Normally, I run this post around the end of the first week of the month, but this month there was a problem. NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) botched the March SSN graph with incorrect data and was somewhat reticent to get it updated. Dr. Leif Svalgaard wrote to me on 3/7/12 after I asked him:
Why is there no Feb data on the NOAA graphs even though they show a March 6 update? Very odd. Are they holding out for better data?
He replied:
I have had a long email exchange with Doug Biesecker who is in charge of this. If you look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt for December 2011, you see that the data there is that for February 2011. Apparently when they tried to enter data for February 2012 [which is 33.1] they lost that and instead dumped Feb. 2011 on December. Don’t ask how this is possible, we all screw up now and then. The bad news is they don’t know when it will be fixed [!!!]. I suggested just fixing it in the file and replot right now. But they want to find out exactly what the problem is. I suggested that if they just fixed manually right now, they would have all the time in the world to figure out what went wrong, but no cigar. As I said to him:
“your problem should not stop you from a temporary fix involving a few minutes of work, for the benefit of a waiting world that would like to think that NOAA produces reliable data”.
After some additional consideration on the part of NOAA, I’m happy to report they finally got it updated. What we see are three months of dropping sunspot numbers when they should be on the rise. While some variability is normal, compare this drop to the previous cycle.
Like the SSN, the 10.7cm flux is also down for the 3rd straight month:
And, the Ap Geomagnetic index, a proxy for the solar dynamo, is still bumping along the bottom portion of the scale where normally it would be approaching higher levels leading up to solar maximum:
Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Leif Svalgaard says
there are 2.6 M6+ quakes per week on average.
in response to this from MAVukcevic:
“Nobody disputes the average, but they have a habit to strike around strong solar storms; not every week gets 2-3 earthquakes M6+, large proportion gets none.”
Which was selectively quoted by Leif to remove the agreement about the average and hide the point of the statement, which was the uneven distribution of the M6+ observations about the average.
Why do you do such things, Leif?
Werner Brozek says (March 14, 2012 at 9:14 am)
As well, since yesterday morning, the January, 2012 anomaly of 0.218 disappeared from the Hadcrut3 data set and woodfortrees.
————————
Perhaps preparing us for the ‘new,improved’ figures from Hadcrut4, with its super-adjusted Arctic stations showing more warming? Start date 2012; all former figures are now ‘unoperational’?
Sorry, all this makes for conspiracy theories. It’s probably just another cockup.
Leif Svalgaard says:March 14, 2012 at 4:39 am – “The Ap value plotted [7] is too low. The correct, official value should be 9:http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/kpyymm.pdf”
Stop…you’re both right…Ap value shown in graph is only to January 13th. February 29th would be 8.86.
JJ says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:35 am
Which was selectively quoted by Leif to remove the agreement about the average and hide the point of the statement, which was the uneven distribution of the M6+ observations about the average.
Why do you do such things, Leif?
Because the assertion was unfounded to begin with. This has been extensively studied. Here is the result of superposing the number of earthquakes M6+ about interplanetary sector boundaries [top] and geomagnetic [solar] storms that actually hit the Earth [middle]: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
The bottom panel shows the response of the aa-index to the storm, just to show that there was a storm.
saltspringson says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:45 am
Ap value shown in graph is only to January 13th.
The values are averages for the month.
JJ says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:35 am
Which was selectively quoted by Leif to remove the agreement about the average and hide the point of the statement
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:06 am
but they have a habit to strike around strong solar storms; not every week gets 2-3 earthquakes M6+, large proportion gets none.
This is the statement that is unfounded, and in addition shows the sloppiness of the assertion: “not every week gets 2-3 earthquakes…” Had he actually made any analysis he would have known that 2-3 is the normal average. Furthermore, many earthquakes [and in particular the ones he refers to] are just aftershocks and do not constitute independent events, e.g. the great M9 Honshu event had some 10 M6+ aftershocks the same day.
You might have asked: “Why do you do such things, Vuk?”
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
March 14, 2012 at 8:18 am
Curiousgeorge says:
March 14, 2012 at 4:26 am
So, should I plant root crops or grains?
==================================================
Hi, Gail. There has been a ramping up of farmland prices going on for a couple years. Actually, since Nov of 2008 😉 . A lot of it is driven by Wall Street investors looking for a safe haven other than gold. And some of it is due to the cheapening of the dollar. Some foreign investors also.
But another aspect is that many farmers see the price of food and energy crops continuing to rise due to demand. This is countered by a lot of punitive regulations coming from the EPA among other govt’ agencies. This then becomes a significant issue in this election. If the EPA can be reined in, investors and farmers stand to make a decent profit; but that won’t happen under Obama.
cui bono says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
Werner Brozek says (March 14, 2012 at 9:14 am)
As well, since yesterday morning, the January, 2012 anomaly of 0.218 disappeared from the Hadcrut3 data set and woodfortrees.
————————————————————–
Still 0.218 in Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets – HadCRUT3 Diagnostics
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/index.html
It’s probably just another cockup. Looks favourite?
Leif Svalgaard says: March 14, 2012 at 10:09 am
You might have asked: “Why do you do such things, Vuk?”
Dr. Svalgaard could be unintentionally straying into the obscurantism.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EQM7.htm
I wonder why you bother to post such unsubstantiated slander, when it is obvious who does proper science and who doesn’t. L&P offer extremely valuable and interesting observations.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:25 am
Last few days there was one of the nature’s great experiments with the cosmic ray (neutron) count going down by 12-15%.
Svensmark’s hypothesis proposes significant drop in cloudiness,….
___________________________________
I wonder if the Earthshine Project will see anything? http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 10:49 am
Dr. Svalgaard could be unintentionally straying into the obscurantism.
Just pointing out that there is no such association. [as I have told you many times].
the bottom curve in the middle panel shows no enhancement of the frequency of M7+ earthquakes related to storms. You might also learn from the USGS: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?categoryID=6&faqID=343
In reply to:
Geoff Sharp says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:21 am
“L&P theory is junk science. The data and method is not up to scientific standard. The only outcome of their research is that the speck ratio has increased.”
Hi Geoff,
Sometimes it is not clear which hypothesis or measurement technique is or is not correct based on observations and the interpretation of observations. This case is interesting as if Livingston and Penn’s sunspot measurement technique and finding is correct and that trend continues they state there will be observational evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted by 2015. (i.e. A spotless sun by 2015.) Observationally determining whether the magnetic cycle has or has not been interrupted will be clear.
As the magnetic field strength weakens the lifetime of the sunspot on the surface decreases. I believe that is currently what is observed. During previous periods of very low solar activity there were also very large complex sunspots formed an large CMEs. There is currently a very large complex sunspot that formed a large CME.
I believe we will find that the extreme AGW paradigm is a red herring. Svensmark estimates that approximately 75% of the the 20th century temperature rise was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. It appears the sun is the cause of what is observed. What is not known is how the sun changes during those periods and how those changes cause what is observed. (Assuming the sun is the cause. Interesting the other possible mechanisms such as changes to ocean currents have been disproved.)
If the planet starts to signficantly cool that would definitively disprove the extreme AGW hypothesis. In the past there was a 10 to 12 year delay in the cooling, from the change in the solar cycle. The delay it appears was due to the mechanisms not due to thermal lag. We should start to see cooling winter 2012/2013.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“JJ says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:35 am
Which was selectively quoted by Leif to remove the agreement about the average and hide the point of the statement, which was the uneven distribution of the M6+ observations about the average.
Why do you do such things, Leif?”
Because the assertion was unfounded to begin with.
How does that justify you ignoring the substanceof the assertion, pretending it was not made, and giving a smarmy, dismissive, non-response? Rhetorical question. It doesnt.
This is the statement that is unfounded, and in addition shows the sloppiness of the assertion: “not every week gets 2-3 earthquakes…” Had he actually made any analysis he would have known that 2-3 is the normal average.
He explicilty agreed that 2-3 is the normal average. That is part of his comment that you cut out. This shows the sloppiness of your response.
His point was not to dispute the average, but that the 2-3/week average is not evenly distributed. Many weeks have much more than the average, and many have none at all. His assertion was that there may be a relationship between the weeks that have very many, and solar activity. You did not address that. Instead, you cut it out, pretended it wasn’t said, and restated your comment about the average.
Are you too dense to understand that, or simply so arrogant that you dont think that anyone so beneath your contempt as Vukcevic deserves a proper response? Current experience strongly suggest the latter.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 14, 2012 at 11:37 am
….as I have told you many times.
Yes sir.
Dr. Jeffrey Love said: “it has never been demonstrated that there is a causal relationship”
But that doesn’t exclude more than random coincidence.
I have added Dr. Love’s full statement to my web-page
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
I only speculate on the unusual, and wouldn’t wish to mislead anyone intelligent enough not to look for other sources of information.
cui bono says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
Werner Brozek says (March 14, 2012 at 9:14 am)
As well, since yesterday morning, the January, 2012 anomaly of 0.218 disappeared from the Hadcrut3 data set and woodfortrees.
————————
Perhaps preparing us for the ‘new,improved’ figures from Hadcrut4, with its super-adjusted Arctic stations showing more warming? Start date 2012; all former figures are now ‘unoperational’?
Sorry, all this makes for conspiracy theories. It’s probably just another cockup.
============================================================================
NH and SH Hadcrut4 figures are already available, so I would imagine the Global figures won’t be far behind.
A quick comparison of Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 for the NH, which is where the “action” is likely to be, shows that the changes are not large – annual averages +/- 0.1C at most – and the overall record has, in fact, cooled.
However, nearly all the cooling occurs in the early part of the record (pre-1930) while the recent past (post-1930) has been warmed, especially the last decade (2001-2010) where annual averages are now 0.06C “warmer” than in Hadcrut3.
You can bet that Congress will still mandate food as fuel right up to the tipping point at which they flip to the opposite mode called “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
JJ says:
March 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm
How does that justify you ignoring the substance of the assertion
The substance, as I read it, was that there was a correlation between earthquakes and geomagnetic storms which was supposed to be ‘supported’ by a wrong statement [that 2-3 events was unusual].
His assertion was that there may be a relationship between the weeks that have very many, and solar activity. You did not address that.
Perhaps you should read my addressing that:
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
“This has been extensively studied. Here is the result of superposing the number of earthquakes M6+ about interplanetary sector boundaries [top] and geomagnetic [solar] storms that actually hit the Earth [middle]: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
The bottom panel shows the response of the aa-index to the storm, just to show that there was a storm.”
As you can see, the evidence from thousands of event show that there is no relationship.
MAVukcevic says:
March 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Dr. Jeffrey Love said: “it has never been demonstrated that there is a causal relationship”
But that doesn’t exclude more than random coincidence.
You misread his statement. It does not mean that nobody has looked at this; on the contrary, it means that the subject has been researched extensively, but nobody has been able to show a causal relationship in spite of trying hard.
You omit Love’s simple demonstration that there is no relationship:
“over the course of the Sun’s 11-year variable cycle, the occurrence of flares and magnetic storms waxes and wanes, but earthquakes occur without any such 11-year variability”
I only speculate on the unusual, and wouldn’t wish to mislead anyone intelligent enough not to look for other sources of information.
But you yourself, apparently, does not fall in that category. Does it take special intelligence not to look for other sources?
Starting to smell like piss in here again… will the contest be over soon?
[Attempting to get back to the topic du jour]
@WUWT
> … 3rd straight month of dropping sunspot numbers
@Leif
> such wild swings are not unprecedented, compare e.g. with cycle 14:
> http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
These wild swings (after some smoothing) are very roughly sinusoidal, with a period of 6-12 months. => So, Cycle 24 in a nutshell: SSN goes up for a few months and then it goes down for a few months, and repeats this a dozen times, or so.
Anthony, you seem to worry a lot about the down-swings and report them like clockwork. I can’t recall if you’ve similarly reported the up-swings (“The Sunspot Numbers are Going UP!”), but it seems like never.
But sunspots, on average, have increased since 2009 and will continue rising until Solar Max occurs. Even though, paradoxically, your reports suggest otherwise!
FYI, this is an example of Simpson’s Paradox!
(No relation to Homer) => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
😐
Anthony, any chance that NOAA can archive their actual graphs from previous years? The data is archived, and we could laboriously reconstruct, but the old graphs would sure be useful in comparing this 24th with previous ups and downs.
The data suggests that we have already turned te corner on this max-if things do not significantly pick up in the next couple of months, we may already be heading to the next minima-sure there may be a few more fireworks to be had-such as last week-but now th sun has returned to nearly a blank disk again with perhaps a couple of small regions on the disk which are fading. If things do pick up again, there may be a secondary peak of activity later this year, but it probably will not be as strong.
John Servais says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm
but the old graphs would sure be useful in comparing this 24th with previous ups and downs.
You can find old cycles here:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl1_20.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/solcycle.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:24 pm
You omit Love’s simple demonstration that there is no relationship:
“over the course of the Sun’s 11-year variable cycle, the occurrence of flares and magnetic storms waxes and wanes, but earthquakes occur without any such 11-year variability”
– – – – –
This argument is beside the point. It denies a direct causal relationship. But that’s not Vukcevic’s position, as he clearly states:
“It is not claimed that geomagnetic storm is a primary cause of any earthquake. However if conditions for an earthquake are ‘ripe’ i.e. tectonic fault ‘gone critical’, then solar storm could be a trigger (not the cause) for it, and bring it forward for few hours or days.”
(see: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm)
So it’s about a few hours or days, and that signal is completely lost in Love’s comparison of 11 year periods.
looks like there are a couple places where it drops as dramatically. More time.