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
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
“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.
“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.
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
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
“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 ?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.