The NOAA SWPC monthly solar cycle update has been published here, and after a big spike last month, the sunspot count is down again. There’s an even bigger drop though in the Ap geomagnetic index, as seen and discussed below the Continue reading line.
10.7 centimeter radio flux was down slightly too.
But here’s the really interesting part, the Ap geomagnetic index plummeted to a value of 2, equal to the previous 12 year minimum set in November 2009.
Source data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
Dr. Leif Svalgaard offers these comments via email:
Ap is based on mostly Northern Hemisphere stations [11 North, 2 South] and is somewhat biased [having less activity in northern winter]. This is in addition to a general semiannual variation http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf
with minima at the solstices. The definitive Ap values are determined by Potsdam and can be found here: http://isgi.latmos.ipsl.fr/lesdonne.htm
Real-time values [preliminary the last 15 days] are available here http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/data/magnetic_indices/apindex.html
SWPC [NOAA] also compute preliminary real-time values. These computed values are truncated, so if, for instance, Ap = 9.99 it is reported [and plotted] as 9.00. SWPC is not very good at updating their graphs with definitive values, so one should not make too strong statements based on their graphs. The value for December, 2011 is a case in point. It is plotted as 2, but the real value is estimated [by BGS] to be 4.1.
The Aa index is based on one northern and one southern station, so does not suffer from some of the problems Ap has. The index can also be calculated from solar wind data: Aa = 1/6 BVo^2, where the solar wind magnetic field B is in nT and the solar wind speed Vo is in units of 100 km/s. Here is computed [blue and green curves] vs. observed [red curve] values since 2005: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-Since-2005.png
You can see that geomagnetic activity is low, but not as low as at the end of 2009.
The reason for the low activity is that the solar wind speed is low [365 km/s]. This often happens near solar maximum.
UPDATE: David Archibald adds this graph and narrative –
Dr Svalgaard’s comment re solar wind and solar maximum might be misinterpreted to suggest that Ap Index is lowest at solar maximum. The opposite is true as shown by this graph from of the Ap Index from 1932.
The Ap Index is back below the floor established by all the previous solar minima. This is important, and there is a correlation between low Ap Index and cooling.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The reason for the low activity is that the solar wind speed is low [365 km/s]. This often happens near solar maximum.
So the inference is that solar maximum is now and not in 2013? That means a short cycle. A short cycle means something, there have been other WUWT posts on that topic.
Cosmic rays appear to be on the rise again. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/12/04&starttime=00:00&enddate=2012/01/04&endtime=17:00&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
If it is true that we are already at or near solar maximum we should be afraid.Very very afraid!
It can sit at maximum for a while, sometimes there’s even a double peak. Still looks like 2013 from the last data I saw. Still, 1 year away is “close” to solar max.
I think we are going to see a very confused pattern over the next 15 years or so. We may get a long low plateau of activity with the occasional upspike, followed around 2017 by an odd sort of ‘minimum’ and a low cycle 25 which will also be in fits and starts.
That’s how I’m seeing the tealeaves at the moment.
TB
That sounds like a climate model prediction.
predictions must be falsifiable in principle. numbers dude. add some numbers
Tallbloke….tea leaves? That interrogation must have bored you to tears!
Here’s the real news. All these global warming yoyo’s are going to be eating a pot full of crow. Who’s going to be jamming it down thier throat? Anthony Watts and all the other competent, salient, cogent, sane, superior intellects who post here.
I probably will never get to meet you Anthony but its ok. These turds you face daily are going to hate the true voice of science and it will be coming from your finger tips. Keep on jamming Anthony! Same to you the moderators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike Clark——your friend for the truth
Leif
Can you graph the Ap over the course of cycle 23 and its peak so that we can see a comparison between CY 23 and 24 as your sources show?
Another salient point – if the CERN Cloud experiment presages another valid approach to AGW arguments, the decrease in sunspot activity will inspire increased cosmic ray saturation, and subsequently, diminished cloud formation. The result? A global climate that is less warm.
Sunspot number right on the smoothed average…no big deal.
I am not ashamed to admit we do not fully understand solar dynamics. I am ashamed by those warmists who choose to ignore this.
You can see that geomagnetic activity is low, but not as low as at the end of 2009.
The reason for the low activity is that the solar wind speed is low [365 km/s]. This often happens near solar maximum.
Does that mean solar maximum was near the end of 2009?
Message received: Nothing to see here. Move along.
So much for all the effort I put in when I installed some new antennas for below 14mHz. As a ham radio operator, this has been a screwy cycle to say the least…oh well, it was fun for awhile – hopefully the sun will toss a few more our way.
Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t mention that, in part because of his insistance, the United
States SSN is now including specks instead of “traditionally” reported spots.
He has also blogged/lobbied for the revision or “adjustment” of older monthly
and annual sun spot counts to include a fudge factor for the pores, blips and pips
the old observers couldn’t or didn’t report.
We know what happens when adjustments are made to historical data when
the thought is propounded by folks with a current agenda.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I have some doubt as to the cosmic ray count going down in reaction to a
reduction in SSN and 10.7m flux from November this early January. It seems
a few weeks early for the cosmic ray count to be dropping in response to
the AP measurment in October.
My impression was that it took roughly a four month lag for these solar/earth
factors to have any observable correlation to the cosmic ray counts.
Admittedly I am not a solar expert.
But if everything is down and all of the numbers are low, how is it a max ?
What is maxing ?
What is supposed to max ?
Probably on topic…..the newest CET graph exhibits a drastic cooling for a decade or so:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.html
Please explain a bit, Don – I’m a layman and hardly an expert. It appears from the graphs above that, even on a smoothed average, there will be a decrease. Should I not be following that projection line? And while I’m asking, can you comment on the import of the CERN/cloud experiment?
I’ve noticed that although the sunspot activity has been high recently, the cosmic ray count at the Oulu neutron counter has not gone down since July.
Instead it has gone up.
This is consistent with the drop in the Ap index.
Is there a Maunder type dropout of solar activity just around the corner?
Only time will tell!
Meanwhile…
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/events/events/123002-%5Cclimategate%5C-scientist-rewarded-with-knighthood-in-new-year-honours-list.html
” ‘Climategate’ scientist rewarded with knighthood in New Year Honours List
by ClickGreen staff. Published Wed 04 Jan 2012 20:23
Professor Bob Watson awarded a knighthood
A climate scientist who became embroiled in the ‘Climategate’ scandal has been awarded a knighthood in the New Year Honours List.
Professor Bob Watson of the University of East Anglia, who is also the chief scientific adviser at Defra, has been handed one of the highest honours an individual can receive.
The professor has consistently warned that there will be a significant rise in global temperatures unless there is a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions. In December 2009 he said: “If we stayed on the road of the last decade or two, we would be much more on the high emissions scenario of the IPCC and that plausibly could take us up by 6C.” “
” In December 2009 he said: “If we stayed on the road of the last decade or two, we would be much more on the high emissions scenario of the IPCC and that plausibly could take us up by 6C.” “
So we have a baseline for levels of absurdity necessary to rise to the top the heap. And it is a heap.
Mike A. says: January 4, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Meanwhile…Professor Bob Watson awarded a knighthood
In 2010 the Asahi Glass Foundation (shamefully) gave him a Blue Planet Award with US$ 650,000:
http://www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/list.html
And the co-recipient was Jim Hansen……..
steven mosher says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm
“TB
That sounds like a climate model prediction.
predictions must be falsifiable in principle. numbers dude. add some numbers”
When has a climate model ever made a prediction? I hear that they only deal in non-falsifiable projections.
When I am curious about sunspot cycling, I like to refer to the Hathaway/NASA graph. Its on Anthony’s solar page. It gives a much longer view, not as many microscopic details but it strongly suggests the current cycle has started out quite weak and should continue that way. Solar Max this cycle will be smaller by comparison to the seven previous cycles and maybe smaller compared to even more of the remote cycles. Its a perspective thing.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.pdf
Ignorant neck on the line: I project Maximum by mid 2013, SSn <75 smoothed post-maximum. What do you mean no data to support my projection? Works for climate!