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 (17:42:42)
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].
Thanks for the response, but I must admit that I’m still a bit confused. The paper you referenced seems to indicate a fairly direct , if nonlinear, relationship between sunspot number and sunspot area but the NOAA data that generated my question shows the daily area measurements to vary over a range of from a little over 1 to over 25 units per spot which would seem to be hard to reduce to a simple power law equation. Is this an apples and oranges situation where the measurement methodologies are that different or am I missing something else?
Gary Pearse (21:06:14) :
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
That we can agree on.
but only if we can let go of cherished biases should they become cumbersome.
I don’t know what biases those may be specifically. All scientific progress comes from overthrowing cherished views, but ‘bias’ may not be the right word. ‘Paradigm’ is better, in that it describes a well-established framework within all scientists work. Very rarely, the old paradigm collects so many inconsistencies that it is replaced by a new paradigm.
the_Butcher (21:23:15) :
from Svalgaard who miserably failed predicting the rise of SC4 Sunspots.
Perhaps you are off by about 20 cycles…
Dave Wendt (21:25:45) :
NOAA data that generated my question shows the daily area measurements to vary over a range of from a little over 1 to over 25 units per spot which would seem to be hard to reduce to a simple power law equation.
It has to do with the way the sunspot number is defined. A single spot, no matter how small or how large in area, gets a count of 11 [one group plus one spot]. This makes the daily values for a period where activity is very low correlate very poorly between area and SSN. For monthly or yearly means, the correlation becomes very good, although still not quite linear.
Gary Pearse (21:06:14) :
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?
No, on the contrary, I find it astounding that we with such ‘a small handful of neurons’ [actually quite a lot] can understand as much as we do. This should be a source of intense pride and appreciation for the human mind. False modesty is not a virtue. That ones’ life’s work can be overturned by a single experiment [and even that is questionable – in practice it takes many] does not bother scientists. The joy of science is not the result, but the journey. If someone from the Future would ask me if I would like to know the answer to todays burning scientific questions, I would refuse. Feynman talked about the joy of finding things out, not about the joy of being lectured about the truth. You can even find this very attitude on blogs such as this one, where many enjoy ‘hunting’ the internet themselves rather than being spoon fed the current dogma. There is, of course, a danger in too much ‘amateurism’ [also evident on blogs – even this one]. Science is learned the hard way by having a thesis advisor ruthlessly keeping your nose clean and ensuring that you learn the ‘scientific method’. Most of the time, the hardest person to convince about something is oneself [after you have learned how easy it is to fool yourself]. The next hardest is your mentor, then the fellow down the corridor, then the audience when you are presenting a talk or a poster, then the reviewers when you submit a paper on what you think you have discovered, then the scientists in your field that may not find the fruit of your labor worth their effort of reading, let alone building on it, and so it goes. The road to having added a small brick to the tower of knowledge is long and hard, and disappointment is daily fare. So when you finally get there, be proud, while you can, as someone out there may be just about to prove your theory wrong or incomplete. You see, the difference between a scientist and an amateur is that for the amateur the work is a love affair [and love makes blind], but for the scientist the work is a gauntlet from which he emerges bruised and battered, if at all [as most ideas don’t pan out].
Leif:
To the best of your knowledge, what would be the hemispherical area of a single spot (the group + 1 spot =11)that met the criteria of linear? You can express that in umbral, penumbral or total area. Wolf’s time would be the best.
I have a software update to one of my astronomical programs, so I can count the pixels rapidly.
Leif Svalgaard (14:40:50) :
………….And, BTW, is it good form to throw mud on Schatten because you want to peddle your own ideas?
Peddle = To travel about selling wares.
In my the defence I could paraphrase: of course my work is novel and contentious and I never said that was the ‘final’ answer or that I even subscribe to everything I occasionally say, it is an evolving process.
On the other hand I am certain that the acceptance of Dr. Schatten’s theory by his peers, is the true merit of his work.
…….the difference between a scientist and an amateur is that for the amateur the work is a love affair [and love makes blind]…..
Agree there, scientists are cold and calculating, the amateurs are optimists. Scientists meticulously and systematically collect and harness data, a bit like honeybees, but still with a sting which delivers venom; used primarily in the defence of their ideas.
On the other hand, amateurs are often bit like butterflies, totally harmless, but still making their essential and important contribution to the pollination of the human knowledge.
Both are the good God’s creatures, plenty of room for both out there in the nature and hopefully on this Anthony’s terrific blog.
I for one hope that the sun is indeed returning to life. It will take a normal solar cycle, a non La Nina ocean and a lack of very large volcanic eruptions to break the back of AGW. When they have nothing to blame and temps still don’t match their models perhaps we can put this all behind us.
Now I have a goofy question. While the sun is inactive and our magnetosphere is at a low, would a cme directed at earth be felt more strongly then when our magnetosphere was “pumped up” by normal sun activity?
I did get what you were trying to do, to show us the current low in 10.7 has not gone into the realm of a grand minimum with the record on hand. atm though comparative activity charts of this type seem to be in the eye of the beholder:) I didn’t mean to sound harsh with my first comment. I may have just said it too bluntly, sorry.
Pamela Gray (18:53:56) compares: “… a boy trying to figure out why a magnifying glass sets ants on fire.”
Next step, Pamela: I have been wondering, as an old man, how the boy I was ever did such a thing. (Perhaps the grandfather in Leif may have a thought on this, too?)
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
great idea – the more information we have. especially as sunspot recording is currently being altered the better we will be able to compare new and old data
thankyou
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.
Leif
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.
twawki
Study of Time Lags and Hysteresis between Solar Indices and Cosmic Rays: Implications for Drifts and Modulation Theories by Munendra Singha, Badruddina, A.G. Ananthb said quote;
“Forbush [1] first demonstrated that cosmic ray variations lagged behind sunspot activity by 6 to 12 months. The observed lag was later attributed [2] as due to dynamics of the build up and subsequent delayed relaxation of the modulating region. In many subsequent studies (e.g. [3-5]) the observed time lag was used to infer about the size of the modulating region (the heliosphere). However, Hatton [6] questioned the use of time lag as a parameter to estimate the modulation boundary.
Hysteresis effect between long-term variation in cosmic ray intensity and solar activity has been studied since long (e.g. [7]). However, some of the recent studies of time lag and hysteresis effect (e.g. [8-16]) have led to renewed interest in the interpretation, implication and consequences of observed differences between
time lags in odd and even cycles as well as differences in the shape, size etc. of hysteresis loops during odd and even cycles.”
Other papers also pick up on the lag as being between 4.5 months and 1.5 years and alternates between odd and even cycles.
Gary Pearse (09:05:44) :
Actually, vukcevic’s equation certainly looks good so far, as good as anything else put forward on the subject.
Leif Svalgaard (10:03:44) :
I’m not humble at all [au contraire], just trying to be scientifically correct. What Vuk(civic) omits is that his equation ‘predicts’ that in 1965 the polar fields would have been even bigger than anything measured since, and all the [indirect] data we have suggests otherwise.
Dr. Svalgaard the above is not entirely accurate statement at all, one might say ‘au contraire’.
Here is graph (if you whish you can reproduce it).
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PFextended.gif
The statement ‘that in 1965 the polar fields would have been even bigger than anything measured since’ is grossly exaggerating the values calculated: 301 in 1964 and 290 in 1975 , which makes it 3%, hardly ‘even bigger than anything measured since’. Perhaps Dr. Svalgaards’s method can give prediction better than 3%.
Fact is there are no accurate measurements before 1967 (except some obscure Russian measurements -Severniy papers) in 1965 where signal is barely distinguished from the noise, as the Mount Wilson SO measurements confirm, as seen in the chart for period 1967-1977.
It is unfair of Dr. Svalgaard to ‘rubbish’ in such a manner a competing work even if it comes from an amateur as myself. Let’s data speak for themselves.
Leif Svalgaard (22:11:17) :
Leif and Vukcevic several:
Leif, I accept “paradigm” rather than “bias”. And, though you are a gruff man I think I even found a bit of that humility I was looking for in your long reply. On the subject of amateurs, I have to strenuously take issue with your condescension. Did you know that William Herschel was a musician ….
http://www.brianjford.com/99-12-telegraph.htm
“SCIENTIFIC breakthroughs tend to be made by amateurs and outsiders, not by professionals who are generally paid to make them, a biologist said yesterday…………………….
Almost all of the key stages that carry science forward actually come from the hearts and minds of gifted and freewheeling individuals,” Mr Ford said last night before a lecture to the Cambridge Society for the Application of Research. “Virtually every area where I have been looking it has been the independent, iconoclast who has made the major contribution.”
Mr Ford cited examples such as the church organist William Herschel who discovered Uranus, and Charles Darwin who did not complete his first degree. More modern examples included Kary Mullis, the rollerboarding father of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which underpins today’s genetic research; and Watson and Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA but had been warned away from the project by their employers.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=000E76B2-89B0-1D49-90FB809EC5880000
“If you’ve never heard of Stephen James O’Meara or Don Parker, then you’ve missed some of the most fascinating adventures in 20th-century astronomy. O’Meara was the first person to measure the length of a day on Uranus and to see radial “spokes” in Saturn’s rings. (Most astronomers dismissed that discovery as illusionary, until Voyager got close enough to photograph them.) What’s more….”
The first article shouldn’t have included Einstein as a patent clerk – he was well trained as a physicist and your essay shouldn’t have alluded to me, however elliptically, as an amateur as I do have two degrees in science and one in engineering and have been practicing since 1960.
twawki (03:30:28) :
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.
Leif: 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.
twawki
Study of Time Lags and Hysteresis between Solar Indices and Cosmic Rays
You are confusing the F10.7 radio flux from the Sun with cosmic ray flux from the Galaxy.
————-
rbateman (23:38:56) :
To the best of your knowledge, what would be the hemispherical area of a single spot (the group + 1 spot =11)that met the criteria of linear?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean or if the question makes sense [because of the strange definition of SSN]. For monthly values the relation is R = Q A^0.775 where R is the sunspot number, A the area and Q a calibration constant that was 0.353 for Waldmeier, but only 0.295 for Wolfer and Brunner. It is not known [yet] what the value would be for Wolf as the counting method was changed by Wolfer. My preliminary analysis would indicate a value about 0.27 for Wolf, but probably not even constant for the data that Wolf collected from others before 1849.
vukcevic (05:36:07) :
Fact is there are no accurate measurements before 1967 (except some obscure Russian measurements -Severniy papers) in 1965 where signal is barely distinguished from the noise, as the Mount Wilson SO measurements confirm, as seen in the chart for period 1967-1977.
It is unfair of Dr. Svalgaard to ‘rubbish’ in such a manner a competing work even if it comes from an amateur as myself. Let’s data speak for themselves.
You misrepresent Severny’s measurements. Saying that the ‘signal is barely distinguishable from noise’ is not correct. I have visited with and discussed the matter with Severny in 1976. It was, indeed, his precise measurements of the mean field of the Sun that inspired us at Stanford to build our own observatory. The correct statement is that since he could measure the mean field [which near solar minimum is smaller than the polar fields] he should have been able to see a strong polar field in 1965, and since he could not see the polar fields in 1965, they must have been at or below the noise level of his instrument, i.e. very weak. Such is the voice of the data. There are also other, indirect, indications of weak polar fields in 1965: the smallness of the interplanetary magnetic field and the lack of a very flat corona as in 1954 where the polar fields were very strong [as measured by the Babcocks].
It is this willingness to accept the data that is the distinction between the scientist and the amateur.
It is very presumptuous to label your musings as a ‘competing work’. Prediction is the measuring stick: the polar fields go through zero at solar maximum, so your curve predicts a solar maximum in 2012. We shall see then.
Gary Pearse (07:33:48) :
On the subject of amateurs, I have to strenuously take issue with your condescension.
At one time almost everyone was an amateur. My condescension is directed towards work that is amateurish [whether or not one is an amateur or a professional] and lack the rigor that characterizes professional work.
I’m a ‘gruff’ man when I see inaccuracies, errors, sloppiness, and narcissistic love for pet ideas. Show me good work and I’ll purr.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:31) :
The correct statement is that since he could measure the mean field [which near solar minimum is smaller than the polar fields] he should have been able to see a strong polar field in 1965..
As far as low readings are concerned MWO first recorded measurement was 182 in August 1966 (2 years after max) and PF was already in steep decline towards first zero crossing in 1968. So it is logical to expect that PF would be significantly higher at max then at 2 year before its first zero hit.
….lack of a very flat corona as in 1954 where the polar fields were very strong [as measured by the Babcocks].
It should be also remembered that Babcock-Leighton theory (an anchor of current solar science thinking, to which I believe you subscribe) suggests that PF are remnants of previous cycle, and since SC19 was strongest ever recorded, so it is logical again to expect stronger rather than weaker polar fields.
Prediction is the measuring stick: the polar fields go through zero at solar maximum, so your curve predicts a solar maximum in 2012. We shall see then.
Formula is a year out in 2001 (zero crossing was in 2000), so I could be a year or more out again, which would make it 2013, since you said that this min was August 2008, that would make it 4.5-5 years min to max, which is normal. As a top man in the field you would obviously appreciate the fact the lower starting point (this time thatb is about 120-130, rather then 200+) there would be more uncertainty about the next zero crossings.
It is very presumptuous to label your musings as a ‘competing work’.
Not at all. Current science states polar fields can not be predicted, my formula suggests: polar fields can be predicted within a reasonable tolerance. In that respect, it is a ‘competing work’.
I’m a ‘gruff’ man when I see inaccuracies, errors, sloppiness, and narcissistic love for pet ideas. Show me good work and I’ll purr.
I am sure you are not suggesting that if someone, driven by intuition rather than scientific excellence, discovers a significant phenomena it should not be presumptuous, should shut up about it, and go back to his ‘street sweeping’ day job.
Yes, Al Gore should go back to his street sweeping job. His lack of scientific rigor in the face of his contrived science “knowledge” has caused our current stampede to silly policies. There have been many, many examples of amateur attempts at science. Some to our detriment and even great harm. Nuff said.
vukcevic (09:48:53) :
“The correct statement is that since he could measure the mean field [which near solar minimum is smaller than the polar fields] he should have been able to see a strong polar field in 1965.”
As far as low readings are concerned MWO first recorded measurement was 182 in August 1966 (2 years after max)
Single measurements like that from MWO were very noisy and one can conclude very little from that. The issue was the Crimean observations that point to a low field, rather than trying to do a dubious extrapolation.
….lack of a very flat corona as in 1954 where the polar fields were very strong [as measured by the Babcocks].
It should be also remembered that Babcock-Leighton theory (an anchor of current solar science thinking, to which I believe you subscribe) suggests that PF are remnants of previous cycle, and since SC19 was strongest ever recorded, so it is logical again to expect stronger rather than weaker polar fields.
You employ logic when it fits and otherwise not. Since cycle 20 was a weak cycle, the polar fields in 1976 should have been weak. They were strong. And again your logic stipulates that the polar fields right now should be stronger than in 1976 because SC23 was stronger than SC20. The point you are omitting [because you have been told so several times before] is that the polar fields only has the flux of a few active regions and small numbers are subject to relatively larger fluctuations, so your logic breaks down simply on that.
Formula is a year out in 2001 (zero crossing was in 2000)
Smoothed maximum was 2000.287, and your formula was already one year wrong [too late], so assuming that the formula is equally wrong in placing the maximum in 2012 would mean that your prediction is actually 2011. We shall see.
In that respect, it is a ‘competing work’.
I was not referring to ‘competing’ but rather to ‘work’.
I am sure you are not suggesting that if someone, driven by intuition rather than scientific excellence, discovers a significant phenomena it should not be presumptuous, should shut up about it, and go back to his ‘street sweeping’ day job.
But since there is no ‘significant phenomenon’ as we have repeatedly discussed, going back to the day job may not be a bad idea. Intuition is sometimes a poor substitute for knowledge. Any number of curve fittings can reproduce the polar field curve that only has a few degrees of freedom [I have shown you several already]. Here is an exercise for you. Find a list of solar maxima [there are several out there] going back as far as you think they are reasonably good, perhaps to cycle 1, then calculate the nearest zero crossing of your polar field curve and compare [make a plot] with the observed maxima and post the result.
Pamela re amateurs: Don’t sweep up all amateurs in one bin. You will have thrown the likes of William Herschel (a church organist) and many other scientific celebrities that dwarf most of todays white labcoat, horn rim glasses and over-booklernin crowd. See
Gary Pearse (07:33:48) :
Pamela,
Oh and I left out the fact that the AGW crowd apparently has 2500 of the top PhDs in the world in their camp.
Pamela Gray (10:19:08)
…..There have been many, many examples of amateur attempts at science. Some to our detriment and even great harm………
Until couple of decades ago it was easy to keep amateur ‘a lower form of being’ out of the high science presses. Thanks to Tim Berners-Lee who preferred using a soldering iron, TTL gates, an M6800 processor and an old television to build his first computer, rather than pursuance of particle physics, we have WWW, the most democratic invention since the Gutenberg’s press. Now hallow halls science are accessible to ‘great unwashed’, how demeaning for the selected few.
vukcevic (11:07:22) :
we have WWW, the most democratic invention since the Gutenberg’s press. Now hallow halls science are accessible to ‘great unwashed’, how demeaning for the selected few.
But also the greatest disseminator of junk known to mankind. Now, more than ever, it is important that people learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:49) :
…………..
Where there is no reliable data, logic is a reasonable substitute.
Solar cycles are not necessarily governed only by polar fields and vice-versa, there are regular anomalies that come into play, as it can be seen here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SSNanomaly1.gif
Your attempts to discredit formula on basis of ‘degrees of freedom’ has failed as the nonsense with parabolic function shows
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-1.png
or an attempt to mutilate my formula
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-2.png
and present it as a credible alternative.
….it is important that people learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Occasionally chaff sticks, as a great irritant to worm and comforting woolly socks, take it off and to a great surprise it contains a healthy grain.
Leif
Thank you for your answer. I took a look at the link you provided. When you start thinking about it …. I want to say that it’s amazing they are as regular as they are. Whadda ya suppose they would be like in a binary star system? Maybe well get a chance to see in our lifetimes.
It also put me in mind of a physics demonstration I saw once. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrw-i5Ku0mI&
Hank
vukcevic (11:56:21) :
Where there is no reliable data, logic is a reasonable substitute.
Not faulty logic, that does not take into account the way things actually work. And there is reliable data. A null-experiment is a very valid and reliable data provider. Severny did not believe that the polar fields reversed and set out to prove Babcock wrong. With his instrument he should have found a polar field of the magnitude that Babcock found in the 1950s, and he didn’t. He effectively could place an upper limit on the polar fields that showed that they must be much smaller than what Babcock found. This is reliable data. It was only after he [and we] measured the [by then larger] polar fields again in the 1970s that he was won over to the view that Babcock was probably correct.
Occasionally chaff sticks
As I said, your love affair with your chaff excuses everything. How is the comparison coming along? That should be straightforward.
Remember, the onus is always on the proposer, not on the critic.
My formulae are available to anyone to prove or disprove, to praise or to rubbish, to their hearts content. In my day job I have paid tax to support a many scientist’s work, mine effort comes as a totally tax free contribution. If someone out there wishes to spend my or someone else’s hard earned money, or their valuable free time, to discredit it they are welcome to do it. Thanks to the internet and enthusiasts (such as people who run this blog), I can have my voice heard, which otherwise would not be the case.
…..
As I said, your love affair with your chaff excuses everything.
I am not unique in that respect, quite a bit of chaff here:
“I have on my desk a strong magnet. At some distance from it an iron key can still feel the magnetic field, right? If I move the magnet across the street, there is still a magnetic field in my office [albeit much weaker], right. Are there any currents in my office or at the Earth in the first example? The only answer that experiments give is “no”. So we have in one region of space magnetic fields without any currents in that region, right?”
No. Absolutely wrong!!!
Ampère model: where all magnetization is due to the effect of microscopic, or atomic, circular “bound currents”, also called “Ampèrian currents” throughout the material. For a uniformly magnetized cylindrical bar magnet, the net effect of the microscopic bound currents is to make the magnet behave as if there is a macroscopic sheet of electric current flowing around the surface, with local flow direction normal to the cylinder axis. (Since scraping off the outer layer of a magnet will not destroy its magnetic field, it can be seen that this is just a model, and the tiny currents are actually distributed throughout the material). The right-hand rule tells which direction the current flows. The Ampere model gives the exact magnetic field both inside and outside the magnet. It is usually difficult to calculate the Amperian currents on the surface of a magnet, whereas it is often easier to find the effective poles for the same magnet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet