This is strange. Usually we see the geomagnetic Ap Index increase with increasing sunspots and 10.7 cm radio flux. But the Ap index (the third graph below) has crashed to the third lowest level since January 2000, matching what it was a year ago. This is the second month of decline, and the decline is steep.
Maybe Livingston and Penn are right and while sunspots may still occur, they’ll be mostly invisible to observers due to low magnetic flux. This may be what happened during the Maunder Minimum.
Here’s the L&P plots of Umbral Intensity and Magnetic Field. Once the Umbral magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots will no longer be visible.
Graphs from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source
Be sure to bookmark WUWT’s Solar reference page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That Washingtonpost link is a joke, right?
Citizens.
We have been having a side chat on this interesting matter on WeatherAction.com . See COMMENTS from Craig M and me – on http://bit.ly/teVJ3i
Thanks
Mr. Scott,
What was pretty vague for you?
In my comment I didn’t emphasize I have strictly mathematical evidence and proofs for almost all sunspots’ cycles for all times (past, present and ruture).For publication isn’t time, I search powerful orgaiization or institute who can this realize expertly and financial with corresponding contract.Perhaps anybody of present commentators can help.
You are right, it may stand “the root cause for all sunspots/sunspot cycle”
About your question ” It’s been tried,what makes your method better? I can answer:
All existing up to now results can’t have right determination without knowledge right cause.
I have the proofs about the root cause of these phenomena.
Someone must explain to me the Maunder Minimum’s ‘large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric sunspots’, and it seems, to the Chinese.
==================
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) (December 8, 2011 at 12:29 am) linked to http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=401&c=5 . From there:
On 08 Dec 2011, Piers_Corbyn (twitter address) wrote:
“KEY POINT: What the sun DOES is NOT the same as what HITS Earth from the sun. Reading most blogs one wonders how many commenters actually understand this.”
Misters,
All you reported here are only presumptions and data received by measuting,but nothing for confirmation of appearrance in various times.All this is futile wandering without essential goal.
Why the sciantific majority run from somebody who offers right true-probably they have a benefit make use of untruth. There are here the men which are near and by true of origin these appearrances.
Are you interesting in what I offer?.Here place and chanse for agreements.
****
Robert Brown says:
December 7, 2011 at 5:19 am
I suspect that the ocean is very susceptible to negative feedback cooling. Even modest increases in Arctic and Antarctic ice strongly increase the albedo and prevent the active delivery of solar energy into the region above the thermocline. Combatting that is active transport of heat, but the Younger Dryas suggests that any century-scale interruption of the transport can kick us back to millennium-scale cooling even when all other factors favor interglacial warmth.
*****
A nitpick. I generally agree fully w/your comments, but your above example is positive feedback. I agree that the overall feedback is eventually negative (or we’d stay in a permanent glacial period), but regional exceptions occur — like the ice/snow albedo (positive) feedback.
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) (December 8, 2011 at 12:29 am) linked to http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=401&c=5 . From there:
On 08 Dec 2011, Piers_Corbyn (twitter address) wrote:
“This shows Ap also dramatically disobeyed rising solar activity in Feb when also S-type circulation replaced L type and our forecasts went wrong. However its not quite so simple.”
L = lunar
S = stratospheric wind
For reference: average annual terrestrial wind cycle animation:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34xouhx.png
-SCL’ = solar cycle acceleration = a summary of solar Hale cycle helical compression (threading tightness) on the terrestrial annual cylinder (i.e. shifting physical aliasing).
The differences emphasized by Piers can be clearly visualized by contrasting the helical patterns of sunspot numbers & with those of geomagnetic aa index.
Is there anyone here who has looked into this? This is important.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 8, 2011 at 9:39 am
-SCL’ = solar cycle acceleration = a summary of solar Hale cycle helical compression (threading tightness) on the terrestrial annual cylinder (i.e. shifting physical aliasing).
The differences emphasized by Piers can be clearly visualized by contrasting the helical patterns of sunspot numbers & with those of geomagnetic aa index.
Is there anyone here who has looked into this? This is important.
No, Paul. This is not important. It is cyclomaniac nonsense.
I could not agree more, starting with this post which is attempting to equate Ap with sunspot and flux levels, and most of the replies seem to be buying into that idea.
It’s a false idea because Ap measures _fluctuations_ in the Earth’s magnetic field, which represent _disturbances_ in the magnetic realm, not _levels_ of solar activity, which are fairly high right now (~150sfu), compared to earlier this year. But disturbances (i.e. solar flares) are rather low. (Note mostly green/yellow here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3).
So, we’ll need some big flares to kick up the solar wind to cause these “tremors” in the Earth’s magnetic field that we associate with high A and K indices. Yes, you can think of the Ap as a kind of “Richter Scale” for measuring solar disturbances (not steady-sate solar activity levels).
Perhaps a weather analogy will make this even more clear. Equating AP with sunspot and flux levels would be like equating wind speed with air turbulence. Sure turbulent air has to be moving somewhat, but I don’t think anyone can predict air turbulence from wind speeds alone. (If you can then the FAA would really like to hear from you.)
I’m I making myself clear?
😐
John Day says:
December 8, 2011 at 10:26 am
It’s a false idea because Ap measures _fluctuations_ in the Earth’s magnetic field, which represent _disturbances_ in the magnetic realm, not _levels_ of solar activity
Ap measures the solar wind [more precisely the product of the solar wind magnetic field and the solar wind speed squared – which in turn is determined by the sun’s magnetic field], so Ap has very much to do with levels of solar activity. The relationship is complex, but not _false_.
I’m I making myself clear?
no
@Leif
> The relationship is complex, but not _false_.
Agreed that ‘false’ was a bit strong. And, yes, I agree that solar wind is the important ‘middle man’ here.
But isn’t it true that Ap (and Kp) are based on measuring _disturbances_ in the magnetic field over a relatively short time period (3 hours I believe)? And don’t solar flares create the largest of these kinds of disturbances?
Whereas the steady-state solar activity (even though high) has relatively little effect on the these disturbances?
That was the point I was trying to make.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 8, 2011 at 10:01 am
“No, Paul. This is not important. It is cyclomaniac nonsense.”
I have to agree with Leif, I didn’t understand any of that, so I popped over to Piers Corbyn’s site and I’m still lost. I think Piers is very skilled at what he does and he’s a very well educated man so I guess his predictions are as good as anyone’s if not better (it depends on who you ask), but sometimes I get the felling that he like’s to lead people up the garden path surrounding his methods, basically he likes to keep his science, ideas and research under lock and key, which he is 100% entitled to do.
John Day says:
December 8, 2011 at 11:26 am
But isn’t it true that Ap (and Kp) are based on measuring _disturbances_ in the magnetic field over a relatively short time period (3 hours I believe)? And don’t solar flares create the largest of these kinds of disturbances?
Whereas the steady-state solar activity (even though high) has relatively little effect on the these disturbances?
Ap is a 3-hour index and does included the largest storms [which are rare], but is generally following the background solar activity as well as there are lots of smaller disturbances.
@Leif
> … but is generally following the background solar activity …
So, disregarding ‘smaller disturbances’ for the moment, are you saying that high levels of flux, that are more or less ‘steady state’ (like at the current moment) will cause the Ap to be higher than low levels of flux (i.e. < 100) that are also 'steady state'?
What is the mechanism here? How do high solar flux levels (per se, disregarding ‘disturbances’ in those levels) cause the Earth’s magnetic H field to change suddenly in a 3-hour period?
Isn’t it the case that Ap and Kp depend almost entirely on ‘disturbances’ in the magnetic realm (solar wind etc), and not on the static solar flux levels per se?
That was my point, which you do not seem to be addressing very clearly.
Keep it coming! I am creating a whole new stack of Balderdash cards! And clearly, my attempt (IE iron in the oceans -I rather liked that one- and tides interacting with Solar stuff) is not worthy of the lofty explanations and terminology I have read here: “…compression (threading tightness) on the terrestrial annual cylinder (i.e. shifting physical aliasing)”. I bow to others.
Someone with money needs to put this version of the game out there. It will sell like hotcakes.
N/A/S GW Balderdash! Natural explanations, anthropogenic explanations, and solar explanations. I’d so buy that game.
@Pamela Gray
> I am creating a whole new stack of Balderdash cards!
All theories, even the correct ones, can be balderdash to the scientifically ignorant.
:-]
John Day says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm
So, disregarding ‘smaller disturbances’ for the moment, are you saying that high levels of flux, that are more or less ‘steady state’ (like at the current moment) will cause the Ap to be higher than low levels of flux (i.e. < 100) that are also 'steady state'?
Yes, essentially
What is the mechanism here? How do high solar flux levels (per se, disregarding ‘disturbances’ in those levels) cause the Earth’s magnetic H field to change suddenly in a 3-hour period?
High solar activity [be it sunspot number or flux or area or Calcium K line or whatever] means a stronger solar magnetic field. That field is carried out into interplanetary space where it after a journey of 4 days hits the Earth feeding energy into the magnetosphere, from where it is released in ‘spasms’ lasting a few hours which we pick up with Kp. On top of that ‘background’ you have CMEs and flares that add additional disturbances and creates ‘spikes’ in Ap, but those are riding on top of the enhanced background.
John Day says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“So, disregarding ‘smaller disturbances’ for the moment, are you saying that high levels of flux, that are more or less ‘steady state’ (like at the current moment) will cause the Ap to be higher than low levels of flux (i.e. < 100) that are also 'steady state'?"
See for yourself, 3rd and 4th graphs:
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110805_2317/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110605_2317/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110522_2327/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110501_2327/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110310_1931/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20110315_2309/index.html
@Leif Svalgaard (December 8, 2011 at 10:01 am)
You actually expect people here to believe you don’t know about the helices?
John Day says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Isn’t it the case that Ap and Kp depend almost entirely on ‘disturbances’ in the magnetic realm (solar wind etc), and not on the static solar flux levels per se?
Basically yes. Looking specifically at November there are several reasons for the low Ap index:
1. The absence of large Earth facing coronal holes. This is important as high speed streams lasting several days will contribute significantly to an increase in the monthly average Ap.
2. Very few Earth directed CMEs caused by filament eruptions. In November Ap was above 15 only 1 day, the first day of the month, when a CME of this origin caused a geomagnetic disturbance.
3. The absence of (Earth directed) CMEs caused by flares in active regions.
Considering that average solar flux in November was easily the highest of cycle 24 it is remarkable that Ap was at such a low level. Normally an increase in solar flux is associated with an increase in flare activity and intensity. Instead we observed many active regions, nearly all of them with a simple magnetic layout and thus a low flare potential.
Comparing Ap in November to Ap at solar minimum I would say it is unlikely that high solar flux per se has a strong influence on the background disturbance level.
GMF (Tromso) and Ap max
‘on step at a time there’s no need to rush’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.gif
@Leif
> … a stronger solar magnetic field [carried into space, hits the Earth and is] released
> in ‘spasms’ lasting a few hours which we pick up with Kp.
So it’s all about magnetic disturbances (“spasms”) which drive the Ap. My point exactly.
I googled ‘”solar wind” spasm” and didn’t get any info at all about this mechanism. Mathematically, it’s clear that such a mechanism can’t be a monotonic function (deriving a static level from temporally sampled differences), so must be some kind of bounded function (oscillation etc). But first, I need to prove the existence theorem. What are these spasms? Can you point me to some papers?
[Leif, I’m not trying to educate you, quite the opposite in fact, I want to download all that knowledge in your brain. But sometimes it’s hard to get a direct answer from you]
@Ulrich Lyons
Thanks for the link. But I didn’t see any flux or sunspot levels for comparison. It’s a busy graph, perhaps I missed it. (But check out the solen graph, below).
@Jan Alvestad
> .. I would say it is unlikely that high solar flux per se has a
> strong influence on the background disturbance level.
That comment, coming from a seasoned solar observer (http://www.solen.info/solar/), does carry a lot of weight. Thanks.
John Day says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:12 am
So it’s all about magnetic disturbances (“spasms”) which drive the Ap. My point exactly.
Actually not. See below.
What are these spasms? Can you point me to some papers?
They are called geomagnetic storms [the rare big ones] and geomagnetic substorms [the regular background]. Here is some info http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
it’s hard to get a direct answer from you
When people get a direct answer, but it is not to their liking, they think it is hard to get a direct answer.
I would say it is unlikely that high solar flux per se has a strong influence on the background disturbance level.
The important words are ‘per se’. I would say that the solar flux per se has absolutely no influence. The flux is however a proxy for the sun’s magnetic field, which is what drives the geomagnetic disturbances via the mechanisms I outlined in the above links. The influence is indirect, but nevertheless very real.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm
You actually expect people here to believe you don’t know about the helices?
There are none