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.
Leif Svalgaard (15:17:03) :
“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.”
Dr. Svalgaard, does the solar wind have additional effects in addition to generating electric currents causing aurorae and magnetic storms? Do the electrical currents reach the land or ocean surface? How powerful are these currents? As you mentioned earlier, an electrical current will generate heat in the material it is running through….
Dan Murphy
Leif Svalgaard (23:23:43) :
The SWPC truncates Ap. So even if Ap was 3.999, they would still report it as 3.
Leif, if you could get that formula to work at our gas pumps, they’d carve your image on Mt. Rushmore.
I have my own version of L&P that is not restricted by telescope time.
Its called the Layman’s Sunspot Darkness Ratio. I use a simple method, measure the amount of pixels 0-70 in the green channel, then measure how many pixels between 0-34 then calculate the darkness percentage. I do this at the peak of the spot/group. Below is a chart for all SC24 spots above 23 pixels.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_darkness.png
The data range is smaller but the trend looks different to L&P
vukcevic (15:35:51) :
Strongest is the vertical or Z component which indicates existence of two N poles. Overall field is not that clear.
The overall field is a strong and clear dipole. And just to get the science right, the two ‘N poles’ you keep mentioning are actually south poles. The north pole is near Antarctica.
Dan Murphy (16:33:28) :
Do the electrical currents reach the land or ocean surface? How powerful are these currents? As you mentioned earlier, an electrical current will generate heat in the material it is running through….
The currents are in the ionosphere 100 km up and run up to a million amperes, but do not reach the ground. On the other hand they induce similar currents in the oceans and deep underground. The heat generated is minuscule and not a factor in anything.
Geoff Sharp (17:24:10) :
I have my own version of L&P that is not restricted by telescope time.
The data is hard to compare. L&P measure every spot [telescope/weather permitting]. For SC24 they have ~60 measurements. Also, they measure in the deep infrared. Finally they measure the single darkest ‘pixel’ in each spot, not the average over the spot. Almost any method would work as long as it is being applied consistently.
Dr.Svalgaard (15:17:03) responds:
Richard’s statement (14:29:28) :
“By that you mean it is not caused by solar activity but presumably the two interact.”
Dr. Svalgaard answers: “‘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.”
Dr. Svalgaard is making reference to the Chapman-Ferraro model.
Per NASA:
“In the 1930’s Chapman and Ferraro predicted that the plasma and magnetic fields from the Sun and the plasma and magnetic fields of the Earth would not mix. They thought that the magnetic field of the Earth could create a complete barrier to the solar wind. The boundary between the interplanetary magnetic field and the region dominated by the Earth’s magnetic field is called the Magnetopause. In the Chapman-Ferraro model, the plasma of the solar wind and the magnetic fields of the Sun slide over and around the Earth’s magnetosphere without any mixing.”
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/earth_magnetosphere.htm
Today, we know the Chapmam-Ferraro model is wrong. The solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere do mix, at points called “magnetic reconnection” most directly where the solar wind comes into conact with the Earth’s magnetosphere, most evidently when coronal mass ejections (CME) contact the Earth’s magnetosphere.
See, Science @ur momisugly NASA: A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
“Dec. 16, 2008: NASA’s five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to “load up” the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.”
To highlight:
NASA has “discovered a breach in Earth’s magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to “load up” the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms.”
The NASA release goes on:
“At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
NASA follows:
“Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance.”
Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion doesn’t take into account the latest observations & measurements by NASA.
Does anyone know where or how to get up-to-date “east-to-west motion speed versus latitude” diagrams produced by GONG helioseismology observations as show at: http://gong.nso.edu/news/solarmystery/ ? The images/diagrams from the 17 June 2009 press release only go to mid 2008. It would be nice if those were updated on a regular basis to have a different point-of-view as to what is happening with the Sun.
Jeff
Leif Svalgaard (17:55:58) :
Almost any method would work as long as it is being applied consistently
Not sure I like the one pixel method, perhaps there are better ways.
NASA recounts the most powerful geomagnetic storm: “A Super Solar Flare” known as the Carrington flare.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm
September 1, 1859:
“Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight. Indeed, stunning auroras pulsated even at near tropical latitudes over Cuba, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Hawaii.”
“Even more disconcerting, telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.”
This “mixing” of the solar wind (coronal mass ejection) and the Earth’s magnetosphere and the resultant damage it can do to electrical equipment is one reason among many why NASA does study the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
On the good side with a lower magnetic strength, as is the present case, it is less likely a gigantic sized coronal mass ejection will hit the Earth wreaking havoc to Man’s sophisticated equipment.
An equivalent sized CME to the 1859 Carrington flare would likely disable all satellites in orbit and a lot of ground based equipment, too.
Likely a tremendous sized breach opened up in the Earth’s magnetosphere, larger than the one observed & measured recently by NASA.
James F. Evans (18:08:30) :
Don’t forget all of the measured GLE’s caused by flares and earth-directed CME’s that have been directly measured over the last several decades (and don’t forget Sep. 1859). If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents, they are also affecting (albeit possibly only temporarily) the geomagnetic field(s).
James F. Evans (18:08:30) :
Today, we know the Chapman-Ferraro model is wrong.
This is the kind of nonsense that eventually will give WUWT and bad name and reputation.
The Chapman-Ferraro model is no more wrong than Newtonian gravity is. Both are not 100% correct, but close. You pick a sentence from a PR without knowing the facts. Try to go to http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spacebook/spacebook_files/lecture_e/space-kap8-eng.pdf to see what role the Chapman-Ferraro picture still plays.
Have you studied the Yamada link?
Oops! Beat me to it.
Geoff Sharp (18:23:58) :
Not sure I like the one pixel method, perhaps there are better ways.
Trust Bill to know what he is doing. What you are saying is that when it comes to measuring the height of Mt Everest that perhaps it is better to measure it somewhere else than at the peak of the mountain.
James F. Evans (18:50:57) :
NASA recounts the most powerful geomagnetic storm: “A Super Solar Flare” known as the Carrington flare.
I happen to somewhat of an expert on the Carrington Flare. The link you provided even has a reference to a paper of mine. The “tremendous sized breach” is PR-hype and not science.
This “mixing” of the solar wind (coronal mass ejection) and the Earth’s magnetosphere
is called magnetic reconnection.
Have you studied the Yamada link?
I have a really stupid question to ask. Which one is the dot for sunspot 1029? I am not sure I understand the plot at all. I apologize for the redhead moment. But you know.
LAShaffer (19:17:22) :
If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents
They do not ‘affect’ the currents, but create them, locally where the CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetic field. GLEs have nothing to do with this.
James F. Evans (11:29:49) :
“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?”
Okay, heres another rule to add into your list of easy to remember rules of science along with “correlation is not causation”:
Intensity does not equal polarity.
Don’t know about the 1029 dot, but hopefully Livingston can get a measurement on the latest spot, now measuring 23 x 10E6 on GONG Udaipur image 2009/11/06 03:24UT.
Would like to see how this reversed polarity SC24?/SC23? wannabe shapes up.
crosspatch (11:30:07) :
” Leif Svalgaard (01:00:05) : ”
Looking at the conclusions in the muscheler07qsr paper I noticed this:
“The differences between the 10Be records from Greenland and Antarctica for the period after 1950 AD have led to strongly differing conclusions about solar activity in the past (Bard et al., 2000; Usoskin et al., 2003). While the records from Greenland indicate a relatively low 10Be production after 1950 AD this trend is rather opposite in the Antarctic records. The 11-yr averages of the neutron monitor and sunspot data show a relatively stable solar activity during the second part of the 20th century. ”
That correlates with a comparison between GISP2 and Vostok as well. It seems there are almost always opposing trends (outside of the eccentricity forcing). There is a roughly 5000-6000yr cycle riding on top of the obliquity signal. The positive peak for NH occurs at 3000 and 8500, SH at LIA, 5500 and 11000. I always wondered if it were something orbital as the time periods are rather long and of opposing trends.
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=GISP2_VOSTOK_INTERGLACIAL.jpg
You can see it during the glacial period too, where the Obliquity comb (as I call it) shows up around 45000yrs. You’ll see the peaks are of opposite sign for the two hemispheres. Positive peaks occur @ur momisugly 38000 and 45000 for the NH, and the positive peaks are out of phase in the SH at 35000 and 41800. Roughly a 6000yr or so cycle. It’s the same cycle seen during the interglacial (when the obliquity signal pops up) but not severely dampened as the climate system is not saturated as it is currently (IMO).
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=GISP2_Vostok_50K.jpg
It seems to me that the obliquity signal might have a modulation to it. When the obliquity hits max we get a warming forcing, and when it is in phase with eccentricity we get a longer more stable interglacial (rather than 225kyrs ago when they were out of phase, quite nasty). Hence the Milankovitch split peak issue some refer to.
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view¤t=Milankovitch_Variations.png
One things you’d have to say though, the SH has much lower temperature variation than the NH and when compared have significant opposing trends (same as the solar proxies referred to above). I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH…perhaps the isolation of antarctica, or maybe some other orbital parameter we haven’t determined?
Either way, the SH is not a good proxy for global temps (judging by the higher sensitivity of the NH), and no SH proxy should be compared to a NH record or visa versa.
Evans wrote: “Today, we know the Chapman-Ferraro model is wrong.”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “This is the kind of nonsense that eventually will give WUWT and bad name and reputation.”
In your opinion Dr. Svalgaard.
But why would it give WUWT a bad reputation? It’s not Mr. Watts opinion.
Besides the NASA release speaks for itself and supports my opinion:
See, Science @ur momisugly NASA: A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?
Or does it just bug you that I provide links to scientific evidence that contradicts your opinion?
I don’t know Dr. Svalgaard, is that consistent with the circles you travel in: If an opinion differs from yours and that person won’t knuckle under to your bullying or won’t shut up (and has supporting evidence as backup), well, then his opinion should be suppressed?
You sound as bad as some of the AGWers.
Leif Svalgaard (20:08:46) :
LAShaffer (19:17:22) :
If they can directly affect the surface, vertical, and horizontal electrical currents
They do not ‘affect’ the currents, but create them, locally where the CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetic field. GLEs have nothing to do with this.
The poster may mean to convey the “create” meaning of ‘affect’.
You must ‘affect to have an effect’ and all that. Those educated
in UK primary schools up to about 1970 often use this bit of wording.
Regardless, where there is a varying magnetic field, there is voltage.
When the space is conductive, there is current too. As the solar
magnetic field varies, for a static earth field there would be voltages
and currents. But the earth’s magnetic field is never static with
respect to the sun. The earth’s field is not uniform and is not aligned
with the earth’s spin axis. Neither is the sun’s field static, as
the sun rotates and roils.
So the varying field from the rotating, roiling sun interacts with the
field from the rotating, orbiting earth. Like the sound from a 2-tone
horn or the light in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, the result is
an infinite number of harmonics and beat patterns. Neat stuff.
“The direction from where the GCRs are coming is completely scrambled after having gone through the heliosphere.”
Generally true but the amount of “scrambling” depends on the energy of the particle. From NMDB:
Now if one were to see more Be10 at the South Pole than at the North Pole, one would have only a limited number of possible reasons. Either there is some mechanism that makes the depositing of Be10 more efficient in Antarctica since 1950, or there are more particles arriving on that area. Lower energy particles should arrive from all directions as they are scattered by the magnetic fields from the solar wind, CMEs, etc.
What I thought was that if there were more particles arriving at one place than another place, then maybe they are higher energy particles that are not (as) affected by the heliosphere. Now if I were asked to pick the most likely source of high energy particles, I would pick the Galactic center. It is (relatively) close and does at times become quite active. Various point sources such as novae do happen but are unpredictable. The Galactic center should be over the long term a more consistent source of high energy particles.
So, given that for some reason after 1950 the cores in Antarctica show higher levels of Be10 than Greenland cores do and given that particles should arrive from all directions except for high energy particles, and given that there is a likely source of high energy particles that is visible from Antarctica but not Greenland, I wondered if that might be the reason.
Pamela Gray (19:56:21) :
I have a really stupid question to ask. Which one is the dot for sunspot 1029? I am not sure I understand the plot at all. I apologize for the redhead moment. But you know.
Group 1029 consisted of several spots [on the 26th there were 16] and was observed on several days. Altogether there were 35 measurements. All of these are plotted as little crosses spanning a range in B near the 2010 tick mark.
James F. Evans (21:58:40) :
Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?
If they only were… [ah, shouldn’t feed him]. Your opinions are not consistent with NASA or any other scientists. What you cite are out of context, misleading, PR-hype, anything that support your ‘opinion’ [opinion is not science]. If you would bring some science to the table, rather than ‘opinion’, you might redeem some of the damage.
Frank Perdicaro (22:41:57) :
Regardless, where there is a varying magnetic field, there is voltage. When the space is conductive, there is current too. As the solar magnetic field varies, for a static earth field there would be voltages and currents. But the earth’s magnetic field is never static with respect to the sun. The earth’s field is not uniform and is not aligned with the earth’s spin axis. Neither is the sun’s field static, as the sun rotates and roils.
Correct
So the varying field from the rotating, roiling sun interacts with the field from the rotating, orbiting earth. Like the sound from a 2-tone horn or the light in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, the result is an infinite number of harmonics and beat patterns. Neat stuff.
Here you lost me a little bit, but neat it certainly is.
crosspatch (23:28:59) :
there is a likely source of high energy particles that is visible from Antarctica but not Greenland, I wondered if that might be the reason.
I’m not aware of any preferred direction of the high-energy GCRs. And would not expect any. The reason is that GCRs do not travel in straight lines but spiral around the galactic field which reverses direction many times, e.g. between spiral arms. So we cannot say if the GCR came from the galactic center or wherever.
“I don’t know why the NH would be more sensitive to orbital forcing than the SH”
The North Pole is surrounded by land. The South Pole is on land which is surrounded by water. Now imagine you begin to freeze the Arctic Ocean. The channel that provides Pacific Ocean water to the Arctic is shallow. Once the ocean level drops to a certain point, that flow of water is cut off. The ice spreads (relatively) quickly across the continental land masses and the temperatures become very cold. The Arctic freezes all the way to the bottom over a considerable area and water circulation is greatly reduced.
In Antarctica the ice extent can increase somewhat but probably not much more than it already is. It won’t extend much past where you still have a good deal of sunlight in Winter. There is still ocean circulation around the continent. Water circulates a lot of heat. Once the Arctic remains frozen over for the entire summer, temperatures plummet across the land masses. Cold winds blow from Siberia to Alberta to Nebraska with nothing warming them in between.
The Southern system is harder to change. You have to get it a whole lot colder to make a small difference than you do with the Northern system.
Once the Bering Strait is cut off and the Newfoundland Banks emerge, Florida becomes huge, more land is exposed in the Caribbean, the East Coast of the US extends out to the continental shelf, the Gulf of Mexico shrinks and is connected to the Atlantic by a narrow strait, the North Sea, Irish Sea, and English channel disappear and become dry land … you get huge changes in water circulation and weather patterns in the Northern system. Not much changes in the Southern polar system. It just gets colder but overall doesn’t change much.
Drop sea levels 100 meters and see how much the Northern Hemisphere changes, in particular the far Northern Hemisphere. Places that were coastal are now a hundred miles inland. The Baltic Sea is gone. Iceland is nearly twice as large. The Arctic Ocean is much smaller and 100-120 meters shallower.
In other words, changes are amplified at the polar areas of the Northern Hemisphere with changes in sea level and ice pack. The major changes in the Southern Hemisphere are in the tropics with Indonesia becoming huge (3x larger than India)? and connecting with the Philippines, Australia connects with New Guinea.
So you end up with a huge continental land mass at the North Pole that extends for a great distance.
So for a given amount of temperature change, the impact is different at the different poles. A 2C drop in temperature drop makes a much larger difference in the Arctic than the Antarctic.
James F. Evans (21:58:40) :
“Are you implying I should be banned because I express opinions consistent with NASA?
Or does it just bug you that I provide links to scientific evidence that contradicts your opinion?
I don’t know Dr. Svalgaard, is that consistent with the circles you travel in: If an opinion differs from yours and that person won’t knuckle under to your bullying or won’t shut up (and has supporting evidence as backup), well, then his opinion should be suppressed?”
Well by now, even Hathaway has admitted NASA doesn’t know what its doing wrt predicting solar behavior, so why are you appealing to their authority when they have none?
This is a forum for scientific debate. As a scientist, Dr. Svalgaard is right to expect arguments to be made on a scientific basis using *current* science facts. Not New Age Millenialist flim flammery. Not old PR flak, even if it is put out by a government agency, and certainly not obstriperous schoolyard challenges.
Scientific debate is about attacking ideas, not people. He did not attack a person, he attacked what he felt was bogus ideas being posted. You, however, are attacking his person. Stop it.
Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
“And just to get the science right, the two ‘N poles’ you keep mentioning are actually south poles. The north pole is near Antarctica.”
I just followed convention but agree with you there.
As you often say: “we can afford to be sloppy as long as everyone understood what is meant.”
Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
“The overall field is a strong and clear dipole. “
It is not my intention to correct your views just to point the fact.
Magnetic map from NOAA of Main Field Total Intensity (F) shows two clear peaks in north latitudes. It should be noted that the South Atlantic anomaly is a plunge in the intensity and therefore cannot constitute a pole (otherwise it would be quadropole).
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf
Mike Lorrey (21:28:37) :
“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?”
As far as I know (stand to be corrected) I was first to introduce the idea of two ‘North’ (South) poles in my article (dealing with climate matters)
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
This chart should answer some of your questions.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
Data prior 1700 was scarce, but it can be concluded that Hudson Bay decline was followed by rise in Siberia from 1700 onwards.
See my post:
vukcevic (15:35:51) :