NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24.
Here’s the Ap Index from SWPC:
The Ap value of 3 was last seen in late 2009 and early 2010, which bracketed the lowest value seen in 10 years (on the SWPC graph) of Ap=2 in December 2009. It was also the lowest value in the record then. SWPC has since revised their data upwards from 1 to 2 for December 2009. Here’s what it looked like then:
And here is the story at that time:
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux is a bit more encouraging, but still rather anemic compared to where to where it should have been in the solar cycle.
Here’s the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The last major update to NOAA’s prediction came in May 2009 when they wrote:
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
It seems to be time again for an update, since it seems likely that the “consensus prediction” has failed.
The Livingston and Penn data (from Dr. Leif Svalgaard) continues unabated and on track for sunspots to become invisible when the umbral magnetic field reaches ~1500 gauss.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science ran with a significant story: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
We live in interesting times.
Today NOAA still has a sunspot count for region 11141 which is a spotless plage that’s rotating out of view, but since sunspots have been “under-counted”perhaps they are correct to attach a number to a blank “region” and boost the count to 50 today.
Hurray, sunspot maximum is coming!
Leif Svalgaard could you kindly update your graphics:
L TSI-F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Recent solar activity (daily)
K F107 at Minima 1954 and 2008 Comparison between minima (daily),
which have both not been updated for a while. Thanks.
The flux curve is most interesting.
Carla says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:10 am
After what little SC24 has to say, the solar wind could just stop as it did for two days eleven years ago.
Anyone with a good and reasonable explanation?
~
Same year as the Gakkel Ridge volcano in the polar region under all that water oh my..
My car blew a tire that day, perhaps that rocked the sun [seems as likely as Jupiter, Gakkel, or S1]
Mr. Alex says:
January 6, 2011 at 7:57 am
Leif Svalgaard could you kindly update your graphics
They are updated every day. Try to reload (F5) the page…
@Leif
> The purpose of Ap [and similar indices] is to measure solar magnetism using the
> Earth as the instrument. We go to great length to exclude non-solar influences
> Julius Bartels [who invented the Ap-index] said about it:
> “In conclusion, we may roughly classify solar phenomena according to their
> effects on the earth’s magnetism…
You (and perhaps Bartels, who predicted the existence of coronal holes) are speaking as solar scientists, so you would regard the terrestrial influence on Ap as ‘noise’.
But are there not physicists who use Ap to investigate terrestrial geophysics, and who would regard the solar influence as ‘noise’? (perhaps yourself and Bartels, wearing different hats?)
Also, when you say ‘solar magnetism’ I think you are referring to the magnetic component of the solar wind, which interacts with the Earth’s field. I think Andrew was referring to the Sun’s internal magnetism, in light of his remark about the Ap index revealing the slow-down of the ‘solar dynamo’. That’s a stretch from solar wind magnetism (and the main point of my rant)…
In any case, I defer to your much greater knowledge in these fields. Thanks for the the paper, it has already given me a new perspective on these indices, and seems to explain why Ap is not best index for solar work.
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 8:35 am
But are there not physicists who use Ap to investigate terrestrial geophysics, and who would regard the solar influence as ‘noise’? (perhaps yourself and Bartels, wearing different hats?)
No. When studying the Earth itself, e.g. when prospecting for oil or minerals or determine the secular variation of the main field, Ap is often used to exclude data, e.g. they don’t include days where Ap is high, because then their analysis would be tainted by the solar influence.
Also, when you say ‘solar magnetism’ I think you are referring to the magnetic component of the solar wind, which interacts with the Earth’s field. I think Andrew was referring to the Sun’s internal magnetism, in light of his remark about the Ap index revealing the slow-down of the ‘solar dynamo’. That’s a stretch from solar wind magnetism (and the main point of my rant)…
the solar wind derives its magnetic field directly from the Sun so no stretch.
… the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. …
The relationship is a bit more complex than just a simple comparison can show. And there is a tiny fly in the ointment. When I said that Ap is not terrestrial, but solar, there is a subtlety that I glossed over: the instrument [the Earth] that we use to measure Ap with introduces a systematic error, namely that Ap is too low [by some 25%] at the solstices [like in December]. We should correct for this [and do, for serious work, see http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf section 3.2 and Figure 10.
explain why Ap is not best index for solar work.
The ‘best’ is the enemy of the ‘good’. Ap is not too bad for this and is easy to get.
Blade:
About Ronald Reagan, I suggest you to see this documentary:
SOVIET AFGHAN WAR DOCUMENTARY Part 1/5
See all 5 parts, then comment.
A total shame to the United States. A shame that not only costed million of lives of Afghans, but also 3000 people in the Twin Towers. Yes, the 9-11 terrorists were arabs, but Al-Qaeda was originated by the islamic extremists that went massively to Afghanistan (inluding the Arab Osama Bin Laden), backed by the United States.
I have to admit that Jimmy Carter began the problem (and for that I am no Jimmy Carter fan, as he was surrounded by anti-peace advicers), and Reagan aggravated it (that, unlike Carter, believed that everything is right if it is against the Soviets).
About Hoover, you are right. I wanted to say the Republican presidents before him (I don’t checked the date of the beginning of his amministration, my apologies for that). He just inherited the result of a decade of lassez-faire capitalism that permitted a surge of financial speculation that lead to the stock market crash of 1929.
But Hoover weak policies permitted the Depression to worsen, until Rooselvelt take over and with agressive state policies (the New Deal) began the (slow) recovery.
SOLAR WIND DISAPPEARANCE
It appears velocity was OK but density fell to near zero.
For the experts and connoisseurs here is list of links with graphics of all parameters:
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/19990510_ace.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990508-10_el_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990508-10_hb_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-12_hb_magneto.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-12_geokp.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/extended.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/990510-13_wi_swe-mfi.gif
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/events/1999may10/lp051199.jpg
vukcevic says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:08 am
It appears velocity was OK but density fell to near zero.
The magnetic field was a bit higher than normal. In toto there was nothing very special about this event which probably was a local ‘hole’ in the wind. i.e. the solar wind didn’t disappear at other places around the Sun. Such ‘holes’ occur regularly.
From Peru says:
January 6, 2011 at 9:25 am
Sorry From Peru – you are completely off on FDR. Indeed, I agree with you about Hoover, but FDR only magnified the problem! After 10 years, nothing had changed (except the deficit), and it was WWII that actually pulled the country out of the depression. FDR, like Obama’s, policies only served to siphon off money from the private sector thus inhibiting job creation and growth.
If nothing else, at least the last 2 years should have reminded everyone that government cannot “spend” its way out of a recession. For all it does is rob peter to pay Paul – but does not create any wealth.
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
StuartMcL says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Thanks, Stuart!
harrywr2 says: January 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm
The ‘C’ in (C)AGW is based on the late 1970′s to 1990′s trend accelerating.
Hi harry. From my reading, the ‘C’ will come into play if temperatures climb by +3C. Such an outcome would occur whether temperature ramps up quickly or slowly grinds to that point. +3C will push many regions outside the agricultural norms enjoyed by humanity for thousands of years. Given that scores of studies using many different methods place climate sensitivity at around +3C for a doubling of CO2 I find this assessment very sobering.
I can only hope that cycle arguments or GCRs or negative cloud feedback or solar minima or whatever proves correct. In the meantime, the much vilified “onion” has a point. Condemning a theory when its central tenet is intact is perhaps premature. Whatever the cause, measured global temperatures are near record highs and ice continues to melt globally.
With the stratosphere so clear and so many eruptions of low altitude plumes I can see it getting quite warm. What we should concentrate on is how low will the next minimum go and how many VEI-5+, in my opinion.
In 1932 Julius Bartels wrote:
“If the time T of passage from the Sun to the Earth would be constant for all corpuscular streams, then our diagram could be conceived of as a chart of the Sun, indicating the heliographic longitude of the active regions on the Sun-which we shall call here M regions.”
Four decades later satellite observations showed that these “M regions” were the gaps in the corona that we now call “coronal holes”, that allow solar winds to escape from the sun.
Now are you saying that “low solar activity” (i.e. low solar magnetism) could lead to more holes, and an increase geomagnetic fluctuations (thus making the Ap index even more unreliable as a ‘solar activity’ indicator)?
Magnetic irony?
😐
BTW, a good place to watch geomagnetic storms hitting the north Western hemisphere is the Canadian magnetometer chain. http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/common_apps/auto_generated_products/stackplot_e.png. It will light up, all yellow and red, when a really big storm hits.
vukcevic says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:08 am
~
Thanks Vuks. Couldn’t link an SST, found 44 between mid Nov. and mid March though.
oops my bad and break time
The Life Cycle of the Northern Hemisphere Sudden Stratospheric Warmings
pg. 2-3
..This study uses 44 years of data (1958–2001)
..Black bars (28 in all) indicate
events that correspond to sudden stratospheric major warmings (26) and minor warmings (2) as
defined by the WMO.
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/LimpasuvanThompsonHartmann.pdf
either way no May of ’99’
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 11:39 am
Now are you saying that “low solar activity” (i.e. low solar magnetism) could lead to more holes, and an increase geomagnetic fluctuations (thus making the Ap index even more unreliable as a ‘solar activity’ indicator)?
Well, Ap is a measure of the solar wind [which directly affects the Earth because we are sitting in it]. Most solar wind comes from coronal holes which are more prevalent at lower and moderate activity. Then occasionally we get a blast from the sun [a CME] that adds to the solar wind [and also drives up Ap]. The CMEs are more prevalent at high solar activity, so you have this curious mixture of both low and high activity contributing to Ap. This actually bedeviled the early scientists trying to figure out what was going on. So Ap is a very reliable indicator of the type of solar activity that hits the Earth via the solar wind [what used to be called ‘corpuscular radiation’], while F10.7 is a very reliable indicator of solar activity that hits the Earth via radiation [UV and TSI]. We need both kind of indices for a complete picture. From the hard work of generations of solar/terrestrial researchers [including yours truly] we have finally figured out how all that works. That is why there is no longer the debate that raged 100 years ago about whether the Sun had anything to do with of magnetic variations, storms, and aurorae [much the same kind of debate that still rages about solar variability influence on climate – which BTW started all the way back in the 17th century]. Once we figure out what goes on [or not] with the sun/climate that debate will come to an end too.
Magnetic irony?
Not really, just a warning about not being simplistic about this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Thnx Leif, I appreciate it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:37 am
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
The predicted magnetic storm will hit in a few hours. Perhaps Venus is in the sign of Aquarius or some such…
As further proof that not all significant changes in geomagnetism are solar-related, read this story from Tampa Florida. Authorities had to close an airport runway due to the movement of the North Magnetic Pole! :-]
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/05/060831/shift-of-earths-magnetic-north-pole-impacts-tampa-/news-money/
Hi Leif,
In your post dated 5 Jan 2011 at 1h06pm you referred to a graph.
On the graph it is stated that the trendline is calculated with the Least Square method, a statistical method that came into use in the late 1970s. Least Squares is a very neat way to establish trends in experimantal data and I am very sorry that I only stumbled across this method so late in life.
In the programme that I downloaded as an add-on in Excel, you have to set two parameters: alpha; and Number of points.
My question to you is: Shouldn’t it be best practice to state and list these two parameters on the each graph where a trendline using Least Squares is shown?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 6, 2011 at 10:37 am
Geomagnetic activity is going to pick up today. It may be that low-latitude coronal holes my become more prevalent with low solar activity. Interesting times.
~
Interesting indeed.
Is going to pick up today or has picked up today?
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/images/test_6.20110106211517.jpg
John Day says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm
As further proof that not all significant changes in geomagnetism are solar-related
Of course not. The solar-related changes are minute compared with what the Earth does on its own deep down in the core. Even switches poles around. The major, major changes come from within. These huge swings change cosmic ray flux reaching the atmosphere much, much more than the puny solar changes. People who believe in cosmic rays running the climate, take note.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2011 at 5:40 pm
It occurs to me that cosmic rays vary just as much as the Suns ability to shield them out.
If true, then subtracting the solar wind output from cosmic ray incoming gives the variance (or anomaly) of cosmic ray incoming.
And then there are stations that are drifting, as you say, and not in calibration.
How do they calibrate to a zero point if there is variance in galactic incoming?
@Leif
> The predicted magnetic storm will hit in a few hours. Perhaps Venus is in
> the sign of Aquarius or some such…
Apparently due to a CME, which has already hit the ACE solar satellite located at the L1 langragian spot, about a million miles closer to the Sun than Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Composition_Explorer
You can see the on-board instrument readings here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_6h.html
Since this morning solar wind speed has jumped from ~320km/s to ~500km/s. Density has decreased by an order of magnitude, but the “temperature” jumped from about ~20,oooK to 500,oooK! (But remember the solar wind is extremely rarified, only a few particles per cm³. So it would probably take many years to even fry an egg at that low density).
Since the Bz component of the solar wind magnetism is negative we can expect a connection to Earth’s magnetosphere (which is opposite polarity) allowing entry of solar wind to our atmosphere, so expect some “storm-time disturbances” to be registered at magnetometer stations around the world.
Watch the USGS or Canadian magnetometers for further developments:
http://geomag.usgs.gov/realtime/
http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/common_apps/auto_generated_products/stackplot_e.png.
Loodt Pretorius says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm
On the graph it is stated that the trendline is calculated with the Least Square method, a statistical method that came into use in the late 1970s.
Goes way back to Gauss ~1794…
My question to you is: Shouldn’t it be best practice to state and list these two parameters on the each graph where a trendline using Least Squares is shown?
A reasonable substitute is the ‘R squared’ parameter that shows how much of the variation is ‘explained’ by the correlation. R^2 of .9 means that 90% of the variation can be ‘explained’ from the regression equation. This does not mean that there is a real physical connection.
Carla says:
January 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Is going to pick up today or has picked up today?
Density is high, Bz is high, when speed picks up it we’ll get it.
Give it another hour or two.