Leif Svalgaard writes in with a collection of points on the 10.7 cm solar radio flux. Being busy tonight, I’m happy to oblige posting them. – Anthony
Leif writes:
People often call out that F10.7 flux has now reached a new low, and that a Grand minimum is imminent.
Perhaps this graph would calm nerves a bit:
The blue curve is the current F10.7 flux [adjusted to 1 AU, of course] and the red curve is F10.7 back at the 1954 minimum. The D spike (in 1954) was due to an old cycle [18] region.
There is always the problem of how to align two such curves.. These two were aligned by eye to convey the general nature of the flux over a minimum. The peaks labeled B and C and the low part A were arbitrarily aligned, because peaks often influence the flux for several weeks so would form natural points of correspondence. The detailed similarity is, of course, of no significance. Note, however that because of the 27-day recurrence one some peaks are aligned others will be too. again, this has no further [deeper] significance. The next solar cycle is predicted to be quite low and the cycle following the 1954 minimum was one of the largest recorded. We will, of course, with excitement watch how the blue curve will fare over the next year or so, to see how the ‘ramp up’ will compare to the steep ramp up in 1955-1956.
Of course, as there was more activity before and after the minimum and even during [as cycles overlap]. For the very year of the minimum apart from the spike at D there is very little difference. The important issue [for me] is the absolute level, because that is a measure of the density and temperature of the lower corona, generated by the ‘network’ or background magnetic field, which seems very constant from minimum to minimum, and certainly does not portend an imminent Grand Minimum, which is not to say that such could not come, just that a low F10.7 is not an indicator for it.
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (00:17:50) :
well, by eye ball it looks like 6 more months to see if we ramp up or piddle out.
I say we continue on low for at least 3 more months.
tx leif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My GUESS is that we will continue on low for at least 6 more months.
-Gerry
It is not known if SC24 will show similar swings. It will be interesting to watch the reactions when we get the first large upswing [people shouting: see, a large cycle!] and the first large dip [people shouting: see, I told you we are in a Grand Minimum]. This can go back and fourth some ~five times, if SC14 is any guide 🙂
We may be able to put that one together.
The active regions in 1901 were like a desert, but it came out in 1902 swinging wildly.
On the other hand, the active regions in 1913 were more regular (but twice that of 2008) and come out very strong in 1914.
Use my graphs, and superimpose the two (I don’t have the capability to do that) active regions and sunspots, and see what kind of story they tell.
Interesting. Have you projected backwards to see if there is
a perceptible sub or super-cycle?
The fact that we do not know entirely the mechanism by which the TSI is linked to the Earth’s climate does not mean that the link does not exist; much less that the Earth’s system is independent of the rest of the systems in the Universe.
The influence of the solar radiation on the Earth’s climate system is quite obvious as to have any doubts to this respect.
However, I will agree with the notion of really powerful internal and inherent mechanisms to Earth which drive, modify, enhance, etc. the climate signals on Earth.
What it is absolutely incorrect is attributing the climate change to a gas (i.e. carbon dioxide) that has nothing to do with climate by many thermophysical reasons. The main target now is Leif’s observation on the needlessness of making predictions on solar activity from F10.7 records.
Thanks, Lief, for your comments. I understand now what you were trying to do in the plots.
As for contrails, have a look at this satellite image of the SE US:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/4000/4435/contrails_southeast_lrg.gif
Main article here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4435
Leif Svalgaard (10:47:52) :
It is not known if SC24 will show similar swings. It will be interesting to watch the reactions when we get the first large upswing [people shouting: see, a large cycle!] and the first large dip [people shouting: see, I told you we are in a Grand Minimum]. This can go back and fourth some ~five times, if SC14 is any guide 🙂
If you expect first large upswing you could just as well compare to SC20, since SC23 matches closely SC20.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC20-23a.gif
(month by month compression)
Gary Pearse (09:05:44) :
..and looking at his graph, …. Actually, vukcevic’s equation certainly looks good so far, as good as anything else put forward on the subject.
Thanks for vote of confidence. Since my equation http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1.gif
is a product of an amateur it is easily dismissed, but it does confirm what the Livingston-Penn measurements are suggesting.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/LP-project1.gif
From a 2004 NASA report:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html
“Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate
NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.”
The graph of active regions (WL Faculae) for 1952-55:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/1952-55f.JPG
The massive increase of faculae in 1955 2nd half preceeded the massive SSN activity.
It was a perfect magnetic storm.
So, Mr. Sharp has indicated that global cooling and warming differences are not due to solar activity. Can someone please explain to me what causes the heating and cooling cycles of the earth, if it’s not the sun? Any don’t go the CO2 route, a 300ppm increase is like spitting into the rain of a hurricane and stating that it caused additional flooding.
This just published
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/courtillot3.pdf
Temps v Solar
Wonder what Le docteur Svaalgard will think of this
vukcevic (12:06:27) :
since SC23 matches closely SC20.
Which is irrelevant for SC24 possibly looking like SC14.
confirm what the Livingston-Penn measurements are suggesting.
It confirms nothing at all. The green line is just an unjustified extrapolation of the polar fields [and not even of your formula]. And you have misunderstood L&P. They are not suggesting that the magnetic field will drop that much, just that the smaller sunspot contrast will make the spots harder to see, such that the relation between magnetic field and sunspots becomes altered.
a product of an amateur it is easily dismissed
As it should be as it is a very ‘amateurish’ graph, not conforming to the usual standards of scientific research, e.g. the deliberate omission of data that doesn’t fit [1954 and 1965 minima].
Hi Leif, do you have a graph that superimposes your f10.7 prediction from say a year or more ago with what has actually happened? I believe you predicted a fairly low cycle, and it would be interesting to see if you hit the timing and amplitude relatively close. Also considering Grand Minimum – is not the idea a lack of sunspots, since we don’t have much other info from the last one? So no sunspots implies grand minimum, regardless of f10.7. Apparently there has been a divergence in the corelation of sunspots and f10.7 and perhaps L&P idea is the underlying mechanism of grand minimum.
How about “see, ~9 month subcycles!” 🙂
Contrails
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/4000/4435/contrails_southeast_lrg.gif
I knew it!
It’s Oprah’s jet!!!
This sounds like a job for the mighty EPA.
Please save us from…..ourselves!
Leif Salgaard, thanks for this brief contribution on the steadiness of F10.7 at minima, helping us to relax re an “imminent” Grand Minimum, but I don’t like having to wait without “knowing”. And thanks for your willingness to thrash it out on the basic science.
I enjoy checking your “Recent Solar Activity” chart, updated daily. I am relieved at the increasing strengths (curves) of TSI, F10.7 and SSN. I wish MF would increase as well!
Thanks, Anthony, for our continuing education.
VG (12:32:20) :
Wonder what Le docteur Svaalgard will think of this.
Le Bon docteur Svalgaard rejects anything what does not come from his library, but he may not be always right. One of important works there regularly recommended for my ‘education’ is: Percolation and the solar dynamo by Kenneth H. Schatten.
I raised some of the points with a professor of solar science, at one of the worlds leading universities; his response was:
Schatten’s work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not in my view worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted by most dynamo theorists.
VG (12:32:20) :
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/courtillot3.pdf
Wonder what Le docteur Svaalgard will think of this
So they got it published after all. I was a referee on their first submission of this [to another Journal] and rejected the paper on several grounds, the main being that a lot of stations in a narrow geographical region does not make the statistics better than just a few selected ones, because close-by stations will have similar climate.
do you have a graph that superimposes your f10.7 prediction from say a year or more ago with what has actually happened?
It is too early to do that, come 2014 or so, it might make more sense.
So no sunspots implies grand minimum, regardless of f10.7. Apparently there has been a divergence in the corelation of sunspots and f10.7 and perhaps L&P idea is the underlying mechanism of grand minimum.
The sunspots are not the important thing, but the magnetic field [visible or not] is. I would reserve Grand Minimum for times where the magnetic field was at a Grand Minimum. We don’t actually know if this ever happened. We know from cosmic ray modulation that the modulation was still present during Grand Minima, so it is, indeed, possible that the L&P effect is the cause of ‘apparent’ Grand Minima. This is, of course, only speculation. We might learn more shortly if L&P holds during SC24.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:42:01) :
How about “see, ~9 month subcycles!” 🙂
Yes, we’ll see those too, and “see, the 2nd harmonic of my 18-month subcycles”, and the 1.5 harmonic of my 400 day subcycles”, or worse.
pyromancer76 (13:14:06) :
I wish MF would increase as well!
It has begun to show life, but will take a few more months of new cycle regions to build up enough background flux. The MF minimum is a bit delayed compared to the ‘other’ minima. If you can read Postscript files http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/mf.1975-2010.ps is a plot of all our mean field measurements.
vukcevic (13:15:34) :
I raised some of the points with a professor of solar science, at one of the worlds leading universities
Unattributed quotations carry little weight. So: Who and Where?
vukcevic (13:15:34) :
I raised some of the points with a professor of solar science, at one of the worlds leading universities; his response was:
Schatten’s work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not in my view worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted by most dynamo theorists.
what was his opinion on your polar field formula and its acceptance?
Leif Svalgaard (13:49:10) :
Unattributed quotations carry little weight. So: Who and Where?
Private enquiry, private answer! If you have any doubts regarding the work mentioned, you can do a survey among your colleagues.
what was his opinion on your polar field formula and its acceptance?
Just as disparaging as the comment on the ‘bible’ of the solar dynamo, I was encouraged to read my prayers from. On the other hand, my work is a hobby; if you do not take yourself too seriously than a failure is easy to bear; and I can move effortlessly to something else just as vague e.g. global warming or such like.
i thought historically speaking solar flux lagged sunspot numbers by 6 to 12 months. If that rule remains true then we have not seen the bottom of the flux minimum yet.
New work on C14 dating, off topic but it may be of interest to some.
Implications for 14C Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate
by Alvin J. Sanders from University of Tennessee
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986.pdf
vukcevic (14:20:35) :
Private enquiry, private answer!
Not good enough, if so private you should have kept it to yourself, then.
If you have any doubts regarding the work mentioned, you can do a survey among your colleagues.
Of course Ken’s work is novel and contentious and I never said that was the ‘final’ answer or that I even subscribe to everything he says. His paper is a bit more accessible than the dynamo theoretical papers on the the background material that you need to know about the solar dynamo. And, BTW, is it good form to throw mud on Schatten because you want to peddle your own ideas?
if you do not take yourself too seriously than a failure is easy to bear
Then bear it, by all means, and continue on to global warming and do some amateur work there.
twawki (14:23:25) :
i thought historically speaking solar flux lagged sunspot numbers by 6 to 12 months. If that rule remains true then we have not seen the bottom of the flux minimum yet.
It is not true. Check figure 10 of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/ that shows that F10.7 flux and sunspot number follow each other with no delays either way.
Once the flux is on a rise [as the SSN], the new cycle is on its way. The official ‘minimum’ is a bit slippery as it is only really meaningful if both cycles have the same height. If not, the ‘minimum’ will be skewed towards the lower of the two cycles.
Leif,
does the sun output much radiation in the 2.4 Ghz range, and if so would the plot of this frequency look similar to the 10.7 cm flux?
vukcevic (14:36:57) :
New work on C14 dating
Posits that neutrinos produce 14C, but no mechanism is given and would be hard to give, considering how weakly interacting particles neutrinos are. I would not attach much significance to this, nor to the Jenkins-F effect.