Leif Svalgaard writes: “Several people asked why I said that the SWPC F10.7 graph was ‘just wrong’. And I promised a follow up on that. Here it is.”
Happy to oblige! For reference, here is the original graph from SWPC. – Anthony
The SWPC F10.7 Radio Flux Prediction Graph
Leif Svalgaard, May 2009
Fitting the monthly average the F10.7 flux (reduced to 1 AU) against the International Sunspot number, R, for the entire interval 1951-2009 to a forth order polynomial gives a formula for computing the Flux from the sunspot:
Flux = 67.29 + 0.316 R + 0.01084 R 2 – 0.006813 R 3 + 0.0000001314 R 4 (1)
The correlation is shown in Figure 1 below:
We know that this formula does not accurately portray the most recent relationship between R and F10.7 (see previous essay), but if we make no assumptions or corrections and just take the data as they are we can consider the conversion formula as indicative of the average conditions the last half century.
SWPC gives a table showing the predicted sunspot Number and the predicted F10.7 cm flux for the next decade. Here are the first few rows of that table, with the middle value of the predicted values in bold script, followed by a high and low limit:
Year Month Predicted Sunspot Number Predicted F10.7 cm Flux:
2009 01 2.1 5.1 0.0 67.4 69.4 65.4 2009 02 2.7 7.7 0.0 67.3 70.3 64.3 2009 03 3.3 8.3 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2 2009 04 3.9 9.9 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2 2009 05 4.6 11.6 0.0 67.3 72.3 62.3 2009 06 5.5 12.5 0.0 67.5 73.5 61.5 2009 07 6.7 14.7 0.0 67.8 74.8 60.8 2009 08 8.1 17.1 0.0 68.2 76.2 60.2 2009 09 9.7 18.7 0.7 68.8 76.8 60.8 2009 10 11.5 21.5 1.5 69.7 78.7 60.7 2009 11 12.6 22.6 2.6 70.2 79.2 61.2 2009 12 14.6 24.6 4.6 72.1 81.1 63.1
Using this table we can plot the predicted Flux as shown by the smooth red curve for the next solar cycle [or alt least up through 2015, Figure 2]:
I don’t know how SWPC came by their predicted F10.7, but my best guess is that they ran a correlation like the one shown in Figure 1 and applied it to the predicted sunspot number. Doing this using the observed sunspot number up to last month gives the ragged blue curve with the smooth blue curve coming from the predicted sunspot number. There is a good match for the predicted part of the curves [the red and the blue after May 2009]. The graph on SWPC’s website http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ seems to match the smooth curves quite well, with the exception of the variation during 2009, which I show as the purple curve. It is simply incorrect to start the curve from a flux of 60 and inexplicable [to my way of thinking – other than plain sloppiness] why the graph should disagree with the published table at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt
As discussed in the previous essay and obvious from the discrepancy between the red and blue ragged curves above in Figure 2, the formula (1) for the average correlation between the Flux and the Sunspot Number does not work so well after about 1989, so it is not clear that it should work after May 2009. This means that we have little idea about what the predicted F10.7 flux should be. If the Sunspot Number prediction is correct, then the F10.7 flux is predicted too high, and if the F10.7 flux prediction is correct, then the predicted Sunspot Number is too high. My own feeling is that since the predicted Sunspot Number is really a prediction of the number of active [magnetic] regions which should be reflected in the F10.7 Flux, that the Sunspot Number [based on visible spots] will be much smaller than the predicted values. This will, indeed, be interesting to watch. Either way, we’ll learn a lot.
How about turning the spot visibility on it’s ear?
When did 1017 disappear?
I am inclined to say it faded into statistical limbo Sunday, May 17th, and from there became increasingly irrelevant.
Mike Lorrey (23:24:03) :
I wouldnt say that, sc 22 ended in 1996-97, and if you add in the Palle data since 2000, it is clear that the albedo is following the 22 year magnetic solar cycle.
” Leif Svalgaard (06:47:47) :
Except that the cosmic rays follow the 11-year cycle and the albedo should follow the same 11-year cycle if the variation of cosmic rays is the reason for the changing albedo [and hence temperature].”
I understand that, Leif. Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle. For instance, there is already a lot of dust and aerosols in the northern hemisphere to seed cloud formation, so the northern hemisphere, while the southern hemisphere does not. The southern hemisphere has a bigger ozone hole, etc.
There are a lot of differences between the northern and southern hemispheres which could cause cosmic rays to have different influence which could vary as the earth’s magnetic field interacts with the 22 year solar magnetic field cycle.
Mike Lorrey (11:48:36) :
Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle.
Cosmic Rays have built in (kind of) 22 year cycle, following the Sun’s pole reversals, as seen here:
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/hermanus.jpg
and explained here:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_1/duldig/paper/node5.html
Mike Lorrey (11:48:36) :
I understand that, Leif. Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle.
First of all, we don’t have a 22-year cycle in albedo, we have a failure of an 11-yr cycle which you interpret as a 22-year cycle. Second, people that claim the solar cycle dependence [like Svensmark himself] claim that there is an 11-yr cycle, so, what I was saying was that there is no evidence for an 11-yr cycle in albedo to support the 11-yr cycle in temperature claimed by Svensmark to be the result of an 11-yr cycle in cosmic rays.
Thanks Vukevic, the second link tells the tale: there is a 12 hour delay in north vs south anisotropy in the cosmic rays hitting earth. This means that one hemisphere would see its cosmic ray cloud formation happen during the day, and the other would see it happen during the night. Obviously daylight cloud formation would increase albedo and thus cool the planet, while night time cloud formation would have no effect on albedo and would boost warming. This is the smoking gun, IMHO, that explains everything.
While each hemisphere has an equal amount of planetary area in day and night (obviously) the distribution of ocean and land being unequal is the issue.
Mike Lorrey (15:59:02) :
This is the smoking gun, IMHO, that explains everything.
You have to VERY humble now. First, the anisotropy is of the order of 0.05% or 1/2000, so for each 2000 cosmic rays in one hemisphere there are 2001 in the other, not much smoke. And the anisotropy is an sidereal day effect, not solar day. Sidereal noon drifts through all hours of the solar day through the year [4 minutes each day], so no day-night effect.
But I guess for a true believe such little details don’t matter 🙂