You left open the issue of your understanding of why there should be an EXACT mirror symmetry and that it is solely an artifact of the presentatation and the analysis and NOT a property of the Sun. Do you now understand that completely?

Yes. Thanks again.

You left open the issue of your understanding of why there should be an EXACT mirror symmetry and that it is solely an artifact of the presentatation and the analysis and NOT a property of the Sun. Do you now understand that completely?

Thank you for adding the extra minor details and if I have any more questions, or comments, I’ll post them in the other discussion.

I assume that repeating what I said:
“The similarity is simply because this is a GLOBAL inversion that assumes [and forces] the two hemispheres to be identical.”

will not improve the understanding. So, I’ll have to elaborate:
The method by which the data is obtained forces the two hemispheres to be identical. In other words, the solution is given as a function of latitude without sign, i.e. with no distinction between North and South. This means the the data really only consists for the upper half of the diagram. The mirroring is done after the data has been obtained to ‘aid’ [but apparently causes more confusion than elucidation] in understanding of the phenomenon. It is therefore not remarkable that the two halves appear identical. If they didn’t that would signal an error in the program that drew the image. The algorithm should be:
0) for B from 0 to +90:
1) obtain value at latitude +B from helioseismology
2) set value at latitude -B = value at latitude +B
3) draw the two identical values at +B and at -B

Maybe remarkable was the wrong adjective to use but let’s push the differences aside within your community. And I’m probably on your side here anyway.

So are you saying that it is not somewhat odd that both hemispheres almost look like mirror images even though the surface on both do not throughout the solar cycle ? And I was really talking about the one at 4,000 which you could access in the article….”more graphics”.

And if so, why ?

The similarity is simply because this is a GLOBAL inversion that assumes [and forces] the two hemispheres to be identical.

Anthony have you seen this yet?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list970792

The mirror image like similarities between the jet stream in both hemispheres, especially at the higher latitudes, is remarkable.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list173737

Nasif Nahle (09:33:50) :
Please, would you be so kind as to give me the formula for converting SORCE data to real data?
The SORCE data is the real data. It is the other data that is wrong [too high by ~4.4 W/m2], but for consistency with older data it is more convenient to ‘correct’ the SORCE data. As long as one knows that that is going one, there should be no confusion.

Clear enough… Thanks again, Leif. :)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list970792

May be Leif can chime in.

Nasif Nahle (09:33:50) :
Please, would you be so kind as to give me the formula for converting SORCE data to real data?
The SORCE data is the real data. It is the other data that is wrong [too high by ~4.4 W/m2], but for consistency with older data it is more convenient to ‘correct’ the SORCE data. As long as one knows that that is going one, there should be no confusion.

That ’some’ is my good friend, the much vilified David Hathaway.

vilified ? ….Ouch. I appreciate his updates.

rbateman (00:56:15)

That effort, unfortunately, does not include the data I seek: White-Light Faculae.
But thanks for trying.

Sorry , I guess I should have mentioned that. It was also for others to look at for other information. As far as the cycle trends (peaks) during the last few, and what your looking at. It’s been dropping since Cycle 21. The peak values of Cycles 22 & 23 were somewhat in the same ballpark with each other but the consistency of Cycle 23 was not as strong as Cycle 22. Although the descending part held it’s own.

Dr. Svalgaard
Thanks for publicly ‘endorsing’ Vukcevic polar fields formula, a cynic would add “no such thing as bad publicity”.
Thousands of years? Next 15-20 would be fine, but for the time being it is in good agreement with above findings of Drs Livingstone and Penn. For curious here it is:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields.gif
If you are considering longer term than it should be combined with the Cycle anomalies formula:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Anomalies.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif

That effort, unfortunately, does not include the data I seek: White-Light Faculae.
But thanks for trying.

Leif Svalgaard (20:30:12)

Any chance I might be able to see a part of it?