From the Rice University Spaceweather listserver:
The listserver moderator writes in a separate email:
===================================
WOW – a real honest substorm coming!
As those in our “spacalrt” email listserver have just heard, the ACE spacecraft is measuring a high speed southward IMF, so the the Boyle Index (BI) went above 200 for the first time in a number of years! If this level of solar wind continues (it is falling slowly), there will be geomagnetic activity with Kp of 5 or more in the next three hours, according to our neural net predictions. Depending on how sustained the solar wind is, the prediction may go above 6… stay tuned!! At the very least this may be the best event of the new solar cycle… whew!
Unfortunately for skywatchers in the western hemisphere, we will be in daylight, but European and Asian colleagues should be on the lookout for auroras in the next few hours.
To watch the BI and our real-time 3 and 1-hour ahead Kp predictions, go to
(it also shows the “realtime” Kp estimates in red, which arrive well after our predictions for that time interval).
The Boyle index (BI) gives the value of the “asymptotic polar cap potential” – i.e. the value that the electric potential across the ionospheric flow WOULD get to if the solar wind is steady for 4 hours. It does NOT include a saturation term, so it will overestimate the true potential for major storms. However, since certain measures of geomagnetic activity don’t saturated, a
BI of 300 does imply a stronger storm than a BI of 200, even though the actual polar cap potential may turn out to be about the same because of saturation.
For those not yet on our “spacalrt” email warning system, you can get free email warnings by sending an email to:
spacalrt-subscribe@mailman.rice.edu
=============================
Unrelated to Rice U, but also of interest, is the recent plot of TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) by the SORCE spacecraft. – Anthony
Leif,
I see that the Mean Field (MF) was lower in 2008:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Also though, Figure 13 of http://leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows the Heliospheric Magnetic Field B (HMFB) as being dramatically lower at the end of 2009. Is it not true that HMFB is closely related to solar wind strength? What is happening to HMFB in 2010?
Leif: Cheers. I’ve never known the media to get it even closely right when i’ve known the actual source…and checked. Like here. Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
About my German. I tried to summarize the Der Spiegel articles thus:
————————————————————–
My German is a bit spotty, but, let me summarize:
Eein AGW Dumpfkoff Science Fraudenscheitz CRU fahrt un Frankenstein Jones. Schnitzel Mann mat un Convalute Data to Stick Hockey for Gore under table transact Billion Kroner/Deutsch with Carbon Credit sgeem. Attencion Alert Max +1.0c/100 yr GATA with Thermometer +/- .5 F accurate to Flugshaft Bomb Pattern WWI. Real Data and Science lookalike Smeagol. Like Tiger: PAtchy Morals, IPCC, CRU, Hardley Ever Center, GITS, Et. Al. prefer laissez-faire with Hot, even Hotter, loose models which niet reveal enigma. Nein to Smeagol, McKintyre, Lief and WUWT science! Disaster..Arctic, UK, EU, and USA all trap eh foit 2009. Re Ipsa (Science) Loquitor. Dankshun Herr Smeagol !
Hahaha!
Brilliant, Herr Schadenfreude! Das macht meine kennung sehr besser als alle die andere schmuckkaufspieler von CRU! Mit Lobster Bisque, also sprach Zarathustra.
Suranda (17:49:00) :
this paper written in the wee hours of 1978, is warning of the interstellar fluff.
The paper suggests that we will enter the cloud in 10,000 years or so. at any rate this will be a slow protracted affair and will have little or no influence on the inner solar system as the supersonic solar wind is keeping such stuff well away from us.
Gerry (18:15:39) :
shows the Heliospheric Magnetic Field B (HMFB) as being dramatically lower at the end of 2009. Is it not true that HMFB is closely related to solar wind strength? What is happening to HMFB in 2010?
HMF B the last few years [the numbers can vary from spacecraft to spacecraft in the last decimal place]:
2006: 5.01 nT
2007: 4.49 nT
2008: 4.20 nT
2009: 4.05 nT
2010: 5.19 nT ==== preliminary and not representative for the whole year as the data only goes up to today.
Solar wind strength? not sure what you mean precisely. How to define ‘strength’? Here is the typical variation of solar wind parameters (B=magnetic field, V=speed, n=density) over a solar cycle [repeated several time to show the pattern] based on the last 11 cycles. B varies with the sunspot number. V and n have more complicated [but understood] variations. Note that the speed peaks just before minimum.
http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
johnnythelowery (18:18:41) :
Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
Try to translate it into German so I have a chance of understanding it. The English is a bit incoherent…
Quick, wrap your electronics in tinfoil!
Leif Svalgaard (19:00:58) :
Here is the typical variation of solar wind parameters (B=magnetic field, V=speed, n=density) over a solar cycle [repeated several time to show the pattern] based on the last 11 cycles. B varies with the sunspot number. V and n have more complicated [but understood] variations. Note that the speed peaks just before minimum.
http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
Thank you. I see that n is negatively correlated with magnetic field strength and V is positively correlated, though a slight lag for V is evident.
Gerry (19:41:56) :
Thank you. I see that n is negatively correlated with magnetic field strength and V is positively correlated, though a slight lag for V is evident.
The dip in n when V has a maximum is simply die to the solar wind being rather steady as regards its mass flux, so that a faster wind has to be thinner. V has its maximum just before solar minimum, when conditions for forming of low-latitude coronal holes are optimal.
Lief:
————————————————————-
Leif Svalgaard (19:03:36) :
johnnythelowery (18:18:41) :
Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
Try to translate it into German so I have a chance of understanding it. The English is a bit incoherent…
——————————————————-
Was your article from 2006 @ur momisugly New Scientist ever discussed on a thread here @ur momisugly WUWT? So I can read it and not bother you with stupid questions (Gannet, the bird, caughs up pre-digested food for it’s young that looks nothing like the original! : …Good for Gannetts but not the press)? I have looked for it but couldn’t find anything. Thx
Bubbagyro:
————————————————————-
bubbagyro (18:57:02) :
Hahaha!
Brilliant, Herr Schadenfreude! Das macht meine kennung sehr besser als alle die andere schmuckkaufspieler von CRU! Mit Lobster Bisque, also sprach Zarathustra.
————————————————————-Fantastic! Herr…..Scmukkaufspieler….
I am angling for the post of ‘German Bureau Correspondent @ur momisugly WUWT’ appointment but i’ve got serious competition! There are just some feelings that are best expressed in German…no matter how incomprehensible my German is….I just feel like i’ve nailed it some how!
johnnythelowery (20:09:52) :
Was your article from 2006 @ur momisugly New Scientist ever discussed on a thread here @ur momisugly WUWT?
Yes, I had a discussion with Harold Ambler about this somewhere on WUWT. Can’t find it right now. The Search function doesn’t work too well [or I’m not using it correctly]
My vote for quote of the week:
“What might happen is that the sun gives the planet a welcome respite from the ravages of man-made climate change”
which is actually from New Scientist 2006, courtesy johnnythelowery (15:44:27).
Oh the ravages. Would those be robust and rigorous ravages? Savage ravages? Is that where Rajendra got the idea for his bodice ripping novel? And thank goodness the sun winked out. Otherwise who knows how savage the ravages might have been…
Here you can see the [temporary] extra screening of cosmic rays the flux rope gave us: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ called a Forbush Decrease.
Went out several times last night, but no signs of anything unusual. It has to be a very large event to be visible in the UK.
Lief: I was feeling pretty smug telling everyone 2009/10 was going to be a bad winter because of the solar dip based on this article. I accept that probably none of it is accurate. But, if i may just pick your brains and I’m Mr. Layman.
1. Has Weiss gotten his ‘crash’?
2. Has Solanki been able to determine ‘the sun’s role’?
3. It’s been almost 5 years since it was published…have we learned anything since?
4. Who are these guys Weiss and Solanki? do they post over here?
Thanks Leif.
————————————————————-
From that New Scientist article:
‘…….The coming years could settle the sun’s role on temperatures once and for all. If the expected sunspot crash does takes place, Solanki’s work could receive dramatic confirmation. “Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” says Weiss
————————————————————-
johnnythelowery (05:08:00) :
1. Has Weiss gotten his ‘crash’?
Not yet
2. Has Solanki been able to determine ‘the sun’s role’?
Not yet
3. It’s been almost 5 years since it was published…have we learned anything since?
Yes, so below
4. Who are these guys Weiss and Solanki? do they post over here?
They are respected [and respectable] solar physicists. Respectable scientists do not blog, as such activity is viewed with a bit of disdain.
About the crash: cycle 23 was already a bit lower than cycle 22 and yet the past decade was one of the warmest in recent memory, although the solar influence enthusiasts would have expected some cooling. in 2005, it was widely believed that the next cycle [24] would be one of the biggest ever and that therefore temperatures would soar. The reason I was interviewed was that I was one of the few who predicted a very small cycle 24 http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf and possibly a series of smaller cycles This was the ‘crash’ that was referred to. We said in that paper: “Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity”
Since the maximum of cycle 24 is still some years away we do not yet know if the predictions of a crash are accurate [although they look good at this point], so we can’t verify/deny the role of the Sun. Ask me again in 10 years time 🙂
What have we learned? Many details, of course. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, we have experienced low solar/interplanetary activities not seen in a century and have already been able [and are working on] to integrate some of those observations into our ‘standard’ model of how it all hangs together. Many of those will be discussed at an upcoming meeting in May http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/ click here for details: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html#speakers
johnnythelowery (05:08:00) :
Solanki is Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/forschung/sonne/mitarbeiter.html
Solanki publications:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/
Bill Parsons (07:53:41) :
Solanki publications
It is interesting to note that both Solanki and Weiss claim that they have also been misquoted. They [now] say they are strong believers in AGW.
Leif,
Yes, I saw the disclaimer, in bold, colored type, prominently displayed on Solanki’s web page. He wants people to know he (still) toes the line.
Bill Parsons (09:20:59) :
Yes, I saw the disclaimer, in bold, colored type, prominently displayed on Solanki’s web page. He wants people to know he (still) toes the line.
Weiss too: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/
Leif:
It’s interresting that they can talk to the New Scientist and other MSM which just
does what they will with what is said but on a blog like here where they can say it the way the see it, it is frowned upon. Someday, NASA, Plancks, et al. will see the Blog as just another form of communication….like the Telegraph. But what New Scientist did there was one of the most eggregious misrepresentations which almost borders on Libel. I’ve had it since 2008 but never made the connection with you here but i’ve been telling everyone who’d listen, mostly my 9 year old son, the premise of the article! I’d like to see Anthony post it and let you set the record straight. Much thanks anyway and looking forward to your thoughts from the May meetings. Please let us know. Best regards, Johhnnnnny
Peter Taylor (12:00:12) :
Can anyone tell me where I can get an log of the UV signal separated from the TSI?
I’m not sure if this is what you want, but you can get the wavelength analysis of TSI here.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html
Aurora Borealis in Norway
http://www.arcticphoto.no/images/aurora/index.html
Leif Svalgaard (14:56:38) :
This is indeed the first serious magnetic storm of cycle 24. It is still only a moderate storm [K-index = 7; a really big storm has K-index = 9; the K-index is approximately logarithmic: a doubling of the storm amplitude adds another unit to the K-index]. .
~
Thanks Leif. Why is it that your observations read so much better than that of Group W? lol hahaha