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 (14:58:40) :
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.
What you just said is absolute nonsense or is it some kind of an odd sense of humour.
The right physics is: circular “bound currents”, also called “Ampèrian currents” are the cause and the source of magnetic field of a permanent magnet, the field present in your office or wherever you put your magnet.
If a charged particle (proton, electron or a ion) encounters this field, it will according to well known laws of physics start spinning along imaginary ‘magnetic field line’ generated by your magnet. Move of a charged particle constitutes an electric current, which in turn will generate its own magnetic field.
Let me summarise for you: Magnetic field in your office than would be a phasor made up of a sum from:
1. the vector representing constant filed from the permanent magnet and
2. the phasor representing magnetic field produced by a spinning charge.
Perhaps you should revisit the classic electro-magnetic theory.
The readers here might be interested in the following publication.
Prediction of Grand Minima, Ludwik Liszka and Rickard Lundin,
IRF Scientific Report 299, May 2009.
In pdf format (1.6 MB): http://tinyurl.com/mhpand
Using neural network and wavelet methods, they find that
“The result shows a clear similarity between the periods before the Maunder and Dalton Minima and the period after the year 2000.”
vukcevic (03:58:04) :
“If a charged particle (proton, electron or a ion) encounters this field, it will according to well known laws of physics start spinning along imaginary ‘magnetic field line’ generated by your magnet. Move of a charged particle constitutes an electric current”
You are inching closer to understanding how magnetic fields generate electric currents.
Now, if you could just get off this straw man and get back to the comparison between predicted and observed solar maxima, we might make some progress.
Mats Holmstrom (05:51:25) :
Using neural network and wavelet methods, they find that
“The result shows a clear similarity between the periods before the Maunder and Dalton Minima and the period after the year 2000.”
A recurrent problem with such analyses is the use of the Group Sunspot Number, that severely underestimates solar activity in the the 18th and 19th centuries, see e.g. their Figure 2. Solar activity for the coming cycle(s) seems to be headed for a lull as predicted, so our statistics for studying such minima should improve.
jim-bob 20:07:13
You don’t get it; Leif is the Uber-Skeptic. He has to be shown.
======================================
Leif Svalgaard (07:26:17) :
vukcevic (03:58:04) :
“If a charged particle (proton, electron or a ion) encounters this field, it will according to well known laws of physics start spinning along imaginary ‘magnetic field line’ generated by your magnet. Move of a charged particle constitutes an electric current”
You are inching closer to understanding how magnetic fields generate electric currents.
I would not be so positive.
Now, only you have to stick couple of electrodes next to your permanent magnet and you have a forever free supply of electricity, providing you keep your office window open to let few ions in.
Don’t send Sun worshipers away yet. I have a cave in need of sacrificial food, especially now that Jupiter is aligned with Mars and the Moon is in the 7th house. It is quite clear that the Sun is in Cancer so I need blood sacrifice (but money will do nicely). I can make it quite cold for unbelievers so donate today.
vukcevic (09:05:46) :
“You are inching closer to understanding how magnetic fields generate electric currents.”
I would not be so positive.
Yeah, perhaps I mistakenly gave credit where no credit is due.
Now, if you could just get off this straw man and get back to the comparison between predicted and observed solar maxima, we might make some progress.
Leif Svalgaard (09:34:38) :
“Yeah, perhaps I mistakenly gave credit where no credit is due.
Now, if you could just get off this straw man and get back to the comparison between predicted and observed solar maxima, we might make some progress.”
Solar cycle prediction is an old hat. I am working on a global temperature driver. I will email you draft when ready.
However, since you insist “the comparison between predicted and observed solar maxima” is all here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Solar_cycles.gif
You can either read “predicted and observed solar maxima” of the middle graph or calculate from its equation. Use anomaly graph at bottom to reduce value by 25-30% whenever it indicates low cycle. Alternatively you can use the two equations at the top graph (Y1 gives you a point in time which you then use to calculate the amplitude using Y2), again in conjunction with the anomaly graph.
Good luck.
vukcevic (10:48:37) :
However, since you insist “the comparison between predicted and observed solar maxima” is all here:
I do insist, and the result was not there. Please make the plot as requested or shall we consider your refusal as admission of defeat?
Leif,
I have several questions. Thanks for giving attention to my preceding questions. I really appreciate your answers!
“One ‘improvement’ might be to put both SIDC and NOAA sunspot numbers on the graph. This is done now.”
– Are the data of your graph the daily sunspot numbers of both data centers (or the monthly smoothed sunspot numbers, or …)?
“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.”
– Do you mean that the NOAA counts are focused on groups, even if the one or two spots of these groups are possibly hardly visible whereas SIDC is focused on spots? Then, if the spots are hardly visible, SIDC notices nothing at all? (In June, SIDC didn’t notice the spots of NOAA numbers 1020 and 1021.)
Apart from that, I ascertain that during the past 12 months, the number of spotless days remains high (data SIDC). From July 2008 to June 2009, I count 291 spotless days, i.e. 79.7 %. I conclude that during several months, solar activity will remain low.
Geoff Sharp (22:59:28) :
I dont think this would be hard to do.
Then do it, no need to wait.
Rik Gheysens (11:42:14) :
– Are the data of your graph the daily sunspot numbers of both data centers (or the monthly smoothed sunspot numbers, or …)?
There is a point for every day [same as for all the other curves]
– Do you mean that the NOAA counts are focused on groups, even if the one or two spots of these groups are possibly hardly visible whereas SIDC is focused on spots? Then, if the spots are hardly visible, SIDC notices nothing at all? (In June, SIDC didn’t notice the spots of NOAA numbers 1020 and 1021.)
Something like that, yes. But the process is not transparent enough to know for sure what they do.
Apart from that, I ascertain that during the past 12 months, the number of spotless days remains high (data SIDC). From July 2008 to June 2009, I count 291 spotless days, i.e. 79.7 %. I conclude that during several months, solar activity will remain low.
Try to plot the number of spotless days per month and see what it tells you. Solar activity will remain ‘low’ for years to come. Just how ‘low’ is the question.
Rik Gheysens (11:42:14) :
Apart from that, I ascertain that during the past 12 months, the number of spotless days remains high (data SIDC). From July 2008 to June 2009, I count 291 spotless days, i.e. 79.7 %. I conclude that during several months, solar activity will remain low.
Me: “Try to plot the number of spotless days per month and see what it tells you. Solar activity will remain ‘low’ for years to come. Just how ‘low’ is the question.”
It is done for you here:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:42:58) :
Geoff Sharp (22:59:28) :
I dont think this would be hard to do.
—————————–
Then do it, no need to wait.
I was hoping someone with programming skills, like you, might put their hand up.
Geoff Sharp (17:11:14) :
Not to worry too much, Geoff.
For SOHO 1024×1024 MDI Continuum Images:
Open in AIP4Win
Get Red Channel
Check Statistics of whole image
Subtract Std. Dev. from Median
Crop image
Clip Min to Median-StdDev + 1=0
Use Histogram
Check Min & Max
Bar will have pixel count
Divide into Hemispherical for image computed by —
(X @ur momisugly Y=512 on right limb – X @ur momisugly Y=512 on left limb)/2 * (same) * pi
Matches San Fernando Observatory Hemispherical within 10%
Using Leif’s suggestion (Hem. Area * 0.27 ^ 0.775)
03/26/2008 comes out to 498 10E-6 Hemi. / 45 ssn
06/23/2009 comes out to 19 10E-6 Hemi /8 ssn (SIDC=7)
It’s a pain, have to be very careful all the way, but it seems to work.
The Green channel by the same method makes a Hemi. 2 x larger.
rbateman (23:07:18) :
Seems like a lot of hard work. If we had a stack of SOHO images, all we need is a program that stores the date, then counts how many pixels have a red value higher than 240 (isolates space background) and also have a green value of >70. This gives us the sunspot area by date which can then be graphed. Further work could be done to analyze the darkness of the spot by factoring in the green and blue values.
It is a lot of work.
Read this paper:
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/Gyori_et_al_ASR2004.pdf
The big deal is that observations (images) have piled up for years, so as far as staying current, it’s what we come up with.
Sunspot Automatic
Measurement (SAM) (Gy}ori, 1998), is the name of the program Debrecen uses.
I’m sure we couldn’t get it, and it probably runs on a specific brand of Unix or Linux, as most specialized scientific processing does.
I’ll check IRAF for any packages, but don’t hold your breath.
grrrrr. Go figure. Two organizations doing the same work (sunspot count) cant even mutually decide what qualifys as a sunspot? Break out the telescope, if you can see it, its a spot.. if you cant, then its not:P No cheating with magnetograms.
Part A is getting a preliminary area count that isn’t a nearest 10 kludge.
Part B is when someone like Lief convinces organizations to adopt a standardized way to come up with SSN via area measurement.
Hopefully there’s no doubt about the current group on the sun which has been rapidly emerging during the past several hours. Maybe Region 1024 can even produce a few C-Class flares for the first time in a while.
I would comment on Lief’s behavior, but it wouldn’t change anything. I would just ignore everything other than actual scientific discussion. As humans, we should be able to rise above it…
Why does the sun have a roughly eleven year cycle (suspiciously like our largest planet’s orbital period)? Why does it flip polarity every 22yrs (suspiciously like the conjunction period of our two largest planets)? I think there is a lot we don’t understand about our planetary system, and the magnetic relationships between the sun and all of our planets…the tidal forces, etc..certainly worth investigating and working on, whether professionally or as an amateur.
100 years from now, people will be looking back and laughing at our ignorance in our understanding of the Sun, Lief, the solar system…the blue planet for that matter.
Humbling I would think…the little that we know…keep the ideas rolling!
Ed
Ed (23:54:36) :
“Why does the sun have a roughly eleven year cycle (suspiciously like our largest planet’s orbital period)? Why does it flip polarity every 22yrs (suspiciously like the conjunction period of our two largest planets)?”
Experts do not agree, but you may find some answers here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ links solar current, and solar subcycle
Ed (23:54:36) :
100 years from now, people will be looking back and laughing at our ignorance in our understanding of the Sun
100 years ago, it was widely believed that the planets were controlling solar activity.