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.
“The Chapman-Ferraro model is no more wrong than Newtonian gravity is. Both are not 100% correct, but close. ”
I do not know enough of the Chapman-Ferraro model to comment .
But if it is like the Newtonian gravity then it must be horribly wrong .
Newtonian gravity predicts f.ex an infinite speed for interaction propagation and violates Lorentz symetry . Difficult to find wronger than that .
The fact that it gives similar results as the asymptotic behaviour of the right theory at very weak fields and spherical symmetry doesn’t make it more correct .
A wrong theory that makes correct predictions in some domain is like epicycles – it is wrong but can be used as long as one stays carefully in the domain where it gives the right numbers .
Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
“Look at this:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
Two north magnetic poles.”
Ed (21:53:16) :
“…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?…”
Makes me wonder if the changes to the magnetic North Pole have an effect on the Arctic Polar Vortex, in terms of position and strength?
Should this be the case it could effect the ability of the vortex to trap the cold air inside, letting it spill out and causing colder NH winters. The Antarctic Polar Vortex is much more stable in comparison and shows less variability in strength and position over time than the north.
Anyone know a good source of information about the Polar Vortices please, so I can have a closer look?
Also Is there any link between the Polar Vortices and the differences in the amount of ion influx from the Solar Wind?
Elsewhere Dr. Svalgaard recommended
http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spacebook/spacebook_files/lecture_e/space-kap8-eng.pdf
May I respectfully point out that on page 7, coordinates of
“Magnetic south pole at geographical 78.3N and 69W”
are grossly out.
Various maps of Canada, and Google Earth give that particular location as 60N, 95W.
I hope the author is less ‘sloppy’ with other data
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.”
I use this for guidance:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/Solarmap.html
TomVonk (01:57:53) :
Difficult to find wronger than that .
Apart from it being an amazingly good approximation on all practical scales. Should we stop teaching Classical Mechanics?
Tenuc (02:07:47) :
Ed (21:53:16) :
“…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?…”
One possibility is discussed here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
Thanks Vukcevic, I’ll have a read tonight.
Any links/thoughts on if the solar wind has an effect on polar vortices?
vukcevic (01:35:28) :
Leif Svalgaard (17:28:45) :
I just followed convention
No, convention is that the magnetic pole in ‘Canada’ is a south pole. Conventionally, polarities are defined with respect to a compass needle. It has two poles: a north pile [the end pointing to geographic North] and a south pole [the other end, pointing South]. With me, so far? now, why does a compass point North? Because it is attracted to a south pole up in ‘Canada’.
therefore cannot constitute a pole (otherwise it would be quadropole).
The Earth’s fields is a superposition of a strong dipole and numerous weaker quadrupoles, octupoles, …, Ntu-poles
May I respectfully point out that on page 7, coordinates of
“Magnetic south pole at geographical 78.3N and 69W”
are grossly out. Various maps of Canada, and Google Earth give that particular location as 60N, 95W.
When you see something that looks ‘wrong’ or inconsistent, you should take that as a sign that there is something you do not understand, rather than a sign that the author is sloppy. [A good example of what not to do is my recent post [‘spot the science error’]. Because of local magnetic anomalies and of the various Ntu-poles I mentioned, the point on the Earth’s surface where the pole seems to be is not where it actually is. If you approach the Earth from space those local anomalies become insignificant and the ‘real’ pole shows itself. It is indeed, way up there above 78 degrees, but moving rapidly Northwards [50 km per year], NOT at 60N 95W. The poles move around a lot, which is why no specific significant can be attached to their present positions [as in your NATA link]. In a few decades, the Earth’s magnetic south pole will be on the Russian side of the North Pole. It is a good idea to learn a bit about stuff, before spinning tales.
Crosspatch,
Do you have/know of a tool whereby one could play with sea level and observe the land/sea coverage changes. Very interesting…
Can’t wait until we have a google earth complete with atmospheric composition, interplanetary magnetics, solar wind, etc… 🙂
Thanks for the link V.
Ed
vukcevic (05:54:41) :
Thanks for the link, IMO the useful contribution of the foregoing.
Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
“No, convention is that the magnetic pole in ‘Canada’ is a south pole. Conventionally, polarities are defined with respect to a compass needle. It has two poles: a north pile [the end pointing to geographic North] and a south pole [the other end, pointing South]. With me, so far? now, why does a compass point North? Because it is attracted to a south pole up in ‘Canada’.”
Thanks for that worthwhile study, without it I would be really lost. BTW I have already repainted my compass needle!
Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
“When you see something that looks ‘wrong’ or inconsistent, you should take that as a sign that there is something you do not understand”
Re: http://www.sotere.uni-osnabrueck.de/spacebook/spacebook_files/lecture_e/space-kap8-eng.pdf
Perhaps if you look at the chart on page 7, and pay attention to the red arrow and red coordinates associated with it, you may see errors of your wasted comment. You may even consider checking coordinates yourself (btw, he located it at Hudson Bay edge).
It just shows even experts are fallible.
Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
“In a few decades, the Earth’s magnetic south pole will be on the Russian side of the North Pole. It is a good idea to learn a bit about stuff, before spinning tales.”
You already out of date with that one. This map
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf
shows the Main Field (F) at Canadian side at 59000nT and Siberian side at 61000nT or nearly 4% stronger. That is a matter of fact; the pole should be where field is strongest, or at least that is case with my newly repainted compass needle. I am sorry to say it, but Russkiy got it already.
Leif Svalgaard (07:01:16) :
“The poles move around a lot, which is why no specific significant can be attached to their present positions”
Data used for this chart you described once as a ‘gold standard’ and ‘the best there is’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
According to it, two extremities have hardly moved for the last 300 years (since 1700). So poles do not drift, it is that the intensity of the Hudson Bay’s was going down and the Siberia’s going up, but of course you know that, but reluctant to acknowledge.
vukcevic (01:35:28) :
May I respectfully point out that on page 7, coordinates of
“Magnetic south pole at geographical 78.3N and 69W”
are grossly out. Various maps of Canada, and Google Earth give that particular location as 60N, 95W.
Your idea of what makes a pole is also wrong. The magnetic poles on the Earth is NOT where the vertical components is strongest [that depends on local anomalies] but are the points where the horizontal component vanishes. And those points are very far from where the vertical components are largest. So your Two North Pole story is an aberration.
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
That is a matter of fact; the pole should be where field is strongest,
You just won’t learn. It doesn’t matter where you think the pole should be. The total strength depends on local anomalies and do not give a correct picture of the large scale field. If memory serves, the total field at the Kursk Anomaly in Russia is 200,000 nT. Even Wikipedia has the correct description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field
“The pole position is usually not that which is indicated on many charts. The Geomagnetic Pole positions are usually not close to the position that commercial cartographers place “Magnetic Poles.”
The real magnetic pole is 2200 km away from where you said it is. This is, of course, somewhat of a blow to your Hudson Bay story, which may explain your reluctance to learn.
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
According to it, two extremities have hardly moved for the last 300 years (since 1700). So poles do not drift
(Sigh). What you call the poles are due to local magnetic features tied to the crustal features of the Earth. These do not move, but the magnetic poles of the Earth do [and a lot]. The Declination in London has varied almost 30 degrees the past 400 years, because the magnetic pole has drifted, not because Hudson Bay or London have moved much.
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
It just shows even experts are fallible.
As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.
“Do you have/know of a tool whereby one could play with sea level and observe the land/sea coverage changes. Very interesting…”
Yes. There is a thing from NASA called World Wind there is a sea level plugin available for it.
The free version of the plugin (it acts as a “layer” on the map) only gives you a couple of “canned” choices. You can take sea level down to where it was during the last ice age or you can take it up to where Al Gore says it will get to. There is a version for sale that allows you to set the level where ever you want it.
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
It just shows even experts are fallible.
The whole geomagnetic field is drifting slowly westward [as was even noticed by Halley 300 years ago] by about 0.6 degrees per year, completing a full rotation in 590 years, e.g.
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1336/1/03%20barraclough.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:02) :
“The magnetic poles on the Earth is NOT where the vertical components is strongest [that depends on local anomalies] but are the points where the horizontal component vanishes. And those points are very far from where the vertical components are largest. So your Two North Pole story is an aberration.”
That may be an accepted oldfasioned convention, but I wonder if it is misleading. If there is only one extremity in the NH (as is in the SH) than that is a simple matter.
If there are two extremities than I suggest that a reassessment is required?
In any other branch of science, two data peaks would be considered as more critical than the trough in between. It is obvious that, if I position my ‘repainted compass needle’ at a point where horizontal forces of two peaks of main field equalise,
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2005.pdf
I should be able to spin it in any direction (declination undeterminable), but what value is that to the science? Take for example cosmic rays, they would be homing for two peaks rather than the trough in between.
I call on you, as one of the world’s recognised experts on geomagnetism, to put your influence in rectifying this gross injustice imposed on our dear Earth’s magnetic field.
If in any doubt just consider these two images and tell us which one is more useful to the science
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-MF.gif
Anyone else has a view?
vukcevic (10:05:33) :
Take for example cosmic rays, they would be homing for two peaks rather than the trough in between.
No, they do not. They know where the real pole is.
e.g. http://www.cosmicrays.org/img/global-cutoff-rigidity-large.gif
If in any doubt just consider these two images and tell us which one is more useful to the science
The right-hand one is the correct one.
Please, you are doing everybody a disservice with your nonsense. I have pointed this pole business out to you before. And you are right that I am ‘one of the world’s recognised experts on geomagnetism’, so take it from me.
Leif Svalgaard (09:19:56) :
vukcevic (08:01:51) :
It just shows even experts are fallible.
“As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
That’s nuts.
Leif Svalgaard (09:08:55)
…………………..
Thanks for your help. Ok. I will decamp now.
See you when I complete the Siberian branch tale.
Speaking of funks, just get a load of what the DMI arctic temperature has gone and done in the last couple of days.
Anybody got any ideas about what causes these sudden up and down 5 deg C steps.
Leif,
When you say the poles are where the horizontal component is zero; I take it that by horizontal you basically mean essentially tangential to the earth’s (or a sphere’s) surface.
So a “dip”needle would stand vertically there ? Certainly makes sense to me; and is about what I’ve always been taught.
I assume the distribution of magnetic ores in the crust will affect local filed patterns.
vukcevic (10:54:09) :
See you when I complete the Siberian branch tale.
still not learning anything?
Glenn (10:43:20) :
“As I said: “if things look wrong to you, it is because [99.99% of the time] you don’t understand what is going on”.”
That’s nuts.
works for me. I would always assume that I’m at fault first. People with a different disposition apparently do otherwise.