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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard (14:40:50) :
And, BTW, is it good form to throw mud on Schatten because you want to peddle your own ideas?
[snippity snip]
Reply: Let’s reel it in both of you. ~ charles the moderator
Konrad (14:49:52) :
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?
Since F10.7 cm is 2.8 GHz, the Sun would output a tad less at 2.4 GHz, but not much and its variation would be very close to that of F10.7. You can see the flux at several frequencies [in MHz] here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
Hi Leif,
Can you explain the significance of this 27 day rotational “signal”, please?
You’ve mentioned it several times now on a variety of posts. I thought the sun was homogenous, yet the existance of a signal indicated that there is a “something” that comes into view each rotation.
Thanks you!
My query is whether there is a clear and unambiguous match betwen lack of solar activity (no sunspots or lack of electro magnetic activity or any other criteria you want to use) and the climate here on earth-most notably in this context- some sort of prolonged cooling period.
tonyb
Well, I never saw one of these in my back yard here in Colorado until yesterday. (PG 13: children should cover their eyes).
http://www.mushroomexpert.com/images/contrib/robertson_phallus_hadriani.jpg
And it’s not the only bizarre mushroom I’ve seen. By some weathercaster’s estimate, Colorado is 1/10″ away from a June all-time record for rain. (Can never find these links when I need them.)
Neil O’Rourke (16:06:04) :
Can you explain the significance of this 27 day rotational “signal”, please?
The basic reason is that the magnetic field regions have a lifetime greater than ~20 days so will return every 27 days until they finally disperse so much that the blend into the background or are being swamped by new activity. Now, there is tendency for the same place to be the seat of activity for many months or even years [some say decades]. It is not fully understood why that is, but there are several ideas, we just don’t know which [if any] are correct. The ideas range from an permanent, internal relic field that have existed since the birth of the Sun to standing waves in the dynamo action. We don’t know.
Did anyone ever meet the late meteorologist Harry Geise?
According to some local historians I met today, Harry used sunspots in his forecast mechanism. He is legendary for his ability to forecast, long and short range.
rbateman (16:43:05) :
Did anyone ever meet the late meteorologist Harry Geise?
According to some local historians I met today, Harry used sunspots in his forecast mechanism. He is legendary for his ability to forecast, long and short range.
I’m sure he used his knowledge of local weather to great effect. If sunspots were his only guide he might not have been so legendary…
And how you then separate the two?
Leif Svalgaard (15:18:45) :
That link to the solar indices site is quite interesting and one I hadn’t stumbled upon before. In browsing through their archive one thing that stuck my eye was the rather broad variability in the ratio of sunspot number to sunspot area, which raised a question in my mind about whether the solar cycles would look appreciably different if plotted by sunspot area rather than SSN. Do you know if such a plot exists and has much analysis been done on how varying size of sunspots affects the solar picture in general?
Neil, it takes 27 days for the Sun to rotate on its axis. Please, everyone, buy a good book on the Sun. You will learn so very much.
My pimples tend to occur in the same spot. There is a reason for this. But what I want to know is why the %^$#@ur momisugly hell did I escape blemishes as a teen only to get them as an old decrepit woman?
Leif writes: “…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….”
I’m sitting on the edge of my chair, Leif!
Leif Svalgaard (08:19:25) :
Geoff Sharp (06:34:14) :
This is just plain wrong
Perhaps elaborate on why you think so.
The method used to align the two curves is far from scientific. The curves could be positioned further to the right or left and give a very different result.
The baseline of both curves vary greatly and will continue to do so as SC24 continues to be weak (grand minimum weak). This example of wiggle matching will look very different in the coming years and really doesnt show much. How would a comparison of spotless days taken over the same periods compare?
Dave Wendt (17:07:58) :
whether the solar cycles would look appreciably different if plotted by sunspot area rather than SSN. Do you know if such a plot exists and has much analysis been done on how varying size of sunspots affects the solar picture in general?
This has been looked at many times and by many people. The short answer is “No”. A more correct answer is that both the area series and the sunspot number series have calibration problems and most of the varying difference between the two is due to such problems.
Here is an example of such a problem:
http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
This whole area [no pun] awaits some close analysis [and I working on it].
Geoff Sharp (17:39:18) :
This example of wiggle matching will look very different in the coming years and really doesnt show much.
I think you have misunderstood the whole thing. It was not about ‘the coming years’ or ‘the base line’. It was only about how the minimum year 1954 compared with the minimum year 2008. So, one lines up the two years [superposes them] so it is clear to everybody that they are not significantly different. Since the minima do not line up on whole years, a certain amount of sliding for the best match is necessary. A more scientific method calculates a sliding, say, 81 day difference between the two curves and lines them up on the point with least difference. It gives the same result. Within that window I’m fully allowed to line up the 27-day peaks to show that there are such recurrences in both series, it being understood that the line-up has no other significance.
Leif, you are such a joy. It is fun to watch your freeze frame observations of natural phenomena with inquisitive followup investigation. I once questioned your lack of joy of discovery. No more. You remind me of a boy trying to figure out why a magnifying glass sets ants on fire.
Dave Wendt (17:07:58) :
Do you know if such a plot exists and has much analysis been done on how varying size of sunspots affects the solar picture in general?
rbateman and myself are working on a similar project that aims to standardize and record the size and darkness of sunspots. Here is what we have for SC24 so far.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2vcu74o.jpg
Leif,
Thanks for the info and the link. I am wondering if microwave frequencies around 2.4 Ghz would have a warming effect on water vapour in the atmosphere over and above it’s contribution to TSI (black body absorbtion). I would expect the effect if it existed to be very minor, however 2.4 Ghz wireless is said to have limited range due to water vapour in the air. Microwave ovens also use this frequency to exite water molecules in food. I suppose the next question would be what the difference between 2.4 Ghz flux at surface and at the top of the atmosphere.
vukcevic (14:36:57) :
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
Now this kind of wiggle watching has much more significance, another paper that shows the Sun has a regular slowdown around every 200 years (Seuss wiggles). This paper and others are further backed up by observing planetary positions at the time of the wiggle which just happen to always line up. And yet those who follow the Babcock theories continue to deny the wiggles even exist, as they go against the random logic built into the theory.
We are entering another one of the observed solar slowdowns that happen on a regular basis.
I’ll try that last sentence again…
What would be the difference between 2.4 Ghz flux at the top of the atmosphere and at the planet’s surface?
Geoff Sharp (19:01:34) :
And we know why the count gets so scattered in the minimum years. The Tiny Tims that Wolfer started to count skewed the Rz when compared to the Sunspot Area. It’s getting much worse now with advanced equipment. Unless something is done to define the Rz by Sunspot Area, it will continue to grow ever more disparate.
Leif Svalgaard (17:07:48) :
Yes, Harry Geise was a “look out the window” sort of guy. He used everything, as far we know. His accuracy is what got me interested in looking at temperature records when I was 15. In those days, I could find records going back to the 1850’s. Had I known they would disappear or be expunged in favor of the last 50 years…
Konrad (19:16:52) :
however 2.4 Ghz wireless is said to have limited range due to water vapour in the air. […] difference between 2.4 Ghz flux at surface and at the top of the atmosphere.
The 2.4 GHz flux just has to make it through to the surface and as you can see here falls within the ‘radio wave’ window http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/atm_trans.html
so there is not much difference. There are very small differences in transmission also for F10.7 at 2.8 GHz, causing the flux values to vary slightly during the day depending on the slant angle. I tend to use only values taken at noon where the optical path is shortest.
Leif,
Thanks again for the links. It seems most of the microwave spectrum can reach the troposphere and below without much loss.
Leif Svalgaard (10:03:44) :
Following Gary Pearse (09:05:44) :
“…you stating that it had already begun and that rising “activity” of a non-sunspot variety was already heralding the new cycle. Could it be that this illustration is a forecast that you can disown – “after all, I did say that 10.7 was not a predictor.”
Leif’s reply:
“It is plain that F10.7 is rising and that cycle 24 has begun. That is not what my graph was about.”
If it is not about that, this is a curious reply. Same post in my remark about lack of humility – Your unabashed response:
“I’m not humble at all [au contraire], just trying to be scientifically correct.”
My use of the term humility is not of the common garden variety. I was referring to scientific humility in the sense that one has a small handful of neurons with which he/she tries to understand a universe from the submicroscopic to the supratelescopic (there was a time when this explanation wasn’t necessary). The kind that Einstein had. His quotation that said it only takes one experiment to disprove one’s theory (and essentially much of one’s life’s work it has been totally concentrated on the head of a pin) should imbue a little humility, don’t you think? One needs more than a degree or two and a white lab coat to conquer the universe and humble pie has been a popular dessert over the centuries for scientists.
I got a little over the top with this perhaps. My smaller point was that we appear to be entering a period when there is much we might learn about our complex relationship with the sun, but only if we can let go of cherished biases should they become cumbersome.
I wonder why this deserved to be an article…especially from Svalgaard who miserably failed predicting the rise of SC4 Sunspots.
The good thing from this article is that we can always remind that poor old guy.