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.
From Keystone [1203 miles from home]:
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:15 am
Otherwise, they too can be polluted by flyspecks.
F10.7 is the true measure.
NIKKI says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:20 am
Dear dr Svalgaard !
About your F10.7- SSN graph above, is the discrepancy between 1951-1990 and 1996-2009 points connected with contrast (Livingston & Penn) of sunspots?
Shows that sunspots have become warmer, the contrast less, and thus harder to see. But they are still ‘there’
vukcevic says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:24 am
“Except that your correlations are poor, so are disqualified simply on that.”
Not so, not so, until we see the SC24 out.
You failed already on SC20. You saying ‘not so’ does not make it that, but is just self-delusional.
Tim Clark says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:57 am
Are spectral and total solar irradiance levels lower now than during past minima
I don’t think so. See my poster at the meeting: [I’m working on uploading it, so have patience]
Are we entering a new prolonged period of anomalously low activity such as the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s?
Possibly, except it isn’t anomalous
How are heliospheric changes altering incident cosmic ray fluxes and the Earth’s near-space environment?
They are not: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
Can we reliably discern the terrestrial signatures of the current solar inactivity – at the surface, in the stratosphere and in space weather?
Not at the surface.
What does understanding of the present (in the context of the past) infer for the future variability of Earth’s environment?
That variation is normal
Perhaps you would be so kind as to exercise an open mind
‘Open Mind’ has no place in Science. Data [and/or good Theory] has.
take good notes […] provide a guest thread upon your return?
Will do.
Ralph says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:12 am
a. Based upon the work of Landscheidt, et al, many people believe that Earth climate is directly related to Sunspot activity.
No, this has been surmised for almost 400 years, starting with Giovanni Battista Riccioli in 1651.
gary gulrud says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:30 am
” The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct.”
Do tell.
Self-evident
David Ball says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard would like to acknowledge that Archibald may have been correct much earlier than he was.
Nobody has been ‘correct’ yet. The links to Archibald you provided seem to be dated 2006-2007. My prediction was submitted in 2004. My colleague Ken Schatten predicted a low SC24 in 2003: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
I do not respect the “Archibald is sloppy” comment.
The ‘sloppy comment’ was about the time axis of the first figure in the post. You better accept the facts.
Leif, you should have acknowlegded this.
Try to be up-to-date with reality… The specific predictions in the links you gave are already and clearly wrong, so why pay any attention to them?
David Ball says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm
This is exactly what academia wants you to believe.
Nonsense. Most go to great length to explain this stuff to everybody, e.g. my own posts and Roy Spencer’s just to mentions a few.
bubbagyro says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I have two huge problems with Leif’s analyses of how Flux, but not SSN are germane:
1) If we give up SSN in favor of flux, then we give up all historic context.
Not really, as we just need to calibrate stuff correctly. And this is possible. E.g.: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
2) Leif’s methods of refutation of historic counting do not use statistics properly.
Not based on statistics, but on data. Can’t argue with what the data shows by statistical manipulation.
I favor the Landscheidt method for doing this. […]
However, the proper method for statistical evaluation is to take each point as a separate measurement at each time point when equivalent time points are available.
And Landscheidt did this? Show a link…
David Archibald says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Dr Svalgaard has had the opportunity to explain why he provides a daily update of the dissimilarity between the Solar Cycle 19 ramp up and the Solar Cycle 24 one, but has chosen not to do so.
On my website: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
David Alan Evans says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Leif. f10.7 is a better indicator of what?
It can’t be Solar activity because SSN is Solar activity!
No SSN is not. ‘Solar activity’ is is determined by the Magnetic Field over the solar surface, and F10.7 is a good proxy for that, while SSN may not be [to with the divergence]. F10.7 is a completely objective absolute measurements [in Watt/Square Meter/Hz]
Ulric Lyons says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Not at all, it’s all too common for an onlooker to spot something all the experts are missing.
Show me a valid example… or many [as they are common]
Ralph says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:24 am
So magnetic flux is NOT a good proxy for Sunspots! In regard to the Maunder and Dalton minimums, I thought you were arguing the opposite.
The other way around: Sunspots are not a good proxy for the true solar activity [the magnetic field].
I’m tired of commenting on all the pseudo-science crap by several well-known people that never miss a chance to try to hijack a thread. So, shall confine myself to questions and comments with substance.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 17, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
There is actually very little on a 400yr cycle, I found only this, and a re-hash of it by Svensmark: http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/PACLIM/Yu02.pdf
There is a mountain of references to the 17yr and 179yr cycles, dating back to ancient Chinese records….
______________________________________________________________________
Thanks I could not turn anything useful up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Yes, indeed. That should shut them down!
bubbagyro says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Yes, indeed. That should shut them down!
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. But at least I won’t waste much more time on them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm
F10.7 is the true measure.
In cases where there is a single Active Region rotating off the limb of the Sun, depending on the strength of the Region, the flux will fall to current base level when the Region is on the rim, or behind it. A strong region is able to ‘shine’ through a day’s journey behind the rim, a weak region falls off at the rim.
I am still curious as to why the Sun fell off in activity as a whole object, including the Active Regions on STEREO Ahead & Behind.
Any ideas on that?
rbateman says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I am still curious as to why the Sun fell off in activity as a whole object, including the Active Regions on STEREO Ahead & Behind.
Any ideas on that?
The Sun is a messy place. Solar activity occurs in ‘episodes’ and perhaps the real thing to explain is the episodic outbreaks [like tornado outbreaks in the US]. The classic example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm……..
The other way around: Sunspots are not a good proxy for the true solar activity [the magnetic field].
– If Livingston & Penn are correct then we could have a situation of high 10.7 cm flux with few or no sunspots or solar flares (Given that solar flares are usually generated by sunspots). Would you call this scenario a case of high or low solar activity ?
Ozzie John says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:35 am
– If Livingston & Penn are correct then we could have a situation of high 10.7 cm flux with few or no sunspots or solar flares (Given that solar flares are usually generated by sunspots). Would you call this scenario a case of high or low solar activity ?
Solar flares are not really generated by sunspots. They are generated by the magnetic field in the active regions, regardless of whether there is a spot. There is even a name for ‘spotless flares’: Hyder Flares. [Google it].
Anyway, if the magnetic field is low, solar activity should be considered to be low. The L&P effect is the [supposed] result of the magnetic field of sunspots weakening making the spots warmer and hence harder to see, but they are still there.
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures) from surface to space vary in response to changes in the F10.7 Flux ?”
In the meantime I’m happy that Leif no longer wishes to engage with me ( if he did mean me amongst others) as regards my pseudo science crap that nonetheless seems to fit recent observations. That is very much for the benefit of both of us since we will never agree until more data is available.
Carla says:
May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
“To me the planetary theory looks like a shabby fit. Where is Henrik again?”
About 4600yrs after the LIA. What you need is to see is lots of detail, like the coldest LIA winters individually, or weekly temperature changes, you won`t find it shabby then.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:42 am
“Anyway, if the magnetic field is low, solar activity should be considered to be low.”
So that explains why the recent M class flares are the largest for 4yrs, and solar wind velocity highest since Dec 2007.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures) from surface to space vary in response to changes in the F10.7 Flux ?”
Straight questions are always welcome:
Here is some background:
http://ocw.upm.es/ingenieria-aeroespacial/modeling-the-space-environment/contenidos/material-de-clase/mse06_atmos.pdf
And here is one you can play with:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/msis_vitmo.html
There is LOTS of data, as this is an area of immense practical interest. The models capture the mass of data and should be considered as representations of the data rather as theoretical constructs.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures)
Ingrid Cnossen’s thesis is a good introduction to the subject:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4533/1/2008cnosseniphd.pdf
It is long, but worth the wait.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 18, 2010 at 2:03 am
So that explains why the recent M class flares are the largest for 4yrs, and solar wind velocity highest since Dec 2007.
It seems my effort has been fruitful and that you have seen the light. As we said in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“to indicate lower solar activity for the coming cycle(s). Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity [Lockwood et al., 1999; Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88).”
Leif:
As posted elsewhere, even NASA thinks that lower solar activity CAN influence the N Hem jetstreams. Although the suggestion here is that the jetstreams are reduced in velocity, rather than moving towards the equatorial regions.
I did not see that this winter. Velocities appeared much the same (not a statistical analysis, but a subjective assessment), but latitudes were definitely lower.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Pseudo-science from time to time turns into real science (plate tectonics is an obvious candidate).
And the foundations of science? Built on sand. For instance we can do amazing things engineering wise with the concept mass/inertia. But we have absolutely no idea of the cause. Is inertia part electromagnetic? All electromagnetic? Something else? Feynman thought based on Maxwell and experiment that it may be at least in part electromagnetic. Now try to get funding for direct experiments in that area. You can’t because it is pseudo science according to the consensus view. Everybody knows….
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:15 am
I am well aware of the relationship between Minimums withlong spotless periods, and the incidence of stronger solar storms in the following Maximum;
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html
The C13/14 Minimum is very high on the list for long spotless day period, as is the C9/10 Minimum.
Leaving us with an advanced risk of serious solar storms through this coming cycle.
As for “Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity,”
early May solar wind velocity would suggest otherwise. Lets see how the cycle progresses.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
They say birds of a feather flock together.
Thank you Leif.
I note this extract from your link:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4533
“Sensitivity analyses showed that the responses obtained with both models depend on geophysical conditions such as season and solar and geomagnetic activity. In general it can be concluded that long-term trends are probably caused by multiple coupled radiative and dynamical processes.”
Just as I proposed, isn’t it ? Variable sea surface temperatures and convection in the troposphere and radiative variability from tropopause upward.
The weight attached to CO2 and CFCs may well be premature and excessive. They clearly accept a solar and geomagnetic signal.
Now just reverse the sign so that an active sun cools the stratosphere with a quiet sun warming it and a great deal falls into place.
Or are your own links to be classed as pseudo science crap ?
Ralph says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:26 am
As posted elsewhere, even NASA thinks that lower solar activity CAN influence the N Hem jetstreams.
‘NASA’ is not a single entity as far as this [or anything else is concerned]. A scientist at NASA may hold this or that view. The Shindell paper was based on the unrealistic solar irradiance reconstruction by Hoyt and Schatten [with a large difference between the Maunder Minimum and today – nobody believes that today], so cannot be taken as evidence for much.
M. Simon says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:30 am
Pseudo-science from time to time turns into real science (plate tectonics is an obvious candidate).
That was never pseudo-science, as there were solid evidence for it.
And the foundations of science? Built on sand.
No, built on experiment.
mass/inertia. But we have absolutely no idea of the cause.
We have many ideas, e.g. the Higgs field. Which one is ‘right’ [to our current level of understanding] ongoing experiments [at LHC] are designed to find out.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:06 am
early May solar wind velocity would suggest otherwise.
You cannot conclude anything from a single occurrence. Solar wind velocity is often high near solar minimum, where the absence of solar activity favors the creation of large coronal holes [they are not disturbed by the closed magnetic fields from many active regions].
Oh and the significance of seasons is that the same processes operate. Whether the latitudinal positioning of the air circulation systems is seasonally induced or ocean and sun induced matters not. The energy flux through the system changes in precisely the same way.
As you may recall I frequently refer to latitudinal variations beyond normal seasonal variability.
Note that I do not create any science or pseudo science myself. All I do is apply logic to the findings of others and match it to observations to try and ascertain the implications so if that is pseudo science don’t blame me.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:46 am
Now just reverse the sign so that an active sun cools the stratosphere with a quiet sun warming it and a great deal falls into place.
Or are your own links to be classed as pseudo science crap ?
Your pseudo science consists of reversing the sign
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
I was being sarcastic when I said Leif should shut dissenters down, have them muzzled, incarcerated, ignored, what have you. He agreed with me! In his original PP show, Leif inappropriately used correlations instead of standard deviation or standard error to discern the means of the old SSN counting method, dismissing some or all of the “counters” who were twice as high as other counters. I pointed out that his non-parameteric method of displaying individual curves for each “counter”, and not the mean +/- sd, was totally inappropriate for use in his hypothesis. By doing so, Leif used a fancy version of the straw man argument:
1.Person A (Mary is a sunspot counter) has position X (Here are my counts)
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y (Mary is a bad sunspot counter).
3. Person B attacks position Y (since Mary is a bad sunspot counter, by my “analysis” I condemn her counts), concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed (all previous sunspot counting is bogus, should be ignored, and if these people were alive today, I would not answer them or deign to talk to these “pseudos”).
I guess we know why he did not reply to my original post – just because I have been in life sciences for 41 years, 10 patents, 100 or so publications and presentations, I am obviously not a climastrologer. In fact, since I got my degrees 40 years ago, there was no such offering as Climatology (I call it Climastrology as a joke, since many methods (divining rods?) are still unestablished by the refinement of time). No, I know statistics, though. And trend analysis. Leif has not used statistics properly to make any case that the old methods are not accurate, or do not predict climate.
Can someone who has raw data from the last 500 years of counting history take all of the diligent SSN counters and do a mean and sd for each cotemporal point? Then show the simple composite mean graph with sd? Then let us properly look at the CV (coefficient of variance) and see how that comports with the mean? Then we can evaluate any period in which the CV has swollen and figure out a way to evaluate.
Unless you reverse the sign the findings in your link canot match observations.
A stronger inversion at the tropopause from stratospheric warming must logically be a reflection of a reduced upward energy flux from stratosphere to space. That would intensify the polar high pressure cells as rising convective currents fail to offload so much energy which energy is then redirected downwards. Yet we see that as the sun gets quieter.
During the period of more active sun the stratosphere cooled and the inversion weakened.
Thus the stratospheric warming or cooling effect of variations in solar surface activity on the upward energy flux is greater than the warming or cooling effect involving ozone of the tiny changes in raw solar power output that accompanies them. That is sufficient to reverse the sign and match observations.
Your pseudo science is that you have attributed the cooling then warming of the stratosphere to CO2 and CFCs without considering alternative possibilities.
You have already directed me to a link that indicated that a more positive polar oscillation had the power to reduce ozone and thus cool the stratosphere. You supported that idea.
You failed to indicate why you preferred the CFC / CO2 explanation to the more likely explanation that the positive polar oscillation was caused by the higher level of solar activity.
You referred me to a link that supported my proposition that upward waves in the energy flux can occur from solar variability causing such waves from troposphere to exosphere.
No pseudo science on my part, just legitimate questioning of your propositions and so far the links you have provided go against what you say.