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
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Starting to seem like we’re all cranks now.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 (?!).
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…
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 .
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
………
Good morning doc.
We agree again.