Guest post by David Archibald
The prognostications based on spotless days are now a distant memory. From here, given that the green corona brightness indicates that solar maximum will in 2015, the big unknown is what the maximum amplitude will be. We are now eighteen months into a six year rise to solar maximum. What is interesting is that in the last few days, the F10.7 flux has fallen to values last seen in late 2009:
The red line is a possible uptrend based on the data to date. That uptrend would result in a maximum F10.7 amplitude in 2015 of about 105. Using the relationship between F10.7 flux and sunspot number, that in turn means a maximum amplitude in terms of sunspot number of 50 – a Dalton Minimum-like result. Dr Svalgaard has kindly provided a graphic of the relationship between sunspot number and F10.7 flux:
Dr Svalgaard has also done the work to show that Solar Cycle 24 is looking less and less like Solar Cycle 19:
The red line is the Solar Cycle 18 to 19 minimum, and the blue is the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 minimum. Dr Svalgaard updates this graphic daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tesla_x says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Can someone please post a graphic of this solar cycle overlaid with some of the more recent Mauder and Dalton cycles?
We can’t really do that with any confidence as we don’t really know the sunspot number back then well enough.
The ‘official’ series [Group Number and Zurich/International Number] are shown here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspots-1600-Present.png
But these numbers are almost certainly not correct, see: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf
Why does the first graph look like we have passed 9 months of 2010 already?
Leif:
I am glad to see that the search continues! I was beginning to wonder a couple of years ago!
Hey guys, do you realise that posts like this one increasingly isolate non-experts that have previously been attacted to this blog due to the accessiblity of the discussion? Surely it is in our interests to keep this discussion as broad as possible and to avoid exclusion where-ever possible. Consider that with this post some simple courtesies would be:
1. to introduce the discussion by its solar cycle context and perhaps link it to previous posts discussing the similarities with the Dalton min and with cycle 19;
2. to identify the Dalton min and cycle 19 by a common and well known indicator of time, like, say ano domini.
3. to weave into the discussion suggestions of why the comparision with Dalton min and cycle 19 are controverially important. (My thought when reading was that cycle 19 was a strong cycle occuring in one of the hottest periods on record – but this was not confirmed by my reading — in fact the opposite was suggested.)
Consider that someone like myself might have gathered that the relapse of the sun in recent weeks in interesting, and that I am keen to know how various experts might interpret this. Yet I learnt little from the above. As for newbies and non-experts that have little context to draw on…well, look at this post, and you will find hardly a handle hold offered to pull them in. If in-talk like this continues in top-posts, without simple gestures of inclusion, then I fear this blog will hemorrhage valuable readers who are not in the in-crowd of this or that climate related discourses.
Dan in California says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Two years ago the talk was about the moving official predictions for the SC24 upswing. It still hasn’t happened.
The official prediction is not going to change. This doesn’t matter much as NASA and the satellite operators are using our [Ken Schatten’s and mine] prediction anyway. Also NASA’s own David Hathaway has finally seen the light and his prediction is now identical to ours. Here is what solar activity this minimum looks like compared to the previous two minima: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
what is shown is the ‘active region count’, ARC. ARC is calculated over a month as the number of NOAA numbered regions visible on the solar disk [within 70 degrees of central meridian] for each day and then summed for the month. The dashed line shows Hathaway’s [and my] prediction for cycle 24 [and if you look really close also for the ramp up of cycle 23. The sun is right on track. The ARC is not too sensitive to the various problems with the SSN that have been identified.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Why does the first graph look like we have passed 9 months of 2010 already?
Because Archibald is sloppy.
A strong upturn in activity till 2014 will take the SSN cosiderably higher than what has already been acheived in C24. A strong downturn from 2014 will leave the peak behind, I really can`t see this cycle peaking as late as 2015. I am though forecasting some high temperatures at times till late 2013.
John from CA: here you go. Buy or sell all you want to.
http://daytrading.about.com/od/futures/a/WeatherFutures.htm
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
2. to identify the Dalton min and cycle 19 by a common and well known indicator of time, like, say ano domini.
I can help you a little bit:
Dalton 1800-1820 AD
Cycle 19 1955-1964 AD
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Even if sunspots fade from view, the magnetic signatures still exist, or so I understand. Are they usable as a standin for SSN? I don’t think the resolution would make it feasible to count each spot (or each speck!) in a group from the magnetic view, but a group is worth 10 points, so maybe close enough?
The last graph does answer a question I was too lazy to answer myself – During the uptick of a solar cycle, there can be periods where the SSN and/or 10.7 flux drops to quite low values. The recent falloff might be one of those. However, the recent SC24 drop looks lower than anything seen in SC19 runup.
This cycle is too important to tolerate questionable SSNs….
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Even if sunspots fade from view, the magnetic signatures still exist, or so I understand. Are they usable as a standin for SSN?
This is what my ARC attempts to be. But in any case the F10.7 flux is perfectly usable [and used by operational services, such as USAF]
Ulric Lyons says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I really can`t see this cycle peaking as late as 2015.
Neither can I, but Archibald is not known for great precision. To wit: his graph…
I am though forecasting some high temperatures at times till late 2013.
So am I, I forecast the summers to be warmer than the winters…
Global temperatures are going to do what they are going to do. Talking about Dalton conditions arising again without being able to explain definatively what caused Dalton or Maunder, is best taken with a pinch of salt, especially if it is politically loaded. Here is what David A. had to say about last May;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf
here is what I said:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=133
The Solar minimum is my favorite subject. If there is a creator, they really have a great sense of humor. I tell my neighbors in Florida there will be zero or one hurricane this year that hits the US just like last year. I tell them, the sun is in a solar minimum, again, for the 3rd year in a row. Ho hum. All I know is, the north east US better increase their snow removal budgets for next winter season.
If there is any truth in John Nelson’s work with RCA in the 40s and 50s in predicting solar and geomagnetic weather, then late June, 2010 should be filled with lots of interesting solar and geomagnetic activity. The alignment of the planets with regard to the Sun will provide us with strong evidence either in favor of his work, or conclusively invalidate it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm
How does the ARC differ from group count?
If an AR contains more than 1 group, or a single spot, is it treated any differently than an AR with multiple groups or a group with a lot of spots? Not that anything is wrong with ARC.
Michael says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:35 pm
This situation with a La Nina in the long range forecast and an uncharted foray into Solar Inactivity is much the same as saying the ‘Big One’ is due to hit on the San Andreas fault. Only in California’s case, they have taken steps to prepare for eventuality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:23 pm
And easier to measure, and doesn’t have the area issues that specks and spots do.
And what of the missing band on Jupiter? Is it now obscured by Jovian Stensmark clouds?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:27 pm
“So am I, I forecast the summers to be warmer than the winters…”
I guess you get the Nobel then………
Leif,
Thank you. Good data.
This is a total SWAG, but looks to me like we’re in for a repeat of either 4 or 11.
Thinking Randy’s chart here holds merit too and was wondering if anyone’s seen an updated variant of it showing the most recent volcanic eruptions with cumulative ash/sulfur compound emissions totals to date.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
Tesla
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Hey guys, do you realise that posts like this one increasingly isolate non-experts that have previously been attacted to this blog due to the accessiblity of the discussion? …
What incredible insight berniel. Good for you for speaking up. These discussions on the sun do tend to get rather singularly channeled and somewhat obscure without detail. But keep listening, there is more to the sun than just its magnetic properties, and contrary to what some will argue, little is yet known of the actual physics behind our inferno and its effect on the earth.
Here a tidbit, something I just realized the other day, duh, 0.1ºC on the surface of the earth is equivalent to ~20x that, or 2ºC, on the surface of the sun. If the sun runs a two degree fever for very long the earth should have one of a tenth of a degree. Simple physics. You get that by 5780K(sun) / 289K(earth) roughly. I sometimes wonder what the global temperature of the sun is today to +/- one degree since we are so good at keeping track of hundredths of a degree here?
I am glad there are some other non-experts visiting this site!
It is well-known that F10.7 [and also Ap] is the main input to the USAF operational models. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/ADA277355 and the newer
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JB2006_AIAA_2006-6167.pdf
There is a movement to also use more direct measurements of the EUV flux, e.g. MgII-index. But MgII is VERY well represented by F10.7, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf A problem is that it is hard to get a good calibration of MgII [as my link shows], while F10.7 has a very stable calibration.
Leif
I have read the second paper (the first on your site is not available!). However, the question was not answered. The Marcos paper corresponds to what I have seen in this modeling in the past but they do not separate the solar flux terms:
We were not able to evaluate the contributions of individual solar flux terms in JB2006. Further investigation of the thermosphere response to solar heating is warranted.
Also, the Marcos paper uses the Cycle 23 data derived from SOHO where the 10.7 is still more or less tracking SSN. If what you say is correct, that the 10.7 and SSN are diverging, then the input parameters that are used in the JB2006 model (that only uses data through 2004), could be completely out of school now.
Interestingly they use EUV sensors and as you know these EUV sensors are measuring the highly variable output of the sun due to EUV flux variations in sunspots.
Since the JB2006 model does not differentate flux terms, and since 10.7 and SSN may be diverging, the model accuracies are sure to suffer. Also, since the terms are not differentiated, you cannot make the statement that the model only follows the 10.7 number as this is not what the Marcos paper says.
I could be wrong and I await your corrections!
The reason that I am going on about this is that I have been involved in a lot of low orbit satellite work, including measuring the drag on the Shuttle at 160 miles altitude. I remember clearly that both Solar Max and Skylab were effected by specific solar storms and since 10.7 and SSN tracked each other until recently, even in those cases there is no differentation between the two. However, EUV is known to effect atmospheric density and the EUV output is strongly effected by sunspots.
Again, if this divergence continues, it looks like we can separate the terms and help to either reinforce or decouple the discussion and or links between climate and solar output. I know that you have put a lot of work into making the decoupling argument and I would like to see more detail of the interannual variation that is discussed, but it seems that if the current cycle continues its interesting behavior that we are all going to learn something!!
Leif Svalgaard,
Bold predictions indeed.
Inspired by your temerity I predict there will be periods of heavy snow, more so in the winters than the summers.
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
… This cycle is too important to tolerate questionable SSNs….
Are you aware of the latest solar SSN drawing posted daily at http://sidc.oma.be/uset/index.php ? If you are really interested in accurate SSN, follow it daily as I do. The observer’s signiture will be at the top, the SSN calculated at the lower left. There are other observatories plot there also on this page http://www.sidc.be/LatestSWData/LatestSWData.php . Catania Italy etc.
I tend to have a viewpoint that some of the interaction is not magnetic in nature but is due to the sun spots themselves. So altering the SSN counting algorithm would throw the data of my interest off. If any re-adjustment of the count were to take affect I sure hope historic methods, Wolf, are still maintained intact.