I’ve looked at the Ap Index on a regular basis, as it is an indicator of how active the solar dynamo is. When we had sunspot 1029 recently, the largest in months, it gave hope to many that Solar cycle 24 had finally started to ramp up.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) on November 2nd, you can see that October 2009 had little Ap magnetic activity. The value is now 3 for the month. Here’s my graph from October 2009 SWPC Ap data:
Leif Svalgaard points out to me another indicator of low solar magnetic activity. Bill Livingston was able to observe sunspot group 1029, and measure its magnetic field and contrast. Leif’s graph with my annotation for group 1029 is below. By itself, this one sunspot group isn’t significant, but it does fit into a prediction made by Livingston and Penn.
The measurement of sunspot group 1029 falls just where there should be on the Livingston and Penn predicted path to invisibility.
WUWT readers may recall this NASA News article in September about L&P’s predictions:
NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
And this article:
Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
And finally this one, which talks about the progression of lower magnetic activity and increased contrast ratios of umbra’s in sunspots:
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″
Since we only have sunspot magnetic and contrast data for about 20 years, one can’t be too certain of the outcome just yet. However, if cycle 24 was indeed ramping up with increased magnetic activity, seeing a spot that was well above the magnetic value of the last couple would certainly be reassuring.
We live in interesting times.
Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
PJB (07:53:00) :
Look at this:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
Two north magnetic poles.
———————–
What causes that? And what significance could it have if any?
Does it suggest any trends?
How long has there been two magnetic North poles?
How long might there be two magnetic North poles?
” Leif Svalgaard (01:00:05) : ”
Looking at the conclusions in the muscheler07qsr paper I noticed this:
Then I remembered having read this:
Which had me thinking that if we were seeing after 1950 a source of nuclides that originated generally from toward the Galactic center, the South Pole should see “more” of them than the North Pole. This is because of the ecliplic plane’s offset from the Galactic plane and the equatorial plane’s offset from the ecliptic. Basically, the North Pole is “shielded” from the Galactic center. If the majority of nuclides that are the source of Be10 are originating from someplace else, maybe both poles get an equal “dose” but if a source toward the Galactic center becomes the majority contributor, I might expect to see more in Antarctic cores than in Greenland cores.
This leads me to wonder if an average of the two really means anything as they might be apples/oranges. Greenland might currently represent sources of particles originating from areas away from the Galactic center while Antarctic cores would more representative of particles originating from a more local source that is potentially more energetic, potentially greater in concentration, and possibly quite variable.
Going farther down that line of thinking, I might consider Greenland cores to more accurately represent general solar magnetic properties and Antarctic cores to be an amalgamation of solar activity and Galactic core activity. The reason for that being that if you block rays for the Galactic center, I would expect the result to be more indicative of rays arriving generally from all directions whereas Antarctica could be “swamped” by Galactic core activity that could be highly variable even if solar magnetics were static. The amount of rays arriving generally from all directions except the local Galactic center would, to my mind, be more likely to be stable over time (local events notwithstanding) and their modulation more likely to indicate solar magnetics. While the Antarctic cores would indicate solar magnetics AND Galactic center activity.
ShrNfr (11:18:12) :
Such a shame that the data is so spotty so to speak.
Main reason is that the spots were few and far between. Additionally, Bill doesn’t have the telescope to himself, but must share, and thirdly, sometimes the occasional cloudy weather gets in the way.
crosspatch (11:30:07) :
Which had me thinking that if we were seeing after 1950 a source of nuclides that originated generally from toward the Galactic center, the South Pole should see “more” of them than the North Pole.
The direction from where the GCRs are coming is completely scrambled after having gone through the heliosphere. We have no idea where the GCRs are coming from, AFAIK.
If you plot a linear trend of the forecasts, it hits zero about the same time as sunspots become invisible according to L&P. 🙂
Glenn (10:28:47) :
We have had 29 SC24 spots. This one makes 30.
There have been a lot of reveresed spots showing up.
SC23 blinkers populating the equator in between the healthy SC24 spots.
SC24 spots that lie at the limits of latitude spreads are the norm.
What does it mean? It means this cycle is goofy.
It’s had too much to drink and is weaving all over the place.
In between binges, it ‘sleeps it off’.
Shhh…. don’t wake it up too early, it’s likely hung over.
Leif Svalgaard (10:48:14) :
“No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.”
Glenn (10:28:47) :
Has there been 30 C24 spots?
“The chance of getting a six throwing a die is 1 in 6 for the first throw.”
That’s nice. And the next throw, and the next and so on. Especially the small ones.
So were there to be say 30 total spots to date since the first SC24 spot was called, and 15 of them were “reversed by accident”, would that be a 1 in 30 accident?
Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
Two north magnetic poles.
This graph shows 400 year evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Northern hemisphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
WOW Crosspatch, I think you just gave me a brain freeze!
“Leif Svalgaard (08:49:55) :
The high latitude region is probably just a ‘reversed’ SC24 region [this happens for about 1 in 30 groups]. The equatorial one is Southern hemisphere spilling over. These anomalies occur from time to time, especially for small groups that re moved around by the roiling convection.”
This is likely true, however what is also interesting is that the largest SC24 spot so far (1029) was so near to the equator. It seems as though many SC 24 spots have been unusual so far.
“Dennis Wingo (10:03:42) :
Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
Looks like the Svalgaard effect.”
Predictions may change if ramp-up doesn’t kick up a gear.
Leif, I’m sure this has been asked before, but what are your thoughts for SC 25? Weaker or more or less the same as SC 24?
Jimmy Haigh (08:59:57) :
Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.
References please !
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:45:27) :
chris y (08:25:10) :
Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.
If you plot a linear trend of the forecasts, it hits zero about the same time as sunspots become invisible according to L&P. 🙂
Heh.
🙂
Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?
James F. Evans (13:38:00) :
Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?
No, the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.
Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) :
I won’t say we are going through a reversal, but we are “overdue” for one. I haven’t heard anyone predict a reversal at this point either.
Leif Svalgaard (13:39:59) :
James F. Evans (13:38:00) :
Is there any relationship between the observation & measurement of the two magnetic North poles and the current solar minimum in conjuction with the depressed magnetic field?
No, the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.
_______________________________
Okay.
Do you know what is causing the two magentic North poles?
Leif Svalgaard (13:39:59) : .. the Earth’s internal magnetic field has nothing to do with solar activity.
By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.
re: crosspatch (11:30:07)
In the current era, the center of the galaxy is visible from the Earth’s South Pole and not the North Pole. That will eventually reverse due to precession. But in either case, observers on most of the Earth’s surface experience periods of the day during which the galactic center is above the horizon.
I have read and understand Leif’s statement that GCR’s are directionally scrambled.
However…
*IF* Svensmark is correct, and *given* the differential heating of the globe due to disproportionate landmass distribution N Hemisphere vs S Hemisphere, would (could?) this explain ice ages, which are tied to the precession of the equinox?
Equinox precesses, more GCR hit the N half increasing cloudiness, which due to higher landmass cools the globe past the…ahh…uhm…”tipping point?”
Jus’ thinkin’ out loud here…
Leif Svalgaard (10:49:35) :
jorgekafkazar (10:09:44) :
“So if ‘contrast’ is 0.836 it means that at line center we only get 83.6% of the light we …
One can be too sloppy 🙂
Close enough, Leif. As my astronomy professor used to say (~1959): “To a celestial mechanics specialist, astrophysical accuracy means getting the decimal point in the right place.” : )
I vote for “New Age chiliastic disasturbationists” as quote of the week. Also, that could be the name we select for our new rock band.
Adolfo Giurfa (11:15:55) :
“Did you remember december 2004 tectonic activity?, was it too little for you?
Forgetfullness is a psychological “buffer” which protects us from seeing harsh reality.”
True – there was one earthquake in December 2004 greater than mag. 9 (In fact I know people who lost relatives in that event so, no, I haven’t forgotten it. ) There were several earthquakes in the 60’s greater than mag. 9. Is overall earthquake activity increasing? I don’t know.
Jeff L (13:16:13) :
I worked on a number of proprietary studies on the Upper Jurassic of the North Sea during the 90’s by making detailed geological interpretations of over 1000 wells. I noticed that magnetic reversals coincuded with a number of tectonic events in the North Sea during the Upper Jurassic. I also noticed that the Lower Cretaceous appeared to be a pretty crazy time tectonically in the North Sea. If you look at the magnetic reversal pattern in the Lower Cretaceous, it too is pretty crazy. In contrast, the Upper Cretaceous was a very quiet period both tectonically and as regards magnetic reversals. The work was never published – but it was sold to a number of oil companies working in the North Sea so I guess it did pass ‘peer review’!
As I said these were a couple of things I had noticed but which were not of great import to the studies I was working on at the time. I don’t know if there is anything published about this and I am not involved in this kind of work these days – I spend half my life on oil rigs and the other half lounging on a tropical beach. (You may find somethings of interest in, for example, “Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the ‘n’th Conferences (Geological society publications). )
Meanwhile, here’s a link to the Wikipdia page on magnetic reversals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
James F. Evans (14:18:22) :
Do you know what is causing the two magnetic North poles?
Yes. The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by a dynamo in the core of the Earth, where the conducting liquid iron is moving across the magnetic field lines, creating electric currents magnifying and modifying the field, very much the same process that takes place in the Sun. As with the Sun, the circulation is not perfectly regular, but messy, so the dynamo generate not only a dipole field, but higher multipoles as well. These show up at ‘bumps’ in the Earth’s field observed at the surface. And have nothing whatsoever to do with solar activity.
Richard (14:29:28) :
By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.
‘Interact’ is not the right word. The Earth’s field basically stops the solar wind at the ‘front door’. Because the Earth’s field is 10,000 times stronger than solar wind field there are always plenty of magnetic field lines that reconnect with the solar wind field and generate electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms. The solar wind does not modify the Earth’s internal field or control its development and evolution.
Mark Wagner (14:38:50) :
Equinox precesses, more GCR hit the N half increasing cloudiness, which due to higher landmass cools the globe past the…ahh…uhm…”tipping point?”
The main regulator of GCRs is the Earth’s dipole field [which also scrambles the directions]. Svensmark has a special pleading that ‘his’ GCRs just manages not to be modulated by the Earth but only by the Sun.
James F. Evans (14:18:22) :
Do you know what is causing the two magnetic North poles?
Earth magnetic field can be broken into 3 components. Strongest is the vertical or Z component which indicates existence of two N poles. Overall field is not that clear. Some months ago I started investigation into this problem.
Here is an extract from article which is in the process of writing:
“The South magnetic pole’s maximum strength is concentrated in a single area and its decline has been relatively even, while the North magnetic pole’s magnetic distribution is more complex, its maximum strength is split in two prongs, thousands of miles apart, one located in the general area of Hudson Bay and the other in the central Siberia, north of Baikal Lake. If Earth magnetic field is modeled by an imaginary bar magnet than, rather than customary I shaped, it would be a Y shaped bar.
While the South pole’s area of maximum intensity is moving its location, two areas associated with the North pole’s two positions of maximum intensity have stayed fixed during last 300 years, but the balance of intensities of the maximum field has changed; and the apparent location of North magnetic pole is between two.”
Both extremities are result of the geological movements, most likely related to postglacial uplift. It should be noted that both areas are located at relatively low latitude of only 65-6 degrees north which is barely 2/3 of equator- north pole distance.
Similarly the S pole is currently at 65 degrees south and 140 E. If you assume that the Earth’s magnet is a bar running trough its centre than the Hudson Bay should be natural N pole, while Siberian is an anomaly. It should be noted that Siberia is an iron rich area, a possible explanation for this anomaly. Hudson Bay area is not without a mystery either.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
Anthony,
Back in mid-June, Frank Hill said that sunspots would be with us within three to six months based on something or other with the convection zone. We are now in the middle of that period of forecast heightened activity. It may be beneficial to get an update from Mr Hill, who at the time shouted (his words) that there is no correlation between solar activit and the Earth’s climate.
Magentic field about to flip? Yes it will but when?
Not in our lifetime.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926105021.htm
BGS have a page which mentions reversal.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html