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.
vukcevic (13:09:41) :
My formulae are available to anyone to prove or disprove, to praise or to rubbish, to their hearts content
I have rubbished it to my hearts content, so what is your problem? I’m not allowed to do that?
For the straw man about the magnets:
“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?”
That there are currents inside the magnetic does not mean that there are currents in my office caused by the magnet across the street.
Get your physics right.
How is the comparison coming?
Leif Svalgaard (13:55:49) :
That there are currents inside the magnetic does not mean that there are currents in my office caused by the magnet across the street.
Or that there are currents in my office causing the magnetic field in the magnet across the street.
Now, if you move the magnet, that movement can induce [create] a current in a conductor in my office, and so is it that the currents we observe in space can be created by moving a magnetic field and a conductor relatively to each other. An example is a neutral plasma cloud impinging on the Earth’s magnetic field, the result being a current flowing along the interface between the cloud and the field. It is not this current that creates the Earth’s magnetic field. Etc.
How is the comparison coming?
Leif Svalgaard (13:55:49)
My formulae are available to anyone to prove or disprove, to praise or to rubbish, to their hearts content …to discredit it, they are welcome to do it.
I have rubbished it to my hearts content, so what is your problem? I’m not allowed to do that?
I have no problems, unless the formula bothers you to much, perhaps you should read the above sentence again.
That there are currents inside the magnetic does not mean that there are currents in my office caused by the magnet across the street. Get your physics right.
You may got it slightly wrong there: Since there are some free ions in the air, and “there is still a magnetic field in your office [albeit much weaker]” then certainly there will be some current, unless of course you live in a vacuum, then your surroundings would be current free, but your body would not.
That is right physics.
How is the comparison coming?
Done it long ago, and you’ve seen it more than once, as you can see it here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Solar_cycles.gif
and going back to SC1 and before:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined1650.gif
Take a rest, good night.
vukcevic (14:40:17) :
Since there are some free ions in the air, and “there is still a magnetic field in your office [albeit much weaker]” then certainly there will be some current […] That is right physics.
No, because you claim that those current are the cause of the magnetic field in my office.
“How is the comparison coming?”
Done it long ago
The graphs do not show the polar field formula in action, as requested. Please do it again, using the polar field formula, and make a reasonable [i.e. less amateurish] plot, where you show as a function of cycle number the difference between the zero crossings of your polar field formula and the observed solar max times.
Had you considered that the 10.7m flux might be a symptom rather than a causality ? In any case I think that you are a bit previous, with your assumption that the flux is on the rise and will not dip again soon. Isn’t it the case that the slope of the 2008-2009 graph is much more shallow than the 1953-1954 slope ( about half ). and it is evident from your own graph that the fluctuations are much more shallow than in 1954.
Nevertheless there seems to be some sort of recurrant pattern, which may not be that significant, compared with the graph of the Ap index (article a few days ago on WUWT) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/archibald-the-ap-index-says-there-will-be-no-sunspots/
The truth is we just do not know, we are guessing is the reality of the situation, but empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that it is getting colder despite an apparent temporary upsurge in the Solar Dynamo etc.
Jim-Bob (15:36:26) :
Had you considered that the 10.7m flux might be a symptom rather than a causality ?
The F10.7 flux does not cause anything, but is just a indicator [proxy] for the physical conditions [density and temperature – both essentially controlled by the magnetic field there] in the lower solar corona
Isn’t it the case that the slope of the 2008-2009 graph is much more shallow than the 1953-1954 slope ( about half ). and it is evident from your own graph that the fluctuations are much more shallow than in 1954.
The slope is different because cycle 18 [1953-1954] was more active than cycle 23. Once you hit the bottom part both curves are pretty flat for about a year. As I have said a zillion times now, the point of interest is that as far as we can tell the level of F10.7 [that is the value it has] is the same for 1954 and for 2008, and because of that sameness does not seem to be a good predictor of the next cycle. Cycle 19 [max in 1957-1958] was one of the largest cycles recorded while SC24 is expected to be quite low.
The recurrent patterns of F10.7 and ap are likely to be related as they both originate from activity on the Sun.
Whether the temperature fall is due to the Sun or something else is at this point pure speculation.
OK, I think however that the long term trend of the Ap index is quite worrying though, and actually seems to be related to a different Solar Cycle than the one resposible for the F10.7
Of course the Earth is at the farthest point to The Sun, at about 1.017 AU at the moment (Apogee), and Full Apsis is predicted to be reached on July 4th at 02:00 GMT. The average Apogee is only 1.0167.
It is also evident that a few months after Apsis Earth will be approaching Periapsis with Mars, and the orbital planes are becoming coincident. The gravitational pull could well exert some considerable force, extending and exaggerating the 2010 Solar Apogee.
Combined with other factors related to other Planetary bodies and the low Solar output, this should lead to ever colder climates in coming years.
Still as you say this is speculation, but based on some sound reasoning.
Our guess is better than Hansen or Gore’s though, wouldn’t you say ?
Jim-Bob (16:37:33) :
OK, I think however that the long term trend of the Ap index is quite worrying though, and actually seems to be related to a different Solar Cycle than the one resposible for the F10.7
The long-term trend of Ap is shown here: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap%201844-2009.pdf and is not anything special, except for us now approaching values of a century ago.
Still as you say this is speculation, but based on some sound reasoning.
I don’t think the reasoning about planets is sound unless you have first demonstrated that it has anything to do with the climate.
Our guess is better than Hansen or Gore’s though, wouldn’t you say ?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, but we could and should have the science correct first, before guessing.
Speaking of Sunspots, did anyone check out the 2.6 Ri for June 2009?
SIDC appears to have rolled up it’s sleeves and cleaned house.
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:48) :
I don’t think the reasoning about planets is sound unless you have first demonstrated that it has anything to do with the climate.
Oh come on Leif, of course the planets influence the Earth’s orbit (Newton).
We all agree The Sun influences the climate, and of course the distance to The Sun must have an effect on that. Don’t get so lost in the minutii of the measurements so that you lose sight of the basics.
Remember that the science is extremely complex, and we may never get it fully “right”. The sad fact is that we may never be able to accurately predict the sudden climate shifts, and magnetic pole reversals & etc.
In the UK the Defence Department has slashed the Metrological Office Budget, perhaps in recognition of this fact. Money and effort is now being spent on mitigation plans for all possible scenarios, funds permitting.
Despite what Politicians are saying, Military leaders can and must prepare for all eventualities. So then where the Military goes, the Politician will soon follow.
It is mine own belief that far too much time is spent in examining the minute detail and miniscule measurements, and trying to compare with past events, and making some prediction as a result. Actually much of your analysis is Hokum. It is literally “A message that seems to convey no meaning”.
I mean this as a constructive criticism. Spend less time on the minutii, and then you might be able to “see the wood through the trees”. We need to be doing more preparation for adaption to whichever change of climate is imposed upon us by the vagaries of the Universe, rather than spending so much effort on the analysis.
While we all here discuss this meaningless detail, politicians are hell bent on imposing fraudulent taxes, based on bogus science. The fraud is very real, because most politicians know the real truth about CO2 & etc., and are capable of ignoring the facts for political expediency. Therefor it is useless to try to convince the man who already knows, or the man who does not want to “officially” know. More effort needs to be spent in directly confronting the [snip], and this won’t be done by telling them what they already know.
…… my 2c worth.
Jim-Bob (18:34:05) :
We all agree The Sun influences the climate, and of course the distance to The Sun must have an effect on that. Don’t get so lost in the minutii of the measurements so that you lose sight of the basics.
Since the distance to the Sun does not vary from year to year [except of a time scale of tens of thousands of years – which we are not considering here] the influence on the climate is nil, that is the basics. Your 2 ct worth is just that, 2c.
rbateman (18:07:25) :
Speaking of Sunspots, did anyone check out the 2.6 Ri for June 2009? SIDC appears to have rolled up it’s sleeves and cleaned house.
Yes, I saw it, and has adjusted by daily plot accordingly. What is going on here is that SIDC is beginning to see the L&P effect, while NOAA is really biased towards counting ‘regions’ rather than spots. This will get messy…
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:32)
Yes, I saw it, and has adjusted by daily plot accordingly. What is going on here is that SIDC is beginning to see the L&P effect, while NOAA is really biased towards counting ‘regions’ rather than spots. This will get messy…
It looks like the solar community is no different then the climate community….politics.
Jim Hughes (19:50:36) :
It looks like the solar community is no different then the climate community….politics.
It kind of makes the June spike shrivel a bit compared to the March 2008 spike, so I can understand your apprehension. BTW, I think the SIDC number are too low, not just recently, but progressively over the last decade. This may be L&P hitting them.
Leif, I suppose you have watched many of these solar cycle starts.
What would you say are the chances that this flurry of activity is another false start to 24? It looks like there have been at least 2 others in early 2008 and late 2008. The F10.7 seems to have been slowly rising for the the last 6 months or so. Can that rise reverse, or is there an unstoppable momentum that will force it upward for at least the next several years?
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:32) :
Since the distance to the Sun does not vary from year to year [except of a time scale of tens of thousands of years – which we are not considering here] the influence on the climate is nil, that is the basics. Your 2 ct worth is just that, 2c.
………………………………
I am sorry, but it must be said that you really are an arrogant person.
The distance to The Sun varies EVERY year.
The Sun is the PRINCIPAL driver of the Earth’s Climate.
That is the basics !
Then again, you go on to discuss some more minutii.
This really illustrates what you are all about. Frankly I do not care for your sort of pointless “research”. The reality is that you are sadly incapable of original thought, and simply go about repeating the results of other peoples measurements, without really understanding what you are doing. You are a “Rent-Seeker” IMHO. If this is a hard truth for you, then it is time to re-examine your entire wasted life.
No doubt YOU must have the last word, but this sort of incessant meaningless drivel, that pours from your keyboard only serves to obfuscate the real issue, that SIGNIFICANT Facts have been [snip] mis-represented.
[finis]
Leif Svalgaard ( 20:05:34)
It kind of makes the June spike shrivel a bit compared to the March 2008 spike, so I can understand your apprehension. BTW, I think the SIDC number are too low, not just recently, but progressively over the last decade. This may be L&P hitting them.
Okay you got me there. But I think the monthly RI/SWO ratio is the third lowest going all the way back to at least January 1991. So the 44% (?) is somewhat out of the norm. No big deal though and I can live with this and the June 1st x-ray background flux spike. 🙂
Jim-Bob, you seem to confuse original thought with open-ended speculation. And to suggest that Dr. Svaalgard’s research is pointless shows you know little about today’s realities. Research in this field has dramatic consequences for ‘real’ businesses. Do you suppose that insurance rates on satellites went up or down when Dr. Hattaway predicted a giant cycle 24? What do you think happened when Dr. Svaalgard predicted a lower than normal cycle? People with a vested interest pay very close attention – it is not minutia. (and certainly not minutii!) It might cost many millions of dollars of unnecessary hardening of a sattellite designed to last 10 years if one wrongly followed the big 24 theory. The government doesn’t fund this research because it is unimportant – it is. And it is interesting besides.
Lee (20:06:21) :
What would you say are the chances that this flurry of activity is another false start to 24? It looks like there have been at least 2 others in early 2008 and late 2008.
The early 2008 was SC23 still squeezing one in. Late 2008 was the beginning and now the cycle is on its way.
The F10.7 seems to have been slowly rising for the the last 6 months or so. Can that rise reverse, or is there an unstoppable momentum that will force it upward for at least the next several years?
Slow, steady rises don’t reverse, a sharp spike might. I think there is little chance that we’ll slide back into a further drawn out minimum. Even the cosmic ray flux seems to have topped [as it should 6-12 month after minimum], so in my book, the new cycle has started in earnest. We may perhaps still get some wild swings, as we often see in weak cycles, e.g. here: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Jim-Bob (20:07:13) :
[finis]
One can only hope that this is indeed the last we hear from you.
No Jim-Bob, Lief is not arrogant. If you attempt to e-mail a lot of top scientists you will not even get a reply unless you have letters after your name and a university e-mail account.
The patience Lief shows as he handles the genuinely curious and tolerates those who bang on about their hobby horses is a genuine example of good Science, sorely needed to counter the grant-hunting charlatans that are feeding the scam.
Lief seems to me like an old boxer dog tolerating lively puppies frisking around, and when one gets too impertinent he pins the puppy to the floor. (Hope that describes the image clearly.)
No arrogant expert would bother reading the comments of anyone unpublished in their field, let alone replying.
Jim-Bob (20:07:13) writes in part to Leif Svalgaard: “I am sorry, but it must be said that you really are an arrogant person.”
I must take issue with you there, Jim-Bob. Leif has demonstrated many times on WUWT? that arrogance is not a term applicable to him. If this definition fits your meaning — arrogant – having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride — then I believe you must re-think your claim. If it does not fit, then you need to re-post it in a modified form.
In my opinion, and I suggest also in the majority opinion, Leif is a check-point many here make very good use of, and the majority are grateful to have available.
While I will also disagree with Leif at times, I think that personal attacks of this sort, jim-bob, merely demean you.
Craig
rbateman (18:07:25) :
“Yes, I saw it, and has adjusted by daily plot accordingly. ”
Jim Hughes (19:50:36) :
It looks like the solar community is no different then the climate community….politics.
One ‘improvement’ might be to put both SIDC and NOAA sunspot numbers on the graph. This is done now. Then we can watch how the discrepancy evolves.
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:32) :
Definitions, it’s all about definitions. And yes, it will get ever more messier unless some standards to address the technology revolution in detection comes about.
It would be ideal for someone to be able to run out a Greenwich-style output daily.
A software package that would act on all the images that everyone can use.
An open-source package.
Those kind of things tend to survive.
Sandy (20:47:58) suggests: “Leif seems to me like an old boxer dog tolerating lively puppies frisking around, and when one gets too impertinent he pins the puppy to the floor. (Hope that describes the image clearly.)”
Describes it brilliantly, Sandy!
rbateman (22:08:59) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:32) :
Definitions, it’s all about definitions. And yes, it will get ever more messier unless some standards to address the technology revolution in detection comes about.
It would be ideal for someone to be able to run out a Greenwich-style output daily.
A software package that would act on all the images that everyone can use.
An open-source package.
Those kind of things tend to survive.
Imagine if we did have this software….throw in all of the images from SOHO since it started, set some parameters which will record the size and density of the spots by pixel(and weed out the specks) by day and produce a graph which could compare the real activity. Then we could see the real difference between the last 18 months of SC24 and previous cycles.
I dont think this would be hard to do.