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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2012 at 10:45 am
Robert Brown says:
January 5, 2012 at 9:59 am
They tend not to emphasize the fact, but the 20th century was a Grand Maximum in solar activity
There is good evidence that there was no Grand Maximum in the last half of the 20th century:
Activity was well above the average over the period of record all the way from 1930 to 2003
Mike A. says:
January 4, 2012 at 4:52 pm
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.” “
It was Bigears call. For services to propaganda apparently.
He was also head of the IPCC and chief scientist for the World Bank
Follow the money…
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/climategate-2-follow-the-money-to-see-who-calls-the-shots/
Zeke says:
January 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm
tallbloke says:
Sure:
Forty-two, thirty-nine, fifty-six
(You could say she’s got it all)
Plus the 250,000 per year.
I never realised Bon Scott’s ladyfriend got so well paid. 😉
@Stephen Fisher Wilde
> “The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity
> called the Medieval Maximum”
> http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html
We have a problem with that because the MM didn’t occur until after 1200AD and was preceded by the Oort Minimum just after 1000AD, coinciding with the time when Greenland (“Vinland”) had warmed up enough to support farming and communities for the Vikings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum
tallbloke says:
January 5, 2012 at 3:11 pm
“There is good evidence that there was no Grand Maximum in the last half of the 20th century”
Activity was well above the average over the period of record all the way from 1930 to 2003
Average since 1749 is 59, 1930-2003 is but 73. That does not make it a Grand Maximum. Here is what the Grand Maximum Myth presents: http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-14C-10Be-GSN.png
“We have a problem with that because the MM didn’t occur until after 1200AD and was preceded by the Oort Minimum just after 1000AD,”
It was relatively high from 800 to 1300 with the Oort as a small dip in the middle. It makes sense for maximum troposphere warmth to be towards the end of the period of high solar activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 5, 2012 at 4:18 pm
It makes sense for maximum troposphere warmth to be towards the end of the period of high solar activity.
Since everything always makes sense to you and confirms any and all notions you might harbor, does this also make sense: http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-14C-10Be-GSN.png
No Leif.
I bow to you on many technical issues but not on judgement where the data is unreliable.
And I am wary of so called reconstructions whoever prepares them.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 5, 2012 at 4:30 pm
I bow to you on many technical issues but not on judgement where the data is unreliable.
And yet you say that the data makes sense, instead of admitting that we can’t say either way. There is a word for that.
I’ve looked at http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-14C-10Be-GSN.png, and from inspection, its clear to me there is a correlation between SSN proxies and climatic periods on Earth. There’s distinct dips in the 14C and 10Be during 600 – 750AD and 1250AD-1920AD correlating to the ‘dark ages’ and the LIA, and higher plateus for 750AD-1250AD and 1920-2000AD correlating with the MWP and 20th century warm period.
The proxies are higher still before 500AD, around the roman warm period, which is reckoned to be warmer than today and the MWP.
Leif : What the proxies show is that there isn’t a link
The exact opposite is true. The proxies evidence a direct link between SSN and Earth climate. Most readers of this blog believe this and can see it in your charts. Why do you think an anti-AGW blog is so focused on solar activity?
meemoe_uk says:
January 5, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Leif : “What the proxies show is that there isn’t a link”
The exact opposite is true. The proxies evidence a direct link between SSN and Earth climate.
Then it is time to put the temperature on the plot as well. Now it should be clear that there is no correlation; e.g. look at the deepest minimum of all the past 200 years around 650AD: http://www.leif.org/research/Temperature-vs-10Be-14C.png
Most readers of this blog believe this and can see it in your charts.
Most readers suffer from confirmation bias: to see what they want to see and ignore what doesn’t fit. This is a normal human affliction. You should know it well.
Why do you think an anti-AGW blog is so focused on solar activity?
beats me. The AGW people NEED solar activity to explain LIA, MWP, and even the rise in the 20th century until ~1950, e.g. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf
“There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified”
They are the biggest fans of solar activity. If I may speculate, I might say that anti-AGW cult desperately need a mechanism, any mechanism [even astrology], to counter the AGW cult who has a mechanism.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm
look at the deepest minimum of all the past 2000 years around 650AD
The past data could be incorrect or it could be fine, there is no direct quantitative way to say with certainty, I don’t find adjusting of data based on speculation or qualitative potential odds to be viable but that us just me.
Using Leif’s own AP index calculation one can find the correlation (not necessarily causation) of the AP index to the 2009-10 El Nino, and a correlation to the variation in the past decades temps. In my view, not enough attention is paid to the geomagnetic field and magnetic flux, cloud albedo variation is so important. Think about it, AP index –> cloud variation through forcing on the AO and NAO oscillations –> changes in heat distribution —> change in the global wind budget —> ENSO. There is no proof that this is the direct causative mechanism, but ENSO/variation in the global temp and the AP index correlate very well especially in the 2009-10 El Nino.
If the AP Index was the culprit for the 2009-10 El Nino, then any notion that the Sun’s influence is minor can be put to permanent rest.
meemoe_uk says:
January 5, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Leif : “What the proxies show is that there isn’t a link”
The exact opposite is true.
Still think so if I overlay the temperature and cosmic ray records?
http://www.leif.org/research/Temperature-on-10Be-14C.png
Phil says:
January 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm
If the AP Index was the culprit for the 2009-10 El Nino, then any notion that the Sun’s influence is minor can be put to permanent rest.
This is a vacuous statement. You could make it meaningful by replacing the initial ‘if’ by ‘since’, but then you have to show that that is true. One swallow does not a summer make. What you need to do is to produce a list of times of El Ninos as far back in time as possible. Then make a ‘superposed epoch’ analysis with those times as key times and show that the Ap response is statistically significant. Until you have done that it is just hand waving.
Phil says:
January 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm
I don’t find adjusting of data based on speculation or qualitative potential odds to be viable but that us just me.
Imagine a data set constructed as a mean of several station series. Now it is discovered that some of the stations reported the temps in Centigrade while others reported in Fahrenheit. Clearly, to make the data set useful, this error has to be corrected and the data adjusted to reflect a uniform scale [either one will do]. But, just you would not do that. You would continue to use the wrongly constructed data set, especially if it confirmed your pet theory, right?
Leif, I will do just that. I really do hope in the meantime you at least give it a look very carefully. en the AP Index is on a net decrease on a yearly scale, La Nina is present 6 years later for as long as the decrease lasts, always. Visa versa for El Nino. Every single El Nino is represented in Solar cycle 23, as is every La Nina, the very high AP spike in the 1991-92 timeframe correlates to the 1997-98 El Nino 6 years later, the 2003-04 AP index correlates incredibly well in shape and length to the 2009-10 El Nino.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-Index-1932-now.png
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8382/boobies9.jpg
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4577/yapper5.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9337/temperature4445557.jpg
Only reasonable correlation is with the Earth’s magnetic field delta (change), but again it is two reconstructions. Keep in mind that further you go back in time greater uncertainty in the amplitude and time factor.
Here is the Loehle temperature vs. Potsdam and Zurich geo-magnetic reconstructions:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Leif : Still think so if I overlay the temperature and cosmic ray records?
Depends on the temperature graph used. You’ve selected Loehle, I’d select GISP2
http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/Lappi_Greenland_ice_core_10000yrs.jpg
Most readers suffer from confirmation bias
Yes, but that’s a double edged sword, it applies to you as it does to me. We’ve selected temperature graphs that pre-suit our hypotheses.
This is what Loehle said about a graph which shows the roman warm period as warmer than his graph ( one you use ), and by this creates a significant temperature dip in the dark ages to correlate with the SSN proxies.
The new recon shows the Roman Warm Period, which I agree is probably more correct than in my graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
meemoe_uk says: January 6, 2012 at 3:50 am
………..
Greenland temperature reference even if correct is not representative of the rest of N. Hemisphere, it all depends on the NAO phase.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Since 10Be deposition records are also from Greenland and they are affected to the large extent by local precipitation and consequently the GISP, NGRIP and Dye records are to be taken with extreme care. Differences between two neighbouring sites are often so large that whole dating process may be questionable. There are number of recently published papers on the subject.
Good that Mr. Watts allows David Archibald to express his common sense view of things.
Otherwise, we would be left with nothing but double-talk and obfuscation.
Leif
Nearly there. The current is generates by the solar wind interaction creates a magnetic à la Maxwell but what changes the solar wind velocity., please ?
M.A.Vukcevic : Greenland temperature reference even if correct is not representative of the rest of N. Hemisphere, it all depends on the NAO phase….
There’s always some voice saying some source is unreliable.
which is why Ljungqvist went to the trouble of combining 30 different temperature proxies. The result was qualitatively the same as GISP2.
i.e. Roman warm period, dark ages cool period, MWP, LIA, 20th century warm period.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/ljungqvist2010/ljungqvist2010.txt
meemoe_uk says:
January 6, 2012 at 3:50 am
Depends on the temperature graph used.
If so, there is no evidence either way. Nothing of “showing exactly the opposite”.
This is what Loehle said about a graph which shows the roman warm period as warmer than his graph ( one you use ),
Overlaying the other graph as well, just makes the fit worse.
http://www.leif.org/research/Temperature-on-10Be-14C.png