I had written back in July 2008 about the 10.7cm solar radio flux hitting a new record low value. Part of that has to do with the inverse square law and the distance of the earth to the sun, which is at a maximum at the summer solstice. As you can see below there has been a very gradual rise since then as we approached the winter solstice. David Archibald provides an update below and compares our current period to other solar cycles. – Anthony
UPDATE: In comments, Leif Svalgaard offers his graph, and also speaks of the flatlining. See below the “read more” – Anthony
The graph above is of two year windows of the F 10.7 radio flux centered on the last five solar minima. They are stacked up so that they are 20 solar flux units apart on the same vertical scale. The original data is from: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarradio.html#qbsa
That site notes:
“The quiet sun level is the flux density which would be observed in the absence of activity. Extrapolation to zero of plots of the 10.7cm flux against other activity indices such as plage area or total photospheric magnetic flux in active regions suggest a quiet sun flux density of about 64 s.f.u. This is rarely attained.” The lowest daily value in this minimum to date was 64.5 in June 2008.
What is evident is that this minimum is quite different from the previous four in that the intra-monthly amplitude has died from June 2008. The monthly average low was July 2008 and the series has been in uptrend at 0.7 units/month thereafter. This is a very weak but very consistent uptrend, perhaps the first sign of a rising Solar Cycle 24. There is very little noise in this signal, suggesting a very weak Solar Cycle 24.
– David Archibald
UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard writes in comments:
As part of my ‘homework’ for the Sunspot Panel [2 years ago] I produced a short document
http://www.leif.org/research/When%20is%20Minimum.pdf
comparing F10.7 and MgII [another solar index] around minima. I have updated the graph in the document to show the flat-lining of F10.7.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[snip -way off topic, see the very first comment]
[snip- way off topic, see very first comment – Anthony]
“Several solar physicists have predicted [several years ago] that cycle 24 would be the smallest solar cycle in a hundred years. ”
Hmmm, I remember Dr. Hathaway predicting that *cycle 25* would possibly be the weakest in such a time period. This was based on his observation of what he called the “magnetic conveyor belt” and the fact that it had slowed to the lowest ever observed activity during cycle 23 and that it tended to predict the intensity of the cycle two cycles hence.
Ahh, here it is dated May 10, 2006.
A YouTube video about the sun and climate that will be more for laymen than others.
title :
Unstoppable Solar Cycles
link :
btw : at any time if you fellows with college grad level understanding could break things down in to simpler terms, maybe by using illustrations, or smaller words ;), or something, it would be greatly appreciated! 🙂 Have some mercy, hey?
Leif:
Thanks for the recommendation. This volume looks very close to what I’ve been looking for. Now all I’ve got to do is get on Pokerstars and see if I can rack up enough chips to pay for it.
David:
IPS is using somewhat the same method that is in the paper you gave links to (the Schatten-Franz)?
http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
“Description of Prediction Technique
The prediction is based on the average of the last 8 solar cycles
(Cycles 15 to 23). IPS will adjust this average cycle as the new cycle
unfolds. To do this IPS has developed software for manipulating this
predicted cycle. The difficulty is ensuring that adjustments are not
made for short term variation, only for longer term cycle variation.”
They have currently April 2009 as projected minimum.
What does a flatlined F10.7 do to these type of models?
Dr Svalgaard, thankyou for that.
“And you won’t because, there will be no more meetings as we didn’t produce the desired [high] consensus so NASA/NOAA has lost interest.”
So NASA couldn’t even be bothered to pretend to have an interest in science? Their raison d’etre is packing chemicals into aluminium tubes and they don’t care why? Do you know why they are hung up on a high amplitude instead of just letting the chips fall where they may?
Very interesting post at 16:11 by Dr.Leif. – at least to me.
10.7 wavelength is a proxy.
Indifferent attitudes at important “scientific” bodies to research because the ” predetermined” (?) conclusion is not reached.
Dikpati : Any publicity is good – positive or negative – marketing in science.
And as previously posted. More research needed
Lief ..
“. There is good evidence that the Sun was not any dimmer [F10.7, TSI, or otherwise] during the Maunder Minimum than it is right now. ”
So .. if this is true, and there is indeed some solar/climate link, it would seem to me that the IPCC and the models have it completely wrong with regards to solar forcing.
Yes? .. No?
@Leif Svalgaard (11:22:26) :
Pamela Gray (10:46:42) :
When the Sun is idling for this long, isn’t this a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to see how it works?
Yes, solar physicists are all very excited about this.
Unlike politicized climatologists who defend at all costs their unproven hypotheses of AGW, I appreciate the open forthrightness that this gentleman called Leif displays. How refreshing it is to see, in response to unexpected solar activity {or inactivity, in this case}, that solar scientists are excited by the sun not performing as expected. My impression is of a scientist grabbing this as an opportunity to learn, even if it means developing a new theory.
Would a well-behaving climatologist say something like, “3) what is a sunspot? [yes, we don’t know!]” ?
I don’t think this point has been clarified: Is the present sunspot “count” based on only the spots visible from earth? Or do the SOHO observations count? And when a group comes around again after ~27 days, is it added to itself for the weekly or monthly sunspot count?
With this machine, I can’t read comments so I don’t know if the recent paper by de Jager and Dehau has been addressed. They expect decades of global cooling from the action of the sun. I’ll go to the library to read tomorrow.
========================================================
Just want truth… (17:24:51)
Im really in the same boat, but ill break down what ive gleaned from this.
Basically the 10.7 radio flux has shown a close correlation with sun cycles, and going off the current data it is not behaving as it should, the sun is having a quiet spell.
The sun is a big fusion reactor basically, at its centre it squishes hydrogen atoms together, which creates a helium atom, the rest o the mass o the two hydrogen atoms is converted to energy(basically what a H bomb does, but they use a fission reaction to get the pressure to squish the hydrogen.. and probably heavey water to gain extra mass to the hydrogen atom)
But it cycles, so it has more fusion going on at times than other times due to the amount o atoms getting squished, but the energy pushing out can effect the density at the centre, which causes it to pulse/cycle.
How this could possibly effect climate, well theoretically reduced solar winds means more subatomic particles gaining access to our lower atmosphere, causing a nucleus for cloud formation, so more clouds. And reduced energy being radiated by the sun too warm the earth.
Feel free to correct or hammer if im too far of the mark 😉
David Archibald (17:50:54) :
Do you know why they are hung up on a high amplitude instead of just letting the chips fall where they may?
My own theory [not official Panel policy] is this: Satellite operators usually borrow money to finance their operations [as most businesses do]. The lender requires that the hardware be insured. The insurance company needs to evaluate the risk of damage from solar activity. Having a risk figure, they then set a premium. They like the risk as high as possible to set the premium as high as possible. If the premium [the perceived risk] is too high [e.g. the solar cycle turned out to be very mild] the insurance company can be [and has been] sued. To be sue-proof, the insurance industry wants the Government to give them a number [preferably as high as possible], so that they can say: “hey, don’t sue us, we got the number from the Government”. How does that sound?
Deanster (18:00:27) :
“. There is good evidence that the Sun was not any dimmer [F10.7, TSI, or otherwise] during the Maunder Minimum than it is right now. ”
So .. if this is true, and there is indeed some solar/climate link
If the Sun was not any dimmer during the MM, how to have a solar/climate link?
it would seem to me that the IPCC and the models have it completely wrong with regards to solar forcing.
Yes? .. No?
They are just models with a assumed solar forcing. Assume something else, you get a different result. The model is not necessarily ‘wrong’, the assumption may be.
Leon Brozyna (18:00:43) :
I appreciate the open forthrightness that this gentleman called Leif displays. How refreshing it is to see, in response to unexpected solar activity {or inactivity, in this case}, that solar scientists are excited by the sun not performing as expected. My impression is of a scientist grabbing this as an opportunity to learn, even if it means developing a new theory.
Except that I fully expected the Sun to go quiet 🙂
George M (18:07:36) :
I don’t think this point has been clarified: Is the present sunspot “count” based on only the spots visible from earth?
Yes.
And when a group comes around again after ~27 days, is it added to itself for the weekly or monthly sunspot count?
it is counted again as a new group, as it is every day. Say, it stays visible for a week, then it is counted seven times. This is not so silly as it sounds as a long-lived spot has more magnetic field, is larger, may produce more flares, etc, so it altogether more ‘important’.
kim (18:15:55) :
With this machine, I can’t read comments so I don’t know if the recent paper by de Jager and Dehau has been addressed. does not bring much to the table anyway.
Robert has a good point about financing science we like.
Anthony has good point about OT stuff . . . so I can asked stupid question in a properly designated spot where everybody doesn’t have to look at it. I feel one coming on now:
Who are the “sparkies”?
George M (18:07:36) :
“it is counted again as a new group, as it is every day.
I forgot to add that the count is divided by the number of days in the month, so gives the average number of spots on any given day within that month. A very sensible measure. Imagine the Sun had only two spots on opposite hemispheres [front and back, not north and south] and they lived forever, then at any given time exactly one would be visible and you then actually want the sunspot number to be one [actually, as you know, it will be 11]
MikeE 19:07:00 Thank-you, now I get it!!!!!!!!!
MikeE (19:07:00) :
But it cycles, so it has more fusion going on at times than other times due to the amount o atoms getting squished, but the energy pushing out can effect the density at the centre, which causes it to pulse/cycle.
It is highly unlikely that the interior plays any role in this. The solar activity cycle takes place in the outermost layers of the Sun. One reason for the unlikelihood is that it takes 250,000 years for the energy generated inside the Sun to reach the surface. so any cycles would completely wash out. At least, that is current thinking. As always, there is speculation that strange things can go on. People claim to find cycles in the neutrino flux for instance.
Except that I fully expected the Sun to go quiet 🙂
What do you expect that to look like?
Solar quiet might be entirely different depending on whom one talks to.
3 cheers for Svalgaard reading and answering many questions.
Leif Svalgaard (09:31:51) :
the_Butcher (08:39:01) :
Does the Solar Flux affects the Earth?
No
….. What about the van allen belts?
Doh… the van allen belts are charged particles, nothing to do with 10.7 solar radio flux… disregard my above post.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Thanks for sticking with Anthony’s blog. You provide a depth of solar related scientific information likely not available for free anywhere else. Aaargh. Poor sentence structure, but you know what I mean.
Grant Hodges (19:12:54) :
Who are the “sparkies”?
Ham radio operators, among other users of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Robert Bateman, the IPS approach is uselessly simplistic. They have been constantly revising their forecasts month after month as they get proved wrong one after the other. Their forecast of max amplitude of 134 in Sept 2012 is simply the average of the last eight cycles. The Schatten/Svalgaard technique of measuring off the poloidal field strength has proven validity (but may depart from linearity at low values) and Clilverd’s wavelet analysis looks like being correct. Most other people have been basically guessing (including Jager and Duhau).
I was the first person on the planet to predict a long solar cycle 23 (in 2006) simply because Clilverd (and Badalyan) had been predicting a weak cycle 24. Weak cycles are generally preceded by long cycles. Cycle length is more important in climate than cycle amplitude.
All I can read into the flatlining of the 10.7 radio flux is that it is highly indicative of solar cycle 24 being weak. There are a lot of peridocities in the 10.7 data prior to June 2008 and it would be good to know what has gone missing.
I trust we all realize how seriously lucky we are to have Leif Svalgaard here.
just sayin.