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
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].
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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”)
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.
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….
Typo: it must say: “it can not transform…”
You just don’t ask for “heat” when needing to prepare your breakfast, you ask for POWER.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.