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
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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
and plant more trees, fruit preferable
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
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…
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.
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].
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
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.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Future.png
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
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
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) ?
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
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.
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]
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).