The unbearable flatness of 10.7

While sunspots are often the proxy of choice for solar activity reports, the 10.7 cm radio band is also an excellent indicator of solar activity. As you can see in this NOAA graph below, it is slowly coming up, but there’s still a fair gap to the red line, which represents the predicted level.

Dr. Leif Svalgaard maintains a number of automated plots on solar data, one of which compares the current solar minimum to 1954, which is also considered to be a significant solar minimum. The flatness is instructive:

In other news, the Ap magnetic index still needs a jump start:

h/t to David Archibald in Tips and Notes

0 0 vote
Article Rating
205 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Sherrington
November 17, 2010 1:14 am

You are a braver man than I am, eyeballing the flatness of measured radio flux against predicted in your top graph. One single spike in Nov could have you back on track. Remember what Dr Wegman said about using statistics advice more often. You can’t will the figures to follow the path you’d like to see. That’s been a criticism directed to the other mob.

gary gulrud
November 17, 2010 1:36 am

“You can’t will the figures to follow the path you’d like to see. That’s been a criticism directed to the other mob.”
Except this is Solar Science, Climate Science’s mirror twin.

pkatt
November 17, 2010 1:43 am

I wonder if Dr. Leif Svalgaard would consider trying the comparison of current solar activity to other long minimum dates besides 1954. I do check his 10.7 chart quite a bit and that pink prediction line has changed a few times. Im really interested in hearing more about the Ap magnetic index as it relates to magnetic pole movement and the magnetosphere. I have a few sites I visit for those but need a few pointers to more current research papers.

rc
November 17, 2010 1:56 am

I thought that even if it was to follow this latest predicted path it doesn’t mean much after the previous failed predictions.
eg:
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html
These results are just the latest signs pointing to a big Cycle 24. Most compelling of all, believes Hathaway, is the work of Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. “They have combined observations of the sun’s ‘Great Conveyor Belt’ with a sophisticated computer model of the sun’s inner dynamo to produce a physics-based prediction of the next solar cycle.” In short, it’s going to be intense.

AJB
November 17, 2010 1:58 am

SSN comparison of cycles 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 24 to Nov 14th
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp2.html

Goz
November 17, 2010 2:11 am

The article “rc” posted:
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html
Would be hillarious if it wasnt for the fact that these charlatans are wasting tax payer money on their “witchcraft”. Hathaway and co. have revised their predictions so many times that they have become a joke.
In any other field, such epic failure would result in – at minimum – disciplinary action, and probably sackings.

LarryT
November 17, 2010 2:18 am

ABJ
You are comparing a sun speck number to the historic sunspot number. This has the same problem that the hurricaine reporting has – counting things that would never been counted in the historic record. In fact, there seems to be a competition between reporting sites to who can find the smallest speck and report it first.
i prefer this site for a historically accurate current sunspot count
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

November 17, 2010 2:21 am

No need to panic, not yet ; SC25 might be far more worrisome. Magnetic (polar) field is a bit slow, but still on the track for a flip some time in 2012.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

John Day
November 17, 2010 2:28 am

> While sunspots are often the proxy of choice for solar activity
> reports, the 10.7 cm radio band is also an excellent indicator
> of solar activity.
… and the gap you speak of is smaller with respect to the NOAA sunspot plot
http://www.solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
The Ap index (and its logarithmic cousin Kp) track geomagnetic “quakes” induced by the solar wind, indirectly related to the solar radio flux.
You will may note that the total solar irradiance (TSI), as measured by the SORCE satellite has also showed a decline recently.
http://leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.pnghttp://leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
But as Dr. Svalgaard has pointed out elsewhere, this is an aging spacecraft (2003), and it’s not clear whether this decline is real, or a calibration issue. They will eventually figure it out but it will take a while. Have to be patient.

John Day
November 17, 2010 2:31 am

> … SORCE satellite
oops, double pasted try this
http://leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

Yarmy
November 17, 2010 2:44 am

Looking at the active regions, it’s possible it will break 100 for the first time this cycle in the next few days. The Watts effect in force again. 🙂

November 17, 2010 2:50 am

http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Is there any available update of total cloud cover? ISCCP runs to 2007 only.

November 17, 2010 2:51 am

The F10.7 flux values are very stable and not showing the typical up ramp. It might be interesting to compare SC24 flux with SC2o. SC20 was a low cycle caused by a smaller solar disturbance than what we see today, but if SC24 is tracking lower than Sc20, the writing might be on the wall.
Low F10.7 flux also means low EUV. Sustained low EUV coupled with a rapidly developing neg PDO and a century class La Nina will have climatic impacts that will result in a massive winter for the northern hemisphere.

November 17, 2010 2:56 am

Interesting development, thanks Anthony. The flatness of the current solar minimum is worse than the flatness of 1954 minimum. Meanwhile, can someone update us about new literatures on Sun-GCRs connection?

November 17, 2010 3:03 am

Yarmy says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:44 am
Looking at the active regions, it’s possible it will break 100 for the first time this cycle in the next few days. The Watts effect in force again. 🙂
That might depend on what type of region we experience. The current trend is towards unipolar regions which typically are not strong when measuring F10.7 flux. There is a very high ratio of unipolar regions this cycle.
So we have two problems, less sunspot activity and a greater proportion of weaker region types.
A F10.7 reading of 100 is about half of what we would expect now from a strong cycle.

November 17, 2010 3:14 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:03 am
The current trend is towards unipolar regions which typically are not strong when measuring F10.7 flux. There is a very high ratio of unipolar regions this cycle.
Hi Geoff
It could be a sign what SC25 may have in store, very controversial but possible, very low cycle with no polarity reversal to SC26.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

November 17, 2010 3:22 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:14 am
Hi Vuk, I would think very possible, we are in uncharted waters. There are proxy records suggesting this may happen.

meemoe_uk
November 17, 2010 3:24 am

Currently the F10.7 trend suggests to me SC24’s smoothed maximum will be around 105. Ultra low solar cycle!

Editor
November 17, 2010 3:24 am

Geoff Sherrington says: “You can’t will the figures to follow the path you’d like to see
I can’t see any attempt to “will the figures” in this post.

Pointman
November 17, 2010 3:32 am

The latest article for Cancun Week is the second part of the Low Carbon Plot Chinese translation.
http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/
Pointman

R. de Haan
November 17, 2010 3:42 am

German Scientist, CO2 not the cause of climate change, cold period is anticipated
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/16/german-scientist-co2-not-the-cause-of-climate-change-cold-period-is-anticipated/

November 17, 2010 3:48 am

Having watched sunspot counts for a while (in the hope of having some sunspots to view … which I’ve only managed once since I got the telescope).
It’s quite laughable the way each and every month shows a prediction of an upswing in count number only to be totally ignored by the real data.
It’s just like global temperature data again. People make predictions and then they fall flat on their face.

Moebius
November 17, 2010 3:56 am

Its interesting to compare this cycle with others:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp2.html

John Day
November 17, 2010 3:57 am

> I can’t see any attempt to “will the figures” in this post.
… except the title “The unbearable flatness of 10.7”. Sounds a little like impatience with the status quo.

Patrick Davis
November 17, 2010 4:05 am

Look, climatologists have stated that SOL has no effect on climate. It IS driven by CO2, don’t you chimps know that?
/Sarc off

November 17, 2010 4:33 am

R. de Haan says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:42 am
German Scientist, CO2 not the cause of climate change, cold period is anticipated.
Germany being within North Atlantic climatic area is in the main affected by the Arctic –N. Atlantic interactions, as is England and the most of the N-W European countries, which could expect considerable cooling in the next decade.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm

November 17, 2010 4:57 am

Juraj V. says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:50 am
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Is there any available update of total cloud cover? ISCCP runs to 2007 only.

As far as I know the Earthshine Project is still running. I’ve no idea when they will provide an update though.
I think the dropping of ISCCP and non replacement with another such project differentiating low and high cloud types across the latitude bands will be seen by future scientists as the betrayal of the scientific method writ large all over the AGW enterprise.

Editor
November 17, 2010 5:08 am

John Day : “.. except the title “The unbearable flatness of 10.7″. Sounds a little like impatience with the status quo
The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Dr. Lurtz
November 17, 2010 5:57 am

The Solar energy’s effect on the Earth temperature is a cumulative operation. That is, it is the total area under the 10.7 curve. Instantaneous events are not important [unless we get a Solar Flare pointing (frying) directly at us].
The Sun is acting on its 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle” (my definition). The results will be the same: “The Thames River will freeze”. Since 2005, the beginning of the minimum of the 10.7 Flux, the Earth is losing 0.1C/2.5 years from loss of Solar input. So far we have lost 0.2C.
The La Nina and other natural Solar driven cycles are the indications of the Earth giving up its stored heat to Space via the poles. Watch the Sea Ice page for the Arctic temperature. This is an easy read thermometer for the Earth.
If this does become a full blown “Dalton Minimum”, we can expect the Global temperatures to drop 2.0C from 2005 to 2055.
Remember, most “scientists” believe that the Sun is a constant output Star that has no effect of the Earth’s Climate. How wrong can they be???
“The Unbearable Flatness of 10.7” proves that the Sun is variable.
Thanks,
Dr. Lurtz

November 17, 2010 6:03 am

It clearly reflects POWER is down…..We’ll need to install some condensers, because if we don’t the electrical company will charge us more money 🙂

November 17, 2010 6:11 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:21 am
No need to panic, not yet
Need to call the electrical company!…or , is it anyway to know, based on past performance, what will it be in the future?
tallbloke says:
November 17, 2010 at 4:57 am
Need someone who could have the Sun’s musical score to know what follows… 🙂

Stephen Wilde
November 17, 2010 6:20 am

I think this shows how it could work:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How the Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.
The opposite when the sun is more active.

November 17, 2010 6:22 am

Leif informed me the other day that SORCE has been going through a bit of a crisis:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/weekly_status/2010/weekly_status_2010_10_14.pdf

Andrew30
November 17, 2010 6:39 am

To get an idea of how the ‘prediction’ follows the data:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
First Solar Cycle 24 Prediction April 2007
Ooops, never mind, that was Way Off try this one.
May 2009 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update
Ooops, never mind, that was Way Off try this one.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update released May 8, 2009
Wait for it….
I predict that the prediction will be re-predicted in a couple of months so that the prediction at least line up with the historical actual data that has become available since the last prediction.
I think that adding these two past ‘predictions’ to this posting would be informative.
A three shot blink change of the three prediction graphs (corrected for scale) would be nice.
[Or four shot. Or five. Six? Seven blink comparison? 8<) Robt]

AJB
November 17, 2010 7:21 am

LarryT says November 17, 2010 at 2:18 am
Each to their own. These arguments have been done do death, let’s not clutter up this thread with it too, eh?

Steve Keohane
November 17, 2010 7:41 am

Andrew30 says: November 17, 2010 at 6:39 am
I don’t have an animated gif, but here is a static presentation of the cycle 24 predictions.
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg

November 17, 2010 7:56 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
November 17, 2010 at 5:57 am
If this does become a full blown “Dalton Minimum”, we can expect the Global temperatures to drop 2.0C from 2005 to 2055. ……………The Sun is acting on its 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle”
Hi doc. I disagree with your diagnosis.
I personally think (or at least my equations show)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
that by 2055 solar cycles will be well up on the SC25. The ‘Grand minimum’ I expect to occur around 2025, no deeper than the 1810. A Maunder type minimum is long way off, more likely around 2200. If temperatures are directly related to the solar activity (TSI etc.) than 2 degree drop by 2055 is also far too drastic (if applied to CETs
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm )
I also don’t recognise 380-400 year “Dalton Cycle”. Some grand minima are deeper than the others, but again going by my equation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm
110-120sh yr multiples appear to be more common, hence 60 year weather cycles.
Speculative All Gore-ish type exaggerations may give a ‘bad name’ to ‘normal’ sceptics.

Bill H
November 17, 2010 8:20 am

rc says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:56 am
With all do respect, Dr Hathaway is wrong. the model they are using does not factor a good number of things. As with our current earth model they use static numbers where they can not be and should no be used simply because they do not know what effects the internal systems have on one another let alone what outside magnetic forces have.
GIGO
Infants have tantrums and cry a lot… prediction programs are infants…

Dr. Lurtz
November 17, 2010 8:36 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 am
“Hi doc. I disagree with your diagnosis.
I personally think (or at least my equations show)”…
Look at the Sunspots at the beginning of the Maunder minimum [1620]. They don’t follow your eqns. They collapsed to near zero for 50 years. A better set of eqns. would be a sawtooth with a sine wave on top.
“Speculative All Gore-ish type exaggerations may give a ‘bad name’ to ‘normal’ sceptics.”
I didn’t come up with the words ‘Solar Constant’.
Maybe we all need a “sceptics reference chart” to know what to say. I’m sure you could provide one!

November 17, 2010 8:47 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:20 am
I think this shows how it could work:
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.
The opposite when the sun is more active.
You are really paraphrasing Kristian Birkeland wrote:With a constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high
But that’s TABOO for “Settled Science”….

November 17, 2010 9:07 am

Dr. Lurtz
I have studied Maunder minimum extensively, and my equations give a good approximation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMb.htm
I do not see current minimum turning into 50 year long minimum, I am basing my judgment on the known astronomy orbital properties, but of course I may be wrong.

November 17, 2010 9:14 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:56 am
….Not to worry, then. No Blackout in sight. That’s a relief!

November 17, 2010 9:25 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:07 am
I am basing my judgment on the known astronomy orbital properties

But, if the EU proponents are right then other fields are important and your extrapolation of the Sun’s polar fields:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif
Show “power” decreasing…

November 17, 2010 9:46 am

Enneagram says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:25 am …….
Don’t forget orbital properties apply not only to the huge round lamps of frozen Hydrogen but also to their magnetospheres, they are the key!
There is another indicator, Sun-Earth magnetic connection, which I do not understand , but the last 400 years shows that the Arctic magnetic field moved in advance (in reverse proportion) of about one Hale cycle to the sunspot output.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
But we should also remember that according to NASA sun pumps 650,000A current into Arctic.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg
Arctic field at the moment shows small rise (due to the Siberian leg), but again there is no indication of GMF going up strongly as it did 1600-1640.

Stephen Wilde
November 17, 2010 9:47 am

Enneagram,
No. my proposition is entirely different and depends on the solar effects on ozone chemistry.
You should read the article I linked to.

James Allison
November 17, 2010 9:52 am

Mike Jonas says:
November 17, 2010 at 5:08 am
That was the movie title that popped into my head when I read the post heading. Couldn’t make the connection though. Maybe sunspot activity cannot be anticipated like that bloke in the movie.

Werner Brozek
November 17, 2010 9:57 am

“Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:20 am
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.”
If we just have the following: “Basically a weak sun (causes) an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.”
The graph by Juraj V. above: (http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif) seems to show that since 2000, the cloud cover has increased and the temperatures decreased. And the following shows that the sun has gotten quieter since 2000 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2406928/posts?page=77) See the fourth red one. These 2 graphs support 3 out of your 4 assertions. Now you just need some graph showing jet streams from 2000 to 2010. Do you know if one exists or if something exists from which you can infer the jet streams?

November 17, 2010 10:19 am

vukcevic says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:46 am
Then we should need another equation, from you, to see how it is working the “local grid”, if it reflects the Sun’s.

November 17, 2010 10:34 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:47 am
Enneagram,
No. my proposition is entirely different and depends on the solar effects on ozone chemistry.
You should read the article I linked to.

You said “OZONE”…..and protons during Sun’s increased activity (in your paper)
No more witnesses needed! 🙂
Your theory is perfectly correct, however that’s electricity working (btw:I can be an iconoclast, no remorses whatsoever).
The Unified Field shows that everywhere we’ll find alternate currents (Sin +Cos) where the “phase angle” φ changes and changes the outcome (“Call it Power, Energy, pH, or Global Warming):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42018959/Unified-Field-Explained-9

Paul Vaughan
November 17, 2010 10:51 am

vukcevic, there’s a 011011 pattern in your 120s. The beat of ~180 (lunisolar tides) with ~120 is 360. I’m not suggesting anything, but I did pause to wonder if you had noticed this before responding to Dr. Lurtz.

Steve Keohane posted:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg

Truly humorous – but on a more sober note, this is also very telling about a pathological problem that has taken widespread & deep root in our society: uncritical acceptance of absolutely untenable assumptions. While the laughter at the sight of the graph was both involuntary & impulsive, the seriousness of the problem (uncritical acceptance of absolutely untenable assumptions) is anything but humorous.

Re: R. de Haan
Your link led to this:
Borchert, H. (2010). South Pacific oscillation and cosmic radiation.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/SO_Borchert.pdf
A quick look at the graphs suggests this might be a stimulating article. My instinct is that the author may be focused on decadal-timescale cloud-modulated thermal tides while overlooking gravitational lunisolar (~2.37a, QBO, EOP, LNC, 179a, etc.) tides, but I don’t read German, so it’s time to take a more careful look with this …
http://translate.google.com/

This is probably an opportune time to share an update on my research into the nature of interannual terrestrial oscillations.
Using NASA Horizons data, I have verified one of the claims of Piers Corbyn regarding lunisolar beat envelopes. Some of you may be interested to know that these envelopes are nearly exactly synchronized with fundamental beats of the solar system, perhaps for reasons which Ian Wilson is outlining for a forthcoming article.
I am developing new algorithms that bring objectivity to the study of sign switching in turbulent multivariate coupling relations. (We all know about the highly regular QBO in the stratosphere, but the troposphere is more turbulent.)
Observations arising with ease during the first hours of testing:
1) A remarkable multiyear multi-index coupling occurred ~1920. This dovetails with research on the dynamics of ~1915-1945. The core frequency of the coupling is 2.37 years.
2) The sign of the interannual-timescale phase-coupling of QBO & AO/NAO/NAM is related to LNC. Awareness of this pattern might be of value for those looking to advance the work of Karin Labitzke.
http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke/
3) Major SOI events coincide with qualitative changes in the nature of SOI coupling with SAM. This story – “The Tale of SAM & SOI” – which can be communicated via analogy with human coupling, has a major lunisolar twist…
4) Intermittent North Atlantic contrasts with the North Pacific are undeniably nonrandom. The conventional assumption of unconditional randomness underpinning mainstream climate science tests of statistical significance absolutely does not withstand scrutiny. What we are witnessing appears to be an entire discipline which has fallen victim to Simpson’s Paradox. As one of my most valued mentors, a tactfully-rebellious, amicable, & eminently sensible statistician, once announced emphatically, “Too much of this p-value stuff.” Suggested: See the work of W.S. Cleveland for some better ideas on how to explore data:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/departments/sia/project/trellis/
I’m exploring the possibility of extending the new algorithms into the complex plane to engineer a form of complex cross-wavelet analysis that is independent of wavelet shape. To my knowledge, such methods have never been developed. If anyone has knowledge of the existence of such methods, please let me know immediately.
A note mainly for those of you still trumpeting the notion that terrestrial climate is “chaotic”:
The following authors took a few wrong turns and haven’t finished what they’ve started, but please take note of what they are saying about strange nonchaotic attractors:
Sonechkin, D.M.; & Brojewski, R. (2003). ENSO: A quasiperiodic forced dynamical system.
http://forum.decvar.org/presentations/ENSO_WORKSHOP/documents/presentations/posters/Sonechkin-poster.pdf
Also see:
Sonechkin, D.M.; & Ivachtchenko, N.N. (2001). On the role of a quasiperiodic forcing in the interannual and interdecadal climate variations.
Some worthwhile quotes from the latter article:
“After the seminal researches of Ed Lorenz the idea of the chaotic nature, i.e. instability and unpredictability, of the atmospheric variations of all scales won almost all of meteorologists.”
“First of all, QBO is clearly established in the temporal variations of the zonal winds within the equatorial lower stratosphere. But, the phenomenon is also observed in the variations of different atmospheric variables within extratropics.”
“In order to clear up the nature of QBO and other mentioned peaks and bands of increased power energy the notion of the so-called strange NONCHAOTIC attractor seems to be important. This notion was recently introduced by mathematicians to depict some aperiodic variations in the nonlinear dynamical systems forced by two or more periodic external forces at incommensurable frequencies. The variations excited by such a manner were found to be of the neutral stability, i.e. they are predictable without any limit even if their shapes are very complex.”
“But, in practical calculations, these spectra look like continuous ones, and their peaks seem to be statistically insignificant under the traditional tests.”
“Actually, the phenomenon of the strange nonchaotic attractor is well known in meteorology. An example is the oceanic and atmospheric tides. The tides are excited by the gravitation interactions between Earth, Sun, and Moon. These interactions are quasi-periodic, and the tides are known to be of neutral stability. But, our aim here is to indicate that the notion of the strange nonchaotic attractor may be also used to model and predict the interannual and interdecadal atmospheric variations.”
I want to suggest that they need to include spatial heterogeneity and cloud-modulated thermal tides (frequency modulated by solar cycle acceleration = SCL’ [or something confounded with it]) in their thinking.
Caution: Even though their article is stimulating, there’s also some stuff that appears (upon a glance at least) to be misguided junk, so I recommend following up on their separate claims with independent empirical investigation.
The new methods I’ve developed can see linear-correlation-crushing phase-reversals with crystal clarity. My conclusion: Beyond being foolhardy, the assumption of randomness is dangerous to society & civilization. There is a myth that Simpson’s Paradox is “rare”. If independence does not hold, SP most certainly is not rare; on the contrary, it can be guaranteed. This is no trivial matter.

November 17, 2010 11:30 am

AJB says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:21 am
Each to their own. These arguments have been done do death, let’s not clutter up this thread with it too, eh?
The usual cranks are out in force…
No need to to feed them.
The ‘layman’s sunspot count is just junk.
If anything, we are UNDERcounting sunspots these days:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf
We are just going to have a smallish cycle:
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
[and BTW, the observed active region count is just following the predicted curve].

November 17, 2010 11:39 am

Paul Vaughan says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:51 am
…………
Hi Paul, Yes I have noticed ‘2 on 1 off ‘ pattern; I attribute this to J-S orbital resonance. ‘120 & 180 to 360 I was not aware; Dr. Lurtz referred to 380-400 period.

November 17, 2010 1:12 pm

Although no-one on this blog seems to follow their work, and I know not why that seems to be the case, de Jaeger and Duhau have another “solar” paper on the way.
The full paper is at http://www.cdejager.com/sun-earth-publications/ under “2010-Variable-solar-dynamo.pdf”.
C. de Jager and S. Duhau: ”The variable solar dynamo and the forecast of solar activity; influence on terrestrial surface temperature”, in J. M. Cossia (ed.) “Global Warming in the 21st Century”, 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, N.Y.; ISBN 978-1-0728-980-42012, pp. 77 – 106.
Abstract: Solar variability is governed by the solar dynamo, an intricate interplay between the sun’s poloidal and toroidal magnetic field components. The most pronounced periodicity is the Schwabe cycle of about 11 years duration, and the Hale cycle, consisting of two successive Schwabe cycles. Another important cycle, with variable length, is named after Gleissberg. We describe the role of the two magnetic field components in these periodicities and forward suggestions for the solar mechanisms at work in driving these. We suggest that the Hale cycle is due to magnetohydrodynamic oscillations of the tachocline with a period of about 22 years. The time-behaviour of the longer components, along with information on the phase-relationship between them allows us to forecast the solar future behaviour. We expect a low next solar maximum, around 2014. After the 20th century’s Grand Maximum, a Grand Minimum will start in one or two decades from present. It will last for at least one Gleissberg cycle. We describe the correlation of the two solar magnetic field components with terrestrial surface temperature variations for the period 1610 to 1970. About 40% of the gradual increase of terrestrial surface temperature is correlated with solar variability. Of this amount about two-thirds is correlated with toroidal field variations and that component can fully be explained quantitatively by the gradual increase of Total Solar Irradiance and the consequent feedback by evaporated gases. A yet unexplained fraction of ~30% is correlated with the poloidal field. After subtracting these components the residual smoothed global warming was 0.31 degrees in 1999.

Dr T G Watkins
November 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Great comments. I’m familiar with many of the names but it is difficult to know how much ‘weight’ to give to each commentator. Dr Svalgaard seems to pour cold water on most as usual.

November 17, 2010 1:47 pm

Jon Huddleston says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Although no-one on this blog seems to follow their work, and I know not why that seems to be the case, de Jaeger and Duhau have another “solar” paper on the way.
De Jaeger/Duhay’s papers suffer too much from cyclomania, IMO. But will no doubt find a more positive reception by the many ‘cyclists’ here.

Paul Vaughan
November 17, 2010 1:57 pm

Clarification for anyone trying to follow the exchange between vukcevic & I:
I was referring to the 011011 pattern here http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm . (Apologies for not specifying which graph in my earlier post.)

While I’m not endorsing the following paper, I do encourage everyone to read the excellent appendix on collective synchronization of coupled oscillators:
Scafetta, N. (2010). Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Clarification on how I am conceptualizing turbulent relations between interannual components of terrestrial oscillation indices:
In the following video, the oscillators are 2-D & coupled along 1 dimension, but imagine, by analogy, 3-D oscillators distributed on the surface of a spinning spatiotemporally heterogeneous oblate spheroid (orbited by a moon & orbiting a sun with a temporally nonstationary cycle):
“Synchronisation” [of 5 Metronomes]:

Keep in mind the dynamic nature of (sometimes abrupt, sometimes diffuse) boundary conditions between oscillators (which are not isolated in the real system, of course, so coupling isn’t just through a simple base), as well as lunisolar gravitational & solar thermal tides (which relate nonrandomly to insolation [what gets past clouds etc.] – not to be confused with irradiance). Also: spatial heterogeneity, such as north-south asymmetry, continental-maritime contrasts, ocean basin & mountain chain geometry, latitudinal variation of the nature of LNC influence, etc.
Speculation based on ongoing empirical investigations: The lunisolar gravitational tides form a relatively stationary framework, like the strings on an instrument, and nonstationary solar thermal tides (acting via spatiotemporal insolation [cloud] variations) & terrestrial spatial heterogeneity are like fingers and bows pushing & pulling on the strings (i.e. intermittently perturbing & reversing some of the metronomes).
Detection of drifts towards &/or away from collective synchronization cannot be accomplished with simple linear correlation in this context. Multiscale phase-aware methods are needed (possibly ones that have not yet been sufficiently developed).

November 17, 2010 2:15 pm

Dutch scientists C. DeJager and S. Duhau are predicting the next solar maximum to occur in 2014 (SS count of 55), followed by Grand Minimum starting in the 2020s, which will last for one Gleissberg Cycle. During the depth of this cool-down, the earth will see approximately a 0.4C decrease in temperature.
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

November 17, 2010 2:19 pm

Jon Huddleston says:
November 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm
……………
Thanks for the link. De Jager and Dahau compare present situation to 1620-30, suggesting next Grand Minimum 2020-30, but do not offer any solid indisputable analysis for their conclusion.
I formulated set of equations in 2003 (published Jan 2004),
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
extrapolation indeed identifies 2020-30 as a Grand minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Difference is that I based the formula on the precise astronomical numbers, representing orbits of two largest planets of the solar system. In my replies to Dr Lurtz (vukcevic says:November 17, 2010 at 7:56 am and November 17, 2010 at 9:07 am) I elaborated on the reasons why I do not think we are heading for a Maunder type minimum.

November 17, 2010 2:28 pm

Talking about the Scafetta paper, I have overlaid the Scafetta 60 year modulation controlled by solar velocity, the 172 year AM modulation and the sunspot record (past and future). This diagram incorporates both solar and climate drivers.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwave.png

November 17, 2010 2:38 pm

They weren’t UNDER counting sunspots until Hathaway went WAY down with his prediction. This is bull****!
Slash the funding to all these jokers and the climate jokers and monitor the volcanoes better. Because that’s what’s going to kick our ass. Or a comet/asteroid.

November 17, 2010 2:44 pm

Paul Vaughan says: November 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm
………….
Paul
Regarding the temperatures question, the green line in this graph could be a subject of a future controversy.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETng.htm

November 17, 2010 2:46 pm

and plant more trees, fruit preferable

November 17, 2010 3:22 pm

I have plotted the Canadian monthly F10.7 flux values for SC20 and SC24.
SC20 was a weak cycle, if SC24 keeps on its current heading it will be a very weak cycle that is seen only in times of grand minima.
Plot can be found HERE

November 17, 2010 3:26 pm

Ed Murphy says:
November 17, 2010 at 2:38 pm
They weren’t UNDER counting sunspots until Hathaway went WAY down with his prediction. This is bull****!
They started UNDER counting around 2001…

jorgekafkazar
November 17, 2010 4:04 pm

Goz says: “In any other field, such epic failure would result in – at minimum – disciplinary action, and probably sackings.”
But this is NOT any other field; it’s astrophysics. You remember, the field most closely related to horseshoes and handgrenades? Getting the decimal in the right place is the goal. Dr. Hathaway is doing just fine. Being wrong is okay; it happens all the time in real science.
vukcevic says: “I do not see [a] …50 year long minimum, I am basing my judgment on the known astronomy orbital properties, but of course I may be wrong.”
With an attitude like that, Vuk, you’ll never be offered a job at UEA.

November 17, 2010 5:14 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I have plotted the Canadian monthly F10.7 flux values for SC20 and SC24.
SC20 was a weak cycle, if SC24 keeps on its current heading it will be a very weak cycle that is seen only in times of grand minima.

When you line the cycles up correctly the picture is not so shocking. First let us look at F10.7: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-Yearly.png
The blue curves are F10.7. The Canadian station [dark blue]moved in the early 1990s. Comparison with Japanese data since 1952 suggests that the early Canadian values should be adjusted downwards [light blue]. The observed Sunspot Number [pink SSN] is also shown. Using the data 1947-1990 one can obtain a VERY good fit for qa formula to calculate the SSN from F10.7 [Purple curve]. Since ~1991 the fit has become progressively worse [the purple and pink curves don’t match so well anymore]. This is a combination of SIDC under counting the SSN [causing the pink curve to fall below the purple one] and [likely] the Livingston&Penn effect that makes sunspots harder to see [and thus leads to further under counting].
Now line up the current F10.7 values with the ones for cycle 20: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-Yearly-20-24.png
The filled pink squares show observed values, while the open squares show the prediction [Rmax=72, F107max=123]. Everything looks to be right on track. Of course, if L&P are correct Rmax will be much lower than the predicted 72, but this will affect F10.7 a lot less [a truer measure of solar activity].

ge0050
November 17, 2010 6:32 pm

Take a look at the work of Landscheidt
In 1989, Landscheidt forecast a period of sunspot minima after 1990, accompanied by increased cold, with a stronger minimum and more intense cold which should peak in 2030 [1], which he described as the “Landscheidt Minimum” [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

November 17, 2010 6:35 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 17, 2010 at 5:14 pm
When you line the cycles up correctly the picture is not so shocking.
The cycles are lined up correctly. I also prefer not to introduce other data sets and give the L&P Effect no credence. The L&P Effect is junk science.
The simple plain unadulterated Canadian data is all that is required to compare cycles. Your use of the Japanese data is what creates the diversion.
BTW so far since June this year the SIDC has been running at 0.7 of the NOAA count. They are not under counting.

November 17, 2010 7:03 pm

Paul Vaughan says: I was referring to the 011011 pattern here http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm
I don’t see it so much 011011 as 13/22/13/22.
see various observations at the following link. Without using mathematical formulas there are other past patterns that might help predict the next cycle.It should be worse than the Dalton, but not as bad as the Maunder. I don’t understand the “NASA” and then a repeat of the Dalton breaking the 13/22 pattern. Vuk, could you explain?
http://agwnot.blogspot.com/2010/11/climate-and-solar-regularities-and_16.html

Stephen Wilde
November 17, 2010 7:46 pm

Hello Leif,
I notice that you never responded to questions that I asked you in a number of other threads concerning the recent data obtained by Joanna Haigh.
She seems to have found that the reaction of ozone quantities to the quiet sun changes at around the height of the stratopause.
Below about 45Km ozone quantities were observed to have fallen as anticipated (yet the stratosphere seems not to be cooling, which is a puzzle).
Above 45Km ozone quantities were observed to have risen (presumably with warming) which is contrary to expectations during a quiet sun.
That introduces the intriguing possibility that as per my earlier contentions there is differential warming and cooling at different levels in the atmosphere as a result of solar changes and that at least in parts of the atmosphere it does not hold true that a more active sun results in warming and a less active sun results in cooling.
As I have previously suggested the temperature of the stratosphere is critical to the height of the tropopause and thus the pressure distribution in the troposphere so the sun could effect climate changes via such differential warming and cooling effects.
What do you say about the Haigh data (as opposed to her generally warmist interpretation of the data) ?

November 17, 2010 8:57 pm

In Physorg.com press release http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html David Hathaway predicts Cycle 24 to be the the strongest in recorded history.
They must be joking, and it is not April fools Day!
According to their graph “Peaks in geomagnetic activity (red) foretell solar maxima (black) more than six years in advance,” so they have not learned the lesson!
Because if peaks foretell solar maxima, the low point in cycle 22/23 must foretell the deep minimum of Cycle 23, and according to the graph it should have been a very high minimum. So that’s why Hathaway (and Dikpati!) predicted a strong cycle 24 –and kept kicking the ball forward with their predictions about Cycle 24 start until they gave up in embarrasment.
So they failed in their mimimun predictions, their Cycle 23 length prediction, the beginning of cycle 24 prediction. So why anyone should believe their fourth prediction –after three failures in a row?
Sombody should kick these nuts out of NASA -and make them return the money spent in their salaries…
I wonder (not) if this has anything to do with Cancun in less than two weeks…
REPLY: Note the date – December 22, 2006 – Anthony

November 17, 2010 9:00 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:35 pm
The cycles are lined up correctly. I also prefer not to introduce other data sets and give the L&P Effect no credence. The L&P Effect is junk science.
They should be lined up on F10.7, not on SSN. For your convenience I give the resukt using both datasets. The conclusion is unaltered, no matter which one you use, as you can plainly see.
The simple plain unadulterated Canadian data is all that is required to compare cycles. Your use of the Japanese data is what creates the diversion.
As I pointed out there is no diversion. And both the Canadian and the Japanese agree to my composite dataset: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
Shibasaki is director of the Japanese observatory and Tapping is director of the Canadian one, but as I said, it doesn’t really matter as the conclusion is the same no matter which one is used.
BTW so far since June this year the SIDC has been running at 0.7 of the NOAA count. They are not under counting.
Since June the ratio has been 0.68, because I told SIDC about their problem and they are trying to do better. They have still not corrected their values back through 2001, but this is underway.
Both NOAA and SIDC are under counting compared to F10.7.

November 17, 2010 9:09 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I notice that you never responded to questions that I asked you in a number of other threads concerning the recent data obtained by Joanna Haigh.
Your questions were much to vague for meaningful answers…
What do you say about the Haigh data (as opposed to her generally warmist interpretation of the data) ?
It is not her data, but the finding of measurements of SIM [spectral irradiance] reported by LASP [Harder et al.].
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.02_Haigh_atmos_model.pdf
The paper by Calahan http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf shows that the effect is very small [less than 0.1K at surface]

November 17, 2010 9:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm
They should be lined up on F10.7, not on SSN.
As stated the graph is a plot of SC20 & SC24 F10.7 (Canadian), pure and simple nothing to confuse, no mention of SSN.
Since June the ratio has been 0.68, because I told SIDC about their problem and they are trying to do better.
That ego of your never stops surprising me, it may have something to do with Locarno’s new sunspot counter in training. I also informed the SIDC that your presentation did not note the Japanese F10.7 data (just in case you forgot to mention it).

November 17, 2010 10:03 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:45 pm
As stated the graph is a plot of SC20 & SC24 F10.7 (Canadian), pure and simple nothing to confuse, no mention of SSN.
The important point is how you line them up on the minimum. Tell us.
I also informed the SIDC that your presentation did not note the Japanese F10.7 data (just in case you forgot to mention it).
You didn’t need take the trouble as they well know. Mentioned on slide 21 and verbally. And the F10.7 is not relevant for their internal calibration. With larger spots now becoming more frequent the Waldmeier weighting is also beginning to increase the ratio SIDC/NOAA, from 0.614 in 2008, 0.629 in 2009, and 0.643 in 2010 [so far].

November 18, 2010 12:03 am

jorgekafkazar says:
November 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm
With an attitude like that, Vuk, you’ll never be offered a job at UEA.
I can afford luxury of being wrong, I do it as a hobby, Dr Hathaway gets paid for it.
I have now a good laugh when I read an email from Dr. Hathaway, going back to 2007, when he said my formula was nonsense since there was problem around 1800, but at the time he was predicting SC24 to be the highest ever ( I think was around 200 or +).
Murray Duffin says:
November 17, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I don’t understand the “NASA” and then a repeat of the Dalton breaking the 13/22 pattern. Vuk, could you explain?
Sorry ‘NASA’ reefers to the NASA’s years of Gr. Minima. I had change that now.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC5.htm

anna v
November 18, 2010 12:03 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:35 pm
The cycles are lined up correctly. I also prefer not to introduce other data sets and give the L&P Effect no credence. The L&P Effect is junk science.
Well, you just dropped levels in my scale of whom to read carefully. I have been following the L&P effect for some time, and to call the meticulous experimental work of two serious researchers “junk science” is bordering of hubris. Let alone it shows no discriminating ability in scientific matters. Well gathered data is never junk, and the effect is there.

Malaga View
November 18, 2010 12:11 am

gary gulrud says:
Except this is Solar Science, Climate Science’s mirror twin.

Sad but true… this Solar Minimum is really separating the wheat from the chaff.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 1:16 am

Leif, you have not answered the questions.
The item you linked to says this at the end:
“Next Steps
Include stratospheric chemistry & circulation (see Haigh, also Stolarski)”
Please address the specific questions which do involve stratospheric (and mesospheric) chemistry and circulation.
I deny that my questions have ever been vague or unclear.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 1:29 am

To assist you, Leif and readers, this is the Summary from Haigh’s paper which needs to be addressed properly:
“•Input to 2D model SIM (& SOLSTICE) spectra produce a very different response in O3from semi-empirical models of SSI: a reduction in lower mesosphere at higher solar activity and a large increase in mid-to upper stratosphere.
•This structure can be explained by enhanced production of HOx, and by a shift of Oxfrom O3to O.
•This structure is not inconsistent with contemporaneous measurements of O3from AURA-MLS.
•SIM data would suggest that solar radiative forcing of climate produced a warming from 2004 to 2007, despite declining TSI.
•Interesting implications if this spectral variation occurs (has occurred) over longer timescales…”
Thus the cooling stratosphere when the sun was active and the stratosphere no longer cooling with the sun less active.
As far as I know I am the only person to have addressed the problem in published work here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645&linkbox=true&position=1
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
The albedo and cloud quantity implications go way beyond simple TSI changes in terms of the Earth’s overall energy budget.

Ralph
November 18, 2010 2:27 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 17, 2010 at 6:20 am
I think this shows how it could work:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How the Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.

Which is exactly what happened last northern winter. However, Lief will tell you that the sun’s TSI is not changing, and so this theory is null and void. They will have to look for another factor, that can influence the latitude of the jet streams.
.

November 18, 2010 3:50 am

anna v says:
November 18, 2010 at 12:03 am
Well, you just dropped levels in my scale of whom to read carefully.
Don’t worry anna I won’t lose any sleep. If you cared to look at the science in detail without your bias you may also reach the same conclusion.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/65

Tenuc
November 18, 2010 4:19 am

Ralph says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:27 am
“Which is exactly what happened last northern winter. However, Lief will tell you that the sun’s TSI is not changing, and so this theory is null and void. They will have to look for another factor, that can influence the latitude of the jet streams.”
I think your right, Ralph, and Leif’s argument that the fact TSI has changed little over the last few hundred years is a just a reductio ad absurdum. By claiming that all all the other changes, like solar wind strength, percentage of UV, magnetic field strength, e.t.c can have little or no effect Leif can deny that ‘it was the sun, stupid’.
However, we do not know enough about how our climate operates to rule out minor effects. Our climate is driven by deterministic chaos and even small changes to initial conditions can be amplified to produce large long-term effects. Until our knowledge of climate mechanisms improves, Leif’s argument makes no sense.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 4:52 am

“However, Lief will tell you that the sun’s TSI is not changing, and so this theory is null and void.”
Which is why I am pressing Leif on the ozone chemistry issue and in particular the data highlighted by Joanna Haigh.
The atmosphere does not seem to warm throughout in response to a more active sun nor cool throughout in response to a less active sun. On that basis all Leif’s previous pronouncements about the response (or lack of response) of the atmosphere to solar changes are null and void.
If the temperature of the stratosphere follows the temperature of the mesosphere (as appears from observations to be the case) and the temperature of the mesosphere changes in response to solar changes with the opposite sign to that always assumed (as appears from observations to be the case) due to ozone chemistry reactions above 45Km then we have a means whereby the height of the tropopause can be affected by solar variability with a consequent effect on tropospheric pressure distribution.

November 18, 2010 5:25 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:03 pm
The important point is how you line them up on the minimum. Tell us.
I picked the lowest reading of both minimums then compared the overall shapes of the curves. You could argue about this for days, which is your bent, but the result is very much in the ball park.
You didn’t need take the trouble as they well know. Mentioned on slide 21 and verbally. And the F10.7 is not relevant for their internal calibration. With larger spots now becoming more frequent the Waldmeier weighting is also beginning to increase the ratio SIDC/NOAA, from 0.614 in 2008, 0.629 in 2009, and 0.643 in 2010 [so far].

Slide 21 mentions the Canadian data matches the Japanese data (it doesn’t) but you did not mention how the F10.7 data is constructed. In the past you have made up your own version by combining both data sets which then shows a diversion from the SSN. There is no mention in your presentation of the F10.7 data source?
If the Waldmeier weighting factor is now coming into force (not likely as the earlier months of this year were far more active) why does the SIDC have a problem around 2001 at cycle max?

David Archibald
November 18, 2010 6:47 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Geoff, may I be a bit of a pain and suggest that you expand that graph to include all the minima for which we have F 10.7 data? I think the result would be instructive. I should do it myself but I am away from civilisation.
We are now two years after the month of solar minimum and curve fitting at this point can be very accurate in predicting the shape of the rest of the cycle. That is why I drew Anthony’s attention to Dr Svalgaard’s plot of the ramp up of Solar Cycle 19 and Solar Cycle 24. 24 is as flat as a biscuit.
Regarding the force that dare not speak its name, the standard will be set be a paper coming out in 2011.

November 18, 2010 8:05 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 1:16 am
I deny that my questions have ever been vague or unclear.
Then you should have no problem posing them again, clearly and succinctly.
The albedo and cloud quantity implications go way beyond simple TSI changes in terms of the Earth’s overall energy budget.
But you have not explained how the Sun changes the albedo.
Ralph says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:27 am
“Basically a weak sun sends the jetstreams toward the equator with an increase in total cloud amounts and an increase in global albedo for a reduction in the amount of solar shortwave energy entering the oceans.
This is the rub: how does a weak sun do that?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 18, 2010 at 5:25 am
I picked the lowest reading of both minimums then compared the overall shapes of the curves.
By eyeballing, thus. And thus biased and undocumented.
Slide 21 mentions the Canadian data matches the Japanese data (it doesn’t) but you did not mention how the F10.7 data is constructed. In the past you have made up your own version by combining both data sets which then shows a diversion from the SSN. There is no mention in your presentation of the F10.7 data source?
The construction of the composite F10.7 has been described in detail several times and is well known in the solar community. E.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf [which BTW shows the excellent agreement – after correcting for the movement of the Canadian station, the effect of which is clear from slide 5].
The ‘diversion’ does not depend on the version of the data, it was indeed first noticed by Ken Tapping studying the Canadian data only, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6.03_Tapping_F10.7.pdf
The Japanese data just confirms this result.
If the Waldmeier weighting factor is now coming into force (not likely as the earlier months of this year were far more active) why does the SIDC have a problem around 2001 at cycle max?
Your knowledge of solar activity is lacking. The monthly SSN this year has been 12, 18, 16, 8, 9, 14, 16, 20, 25, 24, 26 belying your assertion that “the earlier months of this year were far more active”. SIDC is looking in to their problem as we speak. My own feeling is that Locarno plays a progressively smaller role as more and more collaborating observers have entered the network, but this will eventually be resolved.

November 18, 2010 8:20 am

Ralph says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:27 am
That would point to the same culprit: The Sun, however its electric fields. (called by others ” winds”)

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 8:29 am

Leif Svalgaard said:
“The albedo and cloud quantity implications go way beyond simple TSI changes in terms of the Earth’s overall energy budget.
But you have not explained how the Sun changes the albedo.”
I have explained it fully in my linked article.
My questions are perfectly clear to anyone willing to address them.

November 18, 2010 8:36 am

In pebbles’ universe (universes too, it seems there are many) it seems there are absolutely separated compartments where one form (wavelength, frequency) of energy it is forbidden to go out. Thus if it comes to the earth no matter how many billions of energy units, each one of them, is directed to fulfill a distinct work: One goes to heating , the other to producing sunburns, the other to produce tornadoes, etc,etc….It seems that for overdosed with conceit new age professors, one can transform into any other, which was obvious not too much time ago….

November 18, 2010 8:49 am

Typo: it must say: “it can not transform…”

November 18, 2010 8:53 am

You just don’t ask for “heat” when needing to prepare your breakfast, you ask for POWER.

November 18, 2010 9:19 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:29 am
My questions are perfectly clear to anyone willing to address them.
Instead of squirming so much, just reduce my work by restating them as clearly as you can.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 10:10 am

Leif,
Do you accept Haigh’s data that suggests increasing ozone above 45Km and consequent warming of the mesosphere when the sun is quiet ?
Do you accept that the mesosphere cooled whilst the sun was more active ?
Do you accept that the stratosphere also cooled along with the mesosphere when the sun was more active and that despite the quiet sun the stratosphere has now stopped cooling and is warming a little ?
If you accept those bits of data what does that imply for your contention that when the sun is active all the layers of the atmosphere warm together and when the sun is inactive all the layers cool together ?
How do you account for those observations ?

Chuck
November 18, 2010 10:32 am

A little too high in their guess.
Must be using IPCC certified models.
Should come in around 55 peak and it should look more peak than rounded.
They should look at 1700 cycle for a better sampling.

November 18, 2010 10:41 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:10 am
Do you accept Haigh’s data that suggests increasing ozone above 45Km and consequent warming of the mesosphere when the sun is quiet ?
This is typical of the vagueness of your questions. A precise question would have been [you are a lawyer, so should know]: “do you accept that over the period 2003-2007 the ozone increased from x to y in the layer from 45 to zz km, and that that caused a warming of the mesosphere [between yy and xx km] of tt degrees”
And similarly for the other vague questions and assertions.

November 18, 2010 11:35 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:10 am
Interesting: Some reactions are exothermic, other endothermic. That in the realm of chemical reactions; now the thermoelectric effect also works both ways…heat is also produced by resistance or reactance. Vegetation, corn for example, transform Sun’s energy into “solid” energy: glucose, carbohydrates, cellulose.
If we do not consider them all, we are simply groping in the dark. So, we get back to the question: How does everything work?…then back to school or back to the basics.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 1:06 pm

Enneagram:
I agree that once we have some basic observations it is then necessary to consider how they must fit together in an overall system that complies with basic physics.
I don’t think it necessary to withold any attempt at creating a conceptual overview until every component has been prcisely quantified.
Leif is suggesting that detailed quantification is indeed necessary but I see his comment as simply an avoidance strategy. He knows full well what I am getting at but hides behind what he calls ‘vagueness’.
I don’t think that any readers here will fail to interpret his stance appropriately.

Stephen Wilde
November 18, 2010 1:17 pm

Werner Brozek says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:57 am
” Now you just need some graph showing jet streams from 2000 to 2010. Do you know if one exists or if something exists from which you can infer the jet streams?”
Thank you Werner, I’m not aware that one exists. Jetstream shifts over multidecadal timescales is a neglected area but there is currently lots of comment around supporting the proposition that just such an equatorward shift has occurred.
I first noticed it beginning around 2000 but only now is it becoming accepted wisdom.

November 18, 2010 1:39 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 1:17 pm
This is not Birkeland’s Terrela experiment; it is from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html
From Vukcevic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
From “Michelle”:
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=11716

November 18, 2010 2:03 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 18, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Leif is suggesting that detailed quantification is indeed necessary but I see his comment as simply an avoidance strategy. He knows full well what I am getting at but hides behind what he calls ‘vagueness’.
This is a serious accusation that should not be worthy of you [unless you are, indeed, stooping that low]. In order to give a meaningful answer, this kind of quantification [with references and links, BTW] is needed, and should be easy for you to give if there is any substance behind the question. The devil is always in the details. It might even be that giving the detailed, quantitative answer will sharpen up your own thoughts on this. This is akin to the peer-review process. Failing to answer often lead to rejection of the paper.

November 18, 2010 3:55 pm

David Archibald says:
November 18, 2010 at 6:47 am
Geoff, may I be a bit of a pain and suggest that you expand that graph to include all the minima for which we have F 10.7 data?
Hi David, the updated graph can be found HERE
I chose to align the solar minima by including the last few months of the previous cycles downramp as the starting point of each minimum. This shows the pace of each cycle from a similar perspective.
Looking forward to the upcoming paper on the “force that must not be mentioned”

Jim Arndt
November 18, 2010 8:14 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“Hi David, the updated graph can be found HERE”
Why don’t you include sc4 sc5 sc13 sc14 and see so far this is no different from sc14. I predicted this cycle by using spotless days and said it would be around 62. Leif corrected me because of the cycle count was different then than now. I will stuck to 62 but sometimes you just have to see what it is for what it is.

David Archibald
November 18, 2010 8:53 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Thankyou very much.
Jim Arndt says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:14 pm
There is no F10.7 data prior to about 1948.

Jim Arndt
November 18, 2010 10:17 pm

David Archibald says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“There is no F10.7 data prior to about 1948.”
Yes but if SC is similar to F10.7 then it applies. You have not data to prove your case but I show that spotless days is much better and accurate than your count. Also 10.7 proxy show this to be so. I could be wrong then show so.

November 18, 2010 10:40 pm

David Archibald says:
November 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm
There is no F10.7 data prior to about 1948.
But it is possible to reconstruct F10.7 from the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. Here is reconstructed F10.7 [blue] since 1840 and observed F10.7 [red]:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-1840-2010.png

November 19, 2010 7:45 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 18, 2010 at 10:40 pm
But it is possible to reconstruct F10.7 from the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field.
All these reconstructions have to be taken with a large ‘pinch of salt’. For start the historical SSNs are nor reliable, subjective assessment and in final anlysis not a true reflection of the solar energy output.
For analysing temperature changes, either regional or global (global temperature is a bit of nonsense anyway) past solar activity is only a possible pointer of direction, but not a reliable guide.
Paleomagnetic data ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm ) may be less subjective; there are difficulties with the transfer mechanism’s energy requirement, but againit could be a reasonable proxy; also paleomagnetic dating may be relatively unreliable if based on 10Be, as I recently discovered (see: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm).
There is a requirement for a far more reliable set of date.
I found two with a very high accuracy shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETng.htm
(there are some useful comments there). The GP’s green line is what I call ‘absolute data’, with unquestionable accuracy 99.999% throughout the period considered, but again trasfer mechanism could be problem. The other one, NAP-blue line has an overall accuracy in excess of 95%, and from 1850’s onwards it is probably again in class of ‘absolute data’, i.e. of unquestionable accuracy, and most important of all, it has the means for a decisive effect on regional temperatures shown in the graph.

November 19, 2010 8:18 am

vukcevic says:
November 19, 2010 at 7:45 am
“But it is possible to reconstruct F10.7 from the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field.”
All these reconstructions have to be taken with a large ‘pinch of salt’. For start the historical SSNs are nor reliable, subjective assessment and in final anlysis not a true reflection of the solar energy output.

The F10.7 is not reconstructed from the historical SSNs at all. So no salt needed. The method is illustrated on slide 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf

Stephen Wilde
November 19, 2010 8:25 am

vukcevic:
Could your ideas be accommodated by my suggestion that it is the impact of charged solar protons coming in along the magnetic field lines to the poles that controls the temperature of the mesosphere and thus the temperature of the stratosphere so as to influence the height of the tropopause (which influences the size of the polar vortexes) and shifts the jet streams latitudinally for a significant effect on cloud amounts and global albedo ?
There is a clear link between the quantity of incoming solar protons, the strength of the solar wind and the effect of the magnetic field on the solar wind so I could be suggesting a mechanism whereby your observations of a link with climate can be translated into real climate changes on the surface.

gary gulrud
November 19, 2010 8:33 am

Starting to seem like we’re all cranks now.

November 19, 2010 8:56 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 8:18 am
………………
If you wish to go by a magnetic needle’s twitch, than Dr. Monica Korte’s (HZ Potsdam) work is far better guide for the temperature connoisseurs.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/sd-ch.htm
Stephen Wilde says:
November 19, 2010 at 8:25 am
………………..
NAP variable is process related to heat energy transfer by the system of N. Atlantic currents, and is specific to the N. Atlantic basin. In Pacific there is an equivalent process, but with a shorter record:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm
Both processes have the power attributes required.
I am happy to accept that the solar science’s data in the most recent (satellite observation) times, is probably as good as you can get, interpretation of such data requires highly specialised knowledge which I do not posses.
It is a totally different matter why the sun behaves as it does, prediction at the moment it is an ‘all comers’ open tournament .

November 19, 2010 11:14 am

gary gulrud says:
November 19, 2010 at 8:33 am
Starting to seem like we’re all cranks now.
Rationality went out of the science with the ubiquitous 50% dead cat.

November 19, 2010 11:54 am

vukcevic says:
November 19, 2010 at 8:56 am
If you wish to go by a magnetic needle’s twitch, than Dr. Monica Korte’s (HZ Potsdam) work is far better guide for the temperature connoisseurs.
Her work has no bearing on solar activity as it is devoted to the Earth’s main field which is not related in any way to solar activity. In afct, one of the main problems in determining the main field is to get rid of the influence of solar activity.

November 19, 2010 1:10 pm

Leif Svalgaard says: ..
…..
Yes I agree with the first bit, that was her intention, but she left her data laying around and a ‘fungus’ came along and it took root at it; remember the Alexander Fleming’s serendipity.
You can assume you won second bit too, since I am not a man of a combinative disposition (?!) .
Hay let’s be friends! Do you know Dr. Vaughan Pratt?

November 19, 2010 1:26 pm

vukcevic says:
November 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Yes I agree with the first bit, that was her intention, but she left her data laying around and a ‘fungus’ came along and it took root at it; remember the Alexander Fleming’s serendipity.
So you were just erecting a strawman… How about staying on topic instead of trying to peddle your nonsense…
Do you know Dr. Vaughan Pratt?
peripherally.

November 19, 2010 2:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 1:26 pm
How about staying on topic instead of trying to peddle your nonsense…
You are not your usual yourself either, you failed to challenge my claim for the ‘unquestionable 99.999% data accuracy of GP, green line in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETng.htm
but in case you did wander (JPL ephemeredes) it is a ‘mini Milankovic’ effect. I was (pleasantly) surprised to see that it tracks the CETs instrument records (since 1860) pretty well. If I was CO2 geek, I would say that the CO2 saved us from a ‘deep freeze’ in 1960s. Another interesting aspect of it is 1650 -1720 (?!).

November 19, 2010 2:41 pm

vukcevic says:
November 19, 2010 at 2:03 pm
You are not your usual yourself either, you failed to challenge my claim for the ‘unquestionable 99.999% data accuracy of GP, green line in
There are things that are too ridiculous to challenge…

November 19, 2010 2:45 pm

Looking at that graph again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETng.htm
in 1750 there was Katla, then in the early 1800’s Mayon and Tambora eruptions suppressing CETs. With these anomalies taken into account, we do have nearly 350 years of a new and unusual CET’s proxy! Milankovic was a genius .

November 19, 2010 2:51 pm

Vuk, thanks for the reply re NASA. That still leaves me with the question of why a Dalton repeat. Your curve clearly shows a pattern of your large cycles of 2 cycles Oort to Wolf, one cycle Wolf to Sporer, 2 cycles Sporer to Maunder, one cycle Maunder to Dalton, 2 cycles Dalton to now. Grand minima after 2 cycles seem to be more severe than after one cycle. Why would the current minimum after 2 cycles be a repeat of the Dalton after one cycle? Your 1:2 cycle sequence corresponds nicely with my 13/20 SS cycles pattern. Based on that (and the coincidence of other known cycles) I expect the current cycle to be worse than the Dalton, not a repeat, but not as bad as the Maunder. SS wise it should be like the Maunder, but the other conciding cycles are not the same at all. Murray

November 19, 2010 3:31 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Agreed.
It would be too ridiculous to challenge the accuracy of the JPL’s ephemeredes.
Murray Duffin says:
November 19, 2010 at 2:51 pm
You may be right, I based my opinion that there appears to be a downturn, but I have not seen any definite sign of a severe one, but on the other hand I assume no two GM are the same.

November 19, 2010 5:02 pm

vukcevic says:
November 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm
It would be too ridiculous to challenge the accuracy of the JPL’s ephemeredes.
The ridiculous bit is to say that JPL is only 99.9999% accurate. It is much, much better, so your number indicates that you do not know what you are talking about.

Stephen Wilde
November 19, 2010 7:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard said:
“In order to give a meaningful answer, this kind of quantification [with references and links, BTW] is needed,”
I disagree. Your position is that when the sun is active all the layers of the atmosphere warm and when it is inactive all the layers of the atmosphere cool.
I have drawn your attention to the fact that certain layers of the atmophere respond oppositely to the solar forcing (cooling when the sun is active and warming when the sun is inactive) and it appears that the effect is most pronounced in the mesosphere where the sign of the effect induced by solar protons acting on ozone is opposite to the sign of the effect induced by UV acting on ozone.
Quantification is unnecessary and in any event is unavailable at present. The fact is that your starting position is null and void.
I have provided a proposal that takes such a phenomenon into account but as far as I know nobody else has yet done so.
I have asked you for your opinion on the implications and you have persistently failed to comment and have tried to justify your stance on the basis that I have not supplied some (unnecessary and unavailable) level of extra detail.
Your proper response would, in my humble opinion, have been to acknowledge that the relevant (if sparse) data is a problem for your position on the issue but that you preferred not to make a judgement until more detail becomes available. I am content to respect anyone who prefers to reserve their position until the ‘devil in the detail’ has been resolved.
I am not so content when I am first ignored and then abused for simply pointing out some facts, attempting to put them into a logical alternative scenario and asking a few questions of someone whose earlier comments are shown by real world data to be false.

November 19, 2010 9:24 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 19, 2010 at 7:41 pm
the effect is most pronounced in the mesosphere where the sign of the effect induced by solar protons acting on ozone is opposite to the sign of the effect induced by UV acting on ozone.
There are no solar protons in the mesosphere so your basic premise is wrong.

November 20, 2010 1:13 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
………
Good morning doc.
We agree again.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 3:19 am

“Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
November 19, 2010 at 7:41 pm
the effect is most pronounced in the mesosphere where the sign of the effect induced by solar protons acting on ozone is opposite to the sign of the effect induced by UV acting on ozone.
There are no solar protons in the mesosphere so your basic premise is wrong.”
See here:
“Protons similarly affect water vapor molecules by breaking them up into forms where they react with ozone. However, these molecules, called hydrogen oxides, only last during the time period of the solar proton event. These short-term effects of hydrogen oxides can destroy up to 70 percent of the ozone in the middle mesosphere.
and
” When the sun’s protons hit the atmosphere they break up molecules of nitrogen gas and water vapor. When nitrogen gas molecules split apart, they can create molecules, called nitrogen oxides, which can last several weeks to months depending on where they end up in the atmosphere. Once formed, the nitrogen oxides react quickly with ozone and reduce its amounts. When atmospheric winds blow them down into the middle stratosphere, they can stay there for months, and continue to keep ozone at a reduced level.”
from here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200108015015
Please explain.

November 20, 2010 6:07 am

Earth’s wobble 1650-2040
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EW.htm
Moderator my apologies to Bob Tisdale for posting above on his ENSO thread.

November 20, 2010 6:50 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:19 am
“There are no solar protons in the mesosphere so your basic premise is wrong.”
See here: “Protons similarly affect water vapor molecules by breaking them up into forms where they react with ozone. However, these molecules, called hydrogen oxides, only last during the time period of the solar proton event.

Solar proton events are very rare. Here is a list http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/SPE.txt
There are only a few per year with a flux strong enough to reach the mesosphere. E.g. there has been none since 2006.

November 20, 2010 7:52 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
……..so your number indicates that you do not know what you are talking about.
Hi doc
Have added a ‘health warning’, no unjustified claims here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EW.htm

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 8:52 am

Leif:
The definition of a proton event is merely a spike in a background level. Solar protons come in all the time with numbers related to the strength of the solar wind.
“SWO defines the start of a proton event to be the first of 3 consecutive data points with fluxes greater than or equal to 10 pfu. The end of an event is the last time
the flux was greater than or equal to 10 pfu.”
So the background fllux may be less than 10pfu but nonetheless capable of influencing ozone quantities in the mesosphere.
The fact is that the mesosphere cooled when the sun was more active, no doubt due to an increased rate of ozone destruction. Haigh now reports that with the quiet sun ozone above 45Km is recovering no doubt due to a decreased rate of ozone destruction
presumably with warming above that level hence her assertion that the sign of the solar effect may need to be reconsidered.
Anyway, whether these phenomena are down to solar protons or not the observations show a reverse sign effect in the mesosphere from changes in solar activity and observations show that the stratospheric temperature trend has followed that of the mesosphere so your starting point is still null and void regardless of causation.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 9:03 am

This is old but relevant:
http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?00236562.pdf
“The average proton fluxes for cycle 19 are about five times those for both the last million years and for cycle 20.”
Basically, the average proton flux can vary by 500% from one solar cycle to another so a reduced flux over several cycles is likely to have an effect on mesospheric ozone in accordance with the observations that the ozone amounts in the mesosphere declined when the sun was active and are now recovering with the sun less active.
Simply asserting that there is no effect does not seem to be a credible option.

November 20, 2010 9:24 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 8:52 am
The definition of a proton event is merely a spike in a background level. Solar protons come in all the time with numbers related to the strength of the solar wind.
Your previous links were about solar proton events and the even rarer NOx events. The solar wind and solar proton events are different animals. Protons only penetrate into the mesosphere when they are of the energetic ‘event’ types. The ordinary solar wind does not.
your starting point is still null and void regardless of causation.
I’m not the one pushing a theory and I don’t have a ‘starting point’. I ask you to document [with numbers and links] what you claim and you have not.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 9:49 am

Leif Svalgaard said;
“There are only a few per year with a flux strong enough to reach the mesosphere. E.g. there has been none since 2006.”
Hence the recovery of ozone in the mesosphere with consequent warming of both mesosphere and stratosphere at a time of quiet sun despite the smaller stratospheric cooling effect from less UV.
Thank you for your assistance.
It looks highly likely that the real key to jet stream positioning and consequent global albedo is the quantity of solar protons entering the atmosphere.
The system seems to be highly sensitive to that particular component of solar output due to the ozone reactions in the mesosphere being more influential for the upward energy flux than the UV effects on ozone in the stratosphere.
Another few years with no solar proton events and we will need to get our woollies out.

November 20, 2010 9:54 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:03 am
This is old but relevant:
Basically, the average proton flux can vary by 500% from one solar cycle to another so a reduced flux over several cycles is likely to have an effect on mesospheric ozone

You are confusing the two kinds of ‘proton fluxes’. And misusing the word ‘average’. ‘Average’ is misused when talking about very rare events [‘the average number of hurricanes per day in Houston is 0.0005’]. If you go to page 15 [Figure 1] of the oldie you cite you can count that during all of cycle 19 there were precisely 27 events.
Only these very energetic events lasting a few hours penetrate into the mesosphere.

November 20, 2010 10:17 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:49 am
Hence the recovery of ozone in the mesosphere with consequent warming of both mesosphere and stratosphere at a time of quiet sun despite the smaller stratospheric cooling effect from less UV.
No, because the very few proton events there are [were] before that have so little effect to begin with in destroying the ozone in the first place. The ozone is regenerated quickly. The [rare] solar proton events play no role in the overall ozone budget.

November 20, 2010 10:29 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:49 am
The system seems to be highly sensitive to that particular component of solar output due to the ozone reactions in the mesosphere being more influential for the upward energy flux than the UV effects on ozone in the stratosphere.
The ozone response due to very large SPEs is not subtle and has been observed due to numerous events todate (e.g., Jackman and McPeters, 2004; Lopez-Puertas et al. 2005; Seppala et al. 2006). Ozone within the polar caps (60-90S or 60-90N geomagnetic) is generally depleted to some extent in the mesosphere and upper stratosphere (e.g., Jackman et al. 2005b) within hours of the start of the SPE. Decreases in mesospheric and upper stratospheric ozone are mostly caused by SPE-induced HO, increases (see Solomonet al. 1981, 1983; Jackman and McPeters 1985; Jackman et al., 2005b) and last only during and for a few hours after the SPEs. SPE-caused NOx enhancements can also drive upper stratospheric ozone depletion, but do not cause significant mesospheric ozone depletion (Jackman et al., 2001).

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 10:38 am

“Only these very energetic events lasting a few hours penetrate into the mesosphere”
I remind you of this:
” When the sun’s protons hit the atmosphere they break up molecules of nitrogen gas and water vapor. When nitrogen gas molecules split apart, they can create molecules, called nitrogen oxides, which can last several weeks to months depending on where they end up in the atmosphere. Once formed, the nitrogen oxides react quickly with ozone and reduce its amounts. When atmospheric winds blow them down into the middle stratosphere, they can stay there for months, and continue to keep ozone at a reduced level.”
from here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200108015015
Then there is the observation that the mesosphere cooled when the sun was more active and is warming with the sun less active.
Your initial position was that when the sun is more active all the layers warm and when the sun is less active all the layers cool.
That is demonstrably untrue whatever the cause so your initial position is null and void.
I am content to agree to disagree and I wish you luck with your (in my humble opinion) untenable propositions.
I’m sure the issue will be resolved by continuing observations over the next few years. In particular if the mesosphere and stratosphere continue to warm with equatorward jets whilst the sun remains quiet, total cloud quantities increase and albedo increase.
If that fails to happen then I will concede defeat whilst knowing I have made an honourable attempt to unravel the truth.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 10:50 am

“The ozone response due to very large SPEs is not subtle and has been observed due to numerous events todate .”
Irrelevant. What matters is the average over time and whether an individual solar cycle (or sequence of cycles) results in net depletion or net recovery. The size of the ozone holes would be a good proxy for that and they did indeed grow during the period of active sun which supports my proposition.
We must wait and see what the temperature of the mesosphere and stratosphere have done and will do post 2007. Certainly the period 2004 to 2007 fits my proposition so I am part way there.

November 20, 2010 11:09 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
” When the sun’s protons hit the atmosphere they break up molecules of nitrogen gas and water vapor. When nitrogen gas molecules split apart, they can create molecules, called nitrogen oxides, which can last several weeks to months depending on where they end up in the atmosphere. Once formed, the nitrogen oxides react quickly with ozone and reduce its amounts. When atmospheric winds blow them down into the middle stratosphere, they can stay there for months, and continue to keep ozone at a reduced level.”
Not mesosphere.
The NOx forming events are VERY rare. There have been about ten all together during the space ace. See the red lines on Figure 4 of
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sspvse/posters/DF_Smart/poster.pdf

November 20, 2010 11:25 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
“The ozone response due to very large SPEs is not subtle and has been observed due to numerous events todate .”
Irrelevant.

You can learn more from this oldie: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD090iD05p07955.pdf

Pamela Gray
November 20, 2010 11:25 am

Many people make the mistake of hanging their baseline understanding of phenomena on some average of that phenomena, as if that single piece of statistical maneuvering is the proof of an assumed baseline steady state nature (which does not actually exists) from which higher or lower events rise out of. Advertisements trumpeting the advantages of a particular place as a good place to live often promote their average temperature. I find that hilarious. Averaging year long seasonal temperatures into one single number can lead the un-initiated into thinking that all they need is a sweater to manage day to day temperature variations. I am highly suspicious of anyone building a case around what is called the “average”.

November 20, 2010 11:49 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:25 am
Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
“You can learn more from this oldie: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD090iD05p07955.pdf
Which concludes “We have looked at the NMC temperature data during the July 12, 1982, SPE, the largest of solar cycle 21, and observe no detectable temperature decreases at 0.4, 1, and 2 mbar”.
Bottom line: the solar protons [not the solar wind] are rare events and there is no evidence that they cause climate effects.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 12:58 pm

Then we need some other mechanism to explain a cooling mesosphere when the sun is active and a non cooling mesosphere (possibly warming) when the sun is inactive.
At present the observations are inconsistent with your scenario but consistent with mine.
That does not necessarily make me right but the jury is still out. It does however mean that if I am wrong then we are both wrong.
The issue is whether solar variations over an entire cycle or a series of cycles result in net increases or net decreases in mesospheric ozone and / or upper stratospheric ozone.
Even a single event during a cycle could cause the net effect of the entire cycle to become one which results in a net destruction of ozone.
Clearly ozone quantities in the upper atmosphere did decline during the period of active sun hence the observed cooling and the increase in the size of the ozone holes. Now they appear to be recovering at least above 45Km as per Haigh and the ozone holes are no longer growing and may be shrinking.
The balance of evidence is slowly accumulating to the effect that the ideas that you have been putting forward are flawed.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 1:21 pm

Solar protons (as opposed to so called solar proton events) are apparently not as rare as is being suggested in this thread, see here:
“Since we know that solar proton fluxes are comparatively low during
solar minimum [9], [11], the assumption is made that there is a
constant low-level solar proton “background” flux present at all
times during the solar cycle. During solar minimum the “background”
flux represents a convenient average value for solar protons.
In reality, though, flux increases occur in small bursts but
our assumption of a constant value is sufficient for radiation effects
applications. During solar maximum, high activity leads
to high flux rates that are superimposed on this “background”
level so that it becomes comparatively insignificant.”
http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/tns04_Xapsos_Risk.pdf
There is a basic background flux throughout a solar cycle and it only becomes comparatively insignificant when a short term high flux is superimposed on it.
Variations in the flow from cycle to cycle would be quite enough to result in net ozone accumulation or net ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the course of a single cycle or series of cycles which is precisely what has been observed in recorded mesosphere temperature changes and the increase and decrease in the size of the polar ozone holes.
It cannot be a coincidence that such changes are most readily observed at the poles where the protons are directed in along the magnetic field lines.
The attempts to focus on solar proton events are deceptive.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 1:33 pm

“When atmospheric winds blow them down into the middle stratosphere, they can stay there for months, and continue to keep ozone at a reduced level.”
Not mesosphere.
So, Leif, where do you propose they would be blown down into the stratosphere from exactly ?

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 2:07 pm

“Pamela Gray says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:25 am
Many people make the mistake of hanging their baseline understanding of phenomena on some average of that phenomena, as if that single piece of statistical maneuvering is the proof of an assumed baseline steady state nature (which does not actually exists) from which higher or lower events rise out of. ”
Pamela, if that is directed at me I’m not convinced that it is applicable.
During a single solar cycle there will be a certain number of incoming solar protons either in solar proton events or on the solar wind. It is apparent that they interact with ozone in the upper atmosphere with an opposite sign effect to UV acting on the ozone in the stratosphere.
It is highly unlikely that for every solar cycle the net effect on ozone in the upper atmosphere will be zero. More likely each solar cycle will allow a net increase or cause a net decrease in upper atmosphere ozone. Even more likely a series of cycles will go in one direction or the other for a cumulative effect related to the activity level of all the cycles combined.
Change the ozone quantities and one changes the temperature. An active sun can therefore deplete the ozone and reduce the temperature. That is what was observed. If one alters the temperature higher up then the temperature gradient changes and the lapse rate insists on then altering the heights right down to the tropopause. It is the height of the tropopause that controls the air pressure distribution in the troposphere.
This particular effect is focused on the poles so the size and intensity of the polar vortices is affected with the results we have been seeing namely more equatorward jets.

November 20, 2010 3:04 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Solar protons (as opposed to so called solar proton events)
You are still confused about the difference. In space [outside the atmosphere] you may find a weak background as there are small flares, micro flares, and nano flares, but these do not penetrate the atmosphere. What makes us call it an ‘event’ is when the flux and energy are high enough and these are rare.
Let me try one more time: http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/SeppalaEtAl2008_revision_Sept.pdf
“At mesospheric altitudes the impact of proton events produced ozone decreases lasting for a few days”
The solar protons from the solar wind do not penetrate to the mesosphere.

November 20, 2010 3:17 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Perhaps you should read your link:
“the assumption is made that there is a constant low-level solar proton “background” flux present at all times during the solar cycle. During solar minimum the “background” flux represents a convenient average value for solar protons. In reality, though, flux increases occur in small bursts”
See: no real background.

November 20, 2010 3:39 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Clearly ozone quantities in the upper atmosphere did decline during the period of active sun hence the observed cooling
The most effective cooling mechanism for the mesosphere is radiative losses from CO2, so any increase of CO2 [which did occur] will cool the mesosphere.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 3:45 pm

If the link sees fit to assume a background for it’s practical purposes then that is a reasonable approach for all purposes. Averaging over a complete solar cycle seems reasonable to me.
As regards the distinction between solar wind protons and solar proton events I’ll consider that.
The issue remains that something caused the mesosphere to cool (falling ozone) when the sun was more active and recently ozone above 45Km has increased at a time of quieter sun.
The most likely candidate in my mind remains solar protons but we must await evidence one way or the other.
Clearly those observations are inconsistent with your proposition whether solar protons are involved or not.
Thank you for addressing the issues albeit a little later than I would have preferred. I had hoped to have your comments before I prepared my article on the subject but no matter. Future observations will resolve the issue.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 3:53 pm

And then I found this in your latest link:
“but the chemical loss of NOx takes place through photodissociation and is therefore dependent on solar irradiation levels. Thus, in conditions of low-level solar illumination, such as polar winter, NOx may remain at an elevated level for long periods after a Solar Proton Event. Significant depletion of middle atmospheric ozone during and after large Solar Proton Events has been predicted by atmospheric modelling.”
Oh well, no point in banging against each other any longer. We will just have to wait and see.

November 20, 2010 3:55 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:45 pm
If the link sees fit to assume a background for it’s practical purposes then that is a reasonable approach for all purposes. Averaging over a complete solar cycle seems reasonable to me.
Because the events are so rare, the average will be very low. Averaging also assumes a linear response and that is not reasonable. It is like assessing the wind damage from hurricanes by calculating the average wind of a decade and find that it is 10 mph and hence hurricanes do no damage.

November 20, 2010 4:00 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:45 pm
As regards the distinction between solar wind protons and solar proton events I’ll consider that. […] The most likely candidate in my mind remains solar protons but we must await evidence one way or the other.
Right there you lost it again. There are no solar wind protons in the mesosphere [as I said many posts ago], only rare solar proton events that produce no measurable cooling. C.f. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JD090iD05p07955.pdf
Which concludes “We have looked at the NMC temperature data during the July 12, 1982, SPE, the largest of solar cycle 21, and observe no detectable temperature decreases at 0.4, 1, and 2 mbar”.

Stephen Wilde
November 20, 2010 4:05 pm

“The most effective cooling mechanism for the mesosphere is radiative losses from CO2, so any increase of CO2 [which did occur] will cool the mesosphere.”
Of course it would and CO2 is still rising but the mesosphere is no longer cooling is it ?
The increase in ozone above 45Km would normally imply warming and I’ve given you evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996 despite the quieter sun and falling ozone.
Confusing isn’t it ?

November 20, 2010 5:40 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Of course it would and CO2 is still rising but the mesosphere is no longer cooling is it ?
I don’t know what it is. Show me some data if you have any. In any event, since solar activity is increasing one would expect the mesosphere to warm up a bit.

November 20, 2010 5:53 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm
“but the chemical loss of NOx takes place through photodissociation and is therefore dependent on solar irradiation levels. Thus, in conditions of low-level solar illumination, such as polar winter, NOx may remain at an elevated level for long periods after a Solar Proton Event.
Yeah, several days rather than a few hours.

Stephen Wilde
November 21, 2010 4:11 am

Whilst noting all you say, Leif, I still think there is scope for solar proton events skewing the effect of a single solar cycle or a series of solar cycles as regards the net balance of ozone production and destruction in the upper atmosphere over the period.
The only remaining question I have is as regards the matter of the protons in the solar wind. I understand that the solar wind does penetrate the atmosphere at the poles does it not ?
Anyway, this has been a bracing exchange and I hope not too irritating for you. I can see your objections to my proposition and will give them due weight over time but at present I am not convinced as to the complete absence of any solar proton involvemement.
Best wishes.

November 21, 2010 5:28 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 21, 2010 at 4:11 am
The only remaining question I have is as regards the matter of the protons in the solar wind. I understand that the solar wind does penetrate the atmosphere at the poles does it not ?
As usual you have to be more precise. The ‘atmosphere’ is too broad. The solar wind protons [of kilovolt energies] can and do penetrate [giving rise to proton aurorae http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#proton ] but only to about 100 km and not into the mesosphere and deeper. Megavolt protons from the rare solar proton events can penetrate deeper. http://www.bu.edu/csp/uv/proton/proton_intro.html

November 21, 2010 6:50 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 21, 2010 at 4:11 am
I am not convinced as to the complete absence of any solar proton involvement.
Lack of precision again. ‘Solar proton’ is too broad. Solar proton events are different from ordinary protons in the solar wind. Now, it is not controversial that very large solar proton events can cool the mesosphere even for several weeks, but such events are extremely rare. A good analysis of the process for the extreme Halloween event of 2003 can be found here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Jackman2007.pdf for which the ordinary Joule heating [due to electrical currents] were less than usual for such events.
Your main problem is to assume [or believe] that ‘solar protons’ that have mesospheric effects are delivered by the ordinary solar wind and thus operate all the time. This is not the case. Delivery of ‘solar protons’ with mesospheric effects are rare events.

Pamela Gray
November 21, 2010 7:10 am

Oh good heavens Stephen. I can honestly profess that my level of expertise is below yours and I can’t hold a candle or even a blown out match to Leif, but I get this one. Maybe it is too simple and that is why I get it? This seems an obvious checkmate to me. You must look elsewhere for your effects or risk substantial loss of cred.

Stephen Wilde
November 21, 2010 8:03 am

Pamela,
I continue to look elsewhere but am reluctant to completely abandon a specific possibility until it is shown to be truly hopeless.
Leif said:
“The solar wind protons [of kilovolt energies] can and do penetrate [giving rise to proton aurorae http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/#proton ] but only to about 100 km and not into the mesosphere and deeper.”
The mesosphere extends from 50Km to 80Km so there is still scope for proton effects of some sort but for the moment I will not press the point further in the absence of better evidence. Leif has given me plenty of material to work on which is why I was so concerned to press him into a detailed response in the first place.
I would however like to know the height that protons in the solar wind can get down to at the poles and whether that could affect ozone levels between 50Km and 100Km.
It is even possible that ozone destruction above 100Km could result in a faster upward flow of ozone from the mesosphere below which would then see a depletion from an indirect solar proton effect.
The data that suggests increasing ozone above 45Km during a period of quiet sun needs explaining one way or another. As does the cooling of both stratosphere and mesosphere together at a time of active sun and apparently slight warming at a time of quiet sun. How could the ozone above 45Km increase (despite a reduction at lower levels) other than via a reduced rate of destruction above 45Km and if that is happening we must look closely at the normal causes of ozone quantity changes in that layer.
Do you have any ideas apart from the cumulative effects of solar proton events ? No such events since 2006 and increasing ozone above 45Km raises a question does it not ?
Should I just accept that the science is ‘settled’ and ignore observations ?

rbateman
November 21, 2010 8:20 am

SC24 has undercut both SC 14 & 15:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
I’m going with the thought that ramp has already occured, slight as it is, and what we see now in the flux is the base course.
What happens now to the very low maximum is
1.) When will it stop rising and
2.) Will it flattop out and hold a mesa or will it dive off?

November 21, 2010 8:30 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 21, 2010 at 8:03 am
I would however like to know the height that protons in the solar wind can get down to at the poles and whether that could affect ozone levels between 50Km and 100Km.
Not precise enough. Ordinary solar wind protons do not have energy enough to penetrate below the ionosphere [say 110 km]. In rare circumstances, magnetic reconnection may in transient burst accelerate those protons to somewhat higher energies and they may go as a bit deeper [D-layer at 90 km]. The main problem is that the atmosphere gets thicker quickly as you approach from above: the density increases by a factor of a thousand for every 50 km.
Should I just accept that the science is ‘settled’ and ignore observations ?
The problem here is that you must look to which observations there are. Do you have a time series of mesospheric temperatures or ozone content going back many years? I don’t know of any, but am willing to be educated.

November 21, 2010 8:34 am

rbateman says:
November 21, 2010 at 8:20 am
SC24 has undercut both SC 14 & 15:
What happens now to the very low maximum is
1.) When will it stop rising and
2.) Will it flattop out and hold a mesa or will it dive off?

I think the L&P effect is taking its toll. My gut feeling is that there will be wild fluctuations in SC24 like in SC14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

November 21, 2010 8:46 am

rbateman says:
November 21, 2010 at 8:20 am
SC24 has undercut both SC 14 & 15
Reconstructed F10.7 for SC14 suggests a max of ~130 sfu versus a predicted SC24 max of ~120 sfu. Within uncertainties those two numbers are not different:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-1840-2010.png

walt man
November 21, 2010 9:14 am

Whilst trying to correlate something solar with the high temperature of 1937 – 1943 (There didn’t seem to be one!) I came across this page which may be of interest:
http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html

November 21, 2010 1:57 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
Should I just accept that the science is ‘settled’ and ignore observations ?
From what I can see Stephen there is not enough fluctuation in the Solar wind (looking at speed) to have a measurable impact on Earth’s Climate. I have plotted the solar wind for Sc23 and the results are not what might be expected.
Could I suggest you look at EUV which fluctuates proportional greater and also has known effects on the upper atmosphere and ozone.

November 21, 2010 2:31 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I have plotted the solar wind for Sc23 and the results are not what might be expected.
From a physics view point a null result just what is expected.

Stephen Wilde
November 21, 2010 2:35 pm

Thanks Geoff. I’m looking at all the options.
The trouble is that with the past focus on CFCs and CO2 it is difficult to have confidence that the professionals are reviewing the newer data in an open minded fashion.
First though I need to await seeing whether the Haigh data from 2004 to 2007 is verified because having anticipated her data (or something similar) I would need a complete rethink if it were discredited.
I’m expecting the stratosphere and mesosphere to slowly and irregularly consolidate a warming trend provided the sun remains less active than it was during the late 20th century.
One of the problems I have with readers of my proposals is that most are focused on at most multidecadal trends and often shorter timescales than that whereas I am considering multicentennial trends that could give rise to the slow cycling from MWP to LIA to date.
On those timescales features of solar behaviour that might appear inconsequential on shorter timescales could well turn out to be significant. Hence my reluctance to abandon just yet the possible long term cumulative effects of solar proton events or even solar wind indirect effects on lower levels.

Stephen Wilde
November 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Geoff,
Just found your site here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128
I had seen it before in passing but didn’t realise how close my thoughts were drifting towards some of the issues you raise. However you still seem to be proposing warming at all levels from a more active sun yet that is not what we actually see. The stratosphere and mesosphere both cooled when the sun was more active and at least the stratosphere and likely also the mesosphere are no longer cooling and may be warming slightly compared to the late 20th century. The change in trend cannot be CO2 induced because CO2 continues to rise. That is the key problem that must be resolved.
What I need is some aspect of solar variability capable of causing the reverse sign solar effect in layers above 45km assuming the Haigh data is confirmed. Once we get that explained I don’t see much problem in proposing that such a reverse sign effect must exceed UV warming at lower levels because the stratosphere does seem to follow the temperature trend in the higher levels.
If necessary the reverse sign effect can be limited to polar regions because the polar vortices are most affected.
I’ll keep an eye on your blog and may well post there.
Thanks.

November 21, 2010 4:03 pm

Solar F10.7 flux levels getting down to a low of 74.2 today (AU adjusted).
Currently there is a Unipolar region along with a reversed polarity region driving the flux levels down? EUV and its climate effects are also following this trend.
The type of region once again having an effect on F10.7 output. This is not just about counting sunspots.

November 21, 2010 5:27 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Solar F10.7 flux levels getting down to a low of 74.2 today (AU adjusted).
It is actually 75.8 [still low, though]. The pre-noon value is currently too high and the post-noon value is too low. Only the 2000 UT value is good. The reason for these systematic errors are not known, but may have something to do with the correction for moisture in the ground as the effect only occurs during local winter.
Currently there is a Unipolar region along with a reversed polarity region driving the flux levels down? EUV and its climate effects are also following this trend.
There is no physical reason for this and it simply does not happen. There is no ‘reversed’ polarity region either.

November 21, 2010 6:07 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 21, 2010 at 5:27 pm
There is no physical reason for this and it simply does not happen. There is no ‘reversed’ polarity region either.
1126 has been observed through the magnetogram to have a leading “black” zone since inception. Recently there has been some “white” areas leading as the region gets closer to the limb, in the past you have postulated that this is a result of an vertical magnetic field creating an illusion, but it could also be a natural process of unipolar type regions that exude magnetic material (MMF)
There are several papers on this flux eating phenomenon that can be accessed in this article.

November 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm
There are several papers on this flux eating phenomenon that can be accessed in this article.
You are misinterpreting the paper. Flux cancellation is indeed occurring all the time, e.g. is the way the polar fields reverse, but there is no indication that SC24 is any different..

November 21, 2010 7:06 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
but it could also be a natural process of unipolar type regions
A natural way of getting ‘reverse’ polarity at the edge of a spot [especially a large one] is this: http://www.leif.org/research/Reversal-Polarity.png
Nothing mysterious, and nothing that will reduce F10.7 which comes from the entire disk [+ a bit outside the limb as well]. i.e. an area vastly larger than the spot [being typically 3000 times smaller].

November 21, 2010 7:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 21, 2010 at 6:40 pm
You are misinterpreting the paper. Flux cancellation is indeed occurring all the time,
The 2nd link clearly states a reduction in overall flux in the surrounding area as a result of MMF activity. This does not occur on the same levels of non unipolar regions. Recorded flux and EUV levels are also showing this to be the case along with the increased incidence of unipolar regions so far in SC24.
More observations are required.

November 21, 2010 7:32 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Recorded flux and EUV levels are also showing this to be the case along with the increased incidence of unipolar regions so far in SC24.
Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.
You should use ‘unipolar’ the right way. A unipolar region is a large area covered by weak unipolar flux, like the polar caps or a coronal hole. A sunspot does not fall in that category. Almost by definition a sunspot is always of the same polarity, but it is not called a ‘unipolar region’.
More observations are required.
That is always nice, but there is nothing new or special about what we are seeing now, with the exception that sunspots are generally weaker with less contrast [L&P, of course]. The F10.7 flux comes from plasma trapped on the closed field lines above and around the spot no matter what the polarity is.

November 22, 2010 3:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 21, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.
That is my point, solar activity reduces. Unipolar or Alpha region, these regions are described both ways. No need to split hairs again.
That is always nice, but there is nothing new or special about what we are seeing now
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle. You may decide to ignore the over abundance this cycle but the F10.7 records are a clear example of something different going on.

November 22, 2010 5:45 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
“Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.”
That is my point, solar activity reduces. Unipolar or Alpha region, these regions are described both ways. No need to split hairs again.

This process happens all the time for all spots and in all cycles. Splitting hairs: I’m just teaching you the right terminology. Use it.
You may decide to ignore the over abundance this cycle but the F10.7 records are a clear example of something different going on.
This cycle is no different in that respect, except the spots are weaker [L&P] as I have pointed out to you many times, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf

November 22, 2010 6:02 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots. The latter are only 3%, the former is a normal occurrence for almost every active region, e.g. http://www.icstars.com/HTML/SolarSection/HAlpha/OBSERVINGTHESUNHAlpha5.html “Most groups finally decay into a single p spot with no plage, which then slowly shrinks and dies out. ”
Alpha spots are also often just the starting and ending class, c.f. “A – A small single unipolar sunspot. Representing either the formative or final stage of evolution.”
http://sidc.oma.be/educational/classification.php
The important point is that a single unipolar spot is a normal element in the evolution of any active region.

November 22, 2010 6:10 am

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots. The latter are only 3%, the former is a normal occurrence for almost every active region, e.g. http://www.icstars.com/HTML/SolarSection/HAlpha/OBSERVINGTHESUNHAlpha5.html “Most groups finally decay into a single p spot with no plage, which then slowly shrinks and dies out. ”
Alpha spots are also often just the starting and ending class, c.f. “A – A small single unipolar sunspot. Representing either the formative or final stage of evolution.”
http://sidc.oma.be/educational/classification.php
The important point is that a single unipolar spot is a normal element in the evolution of any active region.

November 22, 2010 6:14 am

The poetic Title
The unbearable flatness of 10.7
reminds of other unbearable flatnesses…..about to disappear in these interesting times.

November 22, 2010 3:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:10 am
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
———————————————
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots.

Yes that link associated with the article is incorrect, and I should have linked to this.
That report shows unipolar groups (not regions) account for around 38% of sunspot activity from 1915-1953, but this will include all pores. I am interested only in the large unipolar groups which might be a harder statistic to track down and a future project if the current trend continues.
Between July 18 and Oct 25 this year large unipolar groups/sunspots made up 50% of total activity (9 0f 18, not counting specks/pores). If this ratio continues the F10.7 flux levels will we lucky to get over 100. This is the point I am attempting to make.

Stephen Wilde
November 22, 2010 4:45 pm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu7kh4wju2212837/
“It is known also that the solar influence is exerted by charge particle effects, because
according to Crutzen et al. (1975) the solar proton events (which are more frequent at
sunspot maxima) produce NO in the polar cap stratosphere; the latter effect leads to
a cooling (due to a decrease of ozone concentration) above 35 km”

Stephen Wilde
November 22, 2010 5:03 pm

Perhaps we can bring the protons in the solar wind into play with regard to the mesosphere after all:
http://www.vki.ac.be/QB50/download/workshop/papers_17nov/drinkwater.pdf
“NO produced by ionisation in auroral belt in thermosphere and transported down into mesosphere & stratosphere during polar winter.”
The protons in the solar wind dissipate the bulk of their energy between 100km and 125km but the products of the reactions then precipitate downward into the mesosphere to deplete ozone and effect cooling when the sun is more active.
Not as cut and dried as previously suggested in this thread.

November 22, 2010 5:04 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Between July 18 and Oct 25 this year large unipolar groups/sunspots made up 50% of total activity (9 0f 18, not counting specks/pores). If this ratio continues the F10.7 flux levels will we lucky to get over 100. This is the point I am attempting to make.
Why cherry picking two dates? The uncertainty of as count like this is roughly the square root of the count, i.e. 3, which means that the ‘real’ count [translated into a longer time interval] could be anywhere between 9-3 = 6 and 9+3 = 12. So, there is no significant difference between your 50% and the 38%.

November 22, 2010 5:56 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“It is known also that the solar influence is exerted by charge particle effects, because
according to Crutzen et al. (1975) the solar proton events (which are more frequent at
sunspot maxima) produce NO in the polar cap stratosphere; the latter effect leads to
a cooling (due to a decrease of ozone concentration) above 35 km”

You are still confused about this. Proton events are very rare, the cooling reported is in the stratosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Perhaps we can bring the protons in the solar wind into play with regard to the mesosphere after all
“NO produced by ionisation in auroral belt in thermosphere and transported down into mesosphere & stratosphere during polar winter.”

The ionization is by electrons [and EUV]. And in any event the proton density is highest at solar minimum and lowest at solar maximum: http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 1:18 am

Leif Svalgaard aid:
“The ionization is by electrons [and EUV]. And in any event the proton density is highest at solar minimum and lowest at solar maximum:”
Not really a problem. Whatever the exact process there is apparently a rain of NO and other reaction products down into the mesosphere to deplete ozone at variable rates and change mesospheric temperatures as solar activity ebbs and flows.
Are you saying there are LESS such reaction products when the sun is MORE active ?

November 23, 2010 4:54 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:18 am
Are you saying there are LESS such reaction products when the sun is MORE active ?
I’m saying that there are less protons [and less solar wind pressure] when the sunspot number is high. That these quantities are higher at low solar activity.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 6:03 am

So would there be more ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere when solar activity is high or when it is low ?

November 23, 2010 6:43 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 6:03 am
So would there be more ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere when solar activity is high or when it is low ?
Precision again!
What I have been [narrowly] telling you is that your idea of ‘solar protons’ in the mesosphere does not work, because there aren’t any [excepting rare events] and because the solar wind proton density varies inversely with solar activity.

November 23, 2010 7:03 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 6:03 am
ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere
The chemistry of the mesosphere is difficult to study. This link has interesting material:
http://www.iap-kborn.de/Chemistry-of-the-mesosphere.115.0.html?&L=1
Follow some of the other links on the page.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 8:20 am

“Precision again!
What I have been [narrowly] telling you is that your idea of ‘solar protons’ in the mesosphere does not work, because there aren’t any [excepting rare events] and because the solar wind proton density varies inversely with solar activity.”
I do pay attention so you’ll note that I haven’t been specifically mentioning solar protons in the last couple of posts.
I’ve already shifted my attention to other particles contained in the solar wind in light of the fact that apparently they too drop Nitrous Oxide down through the atmosphere. So we seem to have more than one potential mechanism for the same outcome.
Even so, the absence of solar wind protons within the mesosphere itself doesn’t matter if they create NO that then falls downward.
The solar wind proton density might vary inversely with solar activity but what about the other components ?
One normally associates an active sun with a stronger solar wind.

November 23, 2010 9:52 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:20 am
One normally associates an active sun with a stronger solar wind.
Precision again! Or lack thereof.
What is a ‘stronger’ solar wind?
As you can see http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png the magnetic field of the wind is higher at solar maximum. The density and the solar wind speed and flow pressure are not. In high-speed solar wind streams [from coronal holes] that occur mostly just before solar minimum [see the speed bump at year 9], the density is usually low [see the density dip at year 9]. At maximum, the speed and the density and flow pressure are all low. The number of transients [CMEs and the like] are highest at solar maximum, but not enough to offset the generally lower density. In general terms, the solar wind comes from ‘open’ magnetic field areas that allow the material to escape. At solar maximum, there are a lot of active regions with ‘closed’ field lines that trap and keep the corona ‘at home’ so to speak. The Alfven ‘Mach Number which is the degree of ‘supersonity’ of the solar wind is lowest at solar maximum http://www.leif.org/research/Alfvenic-Mach-Number.png so one has to be precise about what a ‘stronger’ solar wind means.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 10:34 am

Thank you Leif. I’ll dig into all that a bit more on the basis that whatever goes on above 100km does seem to have an effect on the mesosphere as a result of NO creation and its transport downward.
Not all layers of the atmosphere appear to warm when the sun is more active and we need to ascertain why because in my opinion a reverse sign solar effect is needed somewhere in the chain of causation to fully explain poleward shifting jets when the sun is more active.
The standard explanation of differential lower stratosphere warming between equator and pole does not seem to be sufficient. Even the modellers have been unable to reproduce the scale of observed shifting from that cause on its own.
I’m sure that in addition the polar vortices contract and expand from solar effects above and that needs to involve differential temperature changes at different levels similar to those set out in my article.
In the meantime I need to await more data as regards the changes in ozone above 45km subsequent to 2007 when the data highlighted by Haigh ends.
My guess is that if the sun remains inactive enough we should see a slow (if irregular) increase in temperature in both mesosphere and stratosphere. If the late 20th century cooling resumes without a more active sun then I will accept that as inconsistent with my ideas.

November 23, 2010 10:48 am

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:34 am
Not all layers of the atmosphere appear to warm when the sun is more active
This is the main sticking point. First you need to be precise. Sun more ‘active’ means what? more sunspots? more UV? some UV bands vary opposite to the sunspot numbers. E.g. the near UV: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
Next, you need to present a time series of temperatures in the layer of interest that supports your claim. I don’t know of any, so educate me.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 11:56 am

The only time series I have found is the general one showing a downward trend in stratospheric temperatures during the late 20th century period of relatively ‘active’ sun. That then switches to a cessation of cooling and then a slight warming coincident with the recent less ‘active’ sun.
As regards the mesosphere I came across a number of reports puzzling over the causes of a cooling trend, again during the late 20th century.
Now the data referenced by Haigh shows increased ozone above 45km which implies a warming mesosphere despite a quiet sun.
She also shows a reduction of ozone below 45km which implies a cooling below that level but yet the available data shows a slight warming since 1996.
So it simply does not add up to support your assertion (the general consensus view) that all the layers of the atmosphere warm when the sun is more active and that all cool when the sun is less active.
Now it may well be that this is a ‘wood and trees’ situation. You and many others are so close to the short term data that it is possible to confound any proposition put forward to deal with those anomalies.
However if one stands back and looks at a 500 to 1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date then a clear pattern emerges.
Poleward jets are associated with a cooling stratosphere and a more ‘active’ sun whereas equatorward jets are associated with a warming stratosphere and a less active sun.
I am sure that the response of ozone to some feature of solar processes above 45km is the critical issue.
The ozone response above 45km is apparently of opposite sign to that below 45km if Haigh’s data is to be believed. That would provide the reverse sign effect I need to explain such large jetstream shifting.
From the information I have found during the course of this thread my attention is now directed to that downward flux of NO that apparently arises from various reactions above 100km.
So the issue narrows down to a simple question:
What state does the sun need to be in top maximise that downward NO flux ?

November 23, 2010 12:54 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:56 am
What state does the sun need to be in top maximise that downward NO flux ?
So you don’t really have any evidence. And NOx will destroy ozone wherever it is and affect temperature everywhere.

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 1:05 pm

What state does the sun need to be in to maximise that downward NOx flux ?

Stephen Wilde
November 23, 2010 1:24 pm

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Australian-Scientists-Probe-Distant-Clouds-With-Giant-Antarctic-Laser-103849314.html
“Our atmospheric dynamics are such that as we’ve got a warming troposphere – which is where we live – as that warms that in fact is interlinked with a phenomenon called global cooling up in the mesosphere above 50 kilometers”
So, again, Leif:
What state does the sun need to be in to maximise that downward NOx flux ?

November 23, 2010 3:00 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:24 pm
as that warms that in fact is interlinked with a phenomenon called global cooling up in the mesosphere above 50 kilometers
Again, increasing CO2 will cool the mesosphere.
What state does the sun need to be in to maximise that downward NOx flux ?
It is a fallacy to believe that a single ‘state’ must be responsible. The NOx flux is due to [rare] solar proton events [down below 80 km], and [rare] energetic relativistic electron precipitation [at 60-80 km] and also 1-10 keV electron precipitation [aurorae at 120 km]. The relative importance of the rare events and the low-energy auroral contribution is unknown, but the low-energy stuff doesn’t penetrate deep. The polar vortex that forms in winter isolates the polar air in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere allowing the NOx to be transported downwards with the descending vortex air and it is the polar vortex that ultimately controls the downward transport [rather than the other way around, BTW]. This happens during the polar winter and there is really not much ozone up there to be destroyed [no sunlight to produce the ozone], so any effect will have to be down in the stratosphere, so enhanced NOx down flux leads to ozone loss in the stratosphere. There is no simple easy answer to any of this. There is good info here: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/8/5279/2008/acp-8-5279-2008.pdf

Stephen Wilde
November 24, 2010 1:06 am

Helpful information, thank you.
If the Haigh data is confirmed then I see little in the way of alternative explanations but we shall see.

Stephen Wilde
November 24, 2010 1:16 am

Who said:
“Once one has eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth”. ?
I’d put the required top down effect from solar variability in the category of implausible rather than impossible.
Rather a lot of implausible propositions have turned out to be true in the past.

Ye Olde Statistician
November 27, 2010 7:26 pm

One single spike in Nov could have you back on track.
A spike is typically self-correcting and represents a transient assignable cause. If you look at the successive differences in the series, there are only two spike-like events: in mid-late 2001 and a smaller one in late 2004. In either case, the series returned to the trendline.
I would have investigated the peculiar pattern from about Sept. 01 to the end of 02. If this block is discounted, the remaining data exhibits an even cleaner curve. Some factor may have entered the system in Sept. 01, boosting the radio flux, then fading away so that the system returned to its ground state. A plot of standardized residuals might be interesting, as well as a plot of moving ranges. Remember, anything greater than three standard deviations is a reliable marker of an assignable cause; while deviations less than that could be due to chance combinations of common causes.

gary gulrud
November 28, 2010 12:20 pm

“Remember, anything greater than three standard deviations is a reliable marker of an assignable cause; while deviations less than that could be due to chance combinations of common causes.”
Thanks, we always can use help from people who actually know Statistics.

%d bloggers like this: