NRC Canada’s FTP site which logs the daily 10.7 centimeter (2800 megahertz) radio flux from the sun just reported what appears to be a new record low in the observed data.
64.2 at 1700 UTC
Source data is here
The Solar Radio Monitoring Program is operated jointly by the National Research Council and the Canadian Space Agency, the web page for their monitoring program is here.
The 10.7cm solar radio flux is an indicator of the sun’s activity. Here is a brief description of it from the National Geophysical Data Center:
The sun emits radio energy with a slowly varying intensity. This radio flux, which originates from atmospheric layers high in the sun’s chromosphere and low in its corona, changes gradually from day-to-day, in response to the number of spot groups on the disk. Radio intensity levels consist of emission from three sources: from the undisturbed solar surface, from developing active regions, and from short-lived enhancements above the daily level. Solar flux density at 2800 megaHertz has been recorded routinely by radio telescopes near Ottawa (February 14, 1947-May 31, 1991) and Penticton, British Columbia, since the first of June, 1991. Each day, levels are determined at local noon (1700 GMT at Ottawa and 2000 GMT at Penticton) and then corrected to within a few percent for factors such as antenna gain, atmospheric absorption, bursts in progress, and background sky temperature.
Part of this has to due with the earth’s orbit and position relative to the sun in July, this from Australia’s IPS Radio and Space Services:
On July 18 1996, the observed value of the 10 cm solar flux dropped to a low of 64.9. In many books it is stated that the 10 cm solar flux can not go below a value of 67. For example, the formulae given in the June 1996 edition of the IPS Solar Geophysical Summary show 67.0 as the minimum value. So how can we get a value of 64.9?
The answer is quite interesting – it depends on the orbit of the earth! The earth’s orbit is not perfectly circular but is slightly elliptical. In July of each year we are a little further than average from the sun and so solar radiation, including the 10 cm flux, is very slightly weaker than average.
So the 10cm flux will tend to be lower in July than, for example, December when the earth is closer to the sun than its average value. The combination of the extra distance to the sun and the solar minimum conditions have acted to produce this very low flux value.
It is easy to correct for the earth-sun distance and, when this is done, a value of 67.0 is obtained. This is the text book value!
Values of the 10 cm flux are often given in two forms – first as directly observed values and secondly as values corrected for the earth-sun distance variation.
The last time that the observed 10cm flux was at a lower value was on July 26, 1964 when it stood at 64.8. The lowest value ever recored was on July 02, 1954 with a value of 64.4.
As we’ve seen from visiual cues and lack of sunpots recently, it is obvious that the sun is in a deep minimum. Expert forecasts that have called for the sun to be regularly active by now have been falsified by nature, and the question of the day is: how long before the sun becomes active again?
(h/t Basil)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Were this an Associated Press article, it might headline
SUN DIMS TO RECORD LOW LEVEL. EXPERTS SAY END MAY BE NEAR.
Lowest recorded in over 50 years. Interesting.
SORCE total solar irradiance at 1 AU is also continuing to decline in this cycle.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1640&STOP_DATE=2050&TIME_SPAN=6&PLOT=Plot+Data
More like this
Man Caused Global warming of earth has caused Sun to change to deep slumber.
I do look frequently look on:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
and:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html
yep, looks weak, but not unexpected. I’m waiting for
something between 62 and 64 within the next three month.
Somehow, all of it reminds me of Eric Burdon’s song –
“When I was young” – with “The Animals”
… “it was so much colder then … when I was young”
… and it will happen again … unfortunately
2003, I paid about 1400 Euros for 5200 liters of heating oil,
… hmm, this year, I fear, I shall feel lucky to get same for 4700 Euros.
The trend to cooler continues as indicated by the weather station in Enterprise, Oregon. It is 9 degrees cooler than last year. When we should be baking in the hot afternoon Sun, it is only 79 degrees, with scattered clouds but mostly clear, and windy. The wind is cooler, leaving one with the impression that it is actually closer to 72 or so. The ozone layer is trending down over the western part of the US from a couple months ago. Hawaii has been under a thin ozone layer compared to the rest of the US. I have been watching the ozone slowly thin over that area, with the thin area getting larger and larger, almost hole-like.
Oh the terribly quiet Sun.
Only de Shadow know.
So I’m confused now. The solar flux, according to theory, cannot fall below 67. According to the textbook, you can get a value of 64.9 because the Earth is at it furtherest from the sun.
Yet, we have a value of 64.2. Dies this mean that the earth is further away from the Sun than ever before, or is the theory now shown to be wrong? If the theory of how low the solar flux can go is wrong, what are the implications of this?
Alternatively, what is the possibility that this reading was incorrect?
I believe 67 is the minimum value you can have at a distance of exactly 1AU. Someone needs to publish what that translates to when Earth is at its maximum distance. We reached maximum distance from the sun on July 4th, I believe.
David: Actually, the AP headline will read:
“END OF WORLD NIGH. WOMEN, MINORITIES HARDEST HIT.”
crosspatch: The difference is 2.2 flux units, so 67-2.2 = 64.8, but the ‘theoretical minimum’ [67] is uncertain by about half a unit anyway, so one shouldn’t get hung up on the last decimal. For January, add 2.2.
The corrected value is 66.7 at 1AU.
See http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/current_flux.shtml
This comment is from Solar Cycle 24 (www.solarcycle24.com):
Today the solar flux has dipped to a new low of 64.2. Just so you do not worry too much, on July 2, 1954 a value of 64.4 was observed. What followed was one of the strongest Cycles ever recorded (Solar Cycle 19).
So, should we put much confidence in this reading as a harbinger of a weak solar cycle?
Interesting. I’ll take a wait and see approach on this to see how many years it’ll be before Hathaway adjusts the forecast for cycle 24. Just as long as the flux doesn’t stay this low for a decade or so. Things could start to get chilly…. Hmmmmm…low flux lasting longer than expected. Give it to the environmental movement to solve — they’ve already given us a consensus on AGW. It’s all those solar arrays damaging the desert environment and reflecting the sun’s power back at it. Give up electricity and live as one in harmony with nature.
On a serious note, given all the complexities of all the elements that impact the earth, how can anyone take serious anything Mr. Gore has to say.
WWS.:
That is a perfect headline. How about this?:
SUN HITS ROCK BOTTOM!!!
Gore: “Like I have said all along, the Ice Age is coming, and man’s use of fossil fuels are to blame.”
By Heidi Cullen
The plot shown in the post had a couple of deficiencies:
1) it should use the ‘adjusted for distance’ values [to show what the Sun is doing] and not the ‘observed’ values.
2) monthly means are not good for solar parameters as one month is close to the 27-day synodic rotation period of the Sun, but not equal, so that ‘beats’ will show up in the monthly means, giving the appearance of solar changes and ‘heaves’ that simply aren’t there. Better to average over 27 days.
“As we’ve seen from visiual cues and lack of sunpots recently, it is obvious that the sun is in a deep minima.”
I don’t think this article supports your position. Similar values have been recorded this century. Of course maybe you mean something else by “deep minima.”
REPLY: Your criticism is premature, of course your MO has always been to play “gotcha”. I meant only that it’s as “low as it can go” nothing else was implied. The currently believed flux lower limit is 67, the observed current value (after adjustment) is close to that.
The last 2 years were fun. Theories about the solar cycle, pause in global warming, tons of charts and stats about UAH, RSS, blablabla.
And now La Nina is over and the party is over too. Sorry folks.
Its strange the silence here about the massive ice cover lost in south hemisphere in the last weeks. And it’s winter in South hemisphere.
If we get an El Nino next year I expect skeptics and deniers quickly forget monthly data from the RSS and UAH 😉
Boris: I’ll second that. At every minimum the Sun returns to almost the same state [with only small variations from minimum to minimum] and this minimum is not exceptional. What is of interest is that cycle 24 has not yet begun in earnest, somewhat to the surprise of people predicting a very large cycle.
REPLY: Leif, you may want to reconsider that. agreeing with Boris is to agree with a premature conclusion. See my response to him. Note that I made no claims other than the observed value is a new record low, and that forecasts (particularly Hathaway’s) have been missed, leaving us all to wonder when the sun will ramp up again.
OK .. solar cycle 19 was one of the strongest on record. But from what I’ve read, and what I see on the records, solar cycle 18 was somewhat unremarkable. A typical looking cycle. It wasn’t a long stretched out minimal solar cycle like cycle 23 is shaping up to be.
So .. I don’t think the low solar flux of today is any indication of what cycle 24 will be like.
Looking at the historical record provided on Hathaway’s Article, it seems that the sunspot cycles follow a fairly smoothed curve, with some 9-10 cycles making up a cycle curve. Cycle 23 is the ninth and comming down from the peak of 1950 (cycle 19 was the fifth cycle in the curve). Also, I think the higher values for the cycles recorded over the last century is likely due to recording bias that has occurred due to advancing technology and changing definitions. I seriously doubt there were no “sun specks” during the Maunder minimum that would have qualified as sun spots today. I think Anthony has brought this up before as well.
I think this observation underlies the confusion regarding what the next cycle will be. Cycle 24 is at the trouph of the curve. It could be the end of this cycle, the dead bottom of the curve, or the beginning of the next curve. It could be smaller, equal to, or slightly larger than cycle 23. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I doubt the radio flux can affect earths climate in any way. It is as far as I can see just an indicator of the suns activity, which currently is low.
What is more interesting is, what will solar cycle 24 be like? There seems to be predictions all the way from weak up to strong.
Some even say the sun may head into a new Dalton Minimum or worse.
Now, do we have enough knowledge of the sun to be able to predict a new Dalton or Maunder minimum?
If we do not have enough data to be able to predict a DM or MM, how do we know it is or it is not heading into one?
By the way, have NASA released a new prediction for when SC24 should start? I haven’t seen any yet.
The last 3 predictions failed with the last one saying SC24 would start in may.
SS24: Link to data for southern hemisphere ice cover, please?
SS24: I just don’t see what you mean: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html
Where’s the massive loss?
SS24 …
I don’t think I’d crow too fast. If you look at the cryosphere data, you’ll notice that there was a further melt off after this point in 2007, only to have the ice rise to record levels within a few more months.
Plus … couldn’t help but notice that you left out the NH data, where according to the “Tale of the Tape”, NH ice is still running a good 750K sq kms above this time last year.
Another thing you need to consider, La Nina doesn’t strengthen until the later months (August-Sept). While La Nina is gone now, it could very well re-emerge in the comming months. Most La Ninas are multi year events. The La Nina of 74 fell out of La Nina status for one month only to come back strong and last for almost another 2 years. The La Nina of 2000 also fell back from -1.5 to -.08, only to rise again stronger than the previous year.
As I’ve said on another site, we live in extraordinary times. A lot can be learned if people would take their colored glasses off and the MP3 players out their ears and observe!!
Leif,
I agree not that special the sun has a lower limit, “we hope”. Some are very nervous due to that they predict a large cycle. My bet is around 60 to 65 not at the 40 some say. Your I believe is 75, correct. Chance of a large cycle is closer to a “Hail-Mary”, not impossible just not very likely.
I assume SS24 is referring to the continued break-up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. You can see the daily sea ice status at
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
With regards to ENSO state – most predictions are for a neutral ENSO state for a few months yet. After that it is not clear: it could return to La Nina or develop into El Nino. We usually cannot make sensible forecast until August SSTs are available.