Readers may recall the contentious discussions that occurred on this thread a couple of weeks back. Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released. But that aside, there is good news.
David Archibald writes in to tell us that the model has been released and that we can examine it. Links to the details follow.
While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.
I have not looked at this model, but I’m passing it along for readers to examine themselves. Perhaps I and others will be able to get to it in a few days, but for now I’m passing it along without comment.
Archibald writes:
There is plenty to chew on. Being able to forecast turns in climate a decade in advance will have great commercial utility. To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:
David Evans has made his climate model available for download here.
The home for all things pertaining to the model is: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
UPDATE2:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understanding, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“Pearls before swine, again.
Really? I’m just warming up for the “blood sport” Olympics.
@Pamela.. What could I ever possibly say to make you happy 🙂
@leif
If you were righteous you would say:
there is no man made warming
because you know full well that all warming and cooling
is natural.
You are exactly not what you say you are
@Pamela Is Not! 🙂
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Look at figure 1. Based on their empirical observations at various frequencies, they were able to create a cubic spline interpolation that fits the data they recorded. This means nothing to you? You ought to know photon energy is a function of wavelength, and that’s what this graph indicates.
Yes, over that very limited wavelength range out in the microwave spectrum. I am somewhat of an expert on F10.7. Here are a few pointers:
http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Waldmeier.pdf
Bottom line: F10.7 is a proxy for the magnetic field in spots and for the density of the corona [both related to FAR UV], but the variation of F10.7 is not ai direct measure of the variation of the energy we get from the Sun
Bernie asked: “I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?”
It was just a software setting I found, having been aware of something called FFT smoothing already. The software I had briefly installed was from OriginLab.com.
Then Bob, I would ask you what the heck does F10.7 have to do with Earth’s weather pattern variation trends?
Love the wavelet study.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1401.7033&ei=gE7AU6CUAsmzyASG1ILIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEc9m_5ZiiO5qsykLsOQLJgVeg59w&sig2=kGToIMbGm3yPsHMw2k2z8A&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on”
What side is this? no one told me that we could pick sides!
I want a do over-… lol
I’m on the side of a highly variable, very observably noisy planet Earth whose atmosphere and oceans create several oscillating systems that go in and out of phase with each other while also being teleconnected. Due to the size and stubbornness of its intrinsic systems, planet Earth is not very sensitive to rather tiny extrinsic variations.
Ms Gray
I have yet to see one quote of your mysterious ‘teleconnecting atmosphere and oceans oscillating systems’.
To help you along the way, you might consider this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-AAP.htm
but no ‘teleconnecting oscillation’ there, just a strait forward ‘cause-consequence’ quasi-periodic variability.
NikFromNYC suggested Originlab July 11, 2014 at 11:26 am
Thanks for the lead Nik. This led me to:
http://www.originlab.com/www/helponline/origin/en/UserGuide/Algorithm_(Smooth).html
and their method:
• Calculate the mean of the first 1% data points and the mean of the last 1% data points.
• Construct a straight line throught these two points and subtract the input data by this line.
• Perform FFT on the dataset acquired in last step.
• Apply filtering with the low-pass parabolic filter.
• Perform IFFT on the filtered spetrum.
• Add the baseline to the dataset acquired in last step.
So they are first extracting the linear trend, subtracting it, and adding it back after the FFT-Filter-IFFT. So that’s how they did it.
Worth looking at.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“Bottom line: F10.7 is a proxy for the magnetic field in spots and for the density of the corona [both related to FAR UV], but the variation of F10.7 is not ai direct measure of the variation of the energy we get from the Sun”
No it is not a direct measure, and I didn’t say it is a DIRECT measure – it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
The F10.7 flux – all photon flux at all frequencies are by definition proportional to the Sun’s electric field, and brightness. Since F10.7cm is proportional to a high degree to SSN, the SSN is therefore proportional to the sun’s electric field. My paper will show the how the sun’s electric and magnetic fields – the electromagnetic spectrum, warmed the planet during the modern era. The warming change in SST from 1961 to now is about 0.35 degrees net, during which time a quantifiable amount of photon energy reached the Earth. The amount of photon energy across the spectrum is relatable to the F10.7 flux. It’s no different than your equating the sun’s magnetic field to the SSN. You are essentially relating the sun’s magnetic field to the sun’s electric field.
Pamela – thank you for the link
Link above bad?
Here it is again:
http://www.originlab.com/www/helponline/origin/en/UserGuide/Algorithm_(Smooth).html
Or just Google “fft smoothing algorithm”
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm
it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
No, the Sun does not have an electric field. It is electrically neutral.
You are essentially relating the sun’s magnetic field to the sun’s electric field.
The Sun does not have an electric field in the frame of the Sun. And you would have to specify in which reference frame, i.e. by which observer, that field would be seen.
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm
“Then Bob, I would ask you what the heck does F10.7 have to do with Earth’s weather pattern variation trends?”
Pamela, I am glad you asked that question. Since I’ve been typing all day, I’ve give my fingers a rest and copy a comment I left the other day to ren:
“Along with Arthur, this typhoon [Neoguri] was powered up by recently intensified solar-driven tropical evaporation. The sun went from very quiet activity two weeks ago to a steady climb up to a current level of output that is higher and sustained longer than the solar input that preceded typhoon Haiyan last November.
On June 25, the SSN was 37 and the F10.7cm “radio” flux was at 94, and after that steady increase, they peaked yesterday June 7 at SSN = 256, and F10.7 = 201 sfu.
Las Vegas has felt the heat too during this recent solar blast, along with many places in the south and southwest over the past week. Did anyone see this coming?
Look at the USAF F10.7 forecast as of today here, posted below the link:
http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/usaf-45-day-ap-and-f107cm-flux-forecast
“:Product: 45 Day AP Forecast 45DF.txt
:Issued: 2014 Jul 07 2052 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Air Force.
# Retransmitted by the Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center
# Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov
# 45-Day AP and F10.7cm Flux Forecast
45-DAY AP FORECAST
08Jul14 010 09Jul14 012 10Jul14 007 11Jul14 007 12Jul14 008
13Jul14 008 14Jul14 005 15Jul14 012 16Jul14 008 17Jul14 008
18Jul14 005 19Jul14 005 20Jul14 005 21Jul14 005 22Jul14 005
23Jul14 005 24Jul14 005 25Jul14 005 26Jul14 008 27Jul14 005
28Jul14 005 29Jul14 005 30Jul14 005 31Jul14 005 01Aug14 005
02Aug14 005 03Aug14 005 04Aug14 005 05Aug14 008 06Aug14 008
07Aug14 008 08Aug14 008 09Aug14 008 10Aug14 008 11Aug14 012
12Aug14 008 13Aug14 008 14Aug14 005 15Aug14 005 16Aug14 005
17Aug14 005 18Aug14 005 19Aug14 005 20Aug14 005 21Aug14 005
45-DAY F10.7 CM FLUX FORECAST
08Jul14 200 09Jul14 200 10Jul14 190 11Jul14 170 12Jul14 160
13Jul14 140 14Jul14 140 15Jul14 120 16Jul14 110 17Jul14 110
18Jul14 110 19Jul14 105 20Jul14 100 21Jul14 100 22Jul14 095
23Jul14 095 24Jul14 100 25Jul14 110 26Jul14 125 27Jul14 135
28Jul14 140 29Jul14 160 30Jul14 160 31Jul14 170 01Aug14 175
02Aug14 185 03Aug14 205 04Aug14 205 05Aug14 205 06Aug14 190
07Aug14 170 08Aug14 160 09Aug14 140 10Aug14 135 11Aug14 120
12Aug14 110 13Aug14 110 14Aug14 110 15Aug14 105 16Aug14 100
17Aug14 100 18Aug14 095 19Aug14 095 20Aug14 100 21Aug14 110″
See that for 08Jul14 the F10.7 forecast is “200″ and then tapers off, then ramps back up over the 27 day solar rotation period, back up to an even higher value of “205″. The same forecast made on June 29 was:
“:Product: 45 Day AP Forecast 45DF.txt
:Issued: 2014 Jun 29 2051 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Air Force.
# Retransmitted by the Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center
# Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov
# 45-Day AP and F10.7cm Flux Forecast
#————————————————————-
45-DAY AP FORECAST
30Jun14 005 01Jul14 005 02Jul14 008 03Jul14 008 04Jul14 005
05Jul14 005 06Jul14 005 07Jul14 005 08Jul14 005 09Jul14 005
10Jul14 005 11Jul14 008 12Jul14 005 13Jul14 005 14Jul14 008
15Jul14 012 16Jul14 008 17Jul14 008 18Jul14 005 19Jul14 005
20Jul14 005 21Jul14 005 22Jul14 008 23Jul14 008 24Jul14 005
25Jul14 005 26Jul14 005 27Jul14 005 28Jul14 005 29Jul14 005
30Jul14 005 31Jul14 005 01Aug14 005 02Aug14 005 03Aug14 005
04Aug14 005 05Aug14 005 06Aug14 005 07Aug14 008 08Aug14 005
09Aug14 005 10Aug14 008 11Aug14 012 12Aug14 008 13Aug14 008
45-DAY F10.7 CM FLUX FORECAST
30Jun14 130 01Jul14 130 02Jul14 140 03Jul14 145 04Jul14 140
05Jul14 145 06Jul14 155 07Jul14 140 08Jul14 135 09Jul14 130
10Jul14 130 11Jul14 125 12Jul14 120 13Jul14 120 14Jul14 115
15Jul14 110 16Jul14 105 17Jul14 105 18Jul14 105 19Jul14 105
20Jul14 100 21Jul14 095 22Jul14 100 23Jul14 105 24Jul14 105
25Jul14 110 26Jul14 115 27Jul14 115 28Jul14 120 29Jul14 125
30Jul14 135 31Jul14 130 01Aug14 130 02Aug14 135 03Aug14 140
04Aug14 135 05Aug14 130 06Aug14 130 07Aug14 125 08Aug14 120
09Aug14 120 10Aug14 115 11Aug14 110 12Aug14 105 13Aug14 105″
Notice for June 7, the F10.7 forecast originally was set for “140″, not “201″!?
That means they got it wrong by a long shot, and then they figured that out – ie they learned from reality, and changed their forecast for the next rotation accordingly. Now, will that forecast be right? Since NOAA and NASA recently proclaimed solar cycle 24 had peaked or was peaking back in May or early June, and given this unexpected solar uptick, I’d have to say the solar max is either here now, or will be in August, or perhaps even the next rotation in September! Who knows!?
So my point is that higher solar activity this summer and possibly beyond will drive higher sea surface temps, land temps, more evaporation, power more hurricanes & typhoons, and possibly lead to an El Nino. If the sun’s activity does taper off in the next rotation or two, then we’ll see about all that, won’t we? In June, after they announced the solar max, I was thinking we’d see the downhill slide sooner than later. See, that Sun has a mind of it’s own!”
***
Pamela, I noticed the week this solar uptick started that the Weather Channel was forecasting a heat wave for Las Vegas for the following Monday/Tuesday which came to pass… do you think it is possible they use USAF F10.7cm forecasts to predict the temperatures? If they do, why do they keep talking about CO2-caused warming?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Pamela, I am glad you asked that question. Since I’ve been typing all day, I’ve give my fingers a rest and copy a comment I left the other day to ren
Even if the Sun is direct controlling the temperature from day to day [and where?] it would not be because of F10.7 which is just a proxy for solar activity in general. All solar indices vary in sync over time scales of a month or longer, so if there is a force ‘x’ that does it, F10.7 would likely just be varying like ‘x’. It is like this: there is a strong correlation between shoe size and reading ability for children. Do you think that bigger feet makes you read better?
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm
it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
“No, the Sun does not have an electric field. It is electrically neutral.”
So then you don’t buy into Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations? Do you think everyone else is wrong when they define the sun’s irradiance as proportional to the sun’s electric field? Is everyone else wrong when they say irradiance is also a function of photon flux?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
“The irradiance of a monochromatic light wave in matter is given in terms of its electric field by
I ~ cnϵ0/2 * the absolute value of E squared
where E is the complex amplitude of the wave’s electric field, n is the refractive index of the medium, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ϵ0 is the vacuum permittivity. (This formula assumes that the magnetic susceptibility is negligible, i.e. where is the magnetic permeability of the light transmitting media. This assumption is typically valid in transparent media in the optical frequency range.)
Irradiance is also the time average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface.”
If you’re trying to say the sun’s light isn’t a function of it’s electric field you’d better pony up quick or forever hold your piece, because as far as this electrical engineer is concerned, you’re afraid to say the word “electric”. Notice that irradiance is the time AVERAGE.
From wiki: “The integral of solar irradiance over a time period is solar irradiation or insolation. Insolation is generally measured in J/m2 and is represented by the symbol H.”
The integral. The area under the F10.7 or SSN curves is representative of the integral of solar irradiance over a time period, and most definitely is a function of the sun’s electric field.
Leif,
Force “x”, not to be confused with force “xxx”, is the solar electric field, and it varies mathematically from quiescent state represented by the proxy F10.7cm at about 65-66 during the solar minimum to a maximum near 400 at times. By the way your magnetic field-F10.7 reconstruction curve indicates the inseperable relationship between the sun’s electric and magnetic characteristics. Can we agree that whatever varies with F10.7cm is what does it then, and that it is the sun’s electric field as well as it’s magnetic field? Can we agree then that your magnetic equation as a function of SSN really means the magnetic field is a function of it’s electric field?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Do you think everyone else is wrong when they define the sun’s irradiance as proportional to the sun’s electric field?
If they say they would definitely be wrong, but they are not saying that. The flux is proportional to the electric field of the light, not of the Sun. Light is consists of a wave of electric field that generates a magnetic field that generates an electric field that generates a magnetic field and so on as the wave propagates.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm
Can we agree then that your magnetic equation as a function of SSN really means the magnetic field is a function of it’s electric field?
No, that is completely wrong. There is electricity involved but not in way you think. Here is what happens: The solar plasma is an electrical conductor. On the Sun there are always magnetic fields somewhere. When you move a conductor in a magnetic field you create an electric current [that is how an old-fashioned bicycle dynamo works, and just about all power plants]. The electric current has a magnetic field of its only, so if you continue to move the plasma you get more electric current and therefore more magnetic field and so on, a process called dynamo amplification. This takes place inside the sun and plasma with a strong magnetic field results. That plasma rises to the surface and you see the magnetic field as sunspots that eventually fall apart and their magnetic debris form the seed for the next batch of sunspots in cycles of 11-yrs duration. But there is no such thing as ‘the sun’s electric field’.
@lsvalgaard…in looking at your ssn chart that starts in 1875 I have noticed that there is a change in how many years each minimum stays close to 0 count. The first 6 minima are an average of 4 years +/- 1 year. Then after cycle 17 the next 6 minima have a range around 2 years of close to 0 count. The last minimum was a four year event. The second set of 6 cycles, where the minima are at 2 years at the bottom, coincidently correlates with the global warming period. Is it possible that when a solar minimum lasts 4 years vs 2 years close to 0 count that this causes the warming/cooling change? ie…the Earth gets 2 years of extra increasing solar effects.
ps…would you happen to have an updated version of your ssn chart? The one which I am using ends in 2012. I am very curious to look at the next installment, and many thanks for your fine work.
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Is it possible that when a solar minimum lasts 4 years vs 2 years close to 0 count that this causes the warming/cooling change? ie…the Earth gets 2 years of extra increasing solar effects.
I don’t think it is that simple.
ps…would you happen to have an updated version of your ssn chart?
Which one are you thinking about? I have many such plots, and would like to show you one that is close to what you have already.
@ur momisugly Bob I thought this is a good starting point to help create understanding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field It starts out by saying “A magnetic field is the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. ” so electric currents strengthen magnetic fields . The suns magnetic field and the electric universe interaction keeps the sun rotating . Why is fe left out of the explanation regarding electromagnatisium ?
The chart is called A-solar-activity-mod-1. It runs from 1875 to the beginning of 2012. It has great resolution which greatly aids me in my thoughts.
Yes, I wouldn’t think it that simple either regarding the length of minima events. Still, there it is plain to see that it does coincide with the warming. It could be a piece of the puzzle.
I used that chart to make a forecast back in early March that the developing positive ENSO would peak at the end of May or by June. Since June 25th it has become clear to see that day by day the heat has been steadily dissipating in the ENSO regions. I just looked at today,s ssta and the pattern remains. This could all be a great coincidence. However, to my mind I see so many connecting points that I will persist with these thoughts until nature shows that I am not right in holding them. I note Bob Weber,s comment above with the 45 day solar forecasts. The second version of that is close to what I foresee as happening. My forecast points to a decline starting in mid July approx and running through August/September. Late September into October should be an Indian summer and then it will be cold after that.
I think all models should undergo vigorous testing & peer review before publish. Nevertheless, this could be the outcome given SC predictions.
These kind of models make for interesting viewings, but it is important to “entertain” the idea and then verify the model, this I believe this article tries to convey in it’s discussion, thank you for it 🙂
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:09 pm
The chart is called A-solar-activity-mod-1. It runs from 1875 to the beginning of 2012. It has great resolution which greatly aids me in my thoughts.
I’m afraid I don’t recognize this chart as mine. Could you give me a link to it?