This is interesting. It seems that NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and is getting ready to launch one or more studies about it. They are soliciting proposals. Leif, here is your chance. – Anthony
From this NASA document (PDF here)
ROSES-09 Amendment 1: New proposal opportunity in Appendix B.9:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23
This amendment establishes a new program element in Appendix B.9
entitled gCauses and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle
23.h This new program element solicits proposals to study the causes
and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23. Proposals are
encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of
domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and
planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High
priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between
various regimes.
Notices of Intent to propose are due April 17, 2009, and proposals
are due June 5, 2009.
On or about March 6, 2009, this Amendment to the NASA Research
Announcement gResearch Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences
(ROSES) 2009 (NNH09ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research
opportunity homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select
gSolicitationsh then gOpen Solicitationsh then gNNH09ZDA001Nh).
Further information about the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum
of Solar Cycle 23 program element is available from Dr. Mary Mellott,
Heliophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; Telephone: (202) 358-0893;
E-mail: mary.m.mellott@nasa.gov.
Michael Ronanye writes:
This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!
From the document:
.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view….B.9%20CCMSC.pdf
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
1. Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes – Solar output
- Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
- Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
- Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
- Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22;
- Effectively no sunspots;
- The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
- Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
Consequences
- With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
- Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
- Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.
Thus, we have an unprecedented opportunity to characterize the quiet/background state of the heliosphere when the solar source function is as close to the ground state as it has been in the modern era.
NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period. This ROSES element thus solicits proposals to study the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (CCMSC). Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between various regimes.
Taking maximum advantage of this opportunity will require interaction between specialists in different regimes. Selected Principal Investigators will have responsibilities for both their own specific research and for participation in a yearly workshop where all the CCMSC investigators will be brought together to explore the implications of their own work for other regions. Proposals should address both of these responsibilities.
“Michael Ronanye writes:
This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!”
CYA policy? Cover Your A$$? I thought the science was settled, the Sun does not affect of influence climate, only the Co2 released when we drive our SUV and other fossil fuled lifestyle choices.
What a fabulous opportunity!
NASA should be commended. If projections for a continued quiet sun are correct, there will be an extended opportunity. Leif, list some topics…
It’s a good thing their acting so quickly, this minimum’s not getting any younger.
I am relatively new to all of this (several months now). However, it seems absolutely extraordinary that NASA is just now recognizing publicly that the sun seems to be defying predictions.
I wonder what Hansen’s take on this is.
Oh bless their poor little hearts.
They do mean well.
I see the pdf links still show the document giving the study as solar cycle 24 minimum. You would think that by now they’d have corrected their correction.
An excellent opportunity for a career change for a certain Mr J Hansen.
OK, I tried following those links and ended up with this:
Science+Mission+Directorate
NASA Research Announcement
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
Solicitation: NNH09ZDA001N-CCMSC
Dates
Release
Feb 13, 2009
CCMSC09 NOIs Due
Apr 17, 2009
CCMSC09 Proposals Due
Jun 05, 2009
Announcement Documents
Summary of Solicitation (.PDF)
Table 2. Solicited Research Program as amended (in order of proposal due dates)(.HTML)
Table 3. Solicited Research Programs as amended (in order of Appendices A,B,C,D and E)(.HTML)
B.1 Heliophysics Overview (.PDF)
B.9 Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24 as clarified (.PDF)
Program Element Information
Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) – 2009
List of Program Elements
Notices
The description of the specific proposal opportunity on this page is contained in the document ‘B.9 Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24.’ This document is kept up to date and incorporates amendments in a clearly identifiable manner.
ROSES-2009 is an omnibus NASA Research Announcement. It contains over 50 different proposal opportunities. In the “Announcement Documents” section above, the document ‘Summary of Solicitation’ describes the common requirements for all ROSES-2009 proposal opportunities; all proposers must satisfy the proposal requirements in the ‘Summary of Solicitation’. The documents ‘Table 2’ and ‘Table 3’ contain the list of all proposal opportunities and their due dates. The document ‘B.1 Heliophysics Overview’ describes research activities within the NASA science division that is managing the specific proposal opportunity on this page. The document ‘B.9 Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24’ describes the specific proposal opportunity on this page. All of these documents are kept up to date and incorporate amendments in a clearly identifiable manner.
I don’t think Dr. Svaalgard may want to involve himself just yet. It’s still the same weird stuff covered in your earlier post abiut the end of Cycle 24. Someone at NASA is joking maybe?
Leif,
Partially OT… Did we see solar flux dip below 69 this weeK?
Meanwhile….during all of this confusion….one of the NASA leaders….even though other emergencies such as the sun, warrant dire concern…he takes the time to become a civil activist and do his Youtube AGW/snowbound protest thing.
Why is NASA having to do a last-ditch desperate RFP?? Its because of the abject failure of its leaders!! Case in Point: James Hansen
Nasa is a pretty big organization.
At least the solar sciences division seems interested in advancing our knowledge of the sun-earth environment.
Even Hathaway has acknowleged that the current solar minimum is going to ferret out and dispense with various solar cylce theories.
(Hopefully he is including his own).
What does in the “Causes – Solar output. . . Cosmic rays at near record-high levels” mean? I must have missed the discussions on near record-high level cosmic rays.
Scientific theories are well tested explanations of natural phenomena.
When it comes to solar cycles, there ain’t one.
Proposals: “Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle
23 (or Cycle 24; we’re not sure)”
I can save the boys and girls at NASA $4.5 million by skipping the proposal stage and hoofing it right to my final, absolutely free conclusions:
1) Causes – A dearth of sunspots.
2) Consequences –
A) A booming market for snow shovels and “woollies”.
B) Class action “windmill ice projectiles destroyed my home” lawsuits.
C) Class action “clouds starved my solar farm” lawsuits.
D) Announcement by NASA that their global warming computers predicted a “mini-ice age” would immediately precede the “smoking ruin” phase of AGW.
E) Nobel Committee demands return of their Prize.
F) NOAA announces the freezing point of water has risen to 50 degrees F.
G) N.Y. Times reports that noodling the aardvarks has buggered the jim-jams.
Of course I will be applying for a grant. I might as well get paid for something I have been doing for free. My biggest qualification is that I have no formal training in the field. That reminds me of a letter to the editor of the local newspaper complaining that I am not a climate scientist. In my reply, I said “From my telephone conversation with Mr Crisp, I understand that he is a doctor. I am not a doctor, and have no medical training whatsoever, but I am the inventor of a patent on a cancer drug that has successfully completed in vitro trials at Queensland University, with a recommendation from the professors involved to proceed to human trials. We are not limited by our qualifications, but only by our imaginations. Unfortunately I have been distracted from cancer research somewhat by the immediate threat to Western Civilisation from the global warming zealots.” I am still time short, but when NASA makes a cry for help, how could we fail to respond? It would be heartless to stand idly by while they have made plain their need for fresh thinking from outside the same old stale solar physics community. The only people standing tall now are the wavelet people like Clilverd (who I will engage as a subcontractor) who predicted a small Solar Cycle 24 well in advance. My contribution was to say that if 24 is going to be small, then 23 is going to be long, and the first sign of a small 24 will be a long 23. It has come to pass, almost 13 years now.
I am less tentative on the F 10.7 flux. If it hits 68, then the minimum definitely is not in yet.
This is the closest I’ve seen to NASA suggesting maybe they don’t have a handle on everything. That in itself is interesting… I’d like to see NOAA, who understands everything, do the same.
Well, personally I’ve heard many people say there is nothing unusual about this minimum, but obviously there is. Maybe knowing the causes is still a long way off, but I am concerned about the consequences. Do solar funks lead to climate cooling? I honestly hope not!
Well I’m glade they finally decided the sun matters… and that the lack of spots was a bit unusual… BTW, this shows Okhotsky Sea icing up:
http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/adeos2/seaice/seaice.cgi?lang=e&mode=large&sen=P1AME&area=okh&pro=IC0
Weren’t we supposed to be having record melt and sunbathing polar bears?
rephelan (20:20:33) :
They dont make it easy do they….I got totally lost myself.
Graeme Rodaughan (20:20:29) :
An excellent opportunity for a career change for a certain Mr J Hansen.
After all, he is qualified in astrophysics not climatology.
Does this mean that NASA is acknowledging the correlation of low solar activity with high cosmic ray levels?
Reverence for NASA by it’s tax payer owners does not seem to be very strong characteristic of this forum!
David: The flux ‘broke over’ on approx. Feb 15th. Heading down at 1 flux unit per month. If it doesn’t stop doing that, it’s light’s out for minimum.
The sun, like a good Leapord, can’t change it’s spots.
That’s my contribution: Terrestrial Perihelion does not coincide with max flux.
Do solar funks lead to climate cooling? I honestly hope not!
According to solar measurements and proxies matching up with literature from selected times, yes, they certainly do.
They are not all created equal, though. Some are quite momentary and do other equally rough things to climate. Like generate dust bowls.
We are in this thing deep enough right now to feel the power, no matter what else happens.
NASA’s problem, along with a select few other agencies, has found itself in bed with the wrong idealogy. They don’t need another 3 years to study this, just follow what Eddy investigated and read the literary works. It’s there.
Consequences.
As I have said before, many years ago (30+) the BBC (when it was a great publicly funded & INDEPENDENT broadcaster) prodiced a “Horizon” programme (When it too was a great prgoramme) about sunspots. They highlighted how patterns could be drawn from sunspot activity & correlated with historical events, the rise & fall of Hilter, the rise & fall of Beatlemania, even the rise & fall of dress lengths, etc!!!!! This is to name a few recent events, & yes it all may be completely coincidental as always. I wonder though if in many years from now, a pattern will be observed in the rise of greenism, its radical fanaticism peaking in 1998, to a steady yet whimpering decline in the early part of this century, as cooler times prevail? I still have that sneaky suspicion that mankind is not completely aloof to such influences, were they to exist. Please, don’t think I’m a voodoo addict or anything like that, far from it, but I wouldn’t place any bets just yet! As I understand the humble bee relies upon the sun for navigation, how do we really know we are not influenced by it in some weird way? Oh well time will tell.
It will be interesting yo see the names of those actually granted money for this research.
My guess is that there will be several proposals from AGW believers and skeptics alike; so how will NASA choose?
I always smile when I think about NASA’s “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)” headline from July 11, 2008.
Of course nothing is “wrong” with the sun, it’s just that we don’t understand its current behavior. The last time the sun behaved comparable to today was when we humans started counting sunspots… Not much data to compare – exciting times! (Of course it could become very cold…)
Just watched the world temperatures forecast on SBS (Australia) tonight, and still the NH looks so very very cold. Chicago -14c, not f, c!!!! That’s cold! Catastrophic global warming must be on holiday (On the Sun).
“Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between
various regimes.”
Perhaps Svensmark could tap into this funding to support his research into impacts on earth’s climate. BTW, has anyone seen any data on changes to lower atmosphere cloud cover levels in the last 2 years?
Well, they can at least fund one Professor and a few postdocs for 3 years on that.
Not exactly ‘balancing up the research streams’, but it’s a move in the right direction.
Perhaps there could be a further research funding stream covering: ‘The effects and outcomes of high profile, media-driven worst-case scenario prognostications by economists and soul-selling climatologists’ OR ‘If I were Tom Cruise, I could screw a thousand women and make one hundred million dollars before I was 40. Now isn’t that a good reason for me to take on a $200,000 mortgage on a salary of $12000pa?!’
A good debate to be requested from Nancy Pelosi and Mick Martin in those sanctums of open-minded enquiry, debate and decision-making, The Houses of Congress and Commons……
IMHO.
Babkock-Leighton solar dynamo hypothesis goes something like this:
Late in the sunspot cycle, the leading spots diffuse across the equator and cancel with the opposite polarity leading spots in the other hemisphere Due to the Coriolis force during the flux tube emergence, the sunspot pairs are tilted to the E-W direction The flux of the trailing spots and of the remaining sunspot pairs is carried toward the poles where it accumulates to form the poloidal field of the next solar cycle.
This hypothesis is basis of the NASA’s current understanding. I suggest a detailed re-examination of this hypothesis is required, before any progress can be made in the understanding not only of this one, but other major (Maunder, Dalton, and possibly new one due around 2025) minima.
MDDwave wrote:
“What does in the “Causes – Solar output. . . Cosmic rays at near record-high levels” mean? I must have missed the discussions on near record-high level cosmic rays.”
It means that the Solar winds are now pushing less of the Cosmic rays back into outer space, causing more Cosmic rays to hit Earth’s atmosphere, causing more clouds to build up (according to Svensmark’s theory) and possibly causing the Global temperature to drop.
Pat (19:29:06) :
Oh calm down. I saw nothing in the release about studying climate, only the Sun and first order related effects (e.g. cold contracted ionosphere). This isn’t a request from NASA’s GISS, it’s from NASA’s Heliophysics Division.
I won’t hazard a guess as how they would consider a proposal take advantage of this unique opportunity to look for climate effects related to this remarkable minimum.
MDDwave (22:06:33) :
What does in the “Causes – Solar output. . . Cosmic rays at near record-high levels” mean? I must have missed the discussions on near record-high level cosmic rays.
The solar wind is reduced during solar minima:
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low
You mean that this solar minimum isn’t normal? Everything I have read from NASA to this point has essentially said… “nothing to see here… move along”
LOL I am just a layman, not in any way associated with the study of space or the sun, and even I could see a year ago that there was something unusual about this cycle.
G
Beautiful graphic! May not mean anything but certainly communicates. We’ll see.
Re: Graeme Rodaughan (20:20:29) :
“An excellent opportunity for a career change for a certain Mr J Hansen.”
The only career change I think would be appropriate would for NASA to hand him his pink slip.
On this article…. Its great that NASA (after presumably MONTHS of endless and tireless research and analysis /sarc off) have established the Sun may be behaving a little unusually perhaps significantly so (time and analysis will tell) and are going to devote some research time to look at it closer. I genuinely look forward to their findings.
However, in typical NASA fashion, they are a tad late to the bleedin party! – In other breaking news, NASA to study daylight and why it goes away at night…
Of hose bulit points NASA put out the one that scares me the mos is this one
Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum
Note no formal training in this, but that just seems to me to be a little bit of an issue.
For MDDwave, I am not sure about cosmic ray’s from our sun as it were, but I would suspect that the lower solar wind has appropriatly affected the earths magnetic field, which theoretically let more in to the atmosphere (by other theory’s this then provides nucleation points for clouds)
[cite][b]David Archibald (23:06:15)[/b]
I am less tentative on the F 10.7 flux. If it hits 68, then the minimum definitely is not in yet.[/cite]
Are the numbers in the sidebar (from http://n0nbh.com ) adjusted for distance?
I asked my non-scientist wife:”Which of the two halves of the Sun(pictured above)
are the scariest to you?” “The one on the right.-it says there is something very,very,
quiet-er, DISquieting going on.”
I’m building a Green house BTW…
David Archibald said “I am less tentative on the F 10.7 flux. If it hits 68, then the minimum definitely is not in yet.”
I have a slightly off-topic question about the flux for David, Lief, or anyone else who has an answer – is the strength of flux measured at Earth impacted by the amount of “space dust” (particles of whatever) between the Sun and the Earth? If so, is that taken into account in the adjustment that’s applied for Earth/Sun distance?
Pat (03:00:24) :
Just watched the world temperatures forecast on SBS (Australia) tonight, and still the NH looks so very very cold. Chicago -14c, not f, c!!!! That’s cold!
Pat,
-14° C is around +7° F
-14° F is about -26° C
Either way is cold, but F!!! not C is colder. Just teasin’ you metric users…. ha!
last F10.7 I saw adjusted for 1AU was 66.0. I also have noticed the Ap index tending to be under 2 for a while, a few days ago it made it down to 0.385.
Kudos to NASA, I think this will be money well spent.
NASA;
After careful analysis we have determined that the current lack of sunspots is a direct result of a global warming byproduct here on Earth. This lack of activity has been predicted by both Hanson and Gore hence it will now be called from this time forward. The Hanson-Gore Effect.
Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22;
Effectively no sunspots;
The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
Of course, none of this could have any impact on global temperatures. None.
sry. I ‘d when I shoulda ‘d.
Why stop at the boundary of the heliosphere? We have been mapping “temperature” variations in galactic neutral hydrogen outside of the heliosphere since the 70’s. Surely changes in the number, temperature, and electrical charge of particles streaming into the heliosphere through the solar apex have some impact on the interior? Or is that too simple? They couldn’t possibly believe that the heliosphere is a closed system, right? Or are those dumb questions?
No, no, no, This is not in error!!!!!!! cycle 24 may be done, or not,
this is the point to the research . It is WAY over our heads people.
Dr. Hathoway is tossing in the towel!!!! you see any new predictions?
and you won’t.
links.. and read this!!!!!
ttp://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Standard numbering New numbering
–min —max ——— min—- max
4 1784.3 1788.4 —-3 1784.3 1788.4
–1793.1.———- 4 1795
5 1798.7 1802.——5 1799.8 1802.5
6 1810.8 1817.1—– 6 1810.8 1817.1
7 1823 1829.6——-7 1823 1829.6
Leif?
You said ” short cycles = less TSI” and I said ” long cycles were cooler”
WELL this explains my confusion, you see the short cycles work, instead of a long cycle. this changes everything…. get it?
Anna V? you see this too?
This is my second post from 11/3 Tim L (19:53:21) :
anyone want to ponder this?????????
Instead of sending a telescope to try to find earth-like planets, maybe they should send 3 telescopes to study the sunspot/solar activity/cycles of 1) a young star, 2) a sun-like star and 3) an old star.
That could be a good proposal that could span 50 years of research and financing.
The Hansen-Gore Effect is as advertised: A Snowjob.
They must have hired a 1,000 writers to come up with everything under the Sun is caused by C02. All you got to do to get a piece of the pie is to imagine something that is caused by C02 increase. $$$ is waiting for you.
I have one: C02 increase is causing mass hysteria, countered only by the increased cold.
Accept the truth, deniers! CO2 is a magical gas species which exhibits properties “in the wild” that no one has been able to coax it into exhibiting in a laboratory. The science is settled! Science = magic.
Seriously, though, I just realized that I made a technical mistake in my first post. “through the solar apex” should have more correctly been stated “from the point on the heliopause where STEREO mapped double asymmetrical Hydrogen ENA peaks shortly after being commissioned”. Which just happens to be in the same direction as solar apex. My mistake.
Am I the only one who finds this latest “He I 10830 Å spectroheliogram” from the U.S. National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak (Arizona)” strange?
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_nsoHe.gif
(From here http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/ )
I know it is only symantics, but I would like to get everyone on the same page. On the Hannity Global Warming Watch thread, we have been calling this the Gore-Hansen minimum for some time, yet here it seems to be the Hansen-Gore effect. I would hate for the AGW guys to find a way to get us divided because of a matter of who gets top billing.
LAShaffer (11:17:16) :
I make the same mistake all the time – so easy to do… LOL
Leif! Leif! Leif!
I got it. A sure-fire winning project that will definitely get approval from NASA. Say you have a theoretical link between the solar minimum and “climate change”. You will definitely get funded then!
Robert, the solar flux will be 65 in June. Still flatlining.
David: What do you make of the lagtime of 6 weeks +-1 ?
Manmade or external?
I see it hazily in the 2008 data.
I’ll have to run a graphing program on the Flux for the uncorrected, corrected and 0.9x values.
Any reccomendations on graphing software that is public domain and runs on Windows?
I’m using a trial version of Findgraph right now.
Policyguy (20:21:37) :
Did we see solar flux dip below 69 this week?
It has been below 69 for several months now. You [and Anthony] and Archibald and others] are looking at the wrong flux. The flux reflecting solar activity is the ‘adjusted’ flux, that today is 67.4:
2454904.322 2081.162 2009 03 13 2000 0068.2 0067.4 0060.7 2 As you can see here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png the Sun has started is slow climb into cycle 24, if ever so slightly.
And for the zillion’th time: cosmic rays are not at record highs, but just where they are every odd-even solar minimum. Now, NASA said ‘near record high’. Behold the subtlety here. Say, for illustration that the count is 1986 was 4000, and in 1965 also 4000, and today also 4000, then 4001 would be record high and indeed 4000 would be near 4001…
vukcevic (04:24:35) :
Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo hypothesis goes something like this: […] This hypothesis is basis of the NASA’s current understanding. I suggest a detailed re-examination of this hypothesis is required.
Why is that required? The B-L dynamo is the very basis for our prediction of SC24 being the lowest cycle in a 100 years, and the Sun seems well on its way to a low cycle.
NASA gets a poor report card:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12608&page=R1
TonyS (12:08:33) :
Am I the only one who finds this latest “He I 10830 Å spectroheliogram” from the U.S. National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak (Arizona)” strange?
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_nsoHe.gif
It is an old one, here is ‘the latest’:
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_solisHe.gif
Bobby Lane (13:02:36) :
Say you have a theoretical link between the solar minimum and “climate change”. You will definitely get funded then!
I don’t and I won’t
Tim L (08:27:25) :
You said ” short cycles = less TSI” and I said ” long cycles were cooler”
“short cycles = more solar activity at maximum”
Whatever you think of climatology, it could be worse.
I came across “Earth Under Fire” by Paul LaViolette on Google Books. It purports to be science, but it’s pretty clear it’s actually science fiction. See the reviews here to get a taste of what it is like:
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/EUF-reviews.html
Atlantis, Mayan calendar, 2012, Revelations, and much much more.
He says the last ice age ended because a wave of cosmic dust caused a T Tauri type flare up of the sun. Reading this is much more fun than reading the mainstream climate apocalypse news.
I know many have jokingly referred to this as the “Gore Minimum” (and where’s the fun if it goes over his inflated head?), but I thought it has been officially named for Theodor Landscheidt. Or am I mistaken?
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:12) :
maybe i am in a parallel universe ?
Robert, the solar flux will look after itself for a while. What I am doing now is preparing for Solar Cycle 23’s birthday. It will be 13 years old next month – a teenager!. Thirteen is a coming of age that is celebrated by a number of cultures. Very few humans get to experience a solar cycle this long. The last time was over 200 years ago. We live in a special time with our special solar cycle.
Dr Svalgaard keeps saying that GCRs have peaked out, and I keep going back to Oulu and find that the neutron count is still in uptrend. Oh well, wishing can’t change hard data.
“Oh calm down. I saw nothing in the release about studying climate, only the Sun and first order related effects (e.g. cold contracted ionosphere). This isn’t a request from NASA’s GISS, it’s from NASA’s Heliophysics Division.
I won’t hazard a guess as how they would consider a proposal take advantage of this unique opportunity to look for climate effects related to this remarkable minimum.”
I was being sarcastic and stressing NASA’s CYA policy. I thought it was rather funny in the age when the “science is settled”.
“Pat,
-14° C is around +7° F
-14° F is about -26° C
Either way is cold, but F!!! not C is colder. Just teasin’ you metric users…. ha!”
I stand corrected however, shouldn’t you join the the 17th century like the other metric users?
David Archibald (23:17:04) :
Dr Svalgaard keeps saying that GCRs have peaked out, and I keep going back to Oulu and find that the neutron count is still in uptrend. Oh well, wishing can’t change hard data.
And you still do not understand that just looking at one station is misleading. Here is a composite of three stations [up through the end of Feb.]: http://www.leif.org/research/Thule-Oulu-Moscow.png
One should be careful about referring to a solar minimum and mentioning Gore in the same breath – next thing you know he’ll be saying he “discovered” it.
Well, space weather is showing a new spot emerging in the Southern Hemisphere but haven’t numbered it or announced its parentage yet. Another Cycle 23?
Leif,
At the link you gave,
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
I note the TSI is at 1360.8
In the current WUWT post about the Scafetta-Wilson Paper there is a graph which makes your TSI appear to be at 1365.6.
Why are the numbers different?
I need to know because I find myself getting sucked into debates with people smarter than me, against my will. I find that, when argueing above my head, it helps to be able to whip out facts and speak with great authority. However I need to make sure I have my numbers right. (It is very deflating to be corrected, right in the middle of a pompous rant.)
Caleb (07:29:00) :
I note the TSI is at 1360.8
your TSI appear to be at 1365.6.
Why are the numbers different?
Because there are systematic differences between the various spacecrafts of the order of 5 W/m2. It is very difficult to get the absolute value correct so people simply move the scale up and down a bit when comparing data. The relative variation [and that is what matters here] is much more accurate, so the TSI from two spacecraft will show the same ‘wiggles’.
Leif Svalgaard (20:21:45) :
To
vukcevic (04:24:35) :
…….The B-L dynamo is the very basis for our prediction of SC24 being the lowest cycle in a 100 years, and the Sun seems well on its way to a low cycle.
Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo hypothesis contains in its definition number of contradictions, physics’ and statistically questionable, too dependent on chance (as you are well aware), and extremely unlikely to produce response of a regular form as recently measured.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
Let’s take SC23 as an example:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC23.gif
As it can be seen it has a considerable area asymmetry (and if you throw in a double dynamo, with two operating independently) , while the current two polar fields “formed independently” from SC23 have no significant asymmetry whatsoever; a major statistical miracle.
There are numerous other problems with B-L , not to mention getting out of the Maunder and Dalton minima, cycles 19-20, etc.
I do not particularly dispute fact that polar fields may be seed for the next cycle and possibility that can be used as a loose indicator of what may follow.
However, as far as predictions are concerned, predictions are just that and no more.
Svalgaard / Cliver prediction formula goes back only 3 cycles, statistically too low sample to be significant.
As a matter of interest Vukcevic combined formula which has a good past record (16 out of 19 cycles) predicts peak of 78 (smoothed 70 or less) sometime in 2013 or lower in 2014.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Solar_cycles.gif
You may dispute its value, but it has at least 200 year 19 cycles record, with 85% success rate, far more meaningful then just 3 cycles with 100% record, but I do not dispute Svalgaard / Cliver record, it is the other way around, and bear in mind that the current solar science and knowledge are not absolute.
vukcevic (08:16:21) :
Let’s take SC23 as an example
I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
You have predicted nothing. The curve fitting with a small number of parameters is numerology. There is no basis in physics. The B-L dynamo is alive and well and has no problems or contradictions. The randomness is a significant and important element, just as in predicting the weather. Anybody should be suspicious of a formula purporting to predict that there will be a tornado in Houston at 1:32 pm on May 11th, 2087.
REPLY: Actually, it will be in Galveston. 😉 Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (08:33:24) :
vukcevic (08:16:21) :
Anybody should be suspicious of a formula purporting to predict that there will be a tornado in Houston at 1:32 pm on May 11th, 2087.
REPLY: Actually, it will be in Galveston. 😉 Anthony
Darn! I forgot to take Pluto into account.
REPLY: Correct, when predicting barycentric induced tornadic mesoscale cyclones, all planetary mass must be considered. Even though Pluto was recently downgraded from planet status it must be included in the calculation. Many have forgotten to do so due to Pluto’s status. 😉
– Anthony
Dr. Svalgaard and Anthony,
I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
On the matter I won the argument (the correlation of the Vukcevic formula being excellent), condition was you produce alternative, after some parabolic, shall I call it a ‘joke’, my formula appears to have been mutilated, presented as something new. The agreement was to tell us how you done it, you never did, so according to the Queensberry rules, you lost the argument, so I shall not discuss any further ‘the unquestionable correlation excellence of Vukcevic formula.
I am never afraid of loosing an argument, if I have to, otherwise what is point of arguing the subject.
As far as Pluto is concerned, I should not take names of the ancient gods in jest, I was born and grew up not too many miles away, and I can tell you, their rage is absolutely fatal to us mere mortals.
Anthony,
my ranting is not about barycentre, it is on electro-magnetic lines, your blog is top, and I owe to it ‘my solar science circles infamy, and I am particularly proud to be known as ‘an illiterate of superior ignorance’ in his vane attempt to shake out giants of the solar science.
Thanks again giving me, and likes, opportunity which I hope not to abuse.
vukcevic (09:25:22) :
The agreement was to tell us how you done it, you never did, so according to the Queensberry rules, you lost the argument,
Perhaps you missed it. I simply said that the observed polar fields had a 20.4 year period and that there is a long-term amplitude variation of solar activity and hence also of the polar fields. The period I used [104 years] is just the one matching the observations, the rest is standard math to match the observations. The point was just to show that it is easy to produce excellent fits to existing data, but such a fit does not guarantee a match outside of the domain used in the fit, hence that the mere existence of an excellent correlation cannot be used as a predictive tool unless it is based on solid physics [which, BTW, yours is as I have shown repeatedly]. And while we are on explanation where things come from: where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from? Let us see if the Queensberry rules can be used to ferret out that nugget. To be proud of ignorance is a bad thing.
Leif Svalgaard (09:52:26) :
vukcevic (09:25:22) :
hence that the mere existence of an excellent correlation cannot be used as a predictive tool unless it is based on solid physics [which, BTW, yours is notas I have shown repeatedly].
I missed a NOT there.
where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from
Pi/3 is an acronym for a long number 1.04719755119660, but as you will realise does not make much difference. That particular match is over, if you loose can’t blame the ref.
The ordinary everyday’s ignorance yes, bad; but ‘superior ignorance’ is an exceptional quality.
vukcevic (10:39:18) :
“where does the pi/3 phase in your formula come from”
Pi/3 is an acronym for a long number 1.04719755119660, but as you will realise does not make much difference. That particular match is over, if you loose can’t blame the ref.
The ordinary everyday’s ignorance yes, bad; but ‘superior ignorance’ is an exceptional quality.
when ‘superior ignorance’ comes down to not knowing the difference between -114.112 [which is your value for 2004 with pi/3 phase] and -1.051 [which is your value for 2004 without the pi/3] then the ‘exceptional quality’ has faded considerably.
But you see the point is that it was there;
but as you will realise does not make much difference
was a remark directed to Dr. Svalgaard, the scientist who did nor consider this ‘science’.
Do I conclude, with considerably anxiety, that you may be coming round to this magnetospheric ‘astrology’ lark, since I do not desire intruders, even less a serious competition in my protectorate.
My dinner is getting cold. Dosvidaniya.
vukcevic (12:31:18) :
But you see the point is that it was there;
but as you will realise does not make much difference
was a remark directed to Dr. Svalgaard, the scientist who did nor consider this ‘science’.
Do I conclude, with considerably anxiety, that you may be coming round to this magnetospheric ‘astrology’ lark, since I do not desire intruders, even less a serious competition in my protectorate.
My dinner is getting cold. Dosvidaniya.
you posting is just gobbledygook, perhaps it is time to refrain from similar mutterings in the future, if you want to be taken seriously.
vukcevic (12:31:18) :
“But you see the point is that it was there”
you posting was just gobbledygook. You have a question to answer: where does the pi/3 come from? It will suffice to say that it is just fiddling to make it fit the observations, like my choice of 104 years for the long-term period in solar activity.
Vukcevic is certainly right about the outdated Babcock-Leighton theory. Imagine a theory that can predict a massive SC24 as per Dikpati and Hathaway, down to a low to medium cycle as Svalgaard predicts. With its different fudge factors built into the conveyor belt speed, to the ridiculous five tongued approach for loading the solar poles near the end of a cycle…pick a tongue, any tongue. No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
Reply: Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
Geoff Sharp (17:29:36) :
Imagine a theory that can predict a massive SC24 as per Dikpati and Hathaway, down to a low to medium cycle as Svalgaard predicts.
That is the strength of the theory, that is covers it all. The different predictions come about because of different boundary conditions, like a weather forecast being different if you feed in different observations.
the ridiculous five tongued approach for loading the solar poles near the end of a cycle…pick a tongue, any tongue.
This happens to be an observational fact. Count them here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
They are not.
Geoff Sharp says this in one post:
“No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.”
and you reply:
Reply: Be respectful, please. Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
Yet you allow Lief to say this and this is just one example:
Lief to Vuk:
“I thought we had gotten rid off you, that you had taken your ball and went home.
Unfortunately not so.
You have predicted nothing.”
This is NOT a fair playing field here. You guys let Lief systematically insult other posters….but when somebody raises and objection, its this:
Reply: Be respectful, please. Thank you. ~dbstealey, mod.
QUALIFICATION: I RESPECT DR. SVALGAARD…but it would be greatly appreciated that HE be held to the same standards as other serious contributors on this site.
Be respectful. Simple.
CHRIS
NORFOLK, VA
savethesharks (23:19:52) :
While agreeing with you in principle, on this occasion the moderator snipped the end of my comment because I was commenting on Anthony’s Reply.
I dont think he meant that my comments about the Babcock-Leighton theory were out of line.
Geoff Sharp: No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
Dr. Svalgaard: They are not.
Perhaps, Dr. S., you may have not seen the subject of this thread. But I am sure you have. In light of the following, how can you claim: “They are not.”?
From NASA…..
ROSES-09 Amendment 1: New proposal opportunity in Appendix B.9:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23
This amendment establishes a new program element in Appendix B.9
entitled gCauses and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle
23.h This new program element solicits proposals to study the causes
and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23. Proposals are
encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of
domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and
planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High
priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between
various regimes.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (06:04:57) :
Geoff Sharp: No wonder NASA is looking at other methods.
But I am sure you have. In light of the following, how can you claim: “They are not.”?
Because they aren’t. They are not looking at other models for the solar dynamo because the B-L dynamo has been abandoned or is in disrepute or anything like that. Within the framework of the B-L paradigm there is enough room for variation to encompass everything we have seen so far, including Grand minima. The specific topic at hand is the current minimum and in particular its consequences. How do i know? Because this is my field of specialty and I know what goes on both in front of and behind the curtain.
Leif and Anthony,
this site is slipping into totalitarian non-thinking at times (I know that sounds strong but). We are all intelligent enough to challenge ourselves and to be humble enough to be open minded. I’m tired of Leif’s attempt to silence the other voices on this blog in a rude manner. This site appears as an open forum and with the number of lies it has revealed from various sources it needs to be, however dismissive tactics are being used without proper study from Leif who is more than capable of such. This is leading to a new set of believers, the Svaalgard’s, who are largely taking it on trust that he is right. This is dangerous to the very cause this site so well achieves. It is clear to anyone who looks at the all the evidence properly that he isn’t the sole holder of truth. Real science never stops asking questions, you have provided many articles which show us all a chink of an insight that there is lots we don’t know. It is only through debate that we learn, speculation being an essential part. Leif acts like he is already complete. I think a lot of people will be intimidated by his approach and their valuable contribution is silenced. This is a travesty and if it continues will be to the detriment of the brilliant potential of this site.
(Sorry to be so serious but I have sat well back partly because of the lack of gentlemanly conduct here which quieted my input especially from Leif and nothing is changing and yet the questions still need to be asked).
Edward Morgan (09:09:24) :
however dismissive tactics are being used without proper study
Well, I think I have studied these ideas much more than they would have been considered by other scientists, but, hey, if the poster’s opinion is the prevailing attitude, I’ll be happy to call it a day [as I did in similar circumstances at Tamino’s].
REPLY: Bear in mind that I’m not making any suggestion that you leave the site. – Anthony
Leif, you know what I mean. This does not have to involve you going anywhere.
Edward Morgan (09:57:50) :
Leif, you know what I mean. This does not have to involve you going anywhere.
No. I do not know what you mean. Science is cruel and unforgiving. There is no room for an ‘open mind’. Ideas have to fit in the established framework for science to be able to build upon previous research. The few that don’t and are revolutionary are far between and I have not seen any here. Ideas should not violate physical law. If they do, they are as much nonsense as perpetuum mobiles. Wiggle matching is usually bad science, etc, etc. And IMHO opinion, it is not rude to characterize such things as nonsense, pseudo-science, etc. It is an obligation for a scientist to do so. The danger in that is that one often gets sullied by doing so.
Leif, so every article that appears on here that challenges what you have said, and there have been many, are totally wrong in your opinion? I would agree with what you said its just that I have read many other highly reputable and very bright scientists who disagree with you. They mostly have no voice on here. From Soon to Corbyn, Sharp and Monckton, Bellamy, Archibald, Maunder the list is endless. The one thing that remains the same is your rebuttal of all of them. That’s why this doesn’t add up. I have read them and their proof is clear. The fact you can’t see any of it and yet hold such a high position is what smells fishy and is so frustrating.
Lief wrote:
“There is no room for an ‘open mind’.” WHA????
“…Hey, if the poster’s opinion is the prevailing attitude, I’ll be happy to call it a day.”
Stop being so emotional, Lief. Why drag emotions into this?
The science IS WHAT IT IS. Res ipsa loquiter. I get that. We ALL get that. I KNOW you get that because you infer it all the time….and I AGREE.
And even though good science defends itself, I certainly appreciate your deep-felt need to defend it as well.
But to say there “is no room for an open mind” is about as contradictory a statement that I should ever expect coming from one of the world’s leading solar physicists.
If you spent less time emotionally addressing everyone who calls something you say, and STICKING TO THE DATA AND THE GREAT RESEARCH YOU HAVE WORKED YOUR WHOLE LIFE ON, then we would all be a lot better for it.
Thanks for your contributions….they are MUCH appreciated. But lighten up.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
By the way, Edward…would love to hear your contributions and please chime in to the following if you would like.
By a way of getting us back on track here…the quote from the start of this thread:
“NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period. This ROSES element thus solicits proposals to study the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (CCMSC). Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere.”
this is for any scientist out there who would like to chime in:
Is the current climate at NASA such that HELIOPHYSICS have taken a back seat due to the Gore-Hansen rudder? What i mean by the “rudder” is that my hunch is they have steered most scientific research at NASA?
Anyone care to comment if Heliophysics have been-burnered at NASA, and now they are trying to play catch-up?
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Edward Morgan (10:56:31) :
I would agree with what you said its just that I have read many other highly reputable and very bright scientists who disagree with you.
Disagreement is the life blood of science. Feel-good agreement [‘you are on the right track’, ‘keep it up’, etc] is not.
the list is endless.
Some people on your list wouldn’t qualify as ‘scientists’… And you forgot Gore 🙂
savethesharks (11:21:20) :
But to say there “is no room for an open mind” is about as contradictory a statement that I should ever expect coming from one of the world’s leading solar physicists.
You left out my quotes as in ‘open mind’. What one should let into one’s mind is not everything whatsoever. Stuff has be vetted and weighed. Some people can do this, others cannot [no shame in not being able to do something – I cannot sing or run 100m in 10 seconds].
As to if I’m emotional… Who types in CAPITAL LETTERS here with multiple?????? I’m about as unemotional as they come. I try to explain things the best I can, not to argument for the sake of such. You are free to ignore my explanation as you see fit.
correction: “been back-burnered”
Greetings to All,
It will be interesting to see if we can turn the focus of this discussion back to the science.
I would be curious to know what Dr. Svalgaard believes might be responsible for the 7.8 year signal detected in European temperature time series by researchers at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic – Geophysical Institute.
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
Leif, my open mind sense (meaning) is different to yours your arguing with something I didn’t say think or mean. However, I give up. Not once have you agreed with any part of what I and others have said. And you will obviously continue. This is not a worthwhile exchange. You should challenge your scientific assumptions, re-evaluate even if you think and especially if you don’t think you need to.
savethesharks (11:46:27) :
Anyone care to comment if Heliophysics have been back-burnered at NASA, and now they are trying to play catch-up?
They got a poor report card: http://sun.stanford.edu/~todd/NAS.Heliophysics.pdf and are trying to show that they are doing something.
So it seems all we are left with is “Ideas should not violate physical law”. This is trotted out because there is nothing else left to criticize.
How can we presume to know everything about all physical laws.
If we are talking about Planetary Influence, angular momentum and tides ARE part of the physical laws involved and are not violated. Even in a paper trying to discredit any theory other than the Babcock-Leighton model DeJager does the calculation and accepts this.
The forces involved might be small (I would like to see the calc detail) but they certainly don’t go against physical laws.
DeJager’s paper here for those wanting to check it out.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/dejager.pdf
Understood about the poor report card….I am asking a question of causation:
Is the current climate at NASA such that HELIOPHYSICS have taken a back seat due to the Gore-Hansen rudder?
What i mean by the “rudder” is that my hunch is they have steered most scientific research at NASA towards AGW research because that is the subject du jour….so in effect solar research has been back-burnered?
Maybe that why they got a poor report card because not enough $$$ or resources or manpower to study it?
Certainly Goddard Director James Hansen can’t help them out. He is too busy standing in front coal power plants.
To quote the quote that someone else circulated on here: WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT PEOPLE ON THE MOON???
Chris
Norfolk, VA
corrections : “maybe that IS why” and “in front OF coal power plants.”
Type too fast…LOL
Geoff Sharp (12:56:48) :
If we are talking about Planetary Influence, angular momentum and tides ARE part of the physical laws involved and are not violated. Even in a paper trying to discredit any theory other than the Babcock-Leighton model DeJager does the calculation and accepts this.
Your specific mechanism by which the change in angular momentum would influence solar activity by changing solar rotation is the part that is violating physical law. Tides and orbital accelerations are not, but are as DeJager points out woefully inadequate by several orders of magnitude.
savethesharks (13:44:44) :
Is the current climate at NASA such that HELIOPHYSICS have taken a back seat due to the Gore-Hansen rudder?
I don’t think so. I wish it were, as that might reverse soon, but alas, I think just plain incompetence.
Leif Svalgaard (13:55:33) :
Your specific mechanism by which the change in angular momentum would influence solar activity by changing solar rotation is the part that is violating physical law. Tides and orbital accelerations are not, but are as DeJager points out woefully inadequate by several orders of magnitude
So orbital accelerations/decelerations of the Sun don’t have an effect on the Sun’s rotation rate?
Geoff Sharp (15:38:59) :
So orbital accelerations/decelerations of the Sun don’t have an effect on the Sun’s rotation rate?
That is correct. There is no couple between the two strong enough [as DeJager points out] to accomplish that.
Leif Svalgaard (18:14:29) :
That is correct. There is no couple between the two strong enough [as DeJager points out] to accomplish that.
So now the argument is that angular momentum theory does not violate the laws of physics, but the change in acceleration caused by angular momentum is not enough to change the rotation speed of the Sun?
Geoff Sharp (19:35:26) :
So now the argument is that angular momentum theory does not violate the laws of physics, but the change in acceleration caused by angular momentum is not enough to change the rotation speed of the Sun?
No, that is a distortion. Without a couple between them, orbital angular momentum cannot change rotational momentum and there is no couple, and even if there were a coupling, it would be too small. Violation comes in by positing that if a body in orbit about another body slows down by changing its distance [e.g. in an eccentric orbit], the other body will rotate faster.
NOTE TO EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD:
Okay, I’m done with this barycentriscm. The thread is about the solar minimum and NASA soliciting papers on it.
Geoff Sharp, please stop turning threads here into arguments about barycentrism.
Stay on thread topic or I’ll be forced to start deleting wholesale. – Anthony
wattsupwiththat (21:04:49) :
This discussion is completely relevant to the NASA topic and I have been responding to Svalgaards questions and statements. The Babcock model is failing and NASA are badly in need of some insight, I am intending to lodge my interest with NASA. Effectively you are banning discussions on Planetary Influence. I suggest you create a separate story stating this fact so everyone will know.
This site HAD the opportunity of being in the forefront of an emerging area of science that will most likely be proved in the near future with the onset of a grand minimium.
Future discussions and discoveries for those interested will continue on solarcycle24.
I am curious to know what others think of the quality of the references in the following paper:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf
Although the model presented in the paper is not physics-based, it seems the authors were quite thorough in piecing together clues about past temporal patterns. If I were teaching a course, I might put this paper on the reading list for its educational value (regardless of what I thought of the methods & predictions).
I am also curious to know if anyone thinks the insights from figure 3 (particularly the lower part of figure 3) – and the paragraph that immediately precedes it – in following paper are also important clues (published subsequent to the paper cited above) that are relevant to the topic of this discussion:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_mccracken
Regards,
Paul.
Paul Vaughan (23:13:59) :
Although the model presented in the paper is not physics-based, it seems the authors were quite thorough in piecing together clues about past temporal patterns.
The paper uses sunspot numbers that likely are too low in the 18th and 19th centuries so the cycles come out not quite right. The two dominant periods are 11 and 106 years, all the rest could be noise as they don’t contribute much.
I am also curious to know if anyone thinks the insights from figure 3
The periods reported in the two papers do not all match so some must be spurious. The inference that the HMF varies from 1 nT to 7 nT has not been confirmed, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf
Overall, the two papers are very speculative, but speculation is an honorable thing so there is value in the papers. If not for other reasons, then for bringing forth the issue of long-term changes in the system. The details are most likely wrong, but the issues stand.
The very low SC24 prediction [43+/-34] has a large error bar and actually encompasses our prediction [75] and others as well, so can in itself not be used as a discriminator. There are several predictions in the 50-80 range.
One could write a whole monograph on the issues raised and they touch upon many aspects of solar activity causes, so this short note can’t do justice to the papers.
Leif, do you have any objection to the following claim?
“It is shown that the ionization chamber data published by S. E. Forbush were deliberately detrended to remove long-term changes.” From:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2007_long_term
Also, I will appreciate it if you can clarify if you are objecting to the suggestion of a 150 year signal – and the wavelet plot (figure 3) more generally – based on your concerns about HMF floor. Reference:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_mccracken
Paul Vaughan (11:59:50) :
“It is shown that the ionization chamber data published by S. E. Forbush were deliberately detrended to remove long-term changes.”
The ionization chamber data is not an absolute count, but depends on calibration against such a count, in casu, the Neher balloon data. Forbush was correct in removing the drifts, because he had no choice. It all comes down to the Neher data. I know Ken McCracken well [he is in fact a good friend of mine] and Ken is a careful worker and should not be dismissed. The case basically comes down to their Figure 7. There are two issues,
1) the jump in the late 1940s, and
2) the fact that the variation for the minimum 1944 does not show the usual ‘peaked’ structure of every odd-even cycle peak ever since.
If we accept the jump, we can, as Ken did in another paper, calculate the HMF and deduce that there must have been a jump of 1.7 nT at that time. So such jump is seen in HMF based on geomagnetic data [calculated in different ways by different groups], so that weighs against the jump as does the lack of a pointed peak in 1944. All this is spelled out in http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf and in http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf and in http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Note that there is a strong suggestion of contamination of the 10Be record by aerosols from volcanoes.
About the wavelets: as it is not clear how much of the 10Be record is really due to the Sun, it is not clear what the significance of the 150-year signal and the 2300-year signal are, so speculation can have an [almost] free reign. I do not, personally, consider these periods established [as the Scottish say: ‘not proven’].
Also, I will appreciate it if you can clarify if you are objecting to the suggestion of a 150 year signal – and the wavelet plot (figure 3) more generally – based on your concerns about HMF floor. Reference:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/
In response to Leif (12:36:54)
Putting aside blockquote distortions, a point of clarification is warranted:
Figure 3 is about 14C (not 10Be) in
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_mccracken
Beyond your concerns about the station move in 1957 and the 1937 inhomogeneity due to Mayaud’s methods, I can see other issues related to the asymmetry of distributions and the chosen measures of centre for temporal windows. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could squeeze the 20th c factor down even further, but is seems you will have to contend with lines 141-155 in the following:
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/sub/241_Lockwood_aa_correct_S1a.pdf
Paul Vaughan (16:12:24) :
Figure 3 is about 14C (not 10Be)
Ah, you are right. Ken usually works with 10Be so I had a small senior moment there. The Carbon cycle is even more problematic than the 10Be cycle.
but is seems you will have to contend with lines 141-155 in the following
No, not any more because Lockwood in his paper with Roulliard 2007 has seen the light and now knows that the aa-index did have a ‘drift’ as he calls it. There is no longer any disagreement about this. The so-called ‘errors’ he claims to have found were summarily dealt with here http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf as we say in that paper: “we answer the criticisms of Lockwood et al. [2006] (hereinafter referred to as LRFS06) to our paper. In sum, we find their objections without merit.”
I can see other issues related to the asymmetry of distributions
Yes, there such well-known issues [even touched upon by Mayaud himself], e.g. the K=0 bin [for disturbances less than 5 nT] should not be assigned an amplitude of 2.5 [or even worse: 2 for the aa-index], as there are many more cases within that bin where the disturbance is greater than 2.5 than less than 2.5. The ‘effective’ amplitude weighted with the frequency of occurrence is more like 3.75.
Leif,
Thank you for the crash-course on issues with geomagnetic indices.
A final question: Now that we have cleared up the minor misunderstanding about the wavelet plot, can you see any reason to dismiss-out-of-hand the notion of a ~150 year cycle?
We’re pretty good at leaping & diving, but we seem to lack rhythm. The technicalities of non-linear amplitude distortions may be a less pressing hinderance at present than our inability to master complex beats and identify confounded & lurking factors. I was pleased to see your comment (16th:00:17:47):
“Overall, the two papers are very speculative, but speculation is an honorable thing so there is value in the papers. If not for other reasons, then for bringing forth the issue of long-term changes in the system. The details are most likely wrong, but the issues stand.”
Paul Vaughan (19:00:27) :
A final question: Now that we have cleared up the minor misunderstanding about the wavelet plot, can you see any reason to dismiss-out-of-hand the notion of a ~150 year cycle?
There are few things I dismiss out of hand [some might disagree 🙂 ], but for something to be interesting to me I have to put it in context with something else or connect it with another phenomenon. since I don’t know where to place the 150-year cycle [if even real – which I’m not convinced of] I would tend to ignore it until such time that a context becomes apparent.
And, BTW, thanks for taking the trouble of trying to understand some of these very arcane issues with indices. Few people do.
Leif, if you can somehow find time to write a summary of issues with geomagnetic indices, going all the way back to the beginning, with a play-by-play of all of the classic developments, I believe many will appreciate it, particularly those pursuing interdisciplinary research on a limited time-budget. Thank you for your dedication to this field.
I am interested to see where this discussion goes next.
Regards,
Paul.
Paul Vaughan (20:03:47) :
If you can somehow find time to write a summary of issues with geomagnetic indices, going all the way back to the beginning, with a play-by-play of all of the classic developments,
I’m giving a talk on just that at the IAGA 2009 [Sopron] meeting in August: H02. History of geomagnetic observations, observatories, & indices IDCH and Divs. I and V
This session of invited talks will trace the history of the study of earth’s magnetism including: Gilbert’s De Magnete, early studies of geomagnetic activity by Graham and Celsius, Gauss and Weber’s Magnetic Union, Sabine’s British Colonial Observatories, establishment of the solar-terrestrial connection, Bartels’ development of geomagnetic indices, and the modern Intermagnet and space borne observation programs. Contributed talks will be given in an associated poster session.
From above:
Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between various regimes.
Taking maximum advantage of this opportunity will require interaction between specialists in different regimes.
I wonder if this means Gerhard Lobert’s ideas are disqualified (since he appears to be looking beyond “the boundary of the heliosphere”)?
Some related links:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/07/an-alternative-explanation-of-climate-change/?cp=all#comments
(^See Aug.1,2,&3, 2008 entries – search “Loebert” (alternate spelling – probably related to the accent on the o).)
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GCgravity.html
http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
It would be great to hear from some physicists on these ideas. I look forward to frank comments from anyone qualified to assess these provocative claims.
All,
Last year I wrote a white paper for my company titled, “The Threat of Space Weather to Mission Critical Facilities”. The paper discusses the increased possibility of geomagnetically induced currents, satellite damage due to atmospheric drag and increased incidence (and intensity) of terrestrial storms due to increased solar activity.
I assumed that the predictions of NASA scientists were correct and that we were headed for “a doozy” of a solar maximum.
You lot seem to have figured out early that the Solar Max of cycle 24 was not going to play out as some expected. I am concerned that I may have made other erroneous (or potentially erroneous) assumptions in my paper. If any of you would care to read the paper and offer criticisms I would greatly appreciate it.
My paper can be found at:
http://www.leetechnologies.com/perspectives/index.aspx
Note: This website is the domain of our marketing team and you will be expected to enter your contact information in order to access the white papers. If you are not interested in supplying that information please send me an email and I will send you a pdf. egallant@leetechnologies.com
Best regards and thanks,