NASA on the sun: '…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate."

Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.

From NASA GSFC:  Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star.  While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Sun-Climate (cycle, strip)

These six extreme UV images of the sun, taken by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, track the rising level of solar activity as the sun ascends toward the peak of the latest 11-year sunspot cycle. More

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem.  To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop.  The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important.  “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.

Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.  Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Sun-Climate (tsi, strip)

Space-borne measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI) show ~0.1 percent variations with solar activity on 11-year and shorter timescales. These data have been corrected for calibration offsets between the various instruments used to measure TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of Greg Kopp, University of Colorado.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface.  There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence.  For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent.  Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further.  He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it.  “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies.  [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.”  In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Sun-Climate (sep, strip)

How incoming galactic cosmic rays and solar protons penetrate the atmosphere. SOURCE: C. Jackman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “The Impact of Energetic Particle Precipitation on the Atmosphere,” presentation to the Workshop on the Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate, September 9, 2011.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics.  But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.”  Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

Sun-Climate (pacific anomaly, strip)

Composite averages for December-January-February for peak solar years. SOURCE: G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing, Science 325:1114-1118, 2009; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global.  The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally.  The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature.  “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.”  This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.  The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Sun-Climate (sunspot numbers, strip)

The yearly averaged sunspot number for a period of 400 years (1610-2010). SOURCE: Courtesy of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering.  More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.”   This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now.  Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.  Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

Sun-Climate (faculae, 200px)

This image of the Sun’s upper photosphere shows bright and dark magnetic structures responsible for variations in TSI. SOURCE: Courtesy of P. Foukal, Heliophysics, Inc.

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps.  Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager.  Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number:  the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths.  This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex.  The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity.  Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae.  Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity.  Of particular interest are the faculae.  While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not.  This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum.  A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study.  Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results.  Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists.  However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores.  Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity.  A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars.   Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips  | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

See also the December Solar slump here

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
319 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
January 11, 2013 12:24 pm

“Not everything either, just certain basic essentials
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm
“identical in all essential features”
Not inconsistent at all. Being identical in all essential features does not imply that they support everything I say.
Kindly apologise.

January 11, 2013 12:44 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:21 pm
So, my comments are indeed correct and relevant
not al all. I just showed how you try to overplay your hand.
my work lacks practical utility
It is worse than that.
He should apologise for his baseless assertions.

MattS
January 11, 2013 12:48 pm

Lief,
From your link “hus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in
the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.”
What about the maximums?

Matthew R Marler
January 11, 2013 1:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard: no, it just assumes that the response is equal for solar cycles of equal size.
How is that different from linear across the spectrum, and how is it known to be true, or sufficiently accurate?

Matthew R Marler
January 11, 2013 1:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard: More D-K in my opinion.
On that we agree: it is your opinion.

January 11, 2013 2:15 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“Not everything either, just certain basic essentials
Stephen Wilde says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm
“identical in all essential features”
Not inconsistent at all. Being identical in all essential features does not imply that they support everything I say.
Since when is ‘certain’ the same as ‘all’?
MattS says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm
From your link “thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in
the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.”
What about the maximums?

The maxima just follow the ordinary sunspot number showing that each cycle in UV behaves the same as in other solar parameters.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2013 at 1:01 pm
How is that different from linear across the spectrum, and how is it known to be true, or sufficiently accurate?
Do I have to give you a numeric example? Assume y = x^2: cycle 1: x=1, y =1; cycle 2: x=2, y=4; cycle 3: x=1, y=1; cycle 4: x=2, y=4. Cycles 1 and 3 have like x and also like y; same for cycles 2 and 4, etc.
The result follows from the fact that to measurable accuracy equal cycles have had equal UV.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Leif Svalgaard: More D-K in my opinion.
On that we agree: it is your opinion.

You bar is obviously lower than mine. Fair enough.

Stephen Wilde
January 11, 2013 2:19 pm

My opinion of Leif is currently unprintable so I’ll just let others form their own views.

January 11, 2013 2:52 pm

@MPainter: “The first sign of an improved NASA will be the retirement of that Hansen miscreant.”
I’m being nit-picky… but I prefer to see Hansen fired, and fined for intentional wrong doing. I’m sick thinking of paying for his retirement.

January 11, 2013 3:34 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm
My opinion of Leif is currently unprintable so I’ll just let others form their own views.
It is nice of you to allow [‘let’] others form their own views.

January 11, 2013 6:31 pm

@LiefS 11:38am: The [[Ocean Floor paleomag]] measurements were not made to test Continental Drift [which was pretty much discarded at the time].
The story of Plate Tectonics is more one of scientists with guesses making sense of observations, then going out to find more data to further test the guesses. Scientists are not a monolithic body with identical training, experience, and interests. Different experiences make some scientists open to a new idea sooner than others. Hess ran sonar profiles of the ocean bottom from his ship in WWII Pacific Theater. 1953 Dietz knew about the chain of sea mounts extending north from Midway.
Surface paleo mag interpretations in the 1950s became further support for some flavor of Continental Drift with an unknown mechanism, even an expanding Earth. Sea Floor spreading grew from Bruce Heezen’s (Columbia U.) mapping of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the ’50s, unfortunately for him, chasing an expanding earth theory. Sea Floor spreading blew up into a hot topic in 1960-61 in a priority dispute between Henry H. Hess (Princeton & Naval Reserve) and Bob Dietz (Scripts) on the key point of spreading at ridges, subduction at trenches and continents along for the ride. 1963 Vine, Matthews, and Morley postulated magnetic reversal stripes associated with ridge growth and pole reversals (idea ahead of data). Wilson identified transform faults and convergent zones in 1965, successfully predicting earthquake concentrations at the transforms (idea ahead of data). 1966 Pitman-Heirtzler discovery of symmetric magnetic bands on the Pacific-Antarctic Ridge. Rigid plate theory in 1967-68 by Morgan, McKenzie, and Parker quantitative movement of plates with poles of rotation.
(Ref: Sea Floor Spreading, R. N. Hey, U of Hawaii)
From: Hess 1962 History of the Ocean Basins (Buddington Volume): after a summary of 19 assumptions and conclusions:

In this chapter the writer has attempted to invent an evolution for ocean basins. It is hardly likely that all of the numerous assumptions made are correct.

Theory drives predictions.
Predictions drive the search for data.
Data drives the improvement in Theories.
-30-

Stephen Wilde
January 11, 2013 6:53 pm

Leif asked:
“Since when is ‘certain’ the same as ‘all’?”
When the certain essentials are qualified by the word ‘basic’ and the word ‘all’ is qualified by the term ‘essentials’.
One could say instead that all basic essentials of my work are reflected in their report. It is then up to me to define which essentials are basic and which are not.There are in fact several, all of which appear in the report.
Maybe I should give Leif the benefit of the doubt if English is not his first language but perhaps not because I judge that he is just scrabbling at a semantic straw in order to avoid acknowledging the falsity of his initial baseless allegations.

pochas
January 11, 2013 9:23 pm

Leif,
If you are familiar with this S2000 E10.5 index, could you give us a summary? I believe it covers only the EUV portion of the solar spectrum and would guess that it includes the wavelengths that generate ozone?
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_UV/SOLAR2000/E10_5_cycle_v120.jpg

January 11, 2013 9:44 pm

Stephen Rasey says:
January 11, 2013 at 6:31 pm
The story of Plate Tectonics is more one of scientists with guesses making sense of observations, then going out to find more data to further test the guesses.
educate yourself: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html
Theory drives predictions.
Predictions drive the search for data.
Data drives the improvement in Theories.

This is very backwards. Not the way it usually works.
But if you are unwilling to concede that what more is there to say?
Stephen Wilde says:
January 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm
When the certain essentials are qualified by the word ‘basic’ and the word ‘all’ is qualified by the term ‘essentials’.
No, ‘certain’ here designates a true subset of essentials, but ‘all’ includes the full set of essentials.
Maybe I should give Leif the benefit of the doubt if English is not his first language
I have probably spoken English longer than you have [in addition to half a dozen other languages]
his initial [baseless?] allegations.
Stephen Wilde says:
Very similar to my work of the past 5 years.
This is getting very close to the narrative set out in my New Climate Model
Whatever defects may be found it seems that my work might well have been a lot closer to the truth than that from any of the climate professionals.
It would have been nice to have had some attribution given the overlap with my earlier work and the similarity of the language used.
NASA apparently agrees with me but I think I am several steps ahead
All the evidence is going my way
And I have NASA on side as regards the solar effects on circulation
It is clear that the report of their findings contains several statements that mirror the position that I have been setting out for several years and the general approach is identical in all essential features to my previously expressed diagnoses of climate features.
All of that is implicit in my earlier work and indeed now at last in the NASA report but currently I am way ahead of them in interpreting the data and the interconnected climate consequences of the various observations
—-
should constitute a sufficient basis. Which ones of those would you retract?

January 12, 2013 12:19 am

pochas says:
January 11, 2013 at 9:23 pm
If you are familiar with this S2000 E10.5 index, could you give us a summary? I believe it covers only the EUV portion of the solar spectrum and would guess that it includes the wavelengths that generate ozone?
E10.5 is a proxy for the solar EUV. It is nearly identical to the radio-flux F10.7. Its development and meaning is best explained here: http://spacewx.com/pdf/JGR_2002_E107.pdf

Stephen Wilde
January 12, 2013 5:18 am

“Which ones of those would you retract?”
None. The published record is as it is.

pochas
January 12, 2013 5:59 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 12, 2013 at 12:19 am
“E10.5 is a proxy for the solar EUV. It is nearly identical to the radio-flux F10.7. Its development and meaning is best explained here:”
Thanks

Matthew R Marler
January 12, 2013 9:45 am

About the Dunning-Kruger syndrome: Has anybody here other than me studied psychological assessment? Tests and measurements; inter-rater reliability; test-retest reliability; structured interviews; criterion validity; false positives, false negatives and operating characteristics; negative predictive value, positive predictive value and such. Anybody have experience and training making actual diagnoses as opposed to merely interpreting superficial descriptions of a few symptoms? A special irony would occur if someone totally unqualified to do so were to call someone else an example of D-K.
Dunning-Kruger strikes me as the latest in a line of excuses (claims of inappropriate funding, projection, etc.) why atmospheric and other scientists do not feel they need to acknowledge gaps in their knowledge, or the importance of such gaps.
Leif Svalgaard: Do I have to give you a numeric example? Assume y = x^2: cycle 1: x=1, y =1; cycle 2: x=2, y=4; cycle 3: x=1, y=1; cycle 4: x=2, y=4. Cycles 1 and 3 have like x and also like y; same for cycles 2 and 4, etc.
You need to elaborate that example. if y1 = x1^2; y2 = x2^2; … ; yp = xp^2, and if x1, …, xp all increase by different % from different baselines (as is the case with changing insolation across the spectrum [x1, —, xp being the energies in different spectral bands], according to the target paper of this thread), then y1, …, yp do not all increase by the same % as x1, … xp. If, say, x1 increases from 3 to 4, and x2 changes from 4 to 5 (1/3 and 1/4 increases), then y1 changes from 9 to 16 (a change of 7/9) whereas y2 changes from 16 to 25 (9/16). Only for linear functions of y on x do % changes in y1 to yp match the % changes in x1 to xp.

January 12, 2013 10:04 am

Matthew R Marler says:
January 12, 2013 at 9:45 am
call someone else an example of D-K.
The suffers of D-K give themselves away strongly enough
if x1, …, xp all increase by different % from different baselines (as is the case with changing insolation across the spectrum…
The baseline is the same for all, namely zero.

Andrejs Vanags
January 12, 2013 11:20 am

Dr. Svalgaard I’ve notoced a ‘theme’ in the reports you link.. basically if there is a measurement of ‘something’ vs. time and there seems to be a correlation to the F10.7 data stream, but it is not perfect, then the thing measured is ‘corrected’ for trend in order to make the correlation match the F10.7 stream. If the ‘correction is not linear, the some reasonnis tried to be found for the discrepancy, and the F10.7 data is assumed more ‘correct’.
Why is that? what is so magical about the F10.7 data that makes it more ‘correct’ apriori?. Why do all measurements at various wavelengths have to be in lockstep with it? As far as I know The F10.7 is just a measurement at a single specific wavelength, nothing magical about it.
Recently there is a growing discrepancy between F10.7 and sunspots (cant remember where I saw that) Doenst that disprove the theory that everything is linear and in lock step with the F10.7 data?Wouldnt that imply those ‘corrections’ need revisiting?

January 12, 2013 1:31 pm

Andrejs Vanags says:
January 12, 2013 at 11:20 am
Dr. Svalgaard I’ve noticed a ‘theme’ in the reports you link.. basically if there is a measurement of ‘something’ vs. time and there seems to be a correlation to the F10.7 data stream, but it is not perfect, then the thing measured is ‘corrected’ for trend in order to make the correlation match the F10.7 stream.
Here is an example: http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf
Note, that the comparison with the F10.7 did catch an error in the calibration of the Spacecraft data.
Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/research/MWO%20MPSI%20-%20F107.pdf
Note, that the calibration of the magnetographwaschanged in 1982 [the whole instrument was upgraded with new technology].
And there are more.
Why is that? what is so magical about the F10.7 data that makes it more ‘correct’ a priori?.
There are several reasons.
The F10.7 measurement is simple, objective, and continuous using essentially the same instruments since the late 1940s. The telescopes were moved in the 1990s, but the effect on the data is small [1-2%]. The Canadian measurements are corroborated by similar measurements in Japan: http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf
Why do all measurements at various wavelengths have to be in lockstep with it? As far as I know The F10.7 is just a measurement at a single specific wavelength, nothing magical about it.
There is a bit of magic because all solar variables have been found [empirically] to match the F10.7 flux. Whenever discrepancies have been found, they have invariably turned to be calibration errors or other problems with the other solar indices. The physics behind the success of F10.7 lies in that there are two different contributions: one that measures the thermal background and one that measures the stronger magnetic fields of the sunspots: http://www.leif.org/research/F107-Causes.png
Recently there is a growing discrepancy between F10.7 and sunspots (cant remember where I saw that)
This problem [caused by the so-called Livingston-Penn effect; see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf ] we think is due to ‘the Sun changing its spots’, that is that the process forming sunspots may be undergoing a change. We speculate that also happened during the Maunder Minimum and was the cause for the few visible spots during that time: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt
[or the pdf file – which does not show the animations – http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf ]. This means that atsuch times, the sunspot number simply is not a valid indicator of true solar activity.
Doenst that disprove the theory that everything is linear and in lock step with the F10.7 data? Wouldn’it that imply those ‘corrections’ need revisiting?
So, everything is fine. The corrections have been necessary and are correct. We don’t make those lightly.

January 12, 2013 1:56 pm

Andrejs Vanags says:
January 12, 2013 at 11:20 am
Why do all measurements at various wavelengths have to be in lockstep with it? As far as I know The F10.7 is just a measurement at a single specific wavelength, nothing magical about it.
I forget this one: http://spacewx.com/pdf/JGR_2002_E107.pdf
“The data that creates the E10.7 proxy results in a correlation coefficient of 0.947 with F10.7”
“E10.7 is the atmospherically relevant subset of a broader, self-consistent solar spectrum from 1-1,000,000 nm”
So F10.7 is remarkably good at capturing the longer-term variation of a much broader range of wavelengths.

January 12, 2013 3:21 pm

Rasey:
Theory drives predictions.
Predictions drive the search for data.
Data drives the improvement in Theories.
LiefS: This is very backwards. Not the way it usually works.
In what ways is this “very backwards”?
Predictions are NOT driven by theory?
The search for data, the funding of research projects, is independent of predictions?
Improvements in Theories don’t need data, even old, existing data?
Data drives predictions without theory?
I don’t deny that the theory might be incomplete, even relatively wrong ;-), but it isn’t backwards.

Matthew R Marler
January 12, 2013 6:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard: The baseline is the same for all, namely zero.
When solar output changes from relatively low to relatively high (where this discussion began), you use 0 as a baseline for computing % change? I think you have given up on trying to write clearly.

January 12, 2013 6:30 pm

Stephen Rasey says:
January 12, 2013 at 3:21 pm
I don’t deny that the theory might be incomplete, even relatively wrong ;-), but it isn’t backwards.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘theory’here.Whose theory? yours?
What I meant was that new data and new observations drive new theories,especially when the new findings are unexpected. Very rarely is it the other way around. So believing that it is the other way around goes in the wrong direction, hence backwards. The case we were discussing was Plate Tectonics, where the direction is especially clear. In solar/space physics everything is driven by the data.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 12, 2013 at 6:04 pm
When solar output changes from relatively low to relatively high (where this discussion began), you use 0 as a baseline for computing % change? I think you have given up on trying to write clearly.
The path has become too tortuous to follow. Variation in UV comes from variation in the magnetic field from activer regions. At solar minima when the magnetic field essentially goes to zero, the portion of UV caused by the field goes to zero. This is the baseline we have to measure from. The UV from those active regions scales linearly with their number and strength. BTW, I’m not the one trotting out percentages. So when you claim this or that variability [10%, 500%, whatever] you are not being clear in your mind what you are saying.

pkatt
January 12, 2013 6:45 pm

Andrejs Vanags, You just don’t understand.. F10.7 will be how we count all of those nonexistant spots if the LP theory turns out to be correct. Leif has put all his eggs in that basket and is determined to “make it work” even if it means changing all of the other data to do so. Don’t bother with your answer Leif.. I’ve long ago stopped considering you to be any more than an agenda driven scientist.