Note: See also the 1997 regime change in global climate data by the same method, here
I’m happy to report that something I recognized and reported back in 2008 related to solar data has been independently confirmed by another source, and was a surprise when it showed up in my inbox two days ago.
Readers may recall that for some time I’ve been pointing out a strange anomaly in the Solar Geomagnetic Index that occurred in October 2005. In a story I wrote on Feb 13th, 2008 titled Where have all the sunspots gone? I plotted the Ap data and pointed out the event.
I wrote then:
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.
Since then, we’ve seen announcements like this:
BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity
Posted on June 14, 2011 by Anthony Watts
“If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill said. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
See the official press release here – “All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.”
Dr. Sam Outcalt : Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Michigan sent me this graph two days ago, showing his application of Hurst Rescaling to the Ap Solar Magnetic Index data. Using that method, he has independently identified the “step function switch off” I reported in Feb 2008:
The major regime transition is at the maximum of the integral at 2005.71, which corresponds to October 2005, the same date I identified.
Clearly the sun entered into a magnetic funk then, and has yet to come out of it.
We live in interesting times.
For more on Hurst ReScaling, see this paper: SIO_HurstReScale
UPDATE: As I expected he would, Dr. Leif Svalgaard takes exception to this characterization of the identification of October 2005 being a regime changepoint, saying:
While I agree that the sun is going quiet, the ‘step change’ is spurious. It is mainly due to a sporadic, single magnetic storm in September 2005: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c09%2c04 and here is the next rotation: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005%2c10%2c01 You can find many such steps.
Such step changes happens all the time: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png They are just weather, not climate.
I don’t think his analogy holds promise, because after the step change the “climate” of the solar dynamo stayed low, and then produced the lowest value in the record going back to 1844. See Leif’s graph (click to enlarge) which I’ve annotated:
While this is akin to the sustained drop starting in early 1871, clearly this was something new in the entire record.If we use smoothing to remove what Leif describes as weather noise, and magnify, we can see how this looks to be unique in the last century of data:
While it could be argued that this was a “weather” event, the facts remain that:
- In the 14 months prior to Oct 2005, the Ap index was on the rise
- It was a very sharp drop spanning a little over a month.
- It has not recovered to the average values in the preceding 14 months since then.
- Weather events are usually short term dynamics. The 2 rotation periods of the sun Leif refers to aren’t capable of maintaining the step change for the years following October 2005.
- Following the event, the Sun produced the lowest Ap value in the record in Dec 2008.
- Projections by others, including Livingston, suggest the sun has entered into a quiet magnetic state.
While I defer to Dr. Svalgaard’s overall superior knowledge on the dynamics of sun, and agree there are many sharp transitions in the Ap record, this looks to me to be a step change event of merit based on the factors listed above. I’ve yet to see a fully convincing explanation that this was a spurious event rather than a regime changepoint. But, I remain open to seeing such an explanation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Though the graph does not go back in time far enough, it certainly seems to follow the leveling off or slight decline of the earth’s temperature since 1997, no?
OKAY! Who forgot to pay the bill on time?
Now the Utility Company has gone and cut us off. It could be a while before we can get this turn back on again.
Now THAT is a CuSum plot like I’m used to seeing. Difinitive and really undisputable change in 2005. Something happened…
I also remember Lief saying that absolutely nothing abnormal had happened with the sun at that time. Now we have statistical proof that something did indeed happen…
Nick Shaw says:
July 4, 2012 at 7:05 am
Though the graph does not go back in time far enough, it certainly seems to follow the leveling off or slight decline of the earth’s temperature since 1997, no
Here is Ap since 1844, there are many step changes, and they don’t mean regime changes:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png so no space climate changes, just space weather.
A few months back on the SolarHam.net message board, a commenter asked Dr. Svalgaard if the weakening magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn is what caused the Dalton minimum. Leif’s answer was most interesting. He saw the Dalton min. as part of the natural 100 year ebb and flow of weak and strong cycles. He then went on to say that the Maunder minumum was a manifestation of what L&P are observing now. This is the strongest suggestion I’ve seen from Leif that we may be headed into more than just a Dalton like minimum. Previously, Dr Svalgaard has said the probability we are headed for a Dalton type minumum is high but we only had a low probability for a Maunder type episode. If Dr. Svalgaard reads this note I’d like to ask him three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?
sean2829 says:
July 4, 2012 at 7:29 am
three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?
As the low solar activity predicted by us has come to pass, a small cottage industry [with several ‘peer reviewed’ papers – for what they are worth] has sprung up about a possible coming Maunder minimum. There is little doubt that at some time in the future a new Grand minimum will be coming our way. Whether it will happen real soon is anybody’s guess. At a recent international workshop that I convened this question was central. You can find most of the discussion chronicled in the presentations here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/1st_ISSI_Workshop
The contribution by Lockwood has more references.
sean2829 says:
July 4, 2012 at 7:29 am
three questions. First, has the probability between Dalton vs. Maunder type events changed in his opinion for the next few decades, second, what type of evidence does he have beyond the L&P effect to support that probability and third, will there any any peer reviewed publications in the near future to discuss where the sun might be headed?
As the low solar activity predicted by us has come to pass, a small cottage industry [with several ‘peer reviewed’ papers – for what they are worth] has sprung up about a possible coming Maunder minimum. There is little doubt that at some time in the future a new Grand minimum will be coming our way. Whether it will happen real soon is anybody’s guess. At a recent international workshop that I convened this question was central. You can find most of the discussion chronicled in the presentations here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/1st_ISSI_Workshop
The contribution by Lockwood has more references.
MattN says:
July 4, 2012 at 7:20 am
I also remember Lief saying that absolutely nothing abnormal had happened with the sun at that time. Now we have statistical proof that something did indeed happen…
Such step changes happens all the time: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
They are just weather, not climate.
Then there’s the much maligned Theodor Landscheidt, and the prediction of a Grand Solar Minimum that arose from his efforts and those of Carl Smith in showing how they are coincident with perturbations in the rate of change of the Sun’s net angular momentum:
http://www.landscheidt.info/
Unlike the predictions and backcasting of the AGW models, his seem to work.
John Day says: July 4, 2012 at 6:04 am
………….
Hi John
My interest is in the data, particularly in the Aa, relationships between Aa,Ap Kp etc are defined by experts, which I am not, so if I got it wrong I stand to be corrected.
Thanks for the .gov.au link, I hope it is more accurate than some of their climate related statements.
As for the solar “proxy” you mention, I’m guessing that this is another one of your famous “correlations” which tend to be more numerlogy than science.
Disappointingly not, I whish it was, I was quoting NASA’s JPL Dr. Joan Feynman’s paper
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/14449/1/00-0886.pdf
so I shall leave it there.
Some of the coincidental natural variations (or correlations) are often dismissed as irrelevant, but that isn’t reason why one should not have a closer look, and that is what I do. I appreciate that at least you got opinion of what I do, and of course you are entitled to categorize it as you see fit.
From the coordinates on your website I see you track weather on the west coast of Atlantic.
About a year ago , after one of my controversial posts, I was encouraged by a climate scientist to learn from the AMO – NAO relationship. As a result strong non-stationary correlation was found (not known, or if known ignored by climate science, far too apprehensive of the unknown), but with two strange abnormalities:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOandNAO.htm
Questions:
– How is it possible that that average SST could be responding or ‘mimicking’ with years delay the long gone atmospheric pressure.
– Delay is apparently becoming longer and longer.
Have you any ideas?
I think both of the above ambiguities are now ‘explainable’ by a single catalyst, based on some matters discussed in this and similar threads.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2012 at 6:16 am
The indices can be accurately calculated using only solar wind data as input, so short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with the indices.
Could you explain how come that the Aa index spectrum has strong ENSO’s (affects LOD and possibly rate of Earth’s rotation and magnetic field ) ~5year period which is not present in the solar wind, and some other frequencies not present in the sunspot spectrum, but strongly present in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity variability.
Mayaud, said something like ‘index should represent a single variable and should be simple to calculate’, perhaps he was asking for too much.
rgbatduke says:
July 4, 2012 at 6:33 am
For even more on Hurst rescaling and Hurst-Kolmogorov transitions in climate science, please see any of a raft of papers by Koutsoyiannis, e.g. google up:
Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty
Is this the same Kolmogorov who gave is the box-counting method for fractal dimension? Although this was in fact previously invented by Richardson.
vukcevic says:
July 4, 2012 at 8:13 am
“The indices can be accurately calculated using only solar wind data as input, so short-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field have nothing to do with the indices.”
Could you explain how come that the Aa index spectrum has strong ENSO’s etc
That Aa can be calculated accurately with a resolution of 3 hours solely from solar wind data is a FACT, the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture, so no explanation is needed.
Mayaud, said something like ‘index should represent a single variable and should be simple to calculate’, perhaps he was asking for too much.
No, he was right on.
Tom in Florida says:
Yes, making people fat, dumb and happy keeps them from wanting war.
>>>>>>>>
As opposed to starving, ignorant and angry.
Is this the same Kolmogorov who gave is the box-counting method for fractal dimension? Although this was in fact previously invented by Richardson.
I was thinking of the same Kolmogorov that gave us the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in statistics and some 20 or 30 other major contributions to mathematics and statistics, yes. Is there a point to your question?
rgb
ERR…
Did anyone notice Figure 2 of the SIO_HurstReScale reference link?
http://i45.tinypic.com/nwaovn.png
And then notice a similarity to the included Dr. Sam Outcalt graphic?
MattN says:
July 4, 2012 at 7:17 am
Now THAT is a CuSum plot like I’m used to seeing. Difinitive and really undisputable change in 2005. Something happened…
Something happens all the time. Here is look at the solar wind [magnetic field B and speed V] and geomagnetic activity the last several years: http://www.leif.org/research/October-2005-Non-Event.png
The arrows point to October 2005. The bottom panel shows how well we can calculate Aa from knowing only B and V. If the density and the angle between the fields were taken into account, the agreement would be so good that you could not distinguish the curves.
GeoLurking says:
July 4, 2012 at 9:34 am
Did anyone notice Figure 2 of the SIO_HurstReScale reference link?
Except that is not what the real sunspot activity has varied, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
I looked at L. Sv. solar index going back over 100 years and noted two dips similar in size to the present dip at around 1880 and 1900. Here’s the solar index record (again)
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Then I took a look at temperature anomalies going back into the last quarter of the 19th century at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
and noticed a temperature downtrend in the last part of the 19th century with distinct dips at around 1890 and 1910 — that is, 10 years or so past the 1880 and 1990 dips in the solar index. Is this just a coincidence? I wonder.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2012 at 9:50 am
Except that is not what the real sunspot activity has varied, e.g.
So what would be the Hurst Rescaling of the data using your refinement of the sunspot activity? It just seemed pretty flipping odd that the trace had a similarity to the roll off in Fig 2 from the paper.
http://i45.tinypic.com/9k8nma.png
That should be “… ten years or so past the 1880 and 1900 dips …”
Douglas Cohen says:
July 4, 2012 at 10:15 am
and noticed a temperature downtrend in the last part of the 19th century with distinct dips at around 1890 and 1910 — that is, 10 years or so past the 1880 and 1990 dips in the solar index. Is this just a coincidence? I wonder.
Vuk will tell you that is probably a new important discovery 🙂 brought about by “A luxury strictly reserved for the spare time mental unproductive activity” \sarc [just in case you misunderstood]
Greetings to the reader from NASA, Huntsville
Thanks for your attention, I hope you are intrigued as I was when I came across it.
If you have a question or wish to add a comment privately, I have added my email address at the bottom left hand side.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOandNAO.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2012 at 8:31 am
the various other things you claim are unsubstantiated conjecture
Agree. No point in restating what is well known and part of the accepted science.
I’m afraid the Georgia v Russia conflict over South Ossetia in 2008 spoils McDonald’s war-free record.
From rgbatduke on July 4, 2012 at 6:38 am:
Already done!
http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/ (graphical)
http://www.mcdonaldsindia.net/
April 2011 article:
http://nrn.com/article/mcdonald’s-lessons-learned-india
They serve neither beef nor pork, keeping Hindus and Muslims happy. Started in 1996, growing carefully and slowly, up to 210 stores at the article’s writing.
Wasn’t around 1996 when Pakistan and India seemed destined for a nuclear arms race leading to at least a small-scale high-casualty nuclear war? Wow, the rhetoric in India has really calmed down since then. What happened? Was there a regime change?