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.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 7, 2011 at 12:28 am
Polar fields not only are not reversing but for the last 12 months have been heading in the wrong direction:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
~
And have you had a look at this?
Where is the extended cycle?
Pgs 40-45
http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
And whats up with HCS inclination..
I’m wondering about how planetary orbits disrupt the HCS outflow.
What do think about this Vuks..
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess.png
With what you know about the movement of Earth’s magnetic dipole location, how would this vary the amount of solar energy being input at Earth’s magnetosphere. Locations..
Happy Friday..
One more question. How does the movement of the magnetic poles relate to the westward drift of the S. Atlantic Anomaly and the location and size of the Van Allen radiation belt or Ring current where it flatens as close at 50k +- to earth at the SAA???
‘Large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric sunspots’ during the Maunder Minimum. Hello?
=============
One for the history books:
Leif Svalgaard’s (December 9, 2011 at 5:10 am) claim about solar cycle helices on the terrestrial annual cylinder:
“There are none”
This statement is razed by observational data. Leif Svalgaard might as well claim black is white, up is down, and 1 + 1 = 3. Whether ignorance or deception, such false claims are a hazard to this community which has many members who innocently defer to Leif Svalgaard’s supposedly ‘expert’ judgement. I cannot in good conscience be an innocent bystander while Leif Svalgaard misleads the community.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 9, 2011 at 8:20 am
Leif Svalgaard’s (December 9, 2011 at 5:10 am) claim about solar cycle helices on the terrestrial annual cylinder:
“There are none”
As I said this is cyclomaniac nonsense.
@Leif said:
> “I would say that the solar flux per se has absolutely no influence.”
Leif, you’re being inconsistent here. Why did you poo-poo me when I said the same thing, which I even qualified using ‘per se’?
Also, if it’s ‘absolutely’ true that solar flux has no influence, then isn’t that the same as saying it’s a false idea to claim it does have influence? Again, your inconsistency is showing:
Leif, I skimmed the papers you linked me to. Thanks, but in them I found very little connecting solar activity to geomagnetic indices. In fact you seem to have downplayed such a connection:
Furthermore, you made a claim in the introduction that would even support the notion that geomagnetism, in general, is isolated from solar activity including solar wind activity :
So, strengthened by your last comment and prior writings, I again respectfully submit that the implicit premise of this post (that the Ap index should somehow follow static sunspot/radio flux levels) is not only misleading, but according to Leif, Ap is ‘absolutely’ not influenced by static sunspot/flux levels.
Have I made myself clear?
😐
John Day says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:10 am
Have I made myself clear?
No, not even close.
So, strengthened by your last comment and prior writings, I again respectfully submit that the implicit premise of this post (that the Ap index should somehow follow static sunspot/radio flux levels) is not only misleading, but according to Leif, Ap is ‘absolutely’ not influenced by static sunspot/flux levels.
You use some weasel words here, like ‘static’, which could mean anything. The solar flux is a proxy for the solar magnetic field mainly concentrated in sunspots. Those fields disperse over the solar surface. A process that takes up to several years. The resulting ‘background’ magnetic field [found in coronal ‘holes’] is carried out into the solar wind and disturbs the geomagnetic field. This happens all the time and the effect is captured well by Ap. In fact, we can calculate quote precisely what Ap will be from the observed solar wind density, speed, and magnetic field. In addition, transient solar phenomena – flares and CMEs – issue blast waves that add to the magnetic field and compress the solar wind material, with the result that additional geomagnetic disturbances arise, but also captured by Ap. So Ap is a mixture of both. The disconnect you found between solar cycle and solar wind was a rare phenomenon that has only been observed twice, in solar cycles 14 and 20, and is likely due to the Earth only sampling a very small slice of the solar output [that which directly hits us].
So, we do expect a close relationship between solar activity [sunspots and flux] and geomagnetic activity [Ap] on a statistical basis [e.g. monthly means]. That we don’t see it right now tells us something about the lack of coronal holes near the equator. It is from those holes that we get the high-speed solar wind streams with their embedded magnetic fields that create high Ap values. A similar situation arose at the solar maximum in 1980.
If you look at the second figure of this post [of F10.7 solar flux] you’ll see a large spike in late 2001. That signifies the presence of a large amount of magnetic field. That field eventually arranged itself [being moved around the surface by various plasma flows] into some very large coronal holes in 2003, from which we got very strong streams with very high ‘background’ Ap values as you can see in the third figure. So, in this case, the effect was delayed a year and a half between excess magnetic field [high flux in 2001-2002] and high Ap [2003]. So, the flux itself [per se] does not do anything to the Earth, but is a proxy of other things that eventually make their influence felt.
I’m not poo-pooing you, just pointing out that the situation is complex [but well-understood].
Misters ,all you on the list here as treatisers and commentators of domain where the csience haven’t right solution, we can guess to one’s heart content but in vain.THE ROOT CAUSE OF THESE PHENOMENA ISN’T KNOWN ! I HAVE RELEVANT INDICATORS FOR IT!
I offer a collaboration.
Nikola
@Leif
> You use some weasel words here, like ‘static’, which could mean anything.
No, I thought it was clear that I was using the term ‘static’ to denote that part of ‘solar activity’ that was constant or very slowly changing, vs. the ‘short-term’ disturbances (flares, CME’s etc) which obviously cause measurable tremors in the magnetic realm.
Of course it’s understood (by me) that flares and such are associated with active regions (even if they’re not officially numbered), so I _would_ expect to see a little long-term correlation between long-term flare activity and solar cycles. IAW, flares don’t happen during solar minima. But that’s a long way from implying that Ap should be in ‘lock step’ with SSN and radio flux (like this post was doing).
So, I think we’re in violent agreement Leif. Hopefully this discussion has made this subject a bit more clear to the rest of the group. Thanks.
John Day says:
December 9, 2011 at 10:46 am
that part of ‘solar activity’ that was constant or very slowly changing, vs. the ‘short-term’ disturbances (flares, CME’s etc) which obviously cause measurable tremors in the magnetic realm
The point is that the slowly changing activity is a significant part of the Ap index, e.g. at the deepest solar minimum [as far as flares were concerned] in 2008, Ap was quite high [check the Figures above for the first half of 2008] because there were strong solar wind streams then.
I think the post is not about the ‘lock step’ but about the lack thereof.
@Nikola
No offense, but I think my Shtokavian is worse than your English:
Relevantne domene razlozi za to što su nepoznati su garancija sa uvjetom pokazatelje koji će zasigurno biti zbunjujući i besmislene kao i uzroke prikazuje Nikole.
@Leif
> … at the deepest solar minimum [as far as flares were concerned] in 2008, Ap was quite high …
Yes, agreed, it’s a complex subject matter.
> I think the post is not about the ‘lock step’ but about the lack thereof.
Therefore _implying_ that they ” should be in ‘lock step’ “
John Day says:
December 9, 2011 at 11:32 am
“I think the post is not about the ‘lock step’ but about the lack thereof.”
Therefore _implying_ that they ” should be in ‘lock step’ “
That would be the expectation, yes.
So I have a question. At what latitude are sunspots typically when solar maximum is reached or is there no typical range? And if there is a typical range, where are we now relative to that? It is my understanding the spots move from pole toward equator as the cycle progresses but they reach the equator long after the maximum has passed.
Thank you.
Dear John,
I am glad you understand my language, it isn’t anything how.
Moji dokazi niti su besmisleni niti zbunjujuci .Ja zaista imam matematicke dokaze koji direkno vode do razrjesenja tajnih vezanih za prave uzroke pojava na Suncu.
Ja ne znam Engleski kao vi ali znam da bi neko ko bi ovo moje iznio i dokazao, dobio Nobelovu nagradu. Meni je to jasno sto nikoga ne interesuje ono sto neki anonimac kao ja -Nikola kaze.
Sve ovo o cemu diskutuju svi koje ta materija interesuje, nece nikada dovesti do prave istine porijekla i uzroka ovih pojava na Suncu-specijalno sunspots.
Najvjerovatnije da cu ja imati jako mnogo problema da se ovo moje uzme u razmatranje, jer je danasnja nauka ogluvila-becomes deaf od samouvjerenosti da je ono sto se dobije mjerenjima tacno.Zaboravlja se svesnost i njena moc rasudjivanja.Ali to sada nije bitno, bitno je da ja na neki nacin dobijem mogucnost da negdje iznesem svoj dokaz, pod uslovom da se sacini dogovor o autorskom djelu-uz garanciju.
Evo nekoliko oblasti gdje nauka nije rijesila uzroke:
-rotacije Zemlje (ja imam dokaze na oko 20 str. )
-Kenigova teorema o ukupnoj kinetickoj energiji kretanja tijela u prostoru, nije tacna.J a sam je korigovao, a za to mi je bilo potrebno da na elipsi dam neka nova saznanja preko kojih sam potvrdio Keplerove zakone.
-retrogradne roracije planeta
– izracunavanje ekscentriciteta Zemlje bez ikakvih astronomskih podataka i td ,da vas ne zamaram.
Nije mi mnogo bitno da znam Engleski, bilo bi mi mnogo bitnije da razuvjerim “nevjerne Tome” da ono oko cega gube vrijeme i sve ostalo ne vodi nicem osim zabavljanja u medjusobnim raspravama.Koga interesuje da sazna ovo gorenavedeno ,molio bih da mi pomogne da to objavim u nekom naucnom casopisu, osim ove najvaznije materije oko uzroka pojava na Suncu.
Napomena: Sve te pojave na Suncu su posljedice promjena magnetnih pola u prostoru, a sta njegovu promjenu “okida” triggers? to je najvaznije znati.
Oprostite sto cu vas zamoriti ako ovo budete citali i tumacili.
HVALA-Nikola
crosspatch says:
December 10, 2011 at 2:48 am
So I have a question. At what latitude are sunspots typically when solar maximum is reached or is there no typical range?
see for yourself: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Nikola,
Ja znam tvoj jezik malo, jer je sličan ruskom (привет!). Ja koristiti Google za prevođenje, kao i vi
You should write a paper that explains your solar theories and make it available somewhere on the Internet, and post a link to it on forums like this one. Then we can download it and study it and try to understand it.
Zdravo!
:-]
@John Day says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:12 am
I was trying to show that when the solar wind speed is declining, and also has no spikes or positive accelerations, the Kp drops rapidly, somewhat like a the analogy of a transformer with a diode in series. http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_2280.gif
Kp does relate to the solar cycle, but it`s not lock step : http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/AreaAp.png
The low in Kp is typically after minimum on the rise of the solar cycle, and the high in Kp is after maximum. Admittedly the solar wind is more turbulent around the solar cycle maximum when the heliospheric current sheet is more convoluted, but I would guess that the peak in Kp after the SC maxima may be due to stronger coronal holes streams as the sunspots decline, such as there were in 2003.
I think Henrik Svensmark nailed it regarding the solar magnetic field modulation of cosmic rays \ low level climate driving clouds, with his research at CERN. The Medieval warming (felt in Europe, North America, Peru, China and Pacific Islands) tells us that our recently ended warming (about 1998) was likely a solar behavior result. An extended period of low solar magnetic output is going to have serious consequences because the solar system environment is still a cosmic ray rich place.
If the Russian scientists are right about this being extended for many decades, as part of a 200 year solar magnetic output cycle and a “Little Ice Age” is to be in onset by 2014, it fits right in.
@Ulric Lyons
> … when the solar wind speed is declining, and also
> has no spikes or positive accelerations,
> the Kp drops rapidly, somewhat like a the
> analogy of a transformer with a diode in series.
Do you mean like a half-wave rectifier? I guess I don’t see that in the charts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier#Half-wave_rectification
But agree that Ap is not in lock step with the solar cycle.
Well, that butterfly diagram doesn’t seem to help. Well I suppose I can determine it another way.
John Day says:
December 11, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“I guess I don’t see that in the charts.”
Give it time, but clearly when dealing with monthly values, the different areas under the graphs lead to large differences in some months:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_32411.gif
crosspatch says:
December 11, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Well, that butterfly diagram doesn’t seem to help. Well I suppose I can determine it another way.
The butterfly diagram shows the large spread meaning there is no well-defined, narrow set of values at any phase of the cycle.
John Day says:
December 11, 2011 at 4:18 pm
But agree that Ap is not in lock step with the solar cycle.
Neither is the total sunspot umbral area in lockstep with the 10.7 cm flux:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
crosspatch says:
December 11, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Well, that butterfly diagram doesn’t seem to help. Well I suppose I can determine it another way.
Need a better Butterfly Diagram Trap?
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uvp2324a.PNG
and compare that to the other solar cycles on this page:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin10.htm