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.
I will not be the only one to notice but as the sun activity picked up so the melt speed in the Arctic accelerated. We are now back to spotless days and a lower flux and the melt speed has dropped quite drastically.
I thought we had all been told the sun does not have much effect on the earth.
Current theories have to be reviewed once again.
Babcock-Leighton dynamo replaced in 1960s by mean-field dynamo theory
– mean-field dynamo theory has fundamental problems
– revival of Babcock-Leighton-type models in early 1990s
– Babcock-Leighton model produces excessively strong polar surface magnetic fields
– physical mechanism responsible for the regeneration of the poloidal component of the solar magnetic field has not yet been identified with confidence (Charbonneau 2005)
– strong cycles last shorter than weak cycles, but diffusion time should be proportional to cycle strength.
Dr. Hathaway has already decided to turn his hypothesis of the meridional flow (conveyor belt) on its head.
Perhaps its time to take a serious look at the alternatives.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
But as Dr. Svalgaard says:
“If correlation is really good, one can live with one as yet undiscovered mechanism.”
Some might say that the F10.7 flux is not a good indicator of SSN, but maybe that depends on what SSN method you compare it with. Attempting to use the NOAA system is a total waste of time with the SIDC count not faring much better. This is a problem with the current counting methods more than the two records drifting apart.
Attempting to hide the low SSN of SC5 is getting a bit desperate, there are plenty of proxy records that show the Dalton SSN values are right in the ball park.
One is tempted to ask whether this is due to recent biased SSN counts (too high) or if there is a real physical change in the F10.7/SSN relationship?
On the second graph, why are all the latest decade results on the right side of the plots? – So you apparently need more flux per Sunspot this decade…
.
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?
Leif says the SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72.
There are too many candidates. With a reasonable margin for error there are more recent candidates outside the named minimums. Look between 1880 and 1930.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/Sunspot-Long.png
So, shortly after the start of 2012 we’ll know if the ARC projections clearly can fit but not until 2014 would it be strongly indicated and then not until the downward slope of 2016 would it be close to being confirmed. Supposing it is confirmed, then what would the projections indicate for cycle 25?
I asked Abdussamatov about the peak of the current solar cycle a couple of months ago and he responded: “According to my forecast, the peak of the solar cycle 24 will take place approximately in December, 2012.”
I am unable to attend the ICCC but will read or listen to Abdussmatov’s remarks with interest.
Svensmark – The Cloud Mystery Youtube playslist:
I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles. If that’s true, we are back to comparing strange looking curves to each other.
But if it’s all empirical, are the old counts of sunspots telling us anything about solar activity? If we believe the Livingston Penn idea that sunspots never die, they just fade away, and/or take note of the subject of this post, their appearent vanishing doesn’t have to mean much. And since what we know about connections between SSN and solar activity is due to data collected during a relatively short time span, no theory, it seems to me that almost anything can be doubted. A very good situation for a scientist I suppose.
If I am right, the sun spots should disappear around the year 2015. (see also http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/ ). What will happen to the mentioned solar maximum?
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?
….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.
__________________________________________________________________________
That is a good point. On the other hand those of us who have hung around this site and struggled to get up to speed can add a valuable contribution by adding definitions and other information (pointers to other threads) to flesh out the discussion for the newbies. Newbies should take it upon themselves to ask questions. The only dumb question is the one left unasked. Generally if you are confused there are many others who are also.
#
David Thomson says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“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.”
Late September to early November will be the very active period this year.
Winkin’ and Blinkin’
The Gods are testing us all.
Cheshire Irises.
=========
mb says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
“I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles. If that’s true, we are back to comparing strange looking curves to each other.”
Heliocentric syzygies of Earth and Venus that also line up with Jupiter, Superior conjunctions in one cycle, and Inferior in the next. This gives a serious clue as what causes the solar magnatic reversal at each maximum. By looking at the alignment centers, we can see much better how early or late a cycle is, and can exclude notions of missing cycles. Such as following the alignment centers of C1 to C6 compared to the apparent centers; 1760, 1771, 1783, 1794, 1805 and 1815, no missing cycle here, but you do get a clear idea how late or early a cycle can be from this perspective.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
Heliocentric syzygies of Earth and Venus that also line up with Jupiter, Superior conjunctions in one cycle, and Inferior in the next. This gives a serious clue as what causes the solar magnatic reversal at each maximum. By looking at the alignment centers, we can see much better how early or late a cycle is, and can exclude notions of missing cycles. Such as following the alignment centers of C1 to C6 compared to the apparent centers; 1760, 1771, 1783, 1794, 1805 and 1815, no missing cycle here, but you do get a clear idea how late or early a cycle can be from this perspective.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
Ref – Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
“It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.”
_________________________
You are wiser than you claim to be. You have precisely defined the meaning of this article.
How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?
Given the total solar irradiance at Earth distance only varies by +/- 0.5 watts/m2 over the solar cycle, that means the Sun’s surface temperature only varies from:
5,778.5K at solar max to 5,777.5K at solar minimum – Just 1.0K (or 0.017%) from max to min.
#
Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
_________________________________________________________________________
All this article is doing is calling attention to the fact cycle 24 is not ramping up (increasing in sunspot numbers) the way the cycles in the last half of the 20th century did. If you look at this graph you can see the peak number varies http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/Sunspot-Long.png
Take a look at the number of years at minimum this varies too. You will also notice once a cycle gets going it ramps up fairly quickly. and that does not seem to be happening yet.
Leif had predicted a sunspot maximum of around 75 a few years ago. Now the rest of the solar scientists are agreeing. Hathaway readjusted his predictions a couple of times before coming into line with Leif.
Leif in another article commented about the divergence of the F10.7 and sunspot numbers when SSN was close to zero. If I recall correctly during peak sunspot activity clusters form making counting difficult so a number of “10” was assigned to the clusters to make counting easier. With a large number of clusters the average would approach ten so the total number would be fairly accurate. When you have very low activity assigning a number of 10 to a “cluster” of 2 or 3 specks on a regular basis causes an artificially high number that is not offset by clusters with 15 to 20 spots.
QUOTES:
R. Craigen says:
May 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm
how many spots would an astronomer 100 or 200 years ago have identified on the sun during the recent Leif, I would love to hear your thoughts/predictions.activity?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
rbateman says:
May 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
btw… I came across a reference that Rudolf Wolf would have preferred to base the Sunspot Index on area, not depending on group or spot counts. Anybody know anything more about that?
It is correct. Wolf wanted to use areas, but found that the older data was not amenable to determine the areas, so came up with the next-best thing: the Wold number.
So if the recently ended El Nino allowed a lot of heat to escape the earths atmosphere with none of it being replenished because of a slumbering sun and ocean cooling then it means cold to very cold times ahead.
Bill Illis says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:17 am
“How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?”
How much does plasma temperature at the Earth bowshock vary?
” Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.”
I’m a lay reader (on the serious scientific topics) and enjoy very much the posts which deal more with, for instance, the politics of climate change. That said, I am still utterly fascinated and gripped by these more technical and learned excursions. No, I don’t understand a great deal here either, but that lack on my part has made me follow up the links and articles suggested and helped me to get a better, even though embryonic, understanding about the sun and its activity.
My own view is that WUWT is also a place where the professionals can communicate openly and that will mean some very technical and complex topics like this. I find it greatly reassuring to know that there are far better-informed people than me out there whose opinions I can access, attempt to understand and ask questions about without restriction – especially when contrasted with the secrecy, arrogance and contempt for constructive debate exhibited elsewhere.
rbateman says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm
How does the ARC differ from group count?
Not in essence. I simply count regions that have a NOAA number, and let NOAA worry about the details.
Dennis Wingo says:
May 15, 2010 at 11:14 pm
“main input to the USAF operational models. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/ADA277355.pdf ”
(the first on your site is not available!).
Forgot the “.pdf”. Should be ok now.
However, the question was not answered. […] 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.
Since the SSN is not used by anybody, there is no problem with the thermospheric models.
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.
The model only uses F10.7 [and Ap]. They would like to use EUV indices too, that follow F10.7 very closely.
EUV output is strongly effected by sunspots.
As is F10.7. The issue is whether the SSN is ‘correct’ and my argument is that it is not. This does not matter for the thermospheric models, as they do not use SSN. The title of the first paper is: “Thermospheric Modeling Accuracies Using F10.7 & Ap”
vukcevic says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
Perhaps its time to take a serious look at the alternatives.
“If correlation is really good, one can live with one as yet undiscovered mechanism.”
Except that your correlations are poor, so are disqualified simply on that.
jinki says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:50 am
Attempting to hide the low SSN of SC5 is getting a bit desperate
Nobody is hiding SC5. The fact is that there were so few observations that the SSN is highly inaccurate and we don’t really know what it was. It could be even lower than the ‘official’ numbers.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:17 am
One is tempted to ask whether this is due to recent biased SSN counts (too high) or if there is a real physical change in the F10.7/SSN relationship?
The bias is towards too LOW a SSN. We do not think there is a real change in solar activity and F10.7 relationship
Ralph says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:18 am
On the second graph, why are all the latest decade results on the right side of the plots? – So you apparently need more flux per Sunspot this decade…
That is the whole point: there are too few spots compared to the flux.
MartinGAtkins says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:20 am
cedarhill says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:01 am
Supposing it is confirmed, then what would the projections indicate for cycle 25?
That statistically we would expect a low SC25 as well.
Harold Ambler says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:07 am
“the peak of the solar cycle 24 will take place approximately in December, 2012.”
Would seem too early for a low cycle, but we shall see.
mb says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles.
There are good theories, but they need to be constrained by observations so we can fix the input variables correctly.
Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
It means that this solar cycle will be small.
Pascvaks says:
Bill Illis says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:17 am
How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?
About a degree as you say.
I’m off the the Keystone Meeting http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/ now, so comments will be farther between the next couple of days.