Comments on: Why the SWPC F10.7 radio flux graph is wrong

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:27:08 +0000

Mike Lorrey (15:59:02) :
This is the smoking gun, IMHO, that explains everything.
You have to VERY humble now. First, the anisotropy is of the order of 0.05% or 1/2000, so for each 2000 cosmic rays in one hemisphere there are 2001 in the other, not much smoke. And the anisotropy is an sidereal day effect, not solar day. Sidereal noon drifts through all hours of the solar day through the year [4 minutes each day], so no day-night effect.
But I guess for a true believe such little details don’t matter :-)

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:00:56 +0000

While each hemisphere has an equal amount of planetary area in day and night (obviously) the distribution of ocean and land being unequal is the issue.

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:59:02 +0000

Thanks Vukevic, the second link tells the tale: there is a 12 hour delay in north vs south anisotropy in the cosmic rays hitting earth. This means that one hemisphere would see its cosmic ray cloud formation happen during the day, and the other would see it happen during the night. Obviously daylight cloud formation would increase albedo and thus cool the planet, while night time cloud formation would have no effect on albedo and would boost warming. This is the smoking gun, IMHO, that explains everything.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:51:26 +0000

Mike Lorrey (11:48:36) :
I understand that, Leif. Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle.

First of all, we don’t have a 22-year cycle in albedo, we have a failure of an 11-yr cycle which you interpret as a 22-year cycle. Second, people that claim the solar cycle dependence [like Svensmark himself] claim that there is an 11-yr cycle, so, what I was saying was that there is no evidence for an 11-yr cycle in albedo to support the 11-yr cycle in temperature claimed by Svensmark to be the result of an 11-yr cycle in cosmic rays.

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:14:19 +0000

Mike Lorrey (11:48:36) :
Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle.

Cosmic Rays have built in (kind of) 22 year cycle, following the Sun’s pole reversals, as seen here:
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/hermanus.jpg
and explained here:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_1/duldig/paper/node5.html

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:48:36 +0000

Mike Lorrey (23:24:03) :
I wouldnt say that, sc 22 ended in 1996-97, and if you add in the Palle data since 2000, it is clear that the albedo is following the 22 year magnetic solar cycle.

” Leif Svalgaard (06:47:47) :
Except that the cosmic rays follow the 11-year cycle and the albedo should follow the same 11-year cycle if the variation of cosmic rays is the reason for the changing albedo [and hence temperature].”

I understand that, Leif. Try to think of a way that albedo could follow the 22 year cycle while cosmic rays follow the 11 year cycle. For instance, there is already a lot of dust and aerosols in the northern hemisphere to seed cloud formation, so the northern hemisphere, while the southern hemisphere does not. The southern hemisphere has a bigger ozone hole, etc.

There are a lot of differences between the northern and southern hemispheres which could cause cosmic rays to have different influence which could vary as the earth’s magnetic field interacts with the 22 year solar magnetic field cycle.

By: rbateman

rbateman — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:41:36 +0000

How about turning the spot visibility on it’s ear?

When did 1017 disappear?
I am inclined to say it faded into statistical limbo Sunday, May 17th, and from there became increasingly irrelevant.

By: rbateman

rbateman — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:33:47 +0000

The counting of sunspots has increased over time because of technology. If you have attempted to project them with modest equipment (like Wolf used), then you would know how tenuous the tiny spots really are.

So, there are really two issues at play inflating the value of observed sunspots:
1.) detection of miniscule areas (nearing pores in size)
2.) detection of nebulous spots
Solution: Multiply hemispherical area x contrast AND set a value where photographic spots = projected spots.

i.e. = in the future when we can detect sunspots down to .001 in value, it will still be .001 of a spot.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:40:23 +0000

Jeff Alberts (08:13:42) :
Could it be one reason, if not the reason? Or even the primary reason?

Either you have a definite theory, or you are just fishing around.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:13:42 +0000

Leif Svalgaard (06:47:47) : Except that the cosmic rays follow the 11-year cycle and the albedo should follow the same 11-year cycle if the variation of cosmic rays is the reason for the changing albedo [and hence temperature].

Could it be one reason, if not the reason? Or even the primary reason?

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:48:33 +0000

Alex (23:28:18) :
Did Rudolf Wolf request this at solar minimum too?

At all times.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:47:47 +0000

Mike Lorrey (23:24:03) :
I wouldnt say that, sc 22 ended in 1996-97, and if you add in the Palle data since 2000, it is clear that the albedo is following the 22 year magnetic solar cycle.

Except that the cosmic rays follow the 11-year cycle and the albedo should follow the same 11-year cycle if the variation of cosmic rays is the reason for the changing albedo [and hence temperature].

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:56:39 +0000

rbateman (21:43:15) :
One can see who was keeping the sun under constant surveillance in what year….There were enough dedicated observers.

Here is number of the observation days recorded by Paris Observatory in each month for years 1666-1668.
Note: an unusually low numbers in 1666. 1668 and the following years appear to be close to what could be expected.

1666:1,0,1,1,4,4,0,2,3,12,13,9
1667:9,8,11,8,5,14,8,15,18,9,12,5
1668:6,8,11,11,13,16,12,14,15,11,10,10

By: vukcevic

vukcevic — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:50:26 +0000

rbateman (21:43:15) :
One can see who was keeping the sun under constant surveillance in what year….There were enough dedicated observers.

1666:1,0,1,1,4,4,0,2,3,12,13,9
1667:8,11,8,5,14,8,15,18,12,5
1668:6,8,11,11,13,16,12,14,15,11,10,10

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:28:18 +0000

So, yesterday SC24.com said that sunspot 1007 has faded and today (20/05) it is written:
“Sunspot 1007 has faded and is now simply a magnetic plage region once again. It did fetch a sunspot number of 11 however.”
How is that possible? A classic plage has no spots!
On the SC24 discussion board, someone asked:
“Isvalgaard I’m going to beat this DEAD HORSE one last time. Would a spot like 1017 have been counted during the cycle 23 peak ( and given a count of 18) yes/no.
Leif replied:
“Yes, but probably not during the 13 cycle peak, and VERY CERTAINLY not any before before 1893, because Rudolf Wolf [the inventor of the sunspot number] explicitly said NOT to count little specks and pores. His assistant, Alfred Wolfer, disagreed, so when Wolf died in 1893, guess what: the counting of specs began. Wolfer tried to put the [now larger] count back on the Wolf scale by multiplying the count by 0.6″

Did Rudolf Wolf request this at solar minimum too?