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:
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:
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.
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.
And I’ve also plotted the 1991 to present data from BGS/Svalgaard to compare against the NOAA SWPC data:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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.
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)
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.
Paul Vaughan (02:12:17) :
Thanks for the heads up…will continue to read also.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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!
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
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🙂
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
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?
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.
Leif Svalgaard (10:00:25) :
For HMF [solar wind magnetic field at Earth] you can download it from http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-now.xls
works better, sorry for that.
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.
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.