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

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.

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

Is it possible to know the approximate Ap index during the LIA, perhaps based on proxies?

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!

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

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.

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?

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?

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 .

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.

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

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?

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”

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

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?

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

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/

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…..

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

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.

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?

Leif Svalgaard (14:12:05) :
Thanks. The 2005 step function is still there. I’ll see what I can cook up from here.

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.

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.

We’ve got another one with no idea what the notion of free speech means.

http://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

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?

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.

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.

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

To pyromancer76
You made me smile, thanks 🙂 Who are the other three in the gang? 🙂

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.

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

Leif Svalgaard (23:13:00) :
What is your observation on the trend in open solar flux within this solar minimum?

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.

Geoff Sharp (20:57:09) “Sometimes the whole truth is not stated.”
Geoff, have you checked out the works of Yu.V. Barkin yet?

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 ?

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?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24pred.png
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.

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.

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.

James F. Evans (16:31:27) :
BTW:In the past, astronauts have described the smell of space as something akin to gunpowder or ozone.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090905/sc_space/spacesightsandsmellssurpriserookieastronauts
Electricity!…it seems, after all, that there are frog´s legs in space!

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.

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.

Thanks Dr. Svalgaard,
I will try to compare and correlate,
A. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic75Nan.csv
B. http://www/leif/org/research/HMF-1835-now.xls
I will let you know if I find anything interesting.

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?

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.

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.

I think I never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
===================

” 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.

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:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/c14nujs1.jpg
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.

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?’
========================================

Leif 6:02:31
Thank you. Elegantly spake.
==================

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?

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 🙂

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”.)

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?

In Matlab the equation is
T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;

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.

maksimovich 11:43:52
And yet, it varies.
===========

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.

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)

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. 🙂

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 ?

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

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.

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.

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.

poslednieje (04:38:56) : The water vapor and cloud mechanism is probably not well understood.
Agreed. See my previous post Invariant (04:13:05) .

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.