The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center released their January 2014 solar data, and it has one small surprise, the 10.7 radio flux is the highest ever in cycle 24, the other metrics, not so much.
SSN has been about where the much adjusted prediction line says it should be for the last four months.
The 10.7cm radio flux hits a new high.
Meanwhile, the Ap magnetic index continues its slump as it has since October 2005, bumping along the bottom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting. Flux falling out of linearaity with sunspot number. Seems a bit of a Livingston and Penn effect and a sign of a minimum coming (Leif always claimed flux less inhibited by minima than sunspot number).
One reason the F10.7 is so high is that what is plotted is the observed flux, not the flux adjusted to 1 AU, which is the one one should compare with the SSN. Due to our proximity to the Sun the observed flux is about 5 units higher than the adjusted flux.
Thanks leif.
I suspect no one will object to adjusting the raw observed value to one that uses a consistent basis
Steven Mosher says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Thanks leif.
I suspect no one will object to adjusting the raw observed value to one that uses a consistent basis
___________________
Just can’t help yourself, can you?
Steven Mosher says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:18 pm
I suspect no one will object to adjusting the raw observed value to one that uses a consistent basis
The one shown is the one of interest for things on the Earth, so no objection should be raised at all.
Mosher writes “I suspect no one will object to adjusting the raw observed value to one that uses a consistent basis”
Well surely that would depend on how the data is to be used. If we’re interested in the effect of the F10.7 in our atmosphere for example then the data should be used as measured but if we’re interested in looking at how the F10.7 changes over time then we’d want to be looking at a standardised value.
Well if we are primarily concerned with the effect on earth, I would use the measured value. If I wanted to know what old sol was up to, I would adjust the measured for the presumably 1/r^2 fall off with distance.
But then I would probably be wrong.
TimTheToolMan says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm
——————
That’s exactly Mosh’s point, but he was being a smart—. He’s a great champion of massaging data until it confesses.
@Leif
> …the observed flux is about 5 units higher than the adjusted flux.
True, but the previous max SF was also in winter (Nov 2011), so the relative rankings didn’t change. The Jan-2014 readings are highest in both cases (observed, adjusted)
yyyy mm obs adj
2011 11 153.50 150.23
2014 01 162.69 157.50
http://www.spaceweather.ca/solarflux/sx-5-mavg-eng.php (data)
http://www.spaceweather.ca/solarflux/sx-6-mavg-eng.php (plot)
Since SF isn’t affected as much by the L-P Effect, shouldn’t we consider this to be the best proxy for solar magnetic activity?
Until this last bottom in the AP index, over the last century, bottoms were often in the 5-10 zone, with a rounded, extended sort of shape to the bottoms.
Highs were usually brief spikes, often in the 30-45 area.
This current high has yet to display the spike high type pattern and if this doesn’t happen, the graph formation of this high will resemble what previous lows looked like(turned upside down).
That is………. more of a stretched out, rounded top, being unable to spike even as high as 15 so far.
I’m no Leif Svaalgard, just stating the obvious and excited that something this unique is occurring that we’ll probably learn significant new things from.
Alan writes “That’s exactly Mosh’s point, but he was being a smart—. He’s a great champion of massaging data until it confesses.”
Personally I dislike adjustments that are based on assumption. For example if the policy was to read a weather station at a particular time of the day but the actual times weren’t recorded then IMO a TOBS adjustment based on policy alone would be inappropriate.
And then there are the misunderstandings on data sets. If the F10.7 data was standardised to 1AU (for comparison purposes ala Leif) but then someone used it in an atmosphere model without understanding the impact or maybe because that metadata was simply lost then again I have a problem.
Adjustments can lead to their own problems.
The standard reply for the Ap is (paraphrasing) nothing to see here, same as it ever was. So how many more months/years before this “pause” have to continue before it becomes something to see?
Berkeley needs to now use a tweakable parameter data slicer and dicer to spit out something called the BerkSun that matches climate models better and call it macaroni, er…I mean a proud improvement that will allow the academics involved to make a skeevy revisionist claim that they used to skeptics despite numerous quotes to the contrary.
On Nov 17, 2013, the highest SSN of 282 of the year was recorded, along with the second highest SF of 177. The four day period from Nov. 14-17 had the highest solar flux and SSNs for the year, with a SF of 178 on Nov. 15.
On Nov 17, there was significant volcanic activity in the Pacific ring of fire and tornadoes in the US, under a full moon, even though protons weren’t prominent, and Ap was only 6, and Kp was under 4. Coincidence or causative?
It appears useful to analyze daily solar activity in relationship to daily Earth events. Are monthly averages compiled for simplicity in producing plots or for some other reason?
John Day says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:58 pm
True, but the previous max SF was also in winter (Nov 2011), so the relative rankings didn’t change.
They did, from a ratio of 1.0218 to a ratio of 1.0343.
But, the adjustment is only [as I said] part of the reason.
TimTheToolMan says:
February 3, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Personally I dislike adjustments that are based on assumption.
There are no assumptions involved in this adjustment.
And then there are the misunderstandings on data sets.
The technicians and scientists who use the data are not morons [contrary to what some here believe] and apply things as they should.
Bob Weber says:
February 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Coincidence or causative?
This has been studied extensively in detail and there is no evidence for anything causative.
Why are the ISES predictions biased high for sunspot number? I would have put it at <75 and it is at 85? What is driving the assumption that SSN will be higher than it has been?
Paul Westhaver says:
February 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm
Why are the ISES predictions biased high for sunspot number? I would have put it at <75 and it is at 85? What is driving the assumption that SSN will be higher than it has been?
The ISES prediction is [per policy] unchanged since it was made in 2009. Already at that time it was clear to some on the Panel [I was on it] that the predicted value of 90 was too high. My own prediction was 70, but the panel felt that it was easier to reach consensus on 90, and that the uncertainty is such that there is really no significant different between 90 and 70.
When I was kid our house cost 15,000 dollars.
I trust none of you will adjust that number.
Steven Mosher,
No need to worry about adjustments, since you have given us the raw data.☺
RSS middle stratospheric temperature over the same period appears to correlate with the AP nicely.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
It has declined at the rate of .5 K/decade since 2000 maybe providing lots of cold air to feed the arctic vortex.
I was taught to record the measured values exactly as measured, then show the method of adjustments (so the work could be verified) and record that adjusted data separately, clearly documenting measured and calculated values. If this method is followed it preserves the measured data for future analysis. I don’t see where that principle is violated here, and the adjustment method and reasoning is well documented.
lsvalgaard says:
February 3, 2014 at 7:55 pm
“My own prediction was 70, but the panel felt that it was easier to reach consensus on 90, and that the uncertainty is such that there is really no significant different between 90 and 70.”
Yet so far, the average of the solar peak seems to be about 60.
Steven Mosher says: @ur momisugly February 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm
When I was kid our house cost 15,000 dollars.
I trust none of you will adjust that number.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Fed already did via inflation (currency devaluation) The ‘value’ of the house is the same but the number of dollars is not.
(You could also value the house in barrels of oil.)
Leif, I wrote ranking not ratio. “A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is either ‘ranked higher than’, ‘ranked lower than’ or ‘ranked equal to’ the second.” [Wikipedia]
So the Jan 2014 readings were ranked higher than the Nov 2011 values, regardless of any normalization.
I thought your original comment might have created the impression that the Jan 2014 SF value wouldn’t have been a new high if the value had been normalized to 1 AU.
😐
Re: Polar Vortex….
Slightly of topic…
I said the sun indirectly caused the polar vortex. I was wrong. The sun is directly responsible in that the solar wind interaction with the IMF affects that magnetosphere and thereby affecting the polar vortex.
This paper implies that the polar vortex is caused by the action of the magnetosphere in creating electric fields around the footprint of the magnetosphere in the atmosphere….
The footprints create the polar vortex by ionic circulation around the touch down point.
I think this paper should be added to your polar vortex reference page.
“Low-Energy Ion Escape from the Terrestrial Polar Regions”
‘The foot points of the magnetic field lines create a convection pattern (red) in the high-latitude ionosphere. As a result, an electric field (blue) is built up. The convection pattern follows equipotential contours of the polar cap electric field. 22
Figure 2.6 of polar electric fields that look like double polar vortex..
“Φ is referred to as the cross-polar cap potential. Equipotential contours of this potential are perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic fields, which means that the convection flow will be along these contours. In the polar cap proper the electric field is directed towards dusk, while it is directed towards dawn in the auroral region (see Figure 2.6(a)).”
Snip
“The polar wind is mainly varying with solar UV flux, since it controls the ionization rate and photoelectron production in the ionosphere. Therefore the polar wind is sometimes referred to as photothermal outflow (Moore and Horwitz, 2007). The auroral outflows, on the other hand, are enhanced during active times, when the solar wind-ionospheric coupling is strong. Since the
solar wind energy input shows larger variability than the solar radiation, the auroral wind is much more variable than the polar wind. Nsumei et al. (2008) have shown that solar illumination controls the plasma density over the polar caps mainly at low altitudes (below 2.5 RE), whereas it is controlled by the geomagnetic activity at higher altitudes (above 4 RE).”
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:210978/FULLTEXT01
Brant