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 21, 2010 at 6:40 pm
You are misinterpreting the paper. Flux cancellation is indeed occurring all the time,
The 2nd link clearly states a reduction in overall flux in the surrounding area as a result of MMF activity. This does not occur on the same levels of non unipolar regions. Recorded flux and EUV levels are also showing this to be the case along with the increased incidence of unipolar regions so far in SC24.
More observations are required.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 21, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Recorded flux and EUV levels are also showing this to be the case along with the increased incidence of unipolar regions so far in SC24.
Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.
You should use ‘unipolar’ the right way. A unipolar region is a large area covered by weak unipolar flux, like the polar caps or a coronal hole. A sunspot does not fall in that category. Almost by definition a sunspot is always of the same polarity, but it is not called a ‘unipolar region’.
More observations are required.
That is always nice, but there is nothing new or special about what we are seeing now, with the exception that sunspots are generally weaker with less contrast [L&P, of course]. The F10.7 flux comes from plasma trapped on the closed field lines above and around the spot no matter what the polarity is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 21, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.
That is my point, solar activity reduces. Unipolar or Alpha region, these regions are described both ways. No need to split hairs again.
That is always nice, but there is nothing new or special about what we are seeing now
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle. You may decide to ignore the over abundance this cycle but the F10.7 records are a clear example of something different going on.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
“Cancellation of flux does not lead to reversal of flux, but to disappearance.”
That is my point, solar activity reduces. Unipolar or Alpha region, these regions are described both ways. No need to split hairs again.
This process happens all the time for all spots and in all cycles. Splitting hairs: I’m just teaching you the right terminology. Use it.
You may decide to ignore the over abundance this cycle but the F10.7 records are a clear example of something different going on.
This cycle is no different in that respect, except the spots are weaker [L&P] as I have pointed out to you many times, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots. The latter are only 3%, the former is a normal occurrence for almost every active region, e.g. http://www.icstars.com/HTML/SolarSection/HAlpha/OBSERVINGTHESUNHAlpha5.html “Most groups finally decay into a single p spot with no plage, which then slowly shrinks and dies out. ”
Alpha spots are also often just the starting and ending class, c.f. “A – A small single unipolar sunspot. Representing either the formative or final stage of evolution.”
http://sidc.oma.be/educational/classification.php
The important point is that a single unipolar spot is a normal element in the evolution of any active region.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots. The latter are only 3%, the former is a normal occurrence for almost every active region, e.g. http://www.icstars.com/HTML/SolarSection/HAlpha/OBSERVINGTHESUNHAlpha5.html “Most groups finally decay into a single p spot with no plage, which then slowly shrinks and dies out. ”
Alpha spots are also often just the starting and ending class, c.f. “A – A small single unipolar sunspot. Representing either the formative or final stage of evolution.”
http://sidc.oma.be/educational/classification.php
The important point is that a single unipolar spot is a normal element in the evolution of any active region.
The poetic Title
The unbearable flatness of 10.7
reminds of other unbearable flatnesses…..about to disappear in these interesting times.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:10 am
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:17 am
What is nice is that Alpha regions normally only represent 4% of all regions during a cycle.
———————————————
You are confusing alpha regions [one spot only] with reversed polarity spots.
Yes that link associated with the article is incorrect, and I should have linked to this.
That report shows unipolar groups (not regions) account for around 38% of sunspot activity from 1915-1953, but this will include all pores. I am interested only in the large unipolar groups which might be a harder statistic to track down and a future project if the current trend continues.
Between July 18 and Oct 25 this year large unipolar groups/sunspots made up 50% of total activity (9 0f 18, not counting specks/pores). If this ratio continues the F10.7 flux levels will we lucky to get over 100. This is the point I am attempting to make.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu7kh4wju2212837/
“It is known also that the solar influence is exerted by charge particle effects, because
according to Crutzen et al. (1975) the solar proton events (which are more frequent at
sunspot maxima) produce NO in the polar cap stratosphere; the latter effect leads to
a cooling (due to a decrease of ozone concentration) above 35 km”
Perhaps we can bring the protons in the solar wind into play with regard to the mesosphere after all:
http://www.vki.ac.be/QB50/download/workshop/papers_17nov/drinkwater.pdf
“NO produced by ionisation in auroral belt in thermosphere and transported down into mesosphere & stratosphere during polar winter.”
The protons in the solar wind dissipate the bulk of their energy between 100km and 125km but the products of the reactions then precipitate downward into the mesosphere to deplete ozone and effect cooling when the sun is more active.
Not as cut and dried as previously suggested in this thread.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Between July 18 and Oct 25 this year large unipolar groups/sunspots made up 50% of total activity (9 0f 18, not counting specks/pores). If this ratio continues the F10.7 flux levels will we lucky to get over 100. This is the point I am attempting to make.
Why cherry picking two dates? The uncertainty of as count like this is roughly the square root of the count, i.e. 3, which means that the ‘real’ count [translated into a longer time interval] could be anywhere between 9-3 = 6 and 9+3 = 12. So, there is no significant difference between your 50% and the 38%.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 22, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“It is known also that the solar influence is exerted by charge particle effects, because
according to Crutzen et al. (1975) the solar proton events (which are more frequent at
sunspot maxima) produce NO in the polar cap stratosphere; the latter effect leads to
a cooling (due to a decrease of ozone concentration) above 35 km”
You are still confused about this. Proton events are very rare, the cooling reported is in the stratosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 22, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Perhaps we can bring the protons in the solar wind into play with regard to the mesosphere after all
“NO produced by ionisation in auroral belt in thermosphere and transported down into mesosphere & stratosphere during polar winter.”
The ionization is by electrons [and EUV]. And in any event the proton density is highest at solar minimum and lowest at solar maximum: http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png
Leif Svalgaard aid:
“The ionization is by electrons [and EUV]. And in any event the proton density is highest at solar minimum and lowest at solar maximum:”
Not really a problem. Whatever the exact process there is apparently a rain of NO and other reaction products down into the mesosphere to deplete ozone at variable rates and change mesospheric temperatures as solar activity ebbs and flows.
Are you saying there are LESS such reaction products when the sun is MORE active ?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 1:18 am
Are you saying there are LESS such reaction products when the sun is MORE active ?
I’m saying that there are less protons [and less solar wind pressure] when the sunspot number is high. That these quantities are higher at low solar activity.
So would there be more ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere when solar activity is high or when it is low ?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 6:03 am
So would there be more ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere when solar activity is high or when it is low ?
Precision again!
What I have been [narrowly] telling you is that your idea of ‘solar protons’ in the mesosphere does not work, because there aren’t any [excepting rare events] and because the solar wind proton density varies inversely with solar activity.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 6:03 am
ozone depleting material dropping into the mesosphere
The chemistry of the mesosphere is difficult to study. This link has interesting material:
http://www.iap-kborn.de/Chemistry-of-the-mesosphere.115.0.html?&L=1
Follow some of the other links on the page.
“Precision again!
What I have been [narrowly] telling you is that your idea of ‘solar protons’ in the mesosphere does not work, because there aren’t any [excepting rare events] and because the solar wind proton density varies inversely with solar activity.”
I do pay attention so you’ll note that I haven’t been specifically mentioning solar protons in the last couple of posts.
I’ve already shifted my attention to other particles contained in the solar wind in light of the fact that apparently they too drop Nitrous Oxide down through the atmosphere. So we seem to have more than one potential mechanism for the same outcome.
Even so, the absence of solar wind protons within the mesosphere itself doesn’t matter if they create NO that then falls downward.
The solar wind proton density might vary inversely with solar activity but what about the other components ?
One normally associates an active sun with a stronger solar wind.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:20 am
One normally associates an active sun with a stronger solar wind.
Precision again! Or lack thereof.
What is a ‘stronger’ solar wind?
As you can see http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png the magnetic field of the wind is higher at solar maximum. The density and the solar wind speed and flow pressure are not. In high-speed solar wind streams [from coronal holes] that occur mostly just before solar minimum [see the speed bump at year 9], the density is usually low [see the density dip at year 9]. At maximum, the speed and the density and flow pressure are all low. The number of transients [CMEs and the like] are highest at solar maximum, but not enough to offset the generally lower density. In general terms, the solar wind comes from ‘open’ magnetic field areas that allow the material to escape. At solar maximum, there are a lot of active regions with ‘closed’ field lines that trap and keep the corona ‘at home’ so to speak. The Alfven ‘Mach Number which is the degree of ‘supersonity’ of the solar wind is lowest at solar maximum http://www.leif.org/research/Alfvenic-Mach-Number.png so one has to be precise about what a ‘stronger’ solar wind means.
Thank you Leif. I’ll dig into all that a bit more on the basis that whatever goes on above 100km does seem to have an effect on the mesosphere as a result of NO creation and its transport downward.
Not all layers of the atmosphere appear to warm when the sun is more active and we need to ascertain why because in my opinion a reverse sign solar effect is needed somewhere in the chain of causation to fully explain poleward shifting jets when the sun is more active.
The standard explanation of differential lower stratosphere warming between equator and pole does not seem to be sufficient. Even the modellers have been unable to reproduce the scale of observed shifting from that cause on its own.
I’m sure that in addition the polar vortices contract and expand from solar effects above and that needs to involve differential temperature changes at different levels similar to those set out in my article.
In the meantime I need to await more data as regards the changes in ozone above 45km subsequent to 2007 when the data highlighted by Haigh ends.
My guess is that if the sun remains inactive enough we should see a slow (if irregular) increase in temperature in both mesosphere and stratosphere. If the late 20th century cooling resumes without a more active sun then I will accept that as inconsistent with my ideas.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:34 am
Not all layers of the atmosphere appear to warm when the sun is more active
This is the main sticking point. First you need to be precise. Sun more ‘active’ means what? more sunspots? more UV? some UV bands vary opposite to the sunspot numbers. E.g. the near UV: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png
Next, you need to present a time series of temperatures in the layer of interest that supports your claim. I don’t know of any, so educate me.
The only time series I have found is the general one showing a downward trend in stratospheric temperatures during the late 20th century period of relatively ‘active’ sun. That then switches to a cessation of cooling and then a slight warming coincident with the recent less ‘active’ sun.
As regards the mesosphere I came across a number of reports puzzling over the causes of a cooling trend, again during the late 20th century.
Now the data referenced by Haigh shows increased ozone above 45km which implies a warming mesosphere despite a quiet sun.
She also shows a reduction of ozone below 45km which implies a cooling below that level but yet the available data shows a slight warming since 1996.
So it simply does not add up to support your assertion (the general consensus view) that all the layers of the atmosphere warm when the sun is more active and that all cool when the sun is less active.
Now it may well be that this is a ‘wood and trees’ situation. You and many others are so close to the short term data that it is possible to confound any proposition put forward to deal with those anomalies.
However if one stands back and looks at a 500 to 1000 year cycling from MWP to LIA to date then a clear pattern emerges.
Poleward jets are associated with a cooling stratosphere and a more ‘active’ sun whereas equatorward jets are associated with a warming stratosphere and a less active sun.
I am sure that the response of ozone to some feature of solar processes above 45km is the critical issue.
The ozone response above 45km is apparently of opposite sign to that below 45km if Haigh’s data is to be believed. That would provide the reverse sign effect I need to explain such large jetstream shifting.
From the information I have found during the course of this thread my attention is now directed to that downward flux of NO that apparently arises from various reactions above 100km.
So the issue narrows down to a simple question:
What state does the sun need to be in top maximise that downward NO flux ?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:56 am
What state does the sun need to be in top maximise that downward NO flux ?
So you don’t really have any evidence. And NOx will destroy ozone wherever it is and affect temperature everywhere.
What state does the sun need to be in to maximise that downward NOx flux ?
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Australian-Scientists-Probe-Distant-Clouds-With-Giant-Antarctic-Laser-103849314.html
“Our atmospheric dynamics are such that as we’ve got a warming troposphere – which is where we live – as that warms that in fact is interlinked with a phenomenon called global cooling up in the mesosphere above 50 kilometers”
So, again, Leif:
What state does the sun need to be in to maximise that downward NOx flux ?