 17:10:49 Leif agrees:

    The relative strength of the solar wind magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic field is not relevant.

    This leads me to ask why Leif commented on the Svensmark/Shaviv et al hypothesis by saying the earth’s magnetic field (measured in the vicinity of the earth) was 10x stronger.

  71. Peter 18:39:19

    That’s an excellent question, and I wish I understood enough physics to appreciate Leif’s response. So be careful and be clear Lief. I’d like to understand this matter, because it’s not unlikely that there are further clues in clouds and cosmic rays.
    ========================================

  72. Leif Svalgaard (18:10:42) :

    There is the separate solar contribution to the GCR shielding
    —–
    Please elaborate

    As covered previously in this thread. From Peter HArtley
    “Reading some more, I see that Svensmark does talk about the solar magnetic field too, but it is not the strength of the solar magnetic field in the vicinity of the earth that he discusses but rather its strength at the heliopause where, he claims, most of the high energy galactic cosmic rays are deflected.”

    Geoff Sharp (17:19:40) :
    The failed Babcock-Leighton model is the root cause in my opinion.
    ———-
    The B-L model predicts a weak cycle 24, so cannot be said to have failed.

    But not weak enough if we are indeed entering the [unnamed] Minimum, and only yours is close, the rest in the B-L camp have predicted a high cycle. The biggest failure of the B-L model is the inability to cope with regular solar grand minima which has now been confirmed by both solar proxy isotopes. No model of solar activity is correct unless it can explain the regularity of grand minima over the Holocene….its time to start again.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51

  73. Every spring (around April or May) the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel meets to setforth their best predictions based on their own and solicited studies. We will have to wait until next spring to see what their best, educated pronouncements will be. Considering the current state of the sun, I don’t imagine it will do any good to meet any sooner. Hopefully a few more sunspots in the interim may start to define a ramp-up to SC24. If not, then all drawing boards should be busy – I would even call for an international conference on such.

  74. Off-Topic Appeal

    I am trying to locate some raw data for satellite spectroscopic measurements of the infra-red emission spectra of Venus, Earth, and Mars. Any pointers much appreciated!

  75. Geoff Sharp (19:17:06) :

    [snip]

    REPLY: Geoff, if you have an issue with WUWT, take it up with me directly. – Anthony

    I dont have an issue with WUWT and the comment wasn’t aimed at you or anyone in particular, I was just stating that sometimes you need to be diligent and do your own homework and not just take for granted what may be written.

    Sometimes the whole truth is not stated.

  76. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hey if there is (and it looks like it from the grafts) a 3year AND a 6 year lag……. God help us.
    And yes this is all I am saying today!
    Leif, it’s getting interesting is it not?

    Nite nite mods.

  77. Steve (Paris) (09:58:27) :

    Meanwhile Catlin has tapped WWF for cash to speed up ‘analysis’ of the data in time for Copenhagen. Why bother when we all know what that data will ‘reveal’?

    Scientists are busy analysing data from the Catlin Arctic Survey. The data will provide important new evidence for the crucial climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

    The Catlin Arctic Survey team returned this May with unique new measurements of the thickness and extent of sea ice in the Arctic.

    Guaranteed to be unique, and never repeated (as not repeatable?! – a more or less random walk over shifting ice…).

    Ah… the Catlin Arctic Survey team – I miss them, absurdist entertainment at its best.

  78. Anthony: Your Oct 2005 step function has an interesting sidebar to it.
    Apparently, that is when the Sun changed from having bands in the EIT going horizontal to another form best described as the clouds on Venus. Chevrons.
    Those slanted bands have lost the coronal holes in the gap between the polar regions and the equatorial region, but they still remain to this day.
    I’m not up to speed on how long it takes for changes on the Sun to show up in the AP index.
    Someone may want to provide that.
    It will take me some time to process all the images from 08/15 to 10/31 to show the progression.
    You may want to dig on your own and see where this leads you.

    REPLY: I’ll have a look, thanks. – A

  79. Peter Hartley (18:39:19) :
    This leads me to ask why Leif commented on the Svensmark/Shaviv et al hypothesis by saying the earth’s magnetic field (measured in the vicinity of the earth) was 10x stronger.
    Not the field, but the modulation. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg shows the anticorrelation between 14C and the dipole moment. The tiny wiggles are due to solar modulation. The peak of 14C production is around 10 km altitude, so the cosmic rays have to be energetic enough to penetrate that far. As one goes to higher and higher energy, the cosmic rays become fewer and fewer [roughly by a factor of 1000 for each factor 10 in energy], so you cannot avoid the modulation problem by going to the highest energies, because there are so few of them and because they are also not modulated much by solar activity.

    Geoff Sharp (19:07:24) :
    “it is not the strength of the solar magnetic field in the vicinity of the earth that he discusses but rather its strength at the heliopause”
    The latter is in direct proportion to the former as the solar wind is carrying the same field past the Earth as ends up at the heliopause.

    Geoff Sharp (17:19:40) :
    only yours is close, the rest in the B-L camp have predicted a high cycle
    There are not many in that high camp, and the difference between high and low is in the boundary conditions applied. The model is the same.

    The biggest failure of the B-L model is the inability to cope with regular solar grand minima
    The B-L model can easily deal with Grand Minima, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf

    But if L&P are correct, the Grand Minima may not be so Grand as they appear just as an artifact of the visibility of sunspots while the dynamo was still working and the solar wind still blowing and cosmic rays still modulated almost as much as at other times.

    noaaprogrammer (19:43:18) :
    Every spring (around April or May) the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel meets to setforth their best predictions based on their own and solicited studies.
    Our work is done this time around. No more meetings.

    Geoff Sharp (20:57:09) :
    I was just stating that sometimes you need to be diligent and do your own homework and not just take for granted what may be written.
    Most of the stuff that are on the Internet is junk in the first place [to wit what you peddle] and does not pass a simple smell test. The rest, the readership will find flaws with. And the ‘truth’ is elusive anyway or perhaps not even known. One should be particularly suspicious of people ‘in the know’ that proclaim to have the truth.

  80. Leif Svalgaard (23:13:00) :

    What is your observation on the trend in open solar flux within this solar minimum?

  81. maksimovich (23:30:58) :
    What is your observation on the trend in open solar flux within this solar minimum?
    Trend? within the minimum? over one or two years?
    The value is better defined. The ‘open flux’ is ambiguous, but the Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength is well-defined. It is now the same as it was 108 years ago during the minimum between cycles 13 and 14.

  82. Svalgaard (16:21:05) : We have a good idea about what the magnetic field of the solar wind has been the last ~170 years:

    Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    Let us imagine that a scientist from outer space came and told us that the Svensmark theory is correct but that we have not managed to figure out all the details yet. Let us further assume that we then wanted to correlate the arctic temperature (A) the last ~100 years with the magnetic field of the solar wind (B),

    A. http://climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#NH%2070-90%20TempSince1900
    B. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf

    The question is whether the reason to reject any correlation between these two quantities is that,

    1. There is no correlation.
    2. The data are not reliable.
    3. The data set is too short.

    BTW. the paper “Observatory Data: a 170-year Sun-Earth Connection” is very interesting.

  83. rbateman (22:49:57) :
    Oct 2005 step function
    The sharp step is spurious [caused by a single active region in Sept, 2005], but there is a real lowering of the background level. This is related to a 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity where the minima between even and odd cycles have stronger geomagnetic activity than the minima between odd and even cycles [e.g. the current minimum] have weaker geomagnetic activity. The generally accepted explanation of the reason for this cycle may be found in section 9 [page ~53] of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf but there is probably a solar reason as well [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric%20Rosenberg-Coleman%20Effect.pdf ]. A strong Rosenberg-Coleman effect has developed for the current minimum, supporting the traditional explanation. Bottom line: In addition to whatever solar changes there have been, there is terrestrial modulation as well, helping to make this minimum extra weak.

  84. Invariant (23:44:21) :
    The question is whether the reason to reject any correlation between these two quantities
    The temperature graph shows the temperature between 70 and 90 degrees North. There is very little real data for the Near North Pole region especially the first 50 years of the graph, so one would start by examining that issue. In broad terms, the magnetic field (B) now is what it was in the 1901 and temps (A) are not, so the correlation does not seem to be there.

  85. Geoff Sharp (20:57:09) “Sometimes the whole truth is not stated.”

    Geoff, have you checked out the works of Yu.V. Barkin yet?

  86. Leif Svalgaard (23:40:06) :

    Sorry wrong terminology,did not S and C 2007 suggest that a floor in B would result in a floor in open solar flux of 4×10^14 Wb ?. Have these “drifted’ or still sustained? Does McCracken (2007) need revisiting ?

  87. Re: The Sun’s Heliosphere & Heliopause
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020624.html
    “Where does the Sun’s influence end? Nobody is sure. Out past the orbits of Neptune and Pluto extends a region named the heliosphere where the Sun’s magnetic field and particles from the Solar Wind continue to dominate. The surface where the Solar Wind drops below sound speed is called the termination shock and is depicted as the inner oval in the above computer-generated illustration. It is thought that this surface occurs as close as 75-90 AU — so close that a Pioneer or Voyager spacecraft may soon glide through it as they exit the Solar System at about 3 AU/year. The actual contact sheet between the Sun’s ions and the Galaxy’s ions is called the heliopause and is thought to occur at about 110 AU. It is depicted above as the middle surface. The Sun’s heliopause moves through the local interstellar medium much as a boat moves on water, pushing a bow shock out in front, thought to occur near 230 AU.”

    Even in its present weak state, the radius of the heliosphere is many AU.

  88. maksimovich (00:21:15) :
    Sorry wrong terminology
    the Heliospheric Magnetic Field strength is well-defined. It is now the same as it was 108 years ago during the minimum between cycles 13 and 14. So, where ever the floor it is the same as back then.

    Does McCracken (2007) need revisiting ?
    http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf

    McCracken was taking support from the old Lockwood 1999 paper about the doubling of the HMF. With Lockwood et al. now agreeing with us about the HMF not having doubled, the McCracken 2007 splicing of neutron monitor and ion chamber cosmic ray records is now not supported.

  89. Paul Vaughan (00:12:47) :

    Just skimmed some his stuff, need some time which is in short supply lately. Tallbloke might also be interested. Is there anything specific that relates to my line of research?

  90. Leif Svalgaard (23:11:11) :

    Geoff Sharp (17:19:40) :
    only yours is close, the rest in the B-L camp have predicted a high cycle
    ————————–
    There are not many in that high camp, and the difference between high and low is in the boundary conditions applied. The model is the same.

    Here is a graph of the SC24 predictions showing how many scientists will get it wrong by a big margin. One could say in the “junk” class. How many of these names listed follow the B-L model?

    The biggest failure of the B-L model is the inability to cope with regular solar grand minima
    ———————-
    The B-L model can easily deal with Grand Minima, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf

    But if L&P are correct, the Grand Minima may not be so Grand as they appear just as an artifact of the visibility of sunspots while the dynamo was still working and the solar wind still blowing and cosmic rays still modulated almost as much as at other times.

    The paper referenced only talks of the Maunder and does not come close to explaining grand minima regular occurrences every 200 years roughly. The B-L model is all about randomness, which cannot be escaped from. This is it’s Achilles heal.

    The L&P effect is just the observations of sunspots heading into grand minimum, there is nothing in it to save your bacon.

  91. Re: Geoff Sharp (00:54:22)

    Barkin’s work is an eye-opener regarding the hazards of over-simplified (conventional/traditional/mainstream) assumptions.

    I continue to read… (and might be better-positioned to offer more targeted comments in the weeks & months ahead, but did not want to delay in sharing a general head’s-up on what appears to be a missing link of fundamental importance — note: this is exactly what tallbloke & I have speculated)

  92. Leif Svalgaard (23:59:30) :

    The elephant’s trunk I have seen before, didn’t know that’s what it was.
    It’s the last small image on the bottom of this page:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin8.htm
    After which follow 4 large images of the progession to the Chevron effect.
    It’s hard to see it in the smaller images (I would run out of my alloted server space quickly)
    from then on, but it still persists. Now mostly confined to higher latitudes.
    What now lies equatorward of these slanted demarcation lines (after the slanted coronal holes left) is a veritable dead zone (see http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm ) that is visible as an area of dark-reddish splotches contrasted with the more uniform greenish area lying between it and the poles. Spot form on boundaries.
    A picture is worth a 1000 words.

  93. Geoff Sharp (01:17:44) :
    How many of these names listed follow the B-L model?
    Exactly four:
    Dikpati, et al. 2006 Rmax=155–180
    Schatten 2005 Rmax=80
    Choudhuri et al. 2007 Rmax=75
    Svalgaard et al. 2005 Rmax=72

    The paper referenced only talks of the Maunder and does not come close to explaining grand minima regular occurrences every 200 years roughly. The B-L model is all about randomness
    And Grand Minima do indeed occur at random as several studies [that you are well aware of] have shown. Your purported 172 year period is not supported by the data [as you well know]. “If your analysis is available in the refereed literature, let us know the citation so we can download and read it”.

    The L&P effect is just the observations of sunspots heading into grand minimum.
    It may be just that, and if it is, may be a good explanation of why during a Grand Minimum, the solar dynamo is still working and why the HMF does not fall to very low values.

  94. (10:27:30)
    David Kitchen,

    While Leif would diasgree with some minor details about David Archibold’s post – 99 % of what David says in this particular post is easliy verifiable to anyone with a scientific background.

    In fact, if a scientist were to come out an seriously question the basic cliams that David Archibold had to say in this post, all he/she would be doing is displaying their ignorance and stupidity.

    If you want to silence and smear someone who is doing their best to promote a genuine viewpoint on this issue (with which you disagree) do so with evdience and scientific fact, not putdowns and innuendo.

  95. tallbloke (13:27:22) :
    I think Leif is saying that the Earth’s geomagnetic variability has 10 x more effect on the level of the GCR flux at Earth’s surface Than the sun’s cyclic variability does.

    Leif is not the sharpest tool in the workshop.

    However, I suspect that even he knows that the Earth’s magnetc field does not vary systematically on the same time scales as the Sun’s magnetic field.

    The Sun’s magnetic field strength varies on a 22 year time scale, producing a very noticeable 11 year variation in the cosmic ray flux in the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

    The Earth’s magnetic field has a slow secular variation that is measured in decade and centuries. It does not show a systematic variation on the order of 11 years.

  96. tallbloke,

    ….Oh and Leif should also know that the energy spectrum of the incoming cosmic rays is not just affected by the relative mgnetic field
    strength between the Sun and Earth’s magnetic fields but also by the
    relative magnetic pathlengths (amongst other parameters) between these two fields.

    Put simply, the absolute deflection of a high speed charged particle does not just depend on field strength but also how long [or more precisely, over what distance) the deflecting magnetic force is applied.

  97. Ninderthana (05:21:10) :
    The Earth’s magnetic field has a slow secular variation that is measured in decade and centuries. It does not show a systematic variation on the order of 11 years.
    Some people are, apparently, slow learners. This graph

    shows the variation of the Earth’s dipole and the resulting variation in 14C. It should be clear that the century time scale dipole-related variation is much larger than the tiny wiggles that are due to solar cycle modulation [in spite of the much shorter path length].

    Nogw (06:11:57) :
    Electricity!…it seems, after all, that there are frog´s legs in space!
    Another slow learner. There is lots and lots of electricity in space, generated by moving plasma in a magnetic field.

  98. Ninderthana (05:05:04) :
    99 % of what David says in this particular post is easliy verifiable to anyone with a scientific background.
    Except that this particular post is not David’s, but is Anthony’s very own.

  99. Leif Svalgaard (04:58:56) :

    Geoff Sharp (01:17:44) :
    How many of these names listed follow the B-L model?
    Exactly four:
    Dikpati, et al. 2006 Rmax=155–180
    Schatten 2005 Rmax=80
    Choudhuri et al. 2007 Rmax=75
    Svalgaard et al. 2005 Rmax=72

    Not a chance, surely you dont expect us to believe that. Are you saying Hathaway is not a Babcock believer? If you are right that doesn’t say much for the B-L theory.

    The paper referenced only talks of the Maunder and does not come close to explaining grand minima regular occurrences every 200 years roughly. The B-L model is all about randomness
    ———–
    And Grand Minima do indeed occur at random as several studies [that you are well aware of] have shown. Your purported 172 year period is not supported by the data [as you well know]. “If your analysis is available in the refereed literature, let us know the citation so we can download and read it”.

    The L&P effect is just the observations of sunspots heading into grand minimum.
    It may be just that, and if it is, may be a good explanation of why during a Grand Minimum, the solar dynamo is still working and why the HMF does not fall to very low va

    I not not aware of any decent studies backing your claims, and asking for citations shows your desperation for retaliation. My work is indeed beginning to be referenced and the fact that Dr. Scafetta has offered dual authorship says it all.

    There is no questioning of the solar history now…it very clearly shows the cyclic solar downturns that cannot be explained by the B-L theory. The proxy records now are beyond doubt.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51

    Grand Minima is about sunspots…no one ever said the solar cycle dies completely, you are grasping at straws.

  100. Leif Svalgaard (06:41:02) :

    Ninderthana (05:05:04) :
    99 % of what David says in this particular post is easliy verifiable to anyone with a scientific background.
    ————–
    Except that this particular post is not David’s, but is Anthony’s very own.

    Its very clear David’s work is referenced in Anthony’s post.

  101. Leif Svalgaard (00:06:01) : In broad terms, the magnetic field (B) now is what it was in the 1901 and temps (A) are not, so the correlation does not seem to be there.

    Thanks a lot Dr. Svalgaard,

    Thinking it over it does not make sense to correlate the arctic temperature (A) directly to the magnetic field of the solar wind (B). The reason is simply that the magnitude of the initial temperature (in 2009 or in 1901) should not make any difference. What I am trying to say is that it must be the time derivative of the temperature which is interesting. I think this also makes sense from a heat balance point of view – the energy stored in the oceans is accumulative.

  102. Geoff Sharp (07:31:47) :
    “Exactly four”
    Not a chance, surely you dont expect us to believe that.

    Why don’t you actually read Pesnell’s paper that you lifted the Figure from…

    Are you saying Hathaway is not a Babcock believer? If you are right that doesn’t say much for the B-L theory.
    What it shows is that most of the predictions submitted to the panel were statistical/correlative in nature [including Hathaway’s], rather than based on physics.

    I not not aware of any decent studies backing your claims
    Your [willful] ignorance shows, perhaps I might refresh your memory: “Usoskin et al. (2007) performed a statistical analysis of grand-minima–occurrence time (Table 1) and concluded that their occurrence is not a result of long-term cyclic variations, but is defined by stochastic/chaotic processes.”

    My work is indeed beginning to be referenced and the fact that Dr. Scafetta has offered dual authorship says it all.
    Refereed, not Referenced. I’ll look forward to your joint paper with Scafetta. Report back when it appears.

    Grand Minima is about sunspots…no one ever said the solar cycle dies completely
    The various attempts to explain Grand Minima [including yours] operate with modulations or excitations of the dynamo or whatever drives the cycle. The L&P effect [and visibility of sunspots] is likely a surface phenomenon, that is: the cycle is still there, but the ability to concentrate enough flux in the active regions to bring them above the 1800G threshold that is required to make sunspots visible on the surface is impaired. And it is not sure that L&P actually operates, so far, the data is only suggestive.

  103. Leif Svalgaard (17:40:23) :

    Depending on where on Earth you read the neutron counts
    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
    the peak/plateau sequence might be broken or in the process of being broken.

    At some point, one has to stop fighting it, and start describing it, lest we fall into Kepler’s Hell.

  104. RE comment of John Finn (15:59:48) :

    “There wasn’t a “70s cooling period”. The cooling began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s. Temperatures actually began to rise in the 1970s.”

    Yes, I agree, that was my point — that the Ap index didn’t correlate well with temperatures. It was the originator of the figure (Figure 2), Archibald, who suggested that there was a “70s cooling period” which fit a drop in the Ap index in that time frame. Further, the Ap index, which was very low in 1933, fit temperatures inversely at that time. I was trying to point out, nicely, that if the originator of the Ap graphics thought there was a connection between that index and temperatures, it wasn’t apparent.

  105. Of frog’s legs and electromagnetic fields: More than fifty years ago I read a book of Sir Arthur Eddington. His first lecture began decribing the table in front of him as myriads of atoms, electrons, etc. moving, which we see congealed as a “table”.
    If we were to congeal a CME being ejected from the sun we should see something like the fibers of a frog’s muscle….so, who knows, there are frogs’ like plasma muscles up there in the sky :-)

  106. rbateman (08:26:05) :
    the peak/plateau sequence might be broken or in the process of being broken.
    The very sharp peak between SC21/SC22 was due to the shortness of both 21 and 22. With a more prolonged minimum like today and between SC19/SC20, the peak is less sharp. There is nothing that says the peak has to be sharp. The differently shaped minima [maxima in CRF] are controlled by the polarity of the Heliomagnetic Field, which is quite steady now and the same as in SC19/SC20, so I’ll expect a similarly ‘broader’ peak. No need to assume something special is going on. Should there be no spots [or rather magnetic active regions] from now on, the CR Flux would just stay at its peak value, and the ‘peak’ would be very flat indeed. I don’t think that is about to happen. The polar fields [and thus the HMF] have already begin their [slow] slide towards reversal: [magnitude of difference between North and South polar fields]
    2006 120 uT
    2007 116
    2008 113
    2009 103

  107. Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    Say that I wanted to compare and correlate:

    A. the time derivative of arctic temperature with
    B. with the magnetic field of the solar wind.

    How should I proceed to get hold of the raw data for the last ~100 years?

  108. Invariant (09:38:36) :
    How should I proceed to get hold of the raw data for the last ~100 years?
    For temperature you are on your own.
    For HMF [solar wind magnetic field at Earth] you can download it from http://www/leif/org/research/HMF-1835-now.xls
    From 1963 on there are two data columns. The second one gives B as observed by spacecraft. The first data column is B derived solely from geomagnetic records.

  109. Nogw (09:33:51) :
    If we were to congeal a CME being ejected from the sun we should see something like the fibers of a frog’s muscle….so, who knows, there are frogs’ like plasma muscles up there in the sky :-)
    Those are magnetic field lines. And like real muscles, field lines have tension in them. ‘Frogs in Space’ may not be a bad picture if it works for you.

  110. Invariant (10:53:31) :

    you can get the temp data from a couple of places. Start with KMNI. or
    go directly to a “source” like GISS or hadcru. You’ll need some skills, programming skills.

  111. Leif Svalgaard (23:11:11)

    Once again, the relative modulation of total GCR flux is not relevant to Svensmark et al’s hypothesis. Neither is the correlation between C14 production and temperature proxies a clear test.

    As I noted in this thread previously, they point to the GCR that are strong enough to produce muons in the lowest 2km of the atmosphere as significant determinants of cloud cover, especially over oceans remote from land where condensation nuclei are more scarce. They calculate that as many 60 percent of such GCR are not deflected appreciably by the sun or the earth. Roughly 40 percent of such GCR are deflected by the sun’s magnetic field, but only about 3 percent are affected by the earth’s magnetic field.

    As Leif notes at (23:11:11),The peak of 14C production is around 10 km altitude. For the GCR that affect the formation of 14C, therefore, the modulation of the earth’s magnetic field is relatively much greater.

    Thus, data on total GCR flux, or the correlation between 14C and climate variables, does not directly bear on the validity of the Svensmark et al hypothesis.

    So I return to the comments that started the discussion:

    The original statement Leif was commenting on at 12:22:29 was:

    Jewett (11:55:11) :
    The increased cosmic rays results in increased clouds. The increased clouds increases the albedo of the earth, more energy from the sun is reflected into space and the earth cools.

    which draws Leif’s comment:

    The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the cosmic rays [GCR], and the Earth’s magnetic field does as well. The latter modulation is much larger than the former.

    However, the comment that the earth’s magnetic field modulates the GCR more than the sun does not directly address Jewett’s point since implicitly he was talking about the high energy GCR that are modulated more by the sun by a factor of more than 10x.

    The bottom line for this thread is, I think, that a low solar magnetic field should indeed provide a test of Svensmark’s hypothesis. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Does anyone know where the data on current low level cloud cover can be obtained easily?

  112. Peter Hartley (11:39:37) :
    Roughly 40 percent of such GCR are deflected by the sun’s magnetic field, but only about 3 percent are affected by the earth’s magnetic field.
    That would mean that the modulation by the Sun and by the Earth would be of the same order of magnitude

    the correlation between 14C and climate variables, does not directly bear on the validity of the Svensmark et al hypothesis.
    So, it does bear directly.

    And, the high-energy cosmic rays are rare. As I remarked, their number falls by roughly a factor of 1000 for an increase in energy of a factor of ten. What I don’t like about their argument is the Special Pleading. They need to have their mechanism to work with just the CRs that are modulated by the Sun and not by the Earth. Considering the steepness of the energy spectrum that is a very tight requirement. A final point is that the measurements we have of the albedo show that the variation of the albedo does not follow the solar cycle. Probably Svensmark and Co can find a special reason for why that doesn’t matter either [you know: the climate is a very complex system, etc, and one would not expect any direct correlation, and so on].

    I do recognize that in the eyes of true believers none of my counter-arguments matter, the science is settled.

  113. Peter Hartley (11:39:37) :
    The bottom line for this thread is, I think, that a low solar magnetic field should indeed provide a test of Svensmark’s hypothesis.
    We have good evidence that the HMF [heliomagnetic field] during solar cycle 23 [1996-2008] was very similar to the HMF during solar cycle 13 [1890-1901], so the cosmic ray flux [of whatever energy] should be similar too, and the temps as well, so on this account the hypothesis is falsified, unless yet another mitigating circumstance can be brought to bear.

  114. Leif Svalgaard (12:08:14) :

    “unless yet another mitigating circumstance can be brought to bear.”

    Like a decrease(increase) in the interstellar flux

  115. Leif (12:03:09) and (12:08:14):

    Thank you — that has clarified your position (for me anyway) and I now see more clearly what your objections to the hypothesis are.

    It seems to me that, given our improved ability to observe many of the relevant phenomena involved in the postulated mechanism, the data plotted at the start of this thread suggest that we are going to see a very good test of the hypothesis in the immediate future.

  116. maksimovich (12:47:55) :
    Like a decrease(increase) in the interstellar flux
    And there are some indications of such a change, but throw that into the mix and you can fit almost anything, since the interstellar flux has to be deduced from the resulting modulation. And we also do not know if the energy spectrum has changed. But, with each new thing that can vary, the reported correlations become increasingly harder to take as evidence of anything.

    Peter Hartley (12:50:16) :
    the data plotted at the start of this thread suggest that we are going to see a very good test of the hypothesis in the immediate future.
    I think that the HMF data going back ~170 years already provided such a test. I can’t see what in ‘the immediate future’ could change this.

  117. Peter Hartley (12:50:16) : If you see the negative peak in GCR in 1991 with a correspondent low cloud cover (“The Chilling stars”, H.Svensmark, p.77) and subsequent 97-98 big El Nino, this time will be a re-check of the inverse phenomenon.

  118. Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    According to the first law of thermodynamics,

    dT/dt ~ Qin – Qout,

    Here, Qin is heat added and Qout is head dissipated. When the magnetic field of the solar wind decreases Qin may be proportionally reduced due to increased cloud cover. Absolute temperature as such does not make sense, first because varying cloud cover (varying Qin) only affects dT/dt directly and second because the absolute temperature at times may be influenced by many other factors. Note also that there may be a significant delay of many years between changes in Qin and absolute temperature, due to the huge value of the time constant tau for the oceans,

    T(t) = T1 + [T0 – T1] exp(-t/tau)

    Here T0 the initial temperature, T1 the final temperature and tau the time constant. If we also approximate T with a sine function we observe that its derivative Qin should be the 90 degrees out of phase cosine function, which may partly explain why the magnetic field of the solar wind and the temperature may be out of phase.

    Well, this is my understanding at the moment; I did not find the arctic surface data, but I encourage other readers of this blog to investigate any relationship between dT/dt and the magnetic field of the solar wind!

  119. ” Leif Svalgaard (16:21:05) :

    Jim Arndt (15:54:45) :
    If Livingston and Penn are correct that means that Leif, Hathaway, Jansseen, Archibald, Hoyt are wrong…
    L&P do not say that solar activity will go away, just that sunspots will be invisible because their magnetic field is [just?] below a value where the contrast is one. You see, magnetic fields below 1800 Gauss [or so] are bright, and above 1800 G are dark, so right at 1800 G, they cannot be seen, but they are still there. The solar cycle is still going, the dynamo is still working. No ‘re-do’ is needed.”

    Sorry I was out with the Family to timely reply. That being said Leif you side stepped my question. The models and the observers (minus L&P) totally missed this. The models missed this. so something is wrong or the data is being mis-interpreted.

  120. Jim Arndt (19:31:31) :

    If the L&P keeps going, it could turn the spots white. What then becomes of the faculae & network? Do they turn dark in the visible or do they just keep getting brighter? Things like this bring up questions of fundamental change. Why would a star do this?

  121. Leif Svalgaard (08:20:20) :

    Geoff Sharp (07:31:47) :
    “Exactly four”
    Not a chance, surely you dont expect us to believe that.
    Why don’t you actually read Pesnell’s paper that you lifted the Figure from…

    You must think we are all stupid, your references in most cases do not back up your statements and are quite often wild goose chases. In this case you have deliberately mislead us by your statements. Conservatively over 54 predictions there would be at least 35 that follow the Babcock-Leighton model theory. Trying to associate only those that used a specific dynamo model as the only Babcock followers is farcical. By your logic you have excluded yourself from the Babcock list.

    I will leave others to judge, the link to the full paper is here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_predictions.pdf

    Are you saying Hathaway is not a Babcock believer? If you are right that doesn’t say much for the B-L theory.
    ———-
    What it shows is that most of the predictions submitted to the panel were statistical/correlative in nature [including Hathaway’s], rather than based on physics.

    Once again you are trying to mislead. Hathaway is a firm Babcock believer, the summary of his and Wilson’s prediction reads “Fast meridional circulation
    speed during cycle 22 leads to a strong solar cycle 24”
    Their prediction is listed under the “physics” heading

    The great majority of the predictions are from those in the Babcock camp. It clearly shows the theory is in its death throws, unless of course we have a major upswing like they suggest.

    I not not aware of any decent studies backing your claims
    —————————
    Your [willful] ignorance shows, perhaps I might refresh your memory: “Usoskin et al. (2007) performed a statistical analysis of grand-minima–occurrence time (Table 1) and concluded that their occurrence is not a result of long-term cyclic variations, but is defined by stochastic/chaotic processes.”

    You dont need to refresh my memory, I use that paper in my own evidence, and its conclusions are nonsense. How can any paper on grand minima exclude Dalton type events? I’ll tell you, because the Babcock followers would then have to admit the sun has regular grand minima and their randomness theory is shot….Usoskin’s work has been useful, but his summary is blindly ridiculous.

    Here is a graph showing how Usoskin should have done his graph:

    Grand Minima is about sunspots…no one ever said the solar cycle dies completely
    ———–
    The various attempts to explain Grand Minima [including yours] operate with modulations or excitations of the dynamo or whatever drives the cycle. The L&P effect [and visibility of sunspots] is likely a surface phenomenon, that is: the cycle is still there, but the ability to concentrate enough flux in the active regions to bring them above the 1800G threshold that is required to make sunspots visible on the surface is impaired. And it is not sure that L&P actually operates, so far, the data is only suggestive.

    Fluff and twaddle, the point of the exercise is SUNSPOTS, there is nothing new going on here. The other information is interesting but only a distraction.

  122. Jim Arndt (19:31:31) :
    The models and the observers (minus L&P) totally missed this. The models missed this. so something is wrong or the data is being mis-interpreted.
    The models are concerned with ‘active regions’. That is, the magnetic areas in which sunspots are found. Whether the spots are visible is another matter. True, nobody anticipated the L&P effect [which still is a bit uncertain]. My own prediction of maximum sunspot number of 72, is really 72/12=6 active regions, visible or not. Put it differently, there is a strong correlation between the F10.7 radio flux and the sunspot number. My Rmax=72 corresponds to an F10.7 flux of 120, so equivalently, the prediction is of F10.7 = 120. This 120 does not depend on the visibility of the spots and should therefore not be influenced or ‘contaminated’ by any L&P effect.

  123. rbateman (20:17:28) :
    If the L&P keeps going, it could turn the spots white. What then becomes of the faculae & network? Do they turn dark in the visible or do they just keep getting brighter?
    My guess is that the faculae and the network won’t change. One might speculate [wildly] that if there are are no dark spots, the TSI might actually be larger with the L&P effect. As this is unexplored territory, unexpected discoveries await us.

  124. Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    Just found that the time integral of the magnetic field of the solar wind (HMF B) can be compared directly with the global temperature. In order to make the estimated temperature go up and down in the desired manner we need to find two parameters,

    1. the equilibrium value of HMF B where Qin=Qout.
    2. the scaling factor which converts HMF B “area” to temperature.

    dT/dt ~ Qin – Qout,

    These two parameters can for example be found by automatic curve fitting using a least squares method. Thinking about it, short cycles may contribute more to global warming since the cumulative contribution from two cycles with a short intermediate minimum is larger.

  125. Leif 2:13:53

    Don’t you mean that there has been a ‘strong correlation between the F10.7 radio flux and the sunspot number?’
    ========================================

  126. Leif Svalgaard (12:08:14) :

    We have good evidence that the HMF [heliomagnetic field] during solar cycle 23 [1996-2008] was very similar to the HMF during solar cycle 13 [1890-1901], so the cosmic ray flux [of whatever energy] should be similar too, and the temps as well, so on this account the hypothesis is falsified, unless yet another mitigating circumstance can be brought to bear.

    I would be interested to see a graph depicting this occurrence. Is there something available?

  127. kim (04:56:22) :
    Don’t you mean that there has been a ’strong correlation between the F10.7 radio flux and the sunspot number?’

    Yes, the correlation is changing, and if L&P is correct will break down, but up to perhaps ~2000 most people would say that it was pretty good, so that is what one might use as a base. The predictions of Rmax and F10.7max are all based on this relation. If we assume that the calibration of F10.7 has not changed [and independent measurements in Canada and Japan support that], then the predictions in terms of F10.7 should be good and not be affected by L&P. My colleague Ken Schatten has always predicted F10.7 instead of the SSN, and if I follow that lead, then my prediction if F10.7max = 120. Lots of people will make a lot of nonsense noise about this, along the lines of “but you said the SUNSPOT NUMBER would be 72” and not [some willfully] appreciate that the predictions are about the magnetic field in the active regions and not about the visibility of spots. Before L&P we thought that the SSN and F10.7 and the magnetic field were all equivalent and that one could one as a proxy for the other(s). Now we may have to be a bit more precise. This whole issue will cloud the discussion for decades to come.

  128. Geoff Sharp (05:48:21) :
    “We have good evidence that the HMF [heliomagnetic field] during solar cycle 23 [1996-2008] was very similar to the HMF during solar cycle 13 [1890-1901]”
    I would be interested to see a graph depicting this occurrence. Is there something available?

    I have shown this many times, but in case you missed it, you can find the it here [e.g. Figure 13]:
    http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
    or slide 12 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SH44A-02.pdf
    or page 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH24A-01.pdf

    We believe that the increase in solar wind speed [e.g. seen in slide 12 of the second reference] is not real, but is a result of the decrease of the Earth’s magnetic field that makes it more sensitive to the solar wind disturbances, but this is still an open research question.

  129. Leif Svalgaard (06:11:08) :

    Once again it is your data. I see that others disagree. When you make statements that the HMF is the same during SC23 & SC13 it would be good if you stated that was your assessment and other reputable scientists might have different views.

    btw.. My last response re Usoskin was lost in the moderator queue…you might have to read back.

  130. Geoff Sharp (07:40:19) :
    Once again it is your data. I see that others disagree. When you make statements that the HMF is the same during SC23 & SC13 it would be good if you stated that was your assessment and other reputable scientists might have different views.
    On the graphs you can see also the data by Roulliard et al 2007 [our main competitors in this game]. It is clear that they agree with us about the magnitude of the HMF, so what other reputable scientists are you talking about?

  131. IMHO, Livingston & Penn’s spots ‘will become invisible’ is equivalent to ‘are disappearing’.

  132. Geoff Sharp (01:24:03) :
    You must think we are all stupid
    Not all, just you know who.

    Conservatively over 54 predictions there would be at least 35 that follow the Babcock-Leighton model theory.
    And which would they be? I have studied them all carefully.

    Hathaway is a firm Babcock believer, the summary of his and Wilson’s prediction reads “Fast meridional circulation
    speed during cycle 22 leads to a strong solar cycle 24″
    Their prediction is listed under the “physics” heading

    I’m sorry, I missed that one [makes it five then]. The prediction Hathaway is most known for [using aa or IHV] does not rely on the B-L model.

    The great majority of the predictions are from those in the Babcock camp.
    Almost every solar physicist is in the Babcock camp. The issue was whether they used B-L for their predictions and most did not.

    Usoskin’s work has been useful, but his summary is blindly ridiculous.
    I don’t think so, and apparently neither does he or his co-workers, e.g. Solanki.

    Fluff and twaddle, the point of the exercise is SUNSPOTS, there is nothing new going on here. The other information is interesting but only a distraction.
    As I said in an upthread comment:
    “Lots of people will make a lot of nonsense noise about this, along the lines of “but you said the SUNSPOT NUMBER would be 72″ and not [some willfully] appreciate that the predictions are about the magnetic field in the active regions and not about the visibility of spots.”
    Here we see the first of those.

  133. Leif Svalgaard (08:09:57) :

    so what other reputable scientists are you talking about?

    McCracken plus Lockwood, and who’s how many others that you have not referenced. This is a recurring problem as you seem to be the only scientist active in this forum.

    Your comments on my Usoskin reply?

  134. Geoff Sharp (01:24:03) :
    The great majority of the predictions are from those in the Babcock camp.
    “Almost every solar physicist is in the Babcock camp. The issue was whether they used B-L for their predictions and most did not.”

    The B-L model can accommodate a wide variety of outcomes, because much depends on the boundary conditions assumed. E.g. Memory time, circulation speed, diffusion coefficient, location of dynamo, etc. Things that are poorly known and therefore must be assumed or guessed. If one guesses wrong, the prediction comes out wrong. As simple as that. Not the fault of the model, but of the input data.

  135. Leif Svalgaard (08:27:05) :

    I’m sorry, I missed that one [makes it five then]. The prediction Hathaway is most known for [using aa or IHV] does not rely on the B-L model.

    The great majority of the predictions are from those in the Babcock camp.
    Almost every solar physicist is in the Babcock camp. The issue was whether they used B-L for their predictions and most did not.

    If that were true it doesn’t say much for the B-L theory….you cant have your cake and eat it too. They follow the B-L theory but choose to use a different method to predict SSN….something amiss here?

  136. gary gulrud (08:17:10) :
    IMHO, Livingston & Penn’s spots ‘will become invisible’ is equivalent to ‘are disappearing’.
    Which is irrelevant, because they will still be clearly visible in the UV [e.g. Ca II K-line] or in magnetograms, so are still there.

  137. Geoff Sharp (08:45:33) :
    They follow the B-L theory but choose to use a different method to predict SSN….something amiss here?
    What is amiss is your understanding of the science. Since the boundary conditions in the model are poorly known, people look for other ways of predicting the cycle [i.e. not using the model with yet another wild guess at what the input should be], e.g. looking at other indicators of solar activity, like coronal brightness, power spectral analysis, etc. The wide spread shows that these other indicators ain’t no good. Better to stick with the B-L model as a few did, and to delineate clearly what the assumptions were, so that, if the prediction turns out wrong, we can cross that set of assumptions of the list of good ones, and learn something.

  138. Leif Svalgaard (08:43:57) :

    The B-L model can accommodate a wide variety of outcomes, because much depends on the boundary conditions assumed. E.g. Memory time, circulation speed, diffusion coefficient, location of dynamo, etc. Things that are poorly known and therefore must be assumed or guessed. If one guesses wrong, the prediction comes out wrong. As simple as that. Not the fault of the model, but of the input data.

    And that is exactly the problem with the model. No matter what happens the model can explain it although when questioned it fails miserably . Pseudo-science in my view.

    You have great observation skills …Rise above it and search for a meaningful answer…it not too late :)

  139. Geoff Sharp (08:32:06) :
    McCracken plus Lockwood, and who’s how many others that you have not referenced. This is a recurring problem as you seem to be the only scientist active in this forum.
    Lockwood is a coauthor of Rouillard et al (2007) and so agrees with us. His old 1999 paper is no longer valid. McCracken was relying on the obsolete 1999 Lockwood paper. There are no others.

    Your comments on my Usoskin reply?…
    Just read your reply..not at all convincing

    I’m not fishing for your acceptance or trying to convince you, just stating the facts.

  140. Geoff Sharp (09:15:20) :
    And that is exactly the problem with the model. No matter what happens the model can explain it although when questioned it fails miserably . Pseudo-science in my view.
    That is because you do not know what science is, but obviously have an intimate interest in pseudo-science. When people suspected that there might be a planet outside of Neptune, they assumed that its distance would be about twice that of Neptune, because the other planets roughly followed that ‘rule’. There was no Pluto at the computed position [and Pluto was discovered by an exhaustive search instead], partly because the assumption was wrong. That does not mean that Newton’s laws failed. Just that the input was wrong. Same thing with B-L.

  141. Geoff Sharp (09:36:15) :
    So when questioned you can only resort to ridicule and ad hominem. Pityfull.

    “Usoskin’s work has been useful, but his summary is blindly ridiculous.”

    I think I have given detailed explanations for everything; is there anything specific you need to have a more detailed explanation about? or do you agree that my explanations were sufficient to alleviate your concerns. If not, what specifically is still outstanding?

  142. Leif Svalgaard (02:19:57) :

    Having never before been observed, there is no speculation, only lines of thought. If we start tip-toeing around the tulips for fear of being speculative or upsetting the apple cart, then we shall surely bury any science beyond, and put it out of reach of discovery.

  143. rbateman (10:30:02) :
    Having never before been observed
    Perhaps during the Maunder Minimum?

    there is no speculation, only lines of thought. If we start tip-toeing around the tulips for fear of being speculative or upsetting the apple cart, then we shall surely bury any science beyond, and put it out of reach of discovery.
    Speculation is fine, as long as one knows one is speculating. And sometimes speculation is necessary to make progress. So we speculate.

  144. Leif Svalgaard (09:18:52) :

    “Lockwood is a coauthor of Rouillard et al (2007) and so agrees with us. His old 1999 paper is no longer valid. McCracken was relying on the obsolete 1999 Lockwood paper. There are no others.”

    THE RISE AND FALL OF OPEN SOLAR FLUX DURING THE CURRENT GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM

    M. Lockwood et al 2009

    ABSTRACT. We use geomagnetic activity data to study the rise and fall over the past century of the solar wind flow speed V SW, the interplanetary magnetic field strength B, and the open solar flux F S. Our estimates include allowance for the kinematic effect of longitudinal structure in the solar wind flow speed. As well as solar cycle variations, all three parameters show a long-term rise during the first half of the 20th century followed by peaks around 1955 and 1986 and then a recent decline. Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when 25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV. Extrapolating the linear declines seen in all three parameters since 1985, yields predictions that the grand maximum will end in the years 2013, 2014, or 2027 using V SW, F S, or B, respectively. These estimates are consistent with predictions based on the probability distribution of the durations of past grand solar maxima seen in cosmogenic isotope data. The data contradict any suggestions of a floor to the open solar flux: we show that the solar minimum open solar flux, kinematically corrected to allow for the excess flux effect, has halved over the past two solar cycles.

  145. Invariant (03:40:55) “[…] the time integral […]”

    Are you working with a moving integral (sliding fixed-width integration-window) or a running integral (cumulative from a fixed-anchor-point at the beginning of the series)?


    Invariant (14:12:52) “I did not find the arctic surface data”

    From …
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?someone@somewhere
    … look under “Select a field” and select “monthly observations”.

    Then select the series you want (from the list) and hit the “Select field” button.

    At the next step you can specify 70N-90N in the “Extract timeseries” box, demand at least 0% valid data points, and hit the “Make time series” button.

    You will then be able to choose the “raw data” hyperlink beside the resulting graphical summaries to get numbers. (Note that the 3rd graph is “anomalies”.)

  146. Leif Svalgaard (10:43:45) :

    It should be understood, but, to be very precise, the question is posed:
    Lief, do you wish to enter into speculation on this?

  147. Paul Vaughan (12:59:43) :
    Lucy Skywalker (13:52:03) :
    Leif Svalgaard (06:23:05) :
    Keep working on it…

    Thanks for all the help!

    Now I have finally managed to compare and fit the time integrated magnetic field of the solar wind (HMF B) with the global temperature (HADCRUT3).

    1. HMF B http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-now.xls
    2. HADCRUT3 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    Using a least squares method (Matlab lsqnonlin function) I found that the best fit from 1850 to 2009 to be

    T(t) = 0.007640[T1(t)-5.7848] + T0

    Here T1(t) simply is the cumulative sum of HMF B, T0 the initial temperature given by HADCRUT3 and the two numerical constants was estimated by the program. The deviation between this curve and the real temperature is largest in 1910 and in 1940. Apart from that the fit looks reasonably good.

    I have not really investigated whether another functional expression would work better, like square root or cube root, which sometimes may be the case in physics. I know very little about these things – I have just played a little with the data.

  148. According to the Matlab equation the temperature falls only 0.1225 degrees the next 10 years (2020) with a HMF B of 4.25.

  149. Invariant (15:49:53) “The deviation between this curve and the real temperature is largest in 1910 and in 1940.”

    It is unfortunate that we do not have AM (angular momentum) records (for Earth’s shells) going back that far. Fortunately EOP (Earth Orientation Parameter), SOI, NAO, PDO, AMO, & other records give hefty clues about the interval bracketed by those dates.

  150. Also – Invariant, regarding ~1910-1940:

    See figure 3 here:

    Mursula, K.; & Zieger, B. (2001). Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: A new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.
    http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf

    Suggestion:
    1. Cut/paste figure 3 – middle panel – into an image editor (like ‘Paint’).
    2. Stack it upon itself several times (remember 0=360 – i.e. december becomes january).

    (You will see striking patterns many might have little hope of noticing without step#2. Stacking empowers one to ‘spin the cylinder’ (so to speak) and thus overcome any helical/dimensional-visualization challenges.)

    If your mind is open, see the works of Ivanka Charvatova and note that 1931 is dead-centre in the “trefoil” window of 1906-1956. Caution: Many here focus on the sun without considering the celestial bodies at the other end of solar-terrestrial relations, which are also influenced by solar system dynamics in ways which are not (even remotely perhaps) fully understood. (Watch out for those who do not tell the whole truth.)





    Suggested:
    Explore how the ENSO activity around 1940 played out in temperature records in different parts of the world — maybe use the following site since it is so fast since you just click on locations on the map to rapidly access nearby station records which are then graphed in just one more click:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    As Currie (1996) has cautioned us, global averages can be blinding.

    Currie, R.G. (1996). Variance contribution of luni-solar (Mn) and solar cycle (Sc) signals to climate data. International Journal of Climatology 16(12), 1343-1364.

    ~1940 is a brilliant example.

  151. maksimovich (11:43:52) :
    “Lockwood is a coauthor of Rouillard et al (2007) and so agrees with us.”
    THE RISE AND FALL OF OPEN SOLAR FLUX DURING THE CURRENT GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM

    Is irrelevant, because what I plot are the HMF B values that Rouillard [and Lockwood] sent us. The remaining sticking point is that we disagree on the solar wind speed increase since 1880. We think it is an artifact and Lockwood does not. That influences his calculation of the radial component, but has no influence on the magnitude of the field, on which we totally agree.

    rbateman (14:02:16) :
    Leif, do you wish to enter into speculation on this?
    I think I just did. I give it 25% chance of being correct.

    Paul Vaughan (17:57:02) :
    (Watch out for those who do not tell the whole truth.)
    Watch out for those who claim to know the whole truth

  152. rbateman (10:30:02) “If we start tip-toeing around the tulips for fear of being speculative or upsetting the apple cart, then we shall surely bury any science beyond, and put it out of reach of discovery.”

    Wise words.

  153. Leif Svalgaard (20:40:38)

    “Is irrelevant, because what I plot are the HMF B values that Rouillard [and Lockwood] sent us. The remaining sticking point is that we disagree on the solar wind speed increase since 1880. We think it is an artifact and Lockwood does not. That influences his calculation of the radial component, but has no influence on the magnitude of the field, on which we totally agree.”

    Lockwood et al.(2009)

    “Svalgaard and Cliver (2007b) propose that there is a minimum “floor” value to the
    IMF strength B of 4.6 nT in annual mean data and a minimum to the open solar flux of 4×1014 Wb. We note that the observed annual mean of B for 2008 has already fallen to 4.2nT in the current solar minimum, but we do here find that the value of B has indeed been above 4nT at all times since 1905. McCracken (2007) proposes that the concept of floors in B may indeed be valid, but notes that since 1428 there must have been at least 4 upward steps in such a floor to reach present day values, the floor value for 1428-1528 being less than a tenth of today’s value. If the minimum B does change in discrete steps, as opposed to continuously, the reasons for this are not yet understood”

    Is this merely a Gestalt effect by two different sets of observers? or is there some defined mechanism (constraint) for a “floor” in B?

  154. maksimovich (23:00:06) :
    but we do here find that the value of B has indeed been above 4nT at all times since 1905.
    So the floor is 4 nT. The difference with our 4.6 is not significant and with more station data we all can get a better value.

    McCracken (2007) proposes that the concept of floors in B may indeed be valid, but notes that since 1428 there must have been at least 4 upward steps in such a floor to reach present day values, the floor value for 1428-1528 being less than a tenth of today’s value.
    McCracken’s calibration is off in 1947; http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
    and that feeds into his calibration for earlier times too.

    is there some defined mechanism (constraint) for a “floor” in B?
    There is evidence that the magnetic field needed on the sun to power the solar wind is 600 kW/Wb [see http://www.leif.org/EOS/592877.pdf ]. Since the solar wind must have a minimum speed to escape from the Sun [namely 254 km/sec = escape velocity at the height where the solar wind escapes (not the surface)], there must also be a minimum B corresponding to that [the floor]. If B falls below that there will be no solar wind. So, if there is a solar wind at all, B must at least have the value needed to give the wind a speed of 254 km/sec.

  155. Leif Svalgaard (23:41:27) :
    There is evidence that the magnetic field needed on the sun to power the solar wind is 600 kW/Wb
    This was clumsily expressed. Better would be: Each Weber of magnetic flux delivers 600 kW of power into the solar wind. Enough power must be delivered to make the speed higher than the escape velocity [254 km/s], hence the flux has a lower limit [the floor], below which there will be no solar wind.

  156. maksimovich (23:00:06) :
    McCracken (2007) proposes […] the floor value for 1428-1528 being less than a tenth of today’s value.
    The very low values of HMF B that McCracken derives at times are due to contamination from volcanic eruptions that delivers sulfuric acid aerosols to the atmosphere which in turn influences the 10Be deposition. A very clear example of this can be seen here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
    On page two, note the very deep dip at the time of the Krakatoa eruption in 1883. McCracken deduces an HMF as low as almost 1 nT, while the geomagnetic evidence is that B at that time was about 6 nT. Other significant dips similarly coincide with volcanic eruptions, e.g. Tambora in 1815.

  157. Leif Svalgaard (23:55:20)(and others)

    Thanks for the references

    “On page two, note the very deep dip at the time of the Krakatoa eruption in 1883. McCracken deduces an HMF as low as almost 1 nT, while the geomagnetic evidence is that B at that time was about 6 nT. Other significant dips similarly coincide with volcanic eruptions, e.g. Tambora in 1815.”

    Coincidentally I was overlaying the singularities (vei) and cane to similar conclusions with the transport problem (due to the changes in the chemical composition of the polar atmosphere and the polar vortex) eg Stenchikov et al 2002

    Hence one needs to know the state of the atmospheric composition as the instrumental recorders (ice for 10be) and the biological instruments (for 14c ) often have competing influences.

    eg uv

    http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_24/issue_6/1117.pdf

    (also a small problem for temp reconstructions)

  158. Ok now for some interesting problems .

    Red series near earth measurements,blue voyager 1,green voyager 2.

    Horizontal bars we observe stationery behavior,and then step like behavior.

  159. maksimovich (02:54:35) :
    Horizontal bars we observe stationery behavior,and then step like behavior.
    The steps may be just coincidences. What is more interesting is the delay as we go from Earth, to V2 to V1, showing that the modulation takes place in a large volume surrounding the probe, rather than only at the heliopause.

  160. Are there six solar cycles per cycle of the PDO and if so how far back can we show that. If it is so, can that be only co-incidence?
    ==================================

  161. Leif Svalgaard (08:45:54): (in response to sunspots disappearing)
    Which is irrelevant, because they will still be clearly visible in the UV [e.g. Ca II K-line] or in magnetograms, so are still there.

    If I misinterpreted this and the discussion leading up to it, I apologize. You indicated that your prediction is equivalently in terms of flux or SSN (which makes sense). The above statement seems to indicate that even if the visible sunspots do not show up – which some would take as a miss on the SSN prediction – they are still there, just with reduced contrast. This seems to indicate you still feel that sunspots (albeit invisible ones) are still a good proxy for flux.

    My eye is by no means calibrated, but to me the magnetograms and visible sunspots have been in concert during this minimum (don’t know about the UV). I have not noticed what looks to be a sunspot area in the magnetograms that does not show up visibly. This would seem to indicate that L&P does not provide a complete explanation of the (possible) divergence between the 10.7 flux and sunspots. As you commented earlier, the 10.7cm flux has slowly started increasing (up to about 69 in August, I believe), yet SSN does not seem to be following.

    Of course, it might be that I don’t know what I’m looking for. :)

  162. Leif Svalgaard (04:18:10)

    “What is more interesting is the delay as we go from Earth, to V2 to V1, showing that the modulation takes place in a large volume surrounding the probe, rather than only at the heliopause.”

    “The steps may be just coincidences”

    1)Would not “clumpiness” in the iSM be expected in a rotating disc (an elliptic plane ) ?

    2) Would the larger modulation volume (rather then changing boundary conditions at the heliopause and competition with the SW and ISM) suggest a secondary modulating mechanism (a physical mechanism) and would we not be able to observe the mechanism(s) visually ?

  163. Ryan O (08:55:21) :

    The UV (EIT imager aboard SOHO) would appear to be marching in lockstep with the L&P fade.
    I have taken to presenting a composite image timeline to show the fading:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin8.htm
    and a fullsize daily image of the UV Sun:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm
    I do not have the luxury of posting up the required full size images that highlight the lines of failed plages where sunspots should be (space on server).
    Curiously, the tiny plages blink in & out in the same relative timespace as do the Tiny Tims, and you are correct, very few of them make the magnetograms.
    If my assumption of what they represent is correct, there’s your quarry.

  164. Paul Vaughan (12:59:43) : Are you working with a moving integral (sliding fixed-width integration-window) or a running integral (cumulative from a fixed-anchor-point at the beginning of the series)?

    I can explain the equation in more detail. First I would like to point out that the current instant value of any quantity is irrelevant for the thermal energy stored in the oceans and in the air. For example I have seen arguments like the HMF B has doubled the last century which makes little sense. In order to explain the problem with such statements let us first acknowledge that our earth has a simple heat balance which is described by the first law of thermodynamics,

    m•cp•dT/dt =Qin – Qout

    http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node129.html

    Here Qin is heat added to our earth and Qout is heat dissipated in one way or another – energy can never disappear but it can be transformed into very subtle forms as Richard Feynman once pointed out. When Qin is larger than Qout the temperature T must increase. But this is an integrated effect – larger Qin does not affect temperature directly, you have to integrate Qin (and Qout) over some time to see that the temperature T change. For our earth the thermal mass (m•cp) is huge, so we have to wait a very long time to see that T change.

    Let us now imagine that reduced HMF B leads to more clouds and thus reduced radiation from our sun. This will not instantly change the temperature here at all and certainly not the day temperature more than the night temperature. In order to calculate the temperature drop of the air and the oceans, we need to use the above heat balance equation. Let us assume that more clouds leads to reduced Qin. Then we must integrate the heat equation to calculate the temperature drop.

    In my Matlab equation I have speculatively assumed that it is HMF B only that controls our temperature, so I came up with and equation where the numerical integral of HMF B is involved,

    T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;

    The reason I integrate HMF B all the way from the start is that energy cannot disappear. If HMF B really has an impact on our climate, our earth remembers, for example, that it was heated during solar cycle 22 and 23 – the temperature is, just like energy, a cumulative phenomenon. Please read Richard Feynman.

    http://www.phy.davidson.edu/FacHome/swp/courses/PHY110/Feynman.html

  165. Invariant (15:01:59) :
    our earth remembers, for example, that it was heated during solar cycle 22 and 23 – the temperature is, just like energy, a cumulative phenomenon.
    When you heat something it becomes hotter and radiates more, hence cools again [unless you keep heating it]…

  166. Ryan O (08:55:21) :
    but to me the magnetograms and visible sunspots have been in concert during this minimum (don’t know about the UV). I have not noticed what looks to be a sunspot area in the magnetograms that does not show up visibly.
    They have both been tiny [and we are not quite to the point where spots would be invisible [if ever]. It is too early to draw wide conclusions on this, but basically a full-blown L&P effect would show plages without spots. This is all to be seen in due time.

    gary gulrud (09:22:27) :
    I say blind squirrels generally starve first.
    As usual, you make no worthwhile contribution.

    maksimovich (12:30:59) :
    1)Would not “clumpiness” in the iSM be expected in a rotating disc (an elliptic plane ) ?
    2) Would the larger modulation volume (rather then changing boundary conditions at the heliopause and competition with the SW and ISM) suggest a secondary modulating mechanism […]

    The standard [textbook] argument goes like this:
    Interstellar variations of the flux can be of two kinds: (1) The Earth could pass through static cosmic ray variations [clumps or clouds] in its motion, or dynamical CR variations [e.g. shock waves from supernovae]. The near-isotropy of CRs implies diffusive transport in the galactic magnetic field. Consider now, a fluctuation in the CR density of length scale L. It would have a life-time T of the order L^2/k, where k is the CR diffusion coefficient. If the solar system is moving at speed V, it will take a time L/V to cross the clump. Therefore, we require L^2/k >> L/V for modulation. Setting V = 10 km/s and k = 1/3Pc [c=speed of light], the diffusion mean free path P mut be at least greater than several CR gyro-radii in a galactic field of a few microGauss. One finds that L >> 3E17 cm, which would be traversed in time T = 100,000 years or more, so it is not likely that CR intensity variations observed at Earth on time scales less than 100,000 years can be produced by the solar system passing through clumps or clouds. A simple way of seeing the same is to note that cosmic rays move very fast compared to the speed of the solar system.

  167. Invariant (15:01:59) “[…] I integrate HMF B all the way from the start […]”

    This confirms what I suspected after seeing “cumsum” in your post at Invariant (16:05:25).

    Thank you for sharing interesting comments.

  168. Invariant (15:01:59) :
    “…our earth remembers, for example, that it was heated during solar cycle 22 and 23 – the temperature is, just like energy, a cumulative phenomenon. Please read Richard Feynman.”

    Reply:
    I think your dead right and therefore temperature is not a good diagnostic of total energy over the short-term as there are many inter-linked processes that use the energy in our chaotic climate system in different ways. Some energy is being radiated into space quickly, some becomes trapped over long time periods and some is permanently retained as a result of chemical processes.

    To really understand what is happening our climate we need to be able to measure the earths energy balance dynamcally. We also need to have the same understanding of solar processes, so we can understand how the earths prime climate driver changes over time and make meaningful climate forecasts.

  169. Leif Svalgaard (21:47:00) :

    “The standard [textbook] argument goes like this”

    Sorry, we are at tangents (due to incompleteness on my part)

    I was suggesting that changes in the density of the ISM (not the passage through shells etc) can be expected on shorter timescales 10^3-10^5 years eg Muller et al.
    This effects the boundary conditions of the heliopause,and the subsequent modulation.

  170. Leif Svalgaard (21:09:57) : When you heat something it becomes hotter and radiates more, hence cools again [unless you keep heating it]…

    Right. This would mean that Qout in the heat balance may be a function of temperature as well [as Qin]. Reflecting a little about what is going on in this equation,

    m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout

    we may argue that increased cloud coverage may lead to reduced Qin, but possibly also to reduced Qout since more clouds may have an insulating effect. In addition we may argue that clouds can evaporate too, meaning that both strong HMF B and TSI can lead to reduced cloud coverage. Increased TSI by itself may lead to increased Qin too, and we may suspect that there are a number of such temperature dependent, nonlinear and nontrivial feedback mechanisms like evaporation from the oceans that may simultaneously affect Qin and Qout.

  171. Invariant (00:14:59) “we may argue that increased cloud coverage may lead to reduced Qin, but possibly also to reduced Qout since more clouds may have an insulating effect.”

    This gets interesting when you take into consideration (average) diurnal cloud variations. Topography is not irrelevant. Locally (coastal, mountainous area), I also find a seasonal variation in temperature range relations with solar variables (which is hardly surprising …but how many studies mention this?…) The region I’m in (Pacific NorthWest N.America) has heavy seasonal precipitation patterns that relate well to ENSO after adjusting for solar cycles. I’m not suggesting the relations are straightforward, but I am suggesting they are non-random.

  172. Tenuc (23:56:22) : Some energy is being radiated into space quickly, some becomes trapped over long time periods and some is permanently retained as a result of chemical processes.

    Possibly climate scientists should regularly read the good old paper by Lorenz (1963)

    http://www.cc.uoa.gr/~pji/nonlin/lorenz.pdf

    A model with a billion highly nonlinear and sensitive differential equations [our climate] has many different regimes, limit cycles and feedback mechanisms. My understanding of nonlinear dynamics is that our intuition may sometimes guide us in the correct direction and sometimes lead to erroneous conclusion. For example, increasing a variable gradually may at first lead to expected dynamics going one way, but suddenly a threshold is exceeded and we encounter unexpected dynamics going the opposite way. For most people this may be difficult to understand, because it means [not literally] that in nonlinear dynamics usually 1+1 = 2 but sometimes [after a threshold is exceeded] 1 + 1 may be -42.

  173. Invariant(00:14:59) “but possibly also to reduced Qout”

    The water vapor and cloud mechanism is probably not well understood.
    A slight increase in solar radiation will give more water vapor(positive feedback) followed by more cloud formation(minor negative feedback in the eqautorial zone) and especially in the polar regions more cloud cover(positive feedback – less Qout) more snow.

  174. poslednieje (04:38:56) : The water vapor and cloud mechanism is probably not well understood.

    Agreed. See my previous post Invariant (04:13:05) .

  175. maksimovich (00:08:36) :
    I was suggesting that changes in the density of the ISM (not the passage through shells etc) can be expected on shorter timescales 10^3-10^5 years eg Muller et al.
    The density changes because we move through the clump, cloud, shell, whatever… So I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean…

  176. I believe he is saying, Lief, that the clump/cloud/shell is non-uniform.
    We should expect, in addition to clouds of different overall density, laminations/filaments of varying thickness and density within any cloud. We are in a spiral galaxy, not an elliptical, where stratification and classification are the norm rather than the exception. Messier 0 is a wildly exotic place close up.

  177. rbateman (22:27:05) :
    I believe he is saying, Lief, that the clump/cloud/shell is non-uniform.
    The observed agreement between the strength of the Earth’s magnetic magnetic variation over the past 12,000 years and the cosmic ray intensity [14C] argues for no additional modulation from passing through clumps, etc [spiral galaxy or not].

  178. Invariant (04:13:05) “A model with a billion highly nonlinear and sensitive differential equations [our climate] has many different regimes, limit cycles and feedback mechanisms. My understanding of nonlinear dynamics is that our intuition may sometimes guide us in the correct direction and sometimes lead to erroneous conclusion. For example, increasing a variable gradually may at first lead to expected dynamics going one way, but suddenly a threshold is exceeded and we encounter unexpected dynamics going the opposite way. For most people this may be difficult to understand, because it means [not literally] that in nonlinear dynamics usually 1+1 = 2 but sometimes [after a threshold is exceeded] 1 + 1 may be -42.”

    The problem is that it is not covered in the (mainstream) education system. The excessively-linear mainstream thinking in our society is a severe limiting factor in our development. People who think conditionally have a fairly restricted audience. Meanwhile those gripped by notions of (untenable) univariate linear extrapolation keep raking in funding. Even if the necessary reforms to the education system start soon, the payoff may not be realized until more than a century from now. Thus, it will be very difficult to secure the support of the majority who are focused mainly on surviving the day &/or decade. For other societies, there is a clear path upon which to run right past us.

  179. Leif Svalgaard (04:21:07) :

    14C has reported problems being a proxy for cosmic ray intensity.
    So, this is a fuzzy argument that defies the structure of a spiral galaxy.
    If this is true, it means the cosmic rays cannot have originated in the Milky Way. Black holes in it’s core are out, as they have been observed to exhaust present fuel, awaiting a further victim to haplessly wander too close.
    The Sun stands alone as master of it’s domain.
    Leaves only the Big Bang as GCR source.
    BBCR’s.

  180. “The excessively-linear mainstream thinking in our society is a severe limiting factor in our development.”

    May I nominate for QoW??

  181. Sandy (18:19:10) “May I nominate for QoW??”

    as long as you acknowledge the emphasis I placed on “severe” ….but I’ve seen quite a few good quotes this week (as is – fortunately – the norm around here)

  182. rbateman (17:52:07) :
    If this is true, it means the cosmic rays cannot have originated in the Milky Way.
    I think there is general agreement that most GCRs originate in our Galaxy.

  183. Sandy (18:19:10) :
    “The excessively-linear mainstream thinking in our society is a severe limiting factor in our development.”

    There are two approaches [and possibly all shades in between]:
    (1) an orderly, logical, linear thinking that progresses from solid result to solid result, building on past success and findings
    (2) a scatter-brained, kitchen-sink, chaotic, intuition-based jumping from loose idea to unsubstantiated speculation and conclusions and back

    I would prefer (1) over (2) any time. The rare, intuitive, out-of-the- box thinking necessary for breakthrough progress is not hampered by (1) [paratus mens mentis fortuna gratia est], but drowns in junk with (2).

Comments are closed.