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
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.
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.
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”.
“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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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].