Leif Svalgaard writes in comments:
We plan to submit tomorrow to JGR the following…
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf (preprint)
…showing the run of the heliospheric magnetic field since 1835 [not a typo]. I plan to discuss the whole peer-review process here on WUWT, complete with nasty comments by the reviewers and our responses. This will be an illustration of the peer-review process as it unfolds. Should be interesting.
I’ll say. I’ve taken some of the most interesting graphics and put them up for WUWT readers, along with the abstract.
IDV09 and Heliospheric Magnetic field 1835-2009
Leif Svalgaard1 and Edward W. Cliver2
Stanford University, HEPL, Cedar Hall, Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4085
Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-3010
Abstract.
We use recently acquired archival data to substantiate and extend the IDV index of long-term geomagnetic activity, particularly for years from 1872-1902 for which the initial version of the index (IDV05) was based on observations from very few stations. The new IDV series (IDV09) now includes the interval from 1835-2009, vs. 1872-2004 for IDV05. The HMF strength derived from IDV09 agrees closely with that based on IDV05 over the period of overlap. Comparison of the IDV09-based HMF strength with other recent reconstructions of solar wind B yields a strong consensus between the series based on geomagnetic data, but significant lack of support for a series based on the 10Be cosmic ray radionuclide.
The reconstructed data in the graphic below, from the paper, is quite interesting. Currently, we appear to be at the lowest point in the record.
Click for larger images.
Here’s the comparison with the Be10 isotope record:
Good luck, Lief. I’m looking forward to reading the reviewer comments. Peer review is always an adventure!
I’m enthused. Break a leg, Leif!
“we appear to be at the lowest point in the record”. Now where have I heard that before? At least the record here is nearly 200 years, not the 30 years we are used to.
I too await the peer-review process details with eager anticipation? Will the reviewers be anonymous?
The scientific equivalent of spectator sports. Are you ready to rumble?????
Way to go Lief. But *don’t* break a leg! I’m still recovering from a lower leg fracture I suffered last November.
I am not sure I get the “Tomorrow” on the timeline: is it to be submitted or is it accepted already?
Good luck Lief. I don’t hold out much hope TBH, after all the politics, sorry I mean, the science is settled.
“Should be interesting.”
Agree, I will be paying close attention.
As a side note, the shape of the HMF and GCR (10Be) values at SC22 is interesting. It looks to be following the temperature record to some extent, allowing for some lags etc. Independent of sunspots to some degree but perhaps working in unison, the TSI on the overall upswing with the HMF and GCR’s boosting the reduction in clouds to a greater extent around SC22 through extra UV and also reduced cloud nuclei, perhaps increasing the overall TSI at the surface. A combination of TSI and its positive feedback mechanisms, the movement away from the sunspot record being the important point. SC22 and SC19 HMF are both very similar.
This could be bad for the AGW crowd.
Why do so many people mistake “Leif” for “Lief” ??
Anthony,
O/T but I just sent this to my local news station for reporting. Won’t hold my breath.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/
Very interesting. I always wondered how it was possible to ascertain sunspot activity/solar magnetic field fluctuations from centuries ago. Now I know – or at least have a layman’s basic grasp of the concept.
I’ve always regarded radionuclides as little more than a useful means to date organic and inorganic artefacts and the sediments in which arefacts are found. Not being involved in the scientific side of the equasion, my fleeting relationship with Be10 dating has always begun and ended with analysis reports included in various archaeological papers I’ve read. Other than that istopes have never made much impact on me beyond my school days. Until today. This is why I love sites like WUWT. They expand my knowledge of the world and make me seek information beyond my own sphere of interest.
I know there are a lot of ordinary “Joes” and “Joans” (like me) who could use a brief explanation in plain(ish) English. Here’s an abstract I found at a site called Physics Hypertextbook – http://physics.info/
“Sunspot activity can be deduced from beryllium-10 traces in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The reasoning is as follows: more sunspots imply a more magnetically active sun which then more effectively repels the galactic cosmic rays, thus reducing their production of Be-10 atoms in the Earth’s atmosphere. Be-10 atoms precipitate on Earth and can be traced in polar ice even after centuries. Using this approach, scientists … have reconstructed the sunspot count back to the year 850 ….”
“Beryllium 10 produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays readily attaches to aerosols and gets snowed out onto ice caps, leaving a clear signal in the ice core of variations in the cosmic ray flux …. The decrease in Beryllium 10 since 1900 reflects the decrease in the cosmic ray flux over this period. The reason is that the solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900, for reasons that are not fully understood.”
“Work done with beryllium-10 shows that the sun goes through prolonged period of anomalous behavior in addition to its regular, 11-year cycle.”
All the fault of AGW no doubt…
TitiXXXX (23:10:49) : I am not sure I get the “Tomorrow” on the timeline: is it to be submitted or is it accepted already?
The “tomorrow’ was in a comment posted ‘yesterday’ since it is now after midnight in California so it is ‘tomorrow’ ‘today’ already, but you will likely be reading this after I go to bed which will be even more ‘tomorrow’ than now, thought it is still technically ‘today’ since now is tomorrow as I type but will be yesterday when you read this unless is it the day after tomorrow when it will be the day before yesterday.
Clearer now? 😉
Lief; Thank you for allowing us the preview of the “Leif Svalgaard and Edward W. Cliver” paper, I’ve read it once thru and will study the PDF several more times later.
While I don’t know a great deal about your subject I can see quality workmanship in the effort. The stiching together of data bases to extend the length of the total and creation of the visuals is most helpful, and maybe we will all learn a little more.
Thanks Leif and Anthony.
Leif if the heliospheric magnetic field is ~8nT @ Earth distance, how much would be at the Sun. What would be the strength of a theoretical magnet to produce a similar field strength?
What about the magnetic field to produce a sunspot?
Thanks.
I wonder when all contributors to WUWT learn to spell Dr Svalgaard’s first name correctly, namely Leif. We have three misspellings in seven contributions above.
Good correlation of the heliospheric magnetic field with temperatures!
I’m curious about more information
OT.
Anderson, Pompous and Davis and many before you, is it so difficult to spell Svalgaard’s first name correctly?
Excellent- can’t wait to read. Good luck…
Fascinating stuff Leif, my compliments and thanks to you and Edward Cliver for your lengthy research efforts.
Please could you give us your views on the divergence between your curve and the 10Be curve. It seems to match very well in the post 1955 part of the record and prior to that the inflexion points agree well, but the amplitude gap widens significantly.
Do you think the divergence is primarily due to physical factors which have changed WRT time or some kind of problem with the measurement of 10Be? If the former, please do speculate as to possible contenders for influencing factors and whether you think they are predominantly terrestrial or extra terrestrial.
Interesting Leif , good luck !
And btw people stop maiming his name – it is LEIF and has been this way for more than 1000 years .
At least all americans should know LEIF Erikson 🙂
Most of my questions are answered in the paper which I just read through :o).
Leif, one typo: Line 271 agreement in what a previously contentious field of research.
Should be: agreement in what had previously been a contentious field of research.
Cheers.
Typo:
147 It is evident that IDV from only a single station (provided not too data is missing because
Bearing in mind I know nothing of which you speak!
There is a hint of the ~100 yearGleissberg cycle
if you are refering to the cyan line then isn’t this a 200year cycle?
229 effect of CMEs, high-speed streams, and solar polar fields [for you to fill in ]
???
Lief vs Leif
Maybe it’s because we are English speakers. “I” before “E” except after “C” when the sound is “EE”. Sorry Leif.
Wonder when people are going to learn that English plurals do not require an apostrophe before the “S”. Or that “led me to” is not “lead me to”. Or a citation is “cite” nor “sight”. Maybe I’d better stop.
Lief has a paper here http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf Updated regularly with the same data in it.
Best of luck Lief. You along with SteveMc and A are among the most patient men I have come across.
Sorry about the spelling guys but Leif doesn’t seem to be complaining too much, eh.
Me I’m easy you can call me what you like as long as it isn’t rude like at RC
“Chris Schoneveld (01:14:24) :
OT.
Anderson, Pompous and Davis and many before you, is it so difficult to spell Svalgaard’s first name correctly?”
I guess it must be because in English we put “i” before “e”, except after “c”. But, you too have an issue with first names. I’d imagine Leif, won’t be too bothered about it. Go figure!
John Peter 01:04: 38 and others:
re: Leif, Lief etc.
It should be Leaf.
Line 147 should be:
“(provided THAT not too MUCH data….”
I think the HMF vs Be10 convergence from the past to present reflects the aerosol pollution record, since Be10 in the atmosphere apparently has to attach to aerosols in order to precipitate and wind up in the ice core record. What say you, Leif?
The byline, spangled drongo (00:22:36) , always brings some comment (particularly from the Yanks), so for the record:
Drongo is an Australian slang term used to describe a ‘fool’, a ‘stupid person’, a ‘simpleton’.
There is also a bird called a drongo.
So what is the true story? There was an Australian racehorse called Drongo during the early 1920s. …
Click here for the full drongo story
E.M.Smith (00:48:30) : “The “tomorrow’ was in a comment posted ‘yesterday’ …
I am having a hard time fitting this with: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on… E.M. …
Nice post!
A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Also ref British-Norse ‘Lief and Liege’
UK Sceptic (00:40:00) :
…. The decrease in Beryllium 10 since 1900 reflects the decrease in the cosmic ray flux over this period. The reason is that the solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900, for reasons that are not fully understood.”
This is not, as far as I understand it, entirely correct (i.e. solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900). Using early 1900’s as a reference point is also misleading too. I am sure Dr. S. may have more accurate interpretation, so I shall leave it to doc to elaborate.
Leif Svalgaard (20:03:09) :
If Vuk ever gets his act in gear, he could do the same. Or even nobrainer and Co.
After being crushed and mashed trough the ‘Svalgaard mangle’ anything else could be only an enjoyable experience, but do not bet on yet another public humiliation in the near future.
Shakespear spelled his own name thirteen different ways. Can we just Leif this alone?
I had a good friend named Leif and now work with his son also named Leif. They pronounce it with a long “A” sound. But I always heard Leif Ericson the explorer pronounced “Leaf”. I’m actually kinda curious about the typical pronunciation of the name in English, Swedish, and other languages.
Can you educate us all and help stop cluttering the thread with this?
WRT magnetic fields, how does the position on the earth affect the level of cosmic rays? Certainly the auroras are dramatically different at the poles. Do the measurement stations observe close to the same levels at the same time? Are there short bursts of activity from flares or other activity that get evenly averaged depending on which hemisphere is facing the sun?
Concerning Leifs namne:
Where is Leif from?
At least here in Sweden “Lief” is pronounced something like English speakers would pronounce this combination of letters:
“Layf”
I.e. not “Leef”. 😉 🙂
Hahaha… I ACTUALLY wrote Lief instead of Leif!
Hysterical… Sorry… 😀
In the last graph the lines seem to show a lot more separation in the 19th century than the 20th (particularly the more last fifty).
Is there any explanation for that?
Roger Carr:
Nor all thy pity nor wit, shall lure it back to cancel half a line of it.
Jeg ønsk dig tillykke, Leif. 😉
(Wish you good luck, Leif.)
In the Scandinavian languages Leif is pronounced more or less like the English “Life”. Lief is a Dutch word and means sweet (not sweet like sugar is) or kind and is pronounced like the English leaf.
I’m sure Leif isn’t bothered but I find it careless.
Roger Carr (03:23:07) :
E.M.Smith (00:48:30) : “The “tomorrow’ was in a comment posted ‘yesterday’ …
I am having a hard time fitting this with: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on… E.M. …
Nice post!
The full verse goes something like:
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on
Nor all your piety nor wit
Shall call it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
The Fitzgerald translation of the Rubayat is my favourite.
I should add, the first edition is the best IMO.
http://emotional-literacy-education.com/classic-books-online-a/rubai10.htm
I have followed the gradual dismantling of the edifice of Human caused Global Warming with interest,
The best summer in the UK I can recall was in 1976 which in terms of temperature and extent leaves the others trailing in the dust.
It is noteworthy that the Hadley Centre still clings to its ever more isolated view that global warming is due to the release of stored solar energy from fossil fuels and the release of CO2 and not simply a recovery from the intensely cold period of the London Frost Fairs on the Thames.
Their view seems based on about 20 years of warming [1978-1998] and about 10 years of gently falling temperatures {1999-2009] while the atmospheric CO2 concentration has constantly increased.
Even allowing for El Niño’s and La Niña’s and shifts in the PDO ; 10 years of extra CO2 should have given us another “Barbeque Summer” instead of the one we enjoyed -yes it was mild but damp.
Leif is to be thanked for his wider time scale considerations it seems that he is correct in his analysis and has pulled another brick from the foundations of the Global Warming Alarmists.
We owe our thanks to the many researchers who have tirelessly worked to undermine those foundations with particular thanks to the one tree admirer Steve McIntyre.
The more salient verse for the purpose Roger Carr intended is verse XX
Ah! my Beloved, fill the Cup that clears
TO-DAY of past Regrets and future Fears-
To-morrow?–Why, To-morrow I may be
Myself with Yesterday’s Sev’n Thousand Years.
“”I” before “E”, except before “C”…and sometimes “L””
Got it…
Now, if someone can train my fingers to differentiate betweet “its” and “it’s”.
I publish a newsletter every morning and I’ll be damned if I don’t get corrected at least once if not twice every day!
BTW, this is really, really interesting stuff. I haven’t learned this much since I started trading and doing TA in earnest.
TomVonk:
“At least all americans should know LEIF Erikson.”
Wasn’t he the actor who played Big John Cannon in the High Chapperal?
Leif, you misspelled your name! (just kidding!)
Best of luck — and thank you for sharing this with us!
tallbloke (03:25:48) :
> A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a
> term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Oh. I was about to suggest that Lief was Leif’s evil twin. Is Leif the evil twin?
I note the dropping away of the Be from the B nt data. Is there a relationship with temperature and Relative Humidity involved with the Be deposition rate?
That would really gum up the Be records usefulness with the Heliospheric Magnetic Field, but might be more suited to direct climactic indications.
Wolf-Gleissberg Cycle Paper
Sorry for being off topic but this really takes the cake, and so I encourage readers to take issue.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in this Telegraph report calls Americans, the very people who constantly force him to revise and correct his erroneaous UN reports, ignorant on the subject of climate science.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6240611/Americans-are-illiterate-about-climate-change-claims-expert.html
I encourage readers here to take a few minutes to pick up the phone and let his office know your opinion.
THEY SPEAK ENGLISH OVER THERE. Please call them.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE
Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK)
Postfach 60 12 03
14412 Potsdam
Germany
Tel.: +49 (331) 288 2502
Fax: +49 (331) 288 2510
E-Mail: director@pik-potsdam.de
As for Leif Erikson, North Americans are more familiar with Eric the Red.
But then he was a Norse of a different colour.
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself)
This will be a breakthrough because of its “correlations” 🙂
One of these with the supposed galactic current sheet.
Quote tallbloke (03:25:48) :
A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Also ref British-Norse ‘Lief and Liege’ unquote
As I understand it Leif Svalgaard is Danish or of Danish origin, so
I am in love = jeg er forelsket
I love you = Jeg elsker dig.
loving, affectionate or fond = kaerlig
As far as I know ‘Lief’ (as a word) has no connection with love or similar.
In German you have “liebe’ such as Ich liebe dich = I love you.
Back to the subject, it will be interesting to see if this recent dip in magnetic field strength can in any way be correlated to the recent increase in ice both at north and south pole, combined with steady 21st century global temperatures both above and below sea level and the recent levelling off of sea level increases. I am now convinced that there are other forcings than CO2 and these appear to be able to override man made CO2. I am beginning to favour the idea that if there is a 0.8 degree C increase in global temperatures over the last 100 years then it has been caused by a mixture of CO2 (20% per Spencer/Linzen), solar activity & cloud changes (Svensmark – another Dane), change caused by other human activity such as land change (Pielke) and possibly uncertainty over the accuracy of temperature time series such as HAD/Cru etc (McIntyre). There was also that Finnish study showing that heat emitted by human activities such as fires, heating of houses, running of motors and industrial activities alone could account for the recorded warming. I think this is “chaos” in action we are seeing.
re: It should be Leaf.
Based on my somewhat limited knowledge of Scandanavian/Germanic languages, I think is should be “Lafe” using more standard English spelling. The “ei” typically makes a long “a” sound. Leif can correct me if I’m wrong (or if he cares much for that matter.)
I imagine both Lief and Leif are quite used to this problem. My own last name is often misspoke and misunderstood. One gets used to it after many years and realizes it’s not a big deal.
I am really, really pleased to see Leif and Edward’s reconstruction agrees with the ~65-70% increase in B from 1900 to 1990 found by Mike Lockwood et al 2009
This fits well with my own model of temperature rise relative to the cumulative sunspot counting method I have developed. Because sunspot number is ‘dimensionless’ it can accomodate further changes and findings regarding other factors. The flip side of that coin is that it can’t ‘disprove’ the influence of other factors either, but I don’t see that as a problem.
I think it will be found that magnetic effects are far more important to climate variation than has been previously thought, possibly via ionisation and it’s effect on cloud formation. Where there is magnetism, there is current flow. This is axiomatic.
A “fact” in fact. 🙂
i have a 4 character last name and i was looking at an 1650’s family will and it was spelled 4 different ways in the document. And this was from the educated classes as shown by our frequent witnessing of wills
I wonder if the divergence of the 10Be record might be due to reading it from ice cores. If cosmic ray flux is not uniformly distributed around the world, then 10Be creation would not be, and long term weather patterns would distribute it unevenly, perhaps shifting it away from the icecaps for periods of time.
tallbloke (06:20:26)
‘I think it will be found that magnetic effects are far more important to climate variation than has been previously thought, possibly via ionisation and it’s effect on cloud formation. Where there is magnetism, there is current flow. This is axiomatic.’
I agree, but from no more than intuitive hunch on my part. Also the possibility of a polarity effect on climatic trend disparity in north and south hemispheres, especially at the poles, even accepting that ocean/land mass distribution is also probably a primary control. Also an ozone hole control?
Great paper Leif.
I sometimes think of scientific papers as being of three basic types: papers proposing new methodologies, papers providing new scientific data and indices (sometimes based on those new methodologies) so that other scientists can use it, and then analysis and supposition of what the data shows (hopefully objectively).
There would be no progress without all three types.
There has been some speculation on this site recently that the Sun’s magnetic field strength can affect the Earth’s climate. There is some small correlation between the two. Your newest data continues that some small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
UK Sceptic (00:40:00) :
“The reason is that the solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900, for reasons that are not fully understood.”
As you can see from the Figures, the solar magnetic flux has not increased by a factor of two since 1900. It is now just what it was back in 1900. See more on that here: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
Mick (01:02:52) :
Leif if the heliospheric magnetic field is ~8nT @ Earth distance, how much would be at the Sun. What would be the strength of a theoretical magnet to produce a similar field strength?
What about the magnetic field to produce a sunspot?
If there were no solar wind, the magnetic field would fall off at the [inverse] cube of the distance [which is 215 solar radii], so be 1/215^3 times smaller at one 1AU. The solar wind drags the surface fields out into space and carries it to us, causing the field to fall of with the square of the distance, so to be 1/215^2 times smaller. But because the Sun is rotating it winds up the dragged out field, so that the component of the field that is in the Sun’s equatorial plane [are we are close to it] will only fall off linearly with distance so be 1/215 times smaller. Taking all this into account, one finds that the field is about 30,000 times smaller at Earth than at the Sun. The field in a sunspot is a different matter because most of that does not end up in the solar wind, but closes in on itself near the Sun. Currently a sunspot has a field of 2000 Gauss, where the unit Gauss is 100,000 nT, so 2000 G = 0.02 Tesla
tallbloke (01:45:48) :
Please could you give us your views on the divergence between your curve and the 10Be curve.
We think it is due to a calibration problem with the cosmic ray flux. The ’10Be’ curve is really not a 10Be curve. It is difficult to measure the 10Be concentration in the very top of the ice cores where the snow has not really turned into ice yet, so that part of the core falls apart when you pull the top section out of the borehole. Now with enough care and perhaps using another technique than drilling, it should be possible to get the top section data, but people haven’t just not done that yet: the interest has been on the deep past.
So the record is spliced together from three sources: the 10Be before 1930s, then the ion-chamber cosmic ray detectors up through 1952, and finally our modern neutron monitors since then. The ion-chamber data are not ‘absolute’ in the sense that they count cosmic rays the same way as the neutron monitor does, so have to be calibrated. This was done by sending up balloons with plates of emulsions in which cosmic rays would leave tracks. And we think that this is where the problem lies, but now the effort should be directed towards finding out how. It is like finding a temperature record in somebody’s 100-yr old journal. We may not know what the units of his temperatures were [Celsius and Fahrenheit unit were introduced later than the journal] so we must calibrate the old readings in terms of our current scale.
bill (02:23:14) :
if you are refering to the cyan line then isn’t this a 200year cycle?
The cyan line has a minimum at 1900 and about now. A cycle is defined from one phase to the same phase hits again, e.g. from min to min, so from 1900 to now is about 100 years, not 200.
[for you to fill in]
This is a draft and there is a few lines missing here [which will be filled in this morning]. You might want to click on the link tonight for the final submitted version.
DaveF (02:49:27) : and others
re: Leif, Lief etc.
I don’t complain, partly because it is hopeless, but also because in the Dutch language [which we actually use at home – although I am Danish], ‘lief’ means ‘dear’. 🙂
Mike Lorrey (03:03:52) :
I think the HMF vs Be10 convergence from the past to present reflects the aerosol pollution record, since Be10 in the atmosphere apparently has to attach to aerosols in order to precipitate and wind up in the ice core record. What say you, Leif?
See upthread for my comments on that. However, the aerosols are a contaminant, and the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 probably is responsible for the anomalous dip in the 10Be record for a few year after that [as indicated on the figure]. Let me also say that the plot does not show the 10Be concentration, but rather the HMF calculated from 10Be according to the models and calibrations that McCracken used [and that is where the problem is – the concentrations themselves are not in doubt – although they can be contaminated as we just discussed].
tallbloke (03:25:48) :
A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Also ref British-Norse ‘Lief and Liege’
There you go.
tallbloke (06:20:26) :
I am really, really pleased to see Leif and Edward’s reconstruction agrees with the ~65-70% increase in B from 1900 to 1990 found by Mike Lockwood et al 2009
What has happened is that Lockwood has changed his values so that they now reflect the ‘facts’ [our reconstruction] because he has seen the light and abandoned his old method for the ones we have pioneered. Another point is the ‘rise’ from 1900 to 1990. Cycle averages are as follows:
14 5.2
15 6.0
16 5.9
17 6.6
18 7.1
19 7.1 <== 37% higher than cycle 14
20 6.2
21 7.0
22 7.0
23 6.3
24 5.0 <= this is a guess [a prediction if you like]
As the graphs shows there is a 10-yr 'wave' with a maximum [37% higher] near the middle [say cycle 19] and low value at both ends [1901 and 2009].
This fits well with my own model
Leif’s law: data is good if it fits well with my own model 🙂
Mike McMillan (06:30:15) :
10Be creation would not be, and long term weather patterns would distribute it unevenly, perhaps shifting it away from the icecaps for periods of time.
Climate/weather does have an influence on the 10Be deposition.
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
I sometimes think of scientific papers as being of three basic types: papers proposing new methodologies, papers providing new scientific data and indices (sometimes based on those new methodologies) so that other scientists can use it, and then analysis and supposition of what the data shows (hopefully objectively).
The best are the ones that in them combine all three types. We hope that ours does just that.
Your newest data continues that same small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
Since we are now back [as far as the Sun is concerned] to conditions of 108 years ago, one might ask if our climate is too. I don’t think it is.
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
That’s what no spots do 🙂
This is so completely Off Topic that I’m sure it should get snipped before it even gets posted. From the movie Spaceballs, to answer an actual legitimate question:
“I am not sure I get the “Tomorrow” on the timeline: is it to be submitted or is it accepted already?”
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?… When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now, You’re looking at now sir…Everything that happens now is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet:When.
Colonel Sandurz:Just now… We’re at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then?
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz:I can’t
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon!
Dark Helmet: How soon?
Technician: Sir!
Dark Helmet: What?
Technician: We’ve identified their location!
Dark Helmet: Where?
Technician: It’s the moon of Vega
Colonel Sandurz: Good work. Set a course and prepare for our arrival
Dark Helmet: When?
Technician: Nineteen hundred hours, sir!
Colonel Sandurz: By high noon tomorrow they will be our prisoners!
Dark Helmet: WHO?!?!
[Face mask falls in front of face]
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52):
It is like finding a temperature record in somebody’s 100-yr old journal.
should have been ‘400-yr old’.
Thanks, BTW, to the typo spotters.
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
Your newest data continues that some small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
Since we are now back [as far as the Sun is concerned] to conditions of 108 years ago, one might ask if our climate is too. I don’t think it is.
dalton or maunder, that looks to be the big question.
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
tallbloke (06:20:26) :
“As the graphs shows there is a 10-yr ‘wave'”
Arghh: a 100-yr wave
Leif-this is a good thing you’ve done.Good luck,as I’ve been in that peer review
trash compactor-back in my undergrad days,it still doesn’t hurt much,except when it rains.Reading Porcupine entrails does not get you the Nobel prize…
Oh,the Leif vs.Lief thing-as I have posted I have a tendency for Dyslexia,not helped in part by my 4th grade,ruler wielding Nun of a teacher as she looked on any southpaw
as evil…
Hathaway SC 24 prediction updated for October 2009:
http://hamchatforum.lefora.com/2009/10/07/solar-cycle-prediction-updated-20091005/page1/
“This analysis indicates a maximum sunspot number of about 89 ± 25 for cycle 24.
We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a starting time of March 2008 with minimum occurring in November or December 2008 and maximum in March or April 2013.”
147 It is evident that IDV from only a single station (provided not too data is missing because
148 the recording went off-scale or other data problems)
provided not too much data is missing
Of tax-payer interest.
——————
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
http://cei.org/print/23512
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
I hope we’re not censoring the Man-made global warming myth skeptics and man-made climate change skeptics here at WUWT. Except for the unintelligent name calling of course. It’s so much more fun when they challenge us.
L Bowser 06:11:22
Saying it should be Leaf was just my little joke.
Leif Svalgaard 07:14:00
I didn’t know Lief meant “dear” in Dutch; thanks for pointing that out, darling.
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
tallbloke (06:20:26) :
I am really, really pleased to see Leif and Edward’s reconstruction agrees with the ~65-70% increase in B from 1900 to 1990 found by Mike Lockwood et al 2009
What has happened is that Lockwood has changed his values so that they now reflect the ‘facts’ [our reconstruction] because he has seen the light and abandoned his old method for the ones we have pioneered. Another point is the ‘rise’ from 1900 to 1990. Cycle averages are as follows:
14 5.2
15 6.0
16 5.9
17 6.6
18 7.1
19 7.1 <== 37% higher than cycle 14
20 6.2
21 7.0
22 7.0
23 6.3
24 5.0 <= this is a guess [a prediction if you like]
As the graphs shows there is a 10[0]-yr 'wave' with a maximum [37% higher] near the middle [say cycle 19] and low value at both ends [1901 and 2009].
"This fits well with my own model"
Leif’s law: data is good if it fits well with my own model 🙂
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
That’s what no spots do 🙂
Always teasing. 🙂
The currently high SST’s and consequently the high LT temps fit with my theory regarding the oceans going into heat release mode when sunspots are low.
The data is good anyway, but as I pointed out, my model is ‘scalable’ and can accomodate alterations to data and new discoveries about climate factors, at the expense of certainty, which I see as a chimaera anyway.
You have a 35% rise from cycle 14 to 22, Lockwood et al 67%. This discrepancy is due to the difference between your reconstruction and theirs around cycle 14. The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version, but I’ll await your sunspot numbers revision and revisit this point. Any comment about the size of the cycle 14 discrepancy in the light of the fact that Lockwood has adopted your method?
“Leif Svalgaard (07:39:52) :
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
Your newest data continues that some small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
Since we are now back [as far as the Sun is concerned] to conditions of 108 years ago, one might ask if our climate is too. I don’t think it is.”
My two cents: however, wasn’t the climate warming up from a colder period (LIA) and now we’re cooling (slightly) from a warmer currrent period? Perhaps we are now at a crossroads, so to speak and in a few years’ time we will see more correlation with climate from 100+ years ago.
OT for a minor grammar lesson: “Its” is the possessive pronoun and “It’s” the conjunction for “it is.” When you’re not sure which one use, substitute “it is” in your sentence. If the sentence does not make sense, use “its.” If the sentence does make sense, use “it’s.” Lesson over.
Can someone please explain what the potential implications of this paper are for the AGW hypothesis. I fear that progress being made in alternative theories of AGW are being ignored by the mainstream media due to their complexity and a lack of an layman level explanation. There may also be a bias but we should not always assume that! If such explanations already exist then can you please post a link. Thanks.
Ed Scott (08:26:37) :
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space.
It is ironic, professor H. H. Lamb, most notable 20th century climatologist (creator of the famous temperature graph), left the UK Meteorological Office to found the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia !
Thank you Leif.
A very interesting extension to the data series.
I find your long range graph of B(IDV) on page 9 really fascinating.
Especially where cycle 20 is completely below your green trend line.
Your interpretation is interesting:
Cycle 23 looks remarkably like cycle 13, including the very deep solar minimum following both cycles, likely presaging a weak cycle 24 as predicted from the solar polar fields [Svalgaard et al., 2005]. It is clear that we are returning to conditions prevailing a century ago.
However, my perspective, pattern matching and interpretation is slightly different… which reflects the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder… so please have patience….
For example:
If I was looking for a “match” for cycle 13 then I would choose cycle 22 because of the strong double peak and long decline.
If I was looking for a “match” for cycle 23 then I would choose cycle 19 because of the strong double peak and long rounded end to the decline. If this means anything then it might indicate we are in for a re-run of cycle 20 but at a lower level…
My differences in perspective also come from looking at your green trend line.
The recent peak, circa 1980, is well below the previous peak (sometime before 1835) and the subsequent downward gradient is relatively steep.
Cycle 13 was at the bottom of a trough in the trend line.
Cycle 23 is just after a peak in the trend line…
So, overall, I think you will have to look further back in the records to find a match for cycle 23 because it looks like the trend line is heading further down into uncharted territory.
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
That’s what no spots do 🙂
Well, the ocean heat content was a lot lower in 1900 and had been fairly flat since the mid 1800’s before dipping from the 1890’s according to my model. I think we will see what no or low numbers of spots do in terms of temperature in another 7-10 years.
bill (02:23:14) :
if you are refering to the cyan line then isn’t this a 200year cycle?
The cyan line has a minimum at 1900 and about now. A cycle is defined from one phase to the same phase hits again, e.g. from min to min, so from 1900 to now is about 100 years, not 200.
I think we should wait for you to extend the data back to 1800 and see what happens over the next couple of years before we make any firm judgement about that. The rapid drop in solar activity (judging by sunspot numbers) around 1803 and the current extended minimum might show a more definite ‘cycle length’.
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:00)
The cyan line has a minimum at 1900 and about now. A cycle is defined from one phase to the same phase hits again, e.g. from min to min, so from 1900 to now is about 100 years, not 200.
No problem with that!
However there is really only one actual max and one actual min on the plot so it is difficult to get min-min or max-max
My 200 year was assuming min to max was 0.5 cycle 1900-1980 (only true if symmetry rules) ie 1 cycle = 160 years = 200 years if you squint a bit!
tallbloke (08:47:19) :
You have a 35% rise from cycle 14 to 22, Lockwood et al 67%. This discrepancy is due to the difference between your reconstruction and theirs around cycle 14.
The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version
No, if you actually did a real comparison you’ll see that they don’t. Here is such a real comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/B-IDV-Rz-LRF-Obs.png The oval shows cycle 14. We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve) and Lockwood’s method (purple curve). It is clear that Lockwood’s data [purple] deviates most from the Rz-derived B. BTW, you can see the differences between the blue and green curves in the early part of the plot, stemming from me using the official, too low, sunspot number. Anyway, your comment is typical for how you see what you want to see without actually looking carefully and doing a minimum of analysis.
Any comment about the size of the cycle 14 discrepancy in the light of the fact that Lockwood has adopted your method?
Well, he has adopted his own variant of my method. If he was using my method 100% he should find the the last decimal place exactly what I have. If you actually READ his paper you can see he has his own indices. The important point is that the ‘principles’ of the analysis are the same: using two different indices with different dependencies on solar wind properties. That insight of mine is what he has acknowledged as valid and fully embraced.
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
My two cents: however, wasn’t the climate warming up from a colder period (LIA) and now we’re cooling (slightly) from a warmer currrent period? Perhaps we are now at a crossroads, so to speak and in a few years’ time we will see more correlation with climate from 100+ years ago.
It sounds like you want it both ways: solar activity responsible for LIA and also for shorter term variations on top of that. And what we’ll see in some time cannot be used as an argument for what we are seeing now.
“Its” is sometimes just fast typing omitting [‘] by mistake.
Tim Cullen MalagaView (09:03:45) :
I find your long range graph of B(IDV) on page 9 really fascinating. Especially where cycle 20 is completely below your green trend line.
Cycle 20 is indeed an interesting case.
So, overall, I think you will have to look further back in the records to find a match for cycle 23 because it looks like the trend line is heading further down into uncharted territory.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC23%20is%20like%20SC13.png
shows that SC23 was much like SC13. SC24 is predicted to be like SC14, so I don’t think there is any evidence that we are headed for uncharted territory.
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
I think we should wait for you to extend the data back to 1800 and see what happens over the next couple of years before we make any firm judgement about that. The rapid drop in solar activity (judging by sunspot numbers) around 1803 and the current extended minimum might show a more definite ‘cycle length’.
Yet you make firm judgments the other way. As I show in this comment, SC23 is much like SC23, and SC24 is getting to be a year old already, so all evidence is just a repeat of 100+ years ago. [except the climate is not doing that].
lines 199-200: “A 4th-order polynomial fit suggests a ~100 year Gleissberg cycle.”
I won’t ask why you fit a polynomial, but I will ask why you didn’t fit a sine curve since that has some theoretical basis. Would it make any sense to fit a curve to the minimums instead to the whole series?
The possibility, which this data appears to be suggesting, is that the sun’s magnetic field doesn’t change much on centennial timescales. This is, to say the least, troubling, because it makes it very difficult to understand how past changes in climate on those time scales could have occurred-what might cause them? Apparently not the sun, so it has to be something mysterious.
Say Leif, is it you experience that new scientific discoveries seem to raise as many if not more questions than they answer? The Universe is puzzling indeed.
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
As I show in this comment, SC23 was much like SC13,
We mus take heart that Phil Jones’ “VALUE-ADDED” version remains.
This deserves a nomination for quote of the week/ month.
Please excuse the interruption. Congratulations, Leif, on your submission.
Looks very interesting, and I look forward to seeign the whole shebang plus Leif’s inputs on the PR process.
Just a casual look at the first graph, and I see a passing resemblance to my mental picture of the sunspot counts over the same time interval. Notably the steady rise of the peaks up to the all time max reached during the IGY of 1957/58, and the following historically high counts; although the peak following the IGY in Leif’s magnetic field data is surprisingly subdued but then revovers to something like what the susnpot peaks look like.
So the real interesting thing is whether the present downward trend is just a short term anomaly or whether we can expect the general downward behavior to persist for some decades yet. Well I’m not in a predictive mood; but it does beg the question as to whether we may not like what we may be about to receive.
Thanks for sharing with us at this point Leif. time to shift the mental focus from the ice to the fire.
Hopefully you can also educate us Leif on what you solar Physicists think this all means.
George
Leif Svalgaard (09:56:35) :
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
As I show in this comment, SC23 was much like SC13,
And on this basis you predict cycle 24 will be similar to cycle 14. Fair enough, we’ll see how it turns out.
However I can see plenty of other cycles which show similarities to each other, but the following ones don’t. The sun’s activity isn’t regular, although some degree of similarity can be seen between some runs of cycles. It’s as if there were several simultaneous cycles occurring, which sometimes amplify and sometimes cancel each others effects. This suggests to me there are various resonances of differeng amplitudes and frequencies occurring which affect solar activity.
Time and effort will tell us more.
complete with nasty comments by the reviewers
Can the WUWT reviewers join in? ;~P
Moliterno (03:54:04) :
I’m actually kinda curious about the typical pronunciation of the name in English, Swedish, and other languages.
Danish and Norwegian are pretty close. In Norway Leif is a common name and is pronounced approximately like english speakers would pronounce ‘safe’ (just substitute the s with an l) .
Leif Svalgaard (09:54:14) :
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leif.org%2Fresearch%2FSC23%2520is%2520like%2520SC13.png
shows that SC23 was much like SC13. SC24 is predicted to be like SC14, so I don’t think there is any evidence that we are headed for uncharted territory.
When we are crystal ball gazing regarding SC24 then the playing field is a lot more level…. so please forgive my presumption in replying.
Although there are clear similarities between SC13 and SC23 (as shown in your linked diagram above) there are also differences. This is especially marked in the final transition years of SC23 which form a curved line compared to the straight lines of SC13. This transitional difference indicates (to me at least) that SC24 will be different to SC14… and curved transitions are not common in your graph… so my guess (for that is all we can do) is that SC24 will be similar to SC20 but at a lower level… but this speculation is the side show…
The main point is clearly demonstrated by the green trend line where it is clear that we are not returning to conditions prevailing a century ago because the trend line has already dipped below the level seen a century ago.
Given the smoothness of the green trend line it is apparent that something quite remarkable will have to occur if we are to return to the conditions prevailing a century ago.
Additionally, if this downward trend continues then we will be literally in uncharted territory i.e. below the graphed levels for the period 1835 through 2009.
Leif Svalgaard (09:54:14) :
tallbloke (08:47:19) :
You have a 35% rise from cycle 14 to 22, Lockwood et al 67%. This discrepancy is due to the difference between your reconstruction and theirs around cycle 14.
The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version
No, if you actually did a real comparison you’ll see that they don’t. Here is such a real comparison: http://www.leif.org/research/B-IDV-Rz-LRF-Obs.png The oval shows cycle 14. We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve) and Lockwood’s method (purple curve).
According to this plot of sunspot numbers, cycle 14 had around 1/3 of the amplitude of cycle 19.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1860/to:1960/mean:12
But your Rz sunspot curve shows cycle 14 being around 3/4 the amplitude of cycle 19.
I think this is where the discrepancy arises between your interpretation and mine. You are perhaps using your ‘revised’ sunspot numbers, which of course, agree better with your revised magnetic data. However, not all solar physicists agree with your sunspot number revisions. It looks like we mauy be in danger of getting into semantic arguments about the context of the word ‘real’. 😉
Leif Svalgaard (09:54:14):
It sounds like you want it both ways: solar activity responsible for LIA and also for shorter term variations on top of that. And what we’ll see in some time cannot be used as an argument for what we are seeing now.
Coldest part of the Little Ice Age is usually linked with the Maunder minimum 1650 – 1720 and the temperature charts associated with American scientist J. Eddy.
In Europe, the temperature chart produced by climatologist H. Lamb shows that coldest period was nearly over as the solar Maunder minimum is starting. The coolest period was apparently 1600-1650, when there is a reasonable record of the sunspot activity. I am not sure if H. Lamb was aware of the Maunder minimum when he produced his charts, it was first published in 1965 and has been updated several times since. The IPCC used the graph in their early publications.
J. Eddy is credited with discovering the Maunder minimum, his chart was used in The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
It could be speculated that both are right in their own way, since the charts should be considered as regional rather than global.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
What does the current science have to say ?
Is there some significance known to the sinusoidal average with a period at 1/16th of the sunspot period ?
bill (09:46:57) :
My 200 year was assuming min to max was 0.5 cycle 1900-1980 (only true if symmetry rules) ie 1 cycle = 160 years = 200 years if you squint a bit!
The Gleissberg cycle is traditionally ~90 years. The 100-yr ‘cycle’ was noticed by my little [five at the time] grandson Peter when he saw this plot: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html the cycles are low at the left- and right-hand side…
Toto (09:55:33) :
I won’t ask why you fit a polynomial, but I will ask why you didn’t fit a sine curve since that has some theoretical basis.
The whole idea of fitting is not really physical because we don’t know what the curve form should be. To be honest I use the 4th-degree pol for easy of drawing the ‘wave’ and it has no further significance. In the old days, I would just have drawn it by free-hand. I mention the 4th pol because if I didn’t, the referee [and many of you] would ask: “how did you draw the wave?”
Andrew (09:56:12) :
The possibility, which this data appears to be suggesting, is that the sun’s magnetic field doesn’t change much on centennial timescales. This is, to say the least, troubling, because it makes it very difficult to understand how past changes in climate on those time scales could have occurred-what might cause them? Apparently not the sun
I think that has been a leitmotif through all my postings here at WUWT and elsewhere.
Say Leif, is it you experience that new scientific discoveries seem to raise as many if not more questions than they answer? The Universe is puzzling indeed.
Yes, that is always the way it is: the more we know, the more good questions we can ask.
George E. Smith (10:32:36) :
Just a casual look at the first graph, and I see a passing resemblance to my mental picture of the sunspot counts over the same time interval.
That is, indeed, the case. See section 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
tallbloke (10:43:43) :
And on this basis you predict cycle 24 will be similar to cycle 14. Fair enough, we’ll see how it turns out.
No, not at all. This http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH51A-1593.pdf and this http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf is the basis.
Summarized here: http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:53:33) :
Danish and Norwegian are pretty close. In Norway Leif is a common name and is pronounced approximately like english speakers would pronounce ’safe’ (just substitute the s with an l) .
And in Danish, Leif is pronounced ‘lyf’. When I worked in Japan, they called me ‘raifu’ which the closest they could get to ‘leif’.
Tim Cullen MalagaView (10:59:37) :
The main point is clearly demonstrated by the green trend line[…] Additionally, if this downward trend continues then we will be literally in uncharted territory i.e. below the graphed levels for the period 1835 through 2009.
As I explained, the trend line is in sense bogus and should not be extrapolated too much. It was only to show my interpretation of the Gleissberg ‘wave’. Others would say there are two waves, some would say none, just random, etc. Don’t extrapolate a polynomial fit. We had a discussion about that on WUWT a while back, when the issue was if a cooling has begun.
tallbloke (11:09:23) :
But your Rz sunspot curve shows cycle 14 being around 3/4 the amplitude of cycle 19.
No, again, look at it carefully. My plot does not show Rz, but B calculated from Rz. The formula is B = 4.3 + 0.3 * SQRT(Rz).
However, not all solar physicists agree with your sunspot number revisions.
That is moot, as the original, official number was used.
Vukcevic (11:12:10) :
What does the current science have to say ?
There is little detailed correlation between solar activity and temperature. e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png The LIA lasted several centuries and [as you point out] the coldest temperatures were at the high solar activity when Galileo [and others] first observed the spots. If you look back through the record the past 2000 years [shown in my link above] it is hard to get the notion that there is any relationship at all.
Neo (11:36:42) :
Is there some significance known to the sinusoidal average with a period at 1/16th of the sunspot period ?
Not sure what you are asking. On its face, I would say no.
Whenever I write Leif’s name and I’m wondering is it ‘e’ before ‘i’ or the normal ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’, I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉
tallbloke (09:04:13) : Well, the ocean heat content was a lot lower in 1900 and had been fairly flat since the mid 1800’s before dipping from the 1890’s according to my model. I think we will see what no or low numbers of spots do in terms of temperature in another 7-10 years.
Excellent! No matter what caused the little ice age, it takes a long time to heat the oceans.
Andrew (09:56:12): The possibility, which this data appears to be suggesting, is that the sun’s magnetic field doesn’t change much on centennial timescales. This is, to say the least, troubling, because it makes it very difficult to understand how past changes in climate on those time scales could have occurred-what might cause them? Apparently not the sun, so it has to be something mysterious.
If you think that a reduced magnetic field instantly will heat our planet, it would be equivalent to state that a cold cabin can be instantly heated from -10 C to +20 C – it’s not going to happen! The thermal mass and the thermal time constant of the oceans is huge, heating takes centuries! The statistical variation in the magnetic field from 1850 to 2009 is quite dramatic:
min 4.1800 nT
max 9.6000 nT
mean 6.3446 nT
var 1.3959 nT
But we have to very patient to see the ocean temperature change if it’s being influenced by the magnetic field (I did not say it is!), since everything that changes the energy in the oceans has to go through the first law of thermodynamics,
m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout
People seem to think that the equation for the temperature in the oceans is not a differential equation, but some simple algebraic equation:
T(t) = A + B + C + D
However, that’s not the case, the correct equation is a first order differential with a huge time constant. Is this difficult to understand? The differential equation means that it takes a longer time to heat larger objects with large density and large heat capacity than smaller objects with small density and small heat capacity. Does it take a long time to heat your cabin? Imagine the oceans! And it also means that one has to add up the contributions to the energy and temperature over time, since the temperature of a large body can never be changed instantly. Please read Wikipedia:
Contrary to other thermodynamic quantities such as entropy and heat, whose microscopic definitions are valid even far away from thermodynamic equilibrium, temperature being an average energy per particle can only be defined at thermodynamic equilibrium, or at least local thermodynamic equilibrium (see below).
As a system receives heat, its temperature rises; similarly, a loss of heat from the system tends to decrease its temperature (at the—uncommon—exception of negative temperature; see below).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
So I give up ! I just pored over my table of the isotopes, trying to find some animal that decays to 4Be10.
3Li6 and 3Li7 aren’t going up there for anybody, and what would they be doing in the atmosphere ?
So maybe 4Be9, the normal isotope can capture a neutron; but then what the blazes is it doing in the atmosphere either. So maybe 5B10 can capture a neutron, and then do an ordinary beta decay, but the table shows no such decay for 5B10; which also has no business being in the atmosphere.
So getting wilder I looked for an alpha emission from 6C14; but no such luck and not much of that either in the atmosphere.
So what am I missing; how do I get from Nitrogen or Oxygen to 4Be10 ?
Enquiring minds want to know !
George
Sorry, I meant to say:
“If you think that an increased magnetic field instantly will heat our planet”
But I guess you all understood anyway. The main point was that we have to wait a long time to notice the effect of varying magnetic field.
“”” DaveC (13:30:34) :
Whenever I write Leif’s name and I’m wondering is it ‘e’ before ‘i’ or the normal ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’, I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉 “””
My table of the Fundamental Physical Constants does not contain any entry for the English Language; suggesting it is not a universal invariant.
But even if one has just a smattering of contact with the German Language; one would get the idea that the “ei” is very common in many northern European Languages.
So why are we so damn lazy that we can’t take the trouble to educate ourselves.
English is hardly a paragon of fixed linguistic rules.
Just how many ways are there to pronounce ” ough ” in common English usage ?
We swiped most of our language from whomever didn’t complain loudly enough.
Tipos are one thing; but lets not try to rationalis(z)e why Leif’s name should be spelled or pronounced some other way.
George
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:32) :
tallbloke (11:09:23) :
But your Rz sunspot curve shows cycle 14 being around 3/4 the amplitude of cycle 19.
No, again, look at it carefully. My plot does not show Rz, but B calculated from Rz. The formula is B = 4.3 + 0.3 * SQRT(Rz).
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to be a pedant, but here’s what you originally said:
http://www.leif.org/research/B-IDV-Rz-LRF-Obs.png The oval shows cycle 14. We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)
Not: the square root of the sunspot number multiplied by 0.3 plus 4.3
I’m good, but not telepathic.
Invariant (13:54:22) :
Sorry, I meant to say:
“If you think that an increased magnetic field instantly will heat our planet”
But I guess you all understood anyway. The main point was that we have to wait a long time to notice the effect of varying magnetic field.
You may have had it right to start with. The Earth’s magnetic field has been getting weaker as things have warmed up since the 1700’s.
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:32)
The LIA lasted several centuries and [as you point out] the coldest temperatures were at the high solar activity when Galileo [and others] first observed the spots.
I am reluctantly prepared to accept the idea that Maunder min was not the cause of sudden temps drop, at least not in Europe.
In your link you show Loehle temperature reconstruction, which was subject to some criticism. After reading his correction paper (2007) and range of the world proxy locations, predominantly North Atlantic, with absence of Indian Ocean, west Pacific and South America, I decided not to bother with it, since it is not strictly local or entirely global.
As far as I can conclude, Lamb did thorough work but was not aware of the Maunder min significance in a way we are, at least not when he produced his initial chart in 1965, so I am inclined to take his work as good.
Prior to 1600 Lamb and Eddy charts agree, and I would assume J. Eddy et al just accepted Lamb’s numbers. However, from 1600-1880 correlation between two charts is practically zero; Rsq =0.0122.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
It is possible, to take a cynical view, and assume that J. Eddy et al were swayed by SS numbers around 1680 and 1810, but that would be unfair, and more importantly their chart also had a wide acceptance.
Therefore, is it not the case that they gave more importance to the North American records, which again, it is conceivable had different trend to the European, thus both charts can be taken as good, as long as they are considered to be regional and not global; Lamb’s certainly is, but still a good representation of the Euro-Atlantic trends.
O/T again.
Im sorry but I cant avoid.
If Leif raises a lot of confusion I sugest you to try spell Leifs family name. Svalgaard. ehheehhe
My mother language is latin and I now how difficult is to try speak danish. Ouch! 😉
Sorry to all but I couldnt avoid to more make noise.
DaveC (13:30:34) :
I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉
The word is ‘extraordinary’
George E. Smith (13:51:08) :
how do I get from Nitrogen or Oxygen to 4Be10 ?
There is no nuclear reaction leading to 10Be. The process is much more brutal and is called ‘cosmic ray spallation’. It simply means that an energetic cosmic ray [proton most often, but any will do] rams into N14 or O16 and knocks out some protons and/or neutrons leaving a cinder of Be10 [and other more short-lived isotopes we don’t see because the fall apart right away].
Quite a compelling paper, but I find this statement at about line 201 rather doubtful: “Cycle 23 looks remarkably like cycle 13, including the very deep solar minimum following both cycles, likely presaging a weak cycle 24 as predicted from the solar polar fields [Svalgaard et al., 2005]. It is clear that we are returning to conditions prevailing a century ago.”, and the preceding comment about the 100 year Gleisberg cycle at bit iffy.
Agreed that the min for the 2 cycles is about the same so far (Leif’s floor so no surprise?) and the tops are very close (within 5%) and the shapes of the tops are similar. So what? cycle 13 is 11 years, cycle 23 as shown 13 years and counting. doesn’t that matter. Rates of change on the up and down sides are quite different. Cycle 12 is not at all like cycle 22, or 9 like 19.
Does one fairly similar pair of cycles really suggest a Gleissberg cycle? The paper would be much better without these doubtful observations. Murray
tallbloke (14:20:18) :
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to be a pedant
When wants to be pedantic, one should foremost be correct.
Not: the square root of the sunspot number multiplied by 0.3 plus 4.3 […]
I’m good, but not telepathic.
Perhaps not even good.
Let’s try some numbers:
max of cycle 14: Rz = 64, sqrt(64)=8, *0.3 = 2.4, +4.3 = 6.7, B = 6
max of cycle 19: Rz = 190, sqrt(190)= 13.8, *0.3 = 4.1, +4.3 = 8.4, B = 9
min of cycle 20-21: Rz = 10, sqrt(10) = 3.2, *0.3 = 1.5, +4.3 = 5.8, B = 5
and so on.
You can see that with good approximation [within a nT] B is indeed what one would calculate from the formula.
Well, all confusion over Leif’s name can be eliminated by referring to him as Dr. Svalgaard. 🙂
If you are not aware of it, Dr. Svalgaard often posts on the message board at SolarCycle24.com. There is a link on the right side column here on this site.
SolarCycle24.com now shows that the solar flux has dropped below 70 again, and we are at an “official” 6 days without a sunspot. Interesting times we live in.
Dan Murphy
Murray Duffin (15:29:58) :
Does one fairly similar pair of cycles really suggest a Gleissberg cycle? The paper would be much better without these doubtful observations.
It is not just SC13 and SC23 that determine that, but the fact that they are at either end of sequence of cycles that had higher cycles in the middle. My paper is not trying to show that there is a Gleissberg cycle [Gleissberg did that], just to show that the HMF is fairly consistent with that observational fact which is the Gleissberg ‘cycle’ for the past 300 years. We furthermore weaken the claim a lot, by remarking that ‘there is a hint of the ~100-year Gleissberg cycle’ which, indeed, there is.
Leif must not be happy that most of the readers are actually commenting on his name rather than his work…that tells a lot. Not his fault, Amerians run in a much slower frameRate.
tallbloke (14:20:18) :
sorry to be a pedant, but here’s what you originally said:
“We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
This means that we have several ways of determining B. If we determine B from IDV we get the blue curve, showing the B determined from IDV [but, of course, not IDV]. If we determine B from Rz we get the green curve, showing the B determined from Rz [but, of course, not Rz].
I don’t know how more I can do to explain this to you. Perhaps the label of ‘nT’ on the Y-axis should tell you that was plotted was B and not Rz. Anyway, this all came about, because you said “The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version” without having any foundation for that statement [which is false as we all now know]. I hope you are agreeing with me that their version does not agree better with the sunspot number.
the_Butcher (15:53:21) :
that tells a lot.
about the people that point such things out, yes it does, indeed.
I’m utterly unqualified to comment, and I’m not ready to even figure out where to ask questions.
I really appreciate the chance to learn bits here and there.
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard and Anthony for providing the forum and maintaining the relationships.
Mark
Leif,
Unprofessionally insulted lay person here [motives and/or belief system assumptions not even in the right ballpark I’m afraid]. Let us never speak like or of that again. I am here principally to learn, never to goad. Now, move on please.
Can’t follow the detail entirely, no access to underlying papers referenced, etc. But I get the drift. Forget the content and peer review for now, here’s a tax payer’s immediate reaction:
Observations relating to *all* papers I’ve seen:
1. What are you trying to achieve and why (probably in grant app but why not here to)? It says what you’ve done only. Just seems sloppy to me, the context of it all will become detached and lost over time. Contrast and compare with other professions such as engineering, etc.
2. Little standardization across and within journals, etc.
3. Poor non-automated cross-referencing, etc. I can sonme but not reliable it seems.
4. The whole thing should be in standards based HTML, not in PDFs, etc. and available to anyone online. A “The Literature” repository, Not difficult, surely.
5. Non-specific references to location of data, etc.
All seems outmoded, arcane and long overdue for a complete overhaul.
Yours specifically:
1. What was the approx total cost (including overheads, appropriate proportion of discounted value of all kit used to originally acquire the data not donated, heat, light, vent, CPU, all leases, etc.?
2. What was the ultimate source of the funding? Public finance, foundation trust fund, private finance, etc.
3. What conclusions have you drawn that in your opinion materially further the body of scientific knowledge?
4. What would you estimate their potential value to mankind/investor to be over the next decade and how do you justify that?
Wet finger guesstimates and one liners fine, no pedant at home.
I know of “couple of paragraph summaries plus a ball-park estimate” type summaries of projects competing for funding. I’d just like a little indication of the bureaucratic dross you have to endure to get the green light in the first place; whether any performance feedback (such as the above) is required and whether that ever makes it back to the ultimate investor in its original form?
Minimal answers (e.g. 5 page proposal, 4 page justification, 10 man days over 9 months, yes, no) fine.
I’m merely trying to establish the bigger picture here.
Dan Murphy (15:49:22) :
Well, all confusion over Leif’s name can be eliminated by referring to him as Dr. Svalgaard. 🙂
Oh no! then we’ll get Svaalgard, Svalgard, Sualgard, etc, many more changes of getting it wrong. Try to google scholar these misspellings and see how many hits you get 🙂
SolarCycle24.com now shows that the solar flux has dropped below 70 again
The flux they show is the flux uncorrected for solar distance, so has to be used with caution. It just so happens that right now it makes to difference because we are by chance close to 1 AU from the Sun. For radio ham’s it is the uncorrected flux that matters because that is what actually influence the ionosphere [and their reception]
There seems to have been a low period in sunspots and heliospheric magnetic field strength around 1890 to 1900. Is there any correlation of this with climate ?
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
14 5.2
15 6.0
16 5.9
17 6.6
18 7.1
19 7.1 <== 37% higher than cycle 14
20 6.2
21 7.0
22 7.0
23 6.3
24 5.0 <= this is a guess [a prediction if you like]
There is a real message in these numbers. SC18, 19, 21, & 22 all nearly have the same HMF value. Its the top of the wave that many are noticing and maybe can explain out late 20th century warming that the IPCC has so much trouble with.
This wave I think is continuous through the centuries and never varies, all that varies is the strength of grand minima that interrupt the wave. Here is another view of the wave.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwavesm.png
If you go back further Leif I think you will see the wave also in your HMF signal. You have subtly agreed to its existence in the past but perhaps its time to fully recognize its importance as your own records are beginning to show it. Its not the product of a random number generator.
On a lighter note I will be interested to see how your solar floor hangs on to the scrutiny….this is the important part of the paper.
Aligner (16:48:30) :
Observations relating to *all* papers I’ve seen:
4. The whole thing should be in standards based HTML
HTML has changed a lot over the years and will change again, so is not a standard. SGML is, but is very cumbersome. XML is better, but is not really supported as a presentation medium.
All seems outmoded, arcane and long overdue for a complete overhaul
Overhaul is being done, but incrementally, as it must.
See, e.g. http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/
———————–
1. What was the approx total cost (including overheads, appropriate proportion of discounted value of all kit used to originally acquire the data not donated, heat, light, vent, CPU, all leases, etc.?
3675 station years at a cost [in 2009 dollars] of approximately $1 Million each, so estimate of ‘several billion US dollars’.
2. What was the ultimate source of the funding? Public finance, foundation trust fund, private finance, etc.
Dr. Cliver is a US Govt. employee. My research is funded by me, helped along by a 100 Trillion Dollar contribution, see: http://www.leif.org/research/donors.htm
3. What conclusions have you drawn that in your opinion materially further the body of scientific knowledge?
Knowing what the Sun has been doing in the past is very important for placing constraints on physical theories about how the Sun works and how it influences our environment.
4. What would you estimate their potential value to mankind/investor to be over the next decade and how do you justify that?
priceless.
I’m merely trying to establish the bigger picture here.
‘merely’ and ‘bigger’ don’t go well together. And know for the habitual insult: “your post is a bit on the silly side”
@Leif Svalgaard (15:28:24) :
DaveC (13:30:34) :
I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉
The word is ‘extraordinary’
Extraordinary good humor, for sure. Thanks for your contributions to this blog Leif.
Dr A Burns (16:54:13) :
There seems to have been a low period in sunspots and heliospheric magnetic field strength around 1890 to 1900. Is there any correlation of this with climate ?
Not that I can see.
I plan to discuss the whole peer-review process here on WUWT, complete with nasty comments by the reviewers and our responses.
Are we to simply be an audience who listens and learns what happens during a peer review process, or will we be permitted to participate? I’ sure it will be highly informative either way. But once brutes like us are let into the room, complete with popcorn and beer, I can’t see anyone stopping us from vocally participating.
Geoff Sharp (17:09:14) :
This wave I think is continuous through the centuries and never varies
it is a ~100-yr wave and we point it out mainly to pay lip-service to people that think it is important. There are dynamo theories that claim they explain the wave, but much of that is ad-hoc IMHO. The paper is concerned with establishing good DATA about the HMF with a minimum of speculation.
idlex (17:23:37) :
will we be permitted to participate? I’ sure it will be highly informative either way.
I can’t stop you from doing it as you say, and I won’t. But, of course, it will have no influence on the ‘official’ review process, except helping me to sharpen up my response to slings and arrows.
I hope that there will be a good discussion of just what is meant by peer review. I’ve just been reading a comment by Stevo on the Bishop Hill blog which seems to me to have the right idea.
The basic function of peer review is to filter out papers of no interest to the journal’s readership. Basic checks are done to see that the results are new, interesting, clearly and completely enough presented to replicate, and not obvious nonsense. It is NOT and never has been a check on the result’s correctness. The function of journals is not to present settled science, to the extent that science is ever settled. (That’s textbooks.) Journals present work in progress – hypotheses and experiments – for others to try to find errors in them, or to extend and improve them. Journals are simply a filtering/sorting mechanism to enable researchers to find work of interest to them quickly.
If so, then complaining that something hasn’t been published as a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable magazine simply means that the reviewers didn’t think it was interesting or relevant enough to be published.
Leif,
I’m an engineer, Tau Beta Phi and all that, and, I can follow most intelligent arguments, but, I must say this climate prognostication is beyond my ability to understand. I appreciate those that do this for a living. While my exposure to statistics is limited, having only taken three or four courses in the subject, what I see here reminds me more of Linear Algebra and Fourier Transforms.
That said, in 2007, I felt that something was changing with the climate. I explored, I locked on to sunspots, back in 2007. I graphed and I collated but I could find no relation. I eventually found these sites WUWT, Climate Audit and so forth.
So my question is, should I reject a gut feeling for over two years, that says the climate is cooling or accept the intelligentsia, saying its warming?
IMacfunk (05:47:09) : “But then he was a Norse of a different colour.”
Brillian, IMac!
Leif,
Thanks for that.
In mid-May 1999 we had the solar wind “shut off” event. AFAIK thats not been seen since or before (in the instrument era). Correct?
Eyeballing the graph only, that seems shortly (months anyway) before DVI peaked. What’s the current hypothesis for why it happened?
I’m willing to give you credit for defining the law. Others have followed it, but they dared not define it in public.
Janice (07:38:19) : “This is so completely Off Topic that I’m sure it should get snipped before it even gets posted. …
I’m pleased it was not snipped, Janice… the moderators know class when they see it. Nice!
Leif Svalgaard (17:37:22) : “It is a ~100-yr wave and we point it out mainly to pay lip-service to people that think it is important.”
Great work Leif. Congrats on this research!
Although….a few semantics. A few blogs ago, you castigated me for referring to the Milankovitch cycles as “waves.”
I responded that they ARE “waves”, in a sense. It just takes thousands of years to get from trough to crest.
Glad to see you admitting to a ~100 year wave here.
Disturbances can be instantaneous….over seconds….decades….centuries….millenia or even millions of years, but all “disturbances” or waves….cross over space or time.
Reminds me of Hotrod’s interesting comparison of the striking resemblance of the 1998 global temperature spike (the steep-walled “disturbance” as shown on a graph) to the steep-walled “rogue” 100-foot wave that hit the Draupner Rig….both of them perhaps related to quantum physics…but that is another subject.
Remember that thread?
Anyways…great job on your research…godspeed on much more.
Just glad to see you admit that some of your previous language on the subject of “waves” was a little hyperbole.
Hey…we’re all human….
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
DVI should read IDV 🙂
Also, if I’m reading Table 2 correctly, peak was aoa 2001.5 so maybe not so interesting after all.
robr, given your educational background, you are aware of the water cycle. Follow the jet streams back to the oceans, and you will find the source of what brings temperature variations to the land masses. Meaning, that warming can’t be related to CO2 because longwave radiation cannot warm the oceans, and a lack of CO2 longwave radiation cannot cool it down. Warming the oceans with longwave radiation would be like trying to heat up a pan of water by breathing on it.
If climate is what you are worried about, get out your gps. Your gps tells you what climate you are in. Ocean sourced weather will wriggle your climate a bit, but if you live in a desert, you will be relatively dry and mostly warm. If you live in a temperate forest, you will be relatively wet and cooler.
And yes, this is 5th grade science. It really is that simple. The Sun keeps us relatively warm with or without sunspots (along with greenhouse gasses), while the Earth itself cools us off by sending excess heat out into space through the rather swiss-cheese like atmosphere. Like the swirling atmosphere surrounding other planets in our system, it is not well-mixed, and barely functions as a blanket. It’s more like an old moth-eaten blanket.
If what you are worried about is the coastal forest of Oregon drying up in a CO2 heat wave, don’t. The only way that would happen is if the Oregon coast forest moved inland and landed on the leeward side of a mountain ridge.
E.M.Smith (00:48:30) :
TitiXXXX (23:10:49) : I am not sure I get the “Tomorrow” on the timeline: is it to be submitted or is it accepted already?
The “tomorrow’ was in a comment posted ‘yesterday’ since it is now after midnight in California so it is ‘tomorrow’ ‘today’ already, but you will likely be reading this after I go to bed which will be even more ‘tomorrow’ than now, thought it is still technically ‘today’ since now is tomorrow as I type but will be yesterday when you read this unless is it the day after tomorrow when it will be the day before yesterday.
Clearer now? 😉
Thanks E.M., for clearing that all up. Now could you tell us how Marty McFly went back to the future? Also whether astronauts do or don’t get older or younger when they cross the international date line multiple times per day? Oh, and if one crosses said date line east to west at 12 am on the cusp of his 40th birthday, thus losing said birthday day, does he then never turn 41 since he never turned 40?
Thanks in advance for your assistance on these important issues.
David
robr (19:25:28) :
So my question is, should I reject a gut feeling for over two years, that says the climate is cooling or accept the intelligentsia, saying its warming?
Accept what the data says. If they are ambiguous, then we don’r know. Right now, I don’t know which way it is going. It is, however, not in doubt that we have had some Global Warming the past couple of decades. We have had that many times before.
Aligner (19:34:43) :
In mid-May 1999 we had the solar wind “shut off” event. AFAIK thats not been seen since or before (in the instrument era). Correct?
not that extreme, but there have many ‘drop outs’ almost as deep.
Eyeballing the graph only, that seems shortly (months anyway) before DVI peaked. What’s the current hypothesis for why it happened?
DVI ?
savethesharks (20:13:56) :
A few blogs ago, you castigated me for referring to the Milankovitch cycles as “waves.”
There is a definite physical difference between a cycle and a wave. A wave is something that has a direct cause from forces acting on the medium, while a cycle may be anything that varies periodically. An example of a cycle would be the distance between Mars and Jupiter. If you plot that you will definitely see cycles, but they are not waves in anything. The Milankovich cycles are the sum of several independent other cycles none of which are waves and cannot be said to be a wave. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies cyclically, but it would be a perversion of the term to say that the Earth executes a wave motion around the Sun. You may, of course, adopt the Humpty Dumpty approach and declare as he did: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Aligner (20:24:10) :
Eyeballing the graph only, that seems shortly (months anyway) before IDVI peaked.
Months? the scale of the graphs is in ‘years’. We don’t to IDV by the month.
Crossed post, never mind. Good info regarding the dips. Thank you.
“The Milankovich cycles are the sum of several independent other cycles none of which are waves and cannot be said to be a wave.”
Yes but on a graph they are a wave.
And they are indeed a disturbance….because they modulate their surroundings: Ice age on, Ice Age off.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Looks like Stereo might be picking up on another new SC24 spot. Look at the stereo behind images and there’s a new area of disturbance in the southern hemisphere.
savethesharks (21:25:52) :
Yes but on a graph they are a wave.
OK, Humpty Dumpty 🙂
With the updated Heliospheric Magnetic field 1835-2009 we can now state for certain the magnetic field collapse is much worse than we thought.
Leif Svalgaard (20:49:42) :
There is a definite physical difference between a cycle and a wave. A wave is something that has a direct cause from forces acting on the medium, while a cycle may be anything that varies periodically. An example of a cycle would be the distance between Mars and Jupiter. If you plot that you will definitely see cycles, but they are not waves in anything. The Milankovich cycles are the sum of several independent other cycles none of which are waves and cannot be said to be a wave. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies cyclically, but it would be a perversion of the term to say that the Earth executes a wave motion around the Sun. You may, of course, adopt the Humpty Dumpty approach and declare as he did: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Savethesharks has it right, a wave is like a cycle but it has modulation over the whole time period, not an off then on again situation. There is clearly a wave pattern happening in the HMF signal that will be repeating. You will have to answer questions on this if your paper is accepted. The are consequences to the outcome.
Gentry (21:36:02) :
Looks like Stereo might be picking up on another new SC24 spot. Look at the stereo behind images and there’s a new area of disturbance in the southern hemisphere.
Its not a sunspot yet, it will probably need a little more juice before it can appear on the continuum in a few days time.
Leif Svalgaard (16:24:52) :
tallbloke (14:20:18) :
sorry to be a pedant, but here’s what you originally said:
“We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
This means that we have several ways of determining B. If we determine B from IDV we get the blue curve, showing the B determined from IDV [but, of course, not IDV]. If we determine B from Rz we get the green curve, showing the B determined from Rz [but, of course, not Rz].
That’s fine, and I get it. It’s tricky when just supplied with a graph and not it’s original caption or context. And you are told the green curve is the sunspot number.
this all came about, because you said “The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version” without having any foundation for that statement [which is false as we all now know]. I hope you are agreeing with me that their version does not agree better with the sunspot number.
Actually Leif, what is evident to me from the three numerical examples in your preceding post, is that your formula 4.3+0.3*SQT(Rz) overestimates B for low amplitude cycles and underestimates B for high amplitude cycles. This indicates to me that the relationship is non-linear, even at the second order, and that the formula you present is not based on anything physical, but is an arbitrary ‘best fit’ with your B curve.
I suspect that with a small tweak to the arbitrary formula, a B curve could be produced from the sunspot number which agreed with Lockwood’s B amplitude for cycle 14 and the intervening cycles to cycle 19 just as well as yours.
It’s all good though, the curve produced by Cliver and yourself, and that produced by Lockwood et al gives us a ball park for the relationship, and I’m not trying to detract from your achievement or the increasing concordance of the results.
Trust me dude….I would not be Humpty Dumpty to your face. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Geoff Sharp (22:41:50) :
Savethesharks has it right, a wave is like a cycle but it has modulation over the whole time period
A wave can be a one-time thing [e.g. a tsunami], a cycle cannot as it has a continuance. But the other aspect is more important, for a wave there must be something [some physical object] that does the waving. Cycles don’t need that [e.g. my example of a graph of the distance between Mars and Jupiter].
And thanks Geoff for the props.
Waves are weird things when spanning the space of time.
It is easy to call a wind-generated wave on the ocean such.
Takes a little bit more to admit that some disturbances are not instantaneous, but they take months (ENSO), decades (AMO) , centuries (172 year Landscheit cycle), millenia and one hundred millenia (Milankovitch), even hundreds of millions years (passing though Milky Way “feeder bands”).
True…these are waves on a graph…but not visible to our normal observation….
Just takes much, much LONGER to go from trough to crest.
WAY longer than our human compartmentalizations allow.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Leif Svalgaard (17:14:21) :
2. What was the ultimate source of the funding? Public finance, foundation trust fund, private finance, etc.
Dr. Cliver is a US Govt. employee. My research is funded by me, helped along by a 100 Trillion Dollar contribution, see: http://www.leif.org/research/donors.htm
Lol. I’ll double Smokey’s contribution.
And my offer of help with transcribing the old yearbooks to digital format to assist in hurrying the reconstruction back to pre 1800 still stands.
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:13) : “…for a wave there must be something [some physical object] that does the waving.”
Uh huh….and the complex physical processes that “do the waving” in the case of the Milankovitch cycles.
Ice age on. Ice age off.
Something is doing the waving.
Maybe not a “physical object”, but a physical process.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
dear god people.
“i” before “e” except after “c” or when sounded like “a” as in neighbor and weigh.. err and leif.
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:13) :
A wave can be a one-time thing [e.g. a tsunami], a cycle cannot as it has a continuance. But the other aspect is more important, for a wave there must be something [some physical object] that does the waving. Cycles don’t need that [e.g. my example of a graph of the distance between Mars and Jupiter].
On cycle –wave discussion here’s my ‘topence’ :
Cycle oscillates, wave propagates.
In graph shown here blue line is a cycle but red line is not a wave.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_amplitude.gif
Why? Because red line is static, to be a wave, subsequent cycles have to be subject to wave’s action in ‘equal measure’ for a period of time.
The HMF “wave” is definitely exciting, its is more prevalent than the sunspot wave. Whatever you want to call it, it is a predictable gentle up and down flow of solar modulation that repeats over a longer period than 100 years (172 years).
This will challenge the CORE of the Babcock-Leighton theory…but it can still exist without the “random number generator” component.
savethesharks (23:38:45) :
Leif Svalgaard (23:13:13) : “…for a wave there must be something [some physical object] that does the waving.”
Uh huh….and the complex physical processes that “do the waving” in the case of the Milankovitch cycles.
Ice age on. Ice age off.
Something is doing the waving.
Maybe not a “physical object”, but a physical process.
Chris, the ice ages are an effect of the Milankovitch cycles (probably) not the cause.
There is a scientist proposing that the sun itself has a variability which can fall into different cycles at around 100,000 and ~41,000 years, among others. I have been investigating the harmonic resonant periodicities in the solar sytem, particularly the planetary interactions. I have also been investigating numerical ‘coincidences between various planetary attributes such as length of precessionary periods, surface temperature, angular momentum exchanges and spin rates. Some interesting things are popping up.
Leif calls this ‘numerology’ and fair enough, I have no physical explanations as yet. I still think it’s something worth working on though, because I suspect that the sun’s magnetic field and solar wind have a long term influence on planetary dynamics, and that the planetary dynamics in turn feed back to affect solar activity.
If this is the case, then the interacting cyclicities of the sun and planets and the resonant harmonies created by them will affect solar activity and planetary surface temperature.
tallbloke (00:51:53)
You are perhaps referring to this:
http://www.solstation.com/stars/sol.htm [some 6 clicks down]:
<>
If this is correct: What triggers these magnetic instabilities that also governs our climate?
Leif Svalgaard
writes in comments: We plan to submit tomorrow to JGR the following…
GREAT WORK Dr. Svalgaard.
I hope you would not mind if I add few remarks.
Page 9 line 206 – graph for Heliospheric Magnetic Field Strength B (at Earth) inferred from IDV and Observed
Shows faint green line to which you refer to as:
Page 10 lines 208-210:
Figure 7. Yearly average values of the HMF B inferred from the IDV-index (blue curve) compared with in situ measurements (red curve). There is a hint of the ~100 year Gleissberg cycle.
– ‘~100 year Gleissberg cycle’ green line starts at 1835. Since you have not plotted values before 1835, I shall assume they are unknown, and you suggest for period ~ 100 years, than initial ½ cycle (50 years) of this line should be omitted. You suggest cycle of ~100 year, so if you are plotting the line, than trend 1835-1870 should be similar to one1935-1970 i.e. rising trend, not falling as shown here. If values for the IDV were following SS numbers than you would have rising trend, since the cycles prior to1835 were lower.
– You characterize you line as a ‘hint of the ~100 year Gleissberg cycle’.
In many authoritative papers the Galesburg cycle is defined as 75-85 years and not 100 as above, so if it is the Gleissberg cycle, than it should conform to its widely accepted definition. Dr. Landscheidt described a cycle of about 175 years, which is twice the accepted value for the Galesburg’s.
I took liberty to reproduce your graph using your data for compression purposes:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IDV.pdf
Upper graph is a direct copy from your paper, the lower one is a reproduction using your data. Instead of arbitrarily defined Gleissberg cycle you have used, I have reproduced formula associated with the SSN amplitude (shown as green line), normalized to your graph’s values. It can be observed that so formulated line from 1860-2009 follows precisely values you termed as the ‘Galesburg cycle’ which of course this is not it, since there is no mathematical definition of the Gleissberg cycle, only a vague period value of 75-85 or so years. Here, in my graph, due to the known SSN values of pre-1835 cycles, the trend for 1835 – 1870 follows its natural progression indicating a period of 107 years.
Details for ‘Vukcevic’ amplitude cycle can be found here (pages 2&3).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
In the graph I have referred to, the amplitude is normalised to Svalgaard et al graph. To reproduce with Svalgaard’s data use MS Excel entry :
= 4.65+0.7*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(A1-1940.5)/118.628)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(A1-1940.5)/287.6))
tallbloke (23:06:09) :
And you are told the green curve is the sunspot number.
No, you were told that the green curve was B determined from the sunspot number.
that your formula 4.3+0.3*SQT(Rz) overestimates B for low amplitude cycles and underestimates B for high amplitude cycles. This indicates to me that the relationship is non-linear, even at the second order, and that the formula you present is not based on anything physical, but is an arbitrary ‘best fit’ with your B curve.
No, the formula was determined in http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf [section 7; Figure 8] updated with IDV09. There is a good physical reason for the formula:
The main sources of the equatorial components of the Sun’s large-scale magnetic field are large active regions. If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment will scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average IMF strength will tend to increase as the square root of Rz. (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]). We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the Rz as shown in Figure 8.”
which agreed with Lockwood’s B amplitude for cycle 14 and the intervening cycles to cycle 19 just as well as yours.
No need to tweak a physical relationship. We know whey Lockwood’s curve for cycle 14 is too low: He uses too few stations for those years and [and this is the bad part] deliberately omits other stations that give higher values so that he can maintain that there is a larger centennial increase in B.
The sticking point is your statement “The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version” which I have shown repeatedly is false. So, it is not really about Lockwood. It is about you making statements that have no foundation without making even the simplest analysis.
Geoff Sharp (00:50:43) :
solar modulation that repeats over a longer period than 100 years (172 years).
It is plain that on my plot, the ‘period’ is 100 years and not much longer. The same you see here: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
Vukcevic (05:23:27) :
In many authoritative papers the Galesburg cycle is defined as 75-85 years and not 100 as above, so if it is the Gleissberg cycle, than it should conform to its widely accepted definition.
The Gleissberg cycle is not ‘defined’ but is determined from the data and the data [e.g. http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ] shows that Gleissberg was off for the historical record at least. Anything else is numerology as your post demonstrates so well. It is like the sunspot cycle itself: the long-term average length is ~11 years, but you can find cycles that are longer [like SC23] and shorter. The ’88-year’ Gleissberg cycle has been ~100 years recently, the same way that the 11-yr sunspot cycle has been 13 years recently. The historical record is too short to determine a good value for the Gleissberg cycle length. The 14C record extends over 12,000 years and it’s power spectrum shows it better: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-INTCAL98-14C.png
(the label on the X-axis is wrong, it should be ‘Period, years’).
So, please, spare us the numerology.
For another view on the Gleissberg cycle [from nitrate deposits in ice] see McCracken et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gleissberg-nitrates.pdf
One of Ken’s conclusions is especially interesting:
“5. The Gleissberg period 1820-1910 was the most prolific
generator of solar proton events followed by the period 1580-
1660. The present Gleissberg period (1910-1985?) is one of
the least effective in large fluence solar proton events observed
at Earth.”
But the whole paper in good food for thought. Read it.
Leif Svalgaard (05:59:30) :
“The Gleissberg cycle is not ‘defined’ but is determined from the data and the data.”
I think most comments about Galesburg cycle in many papers is just a ‘waffle’. Anyone can, and appears you fallen into same trap, ‘I see a cycle and hey, it is a Galesburg’ , regardless what is its period or amplitude is. As I pointed in my previous post, (vukcevic (05:23:27), you can not have a graph with falling trend 1835-1870 and rising trend 1935-1970 and declare it 100 year cycle. It is simply wrong. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IDV.pdf
People reading this blog may not be all scientists, but they are not totally naïve and illiterate.
What there is, it is a clear ~107 year cycle, as shown in your own FFT Power-Spectrum graph of the SS numbers.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
It is time you accepted the fact that I have first succeeded to identify and mathematically define such a cycle.
It controls the envelope of sunspot cycles, as well as clearly identifies the Maunder minimum, and alternative succession of low cycles (25-30% in respect of the neighbouring) and long minima, as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNanomaly1.gif
It is pointless denying the obvious, you may not like it but it is reality.
To be scientist, it occasionally means accepting that ‘not everything you happen to believe today is forever’.
My initial paper elaborating on the envelope and anomaly equations is at:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
As an interested layman, I’m thinking that sun-earth heating is analogous to an electric stove. Anyone who has cooked with both gas and electric stove tops knows that electric stoves are tricky because of the time it takes to heat up and cool down. The sun is like the dial, you turn it up, and yes it’s going full blast, but the iron rings (the earth) stay cool for a while, because it takes time to heat up all that iron. And vice-versa, if that metal is red-hot when you turn the power off completely, it will stay hot for while, much hotter (at first) than the first scenario, even though the “power level” becomes much lower in the latter scenario.
Vukcevic (09:06:37) :
My initial paper elaborating on the envelope and anomaly equations is at:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Of course you are the first to come up with that silly formula.
Leif Svalgaard (11:17:06) :
“http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Of course you are the first to come up with that silly formula.”
Do you mind, there are 3 formula’s there, one for periodicity (also provides best available representation of polar fields), one for overall amplitude, and one accurately identifying all recorded anomalies.
Fact that all 3 formulae use same 3 astronomical parameters or their multiples (harmonic oscillations resonance effect) not only confirms that they are rooted in real astronomy, but simplicity and elegance as expressed here:
Y= Sum[Cos 2pi (t-To)/P]
in science usually suggest it is likely to be good.
In this case, your epithet of a ‘silly formula’ is just a sign of inability to overturn its quality, which stems from the imbedded astronomical accuracy.
On the other hand, I am not qualified to judge your paper, but I would suggest to correct green line to have proper ‘~ 100 years cycle’ flow if you are inclined to keep it in.
‘Gleissberg cycle’ as described by McCracken from SC1 to present:
1750-1830 = 80 years
1830-1910 = 80 years
1910-1987 = 77 years.
Good luck with it.
Vukcevic (12:31:46) :
“Of course you are the first to come up with that silly formula.”
Do you mind, there are 3 formula’s there,
They are equally spurious. In the ‘not even wrong category’.
Leif Svalgaard (13:36:09) :
“They are equally spurious. In the ‘not even wrong category’.”
As ‘spurious’ as 3 astronomical numbers used.
Formula matches very well your IDV chart.
Yet another proof, the numbers are good.
See page 2 for a higher resolution graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IDV.pdf
I have nothing more to add, your IDV graph says it all for me.
Thanks, and good luck with paper.
Leif Svalgaard (05:38:43) :
Geoff Sharp (00:50:43) :
solar modulation that repeats over a longer period than 100 years (172 years).
———————–
It is plain that on my plot, the ‘period’ is 100 years and not much longer. The same you see here: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
We might be talking the same language, I am talking about from peak to peak. If I overlaid my graph, your HMF graph, the sunspot graph, Scafetta’s solar velocity graph and probably Vukcervic’s graph they would all agree. I have no doubt on the power wave but what will be interesting is whether there is a floor to the wave or does it also modulate like the proxy records suggest.
Vukcevic (14:15:38) :
Formula matches very well your IDV chart.
Yet another proof, the numbers are good.
Since the Gleissberg cycle the past 300 years has been a tad over 100 years long, any curve with that period built in will match. And you don’t seem to understand what ‘proof’ means. It is a fluke that we have had a ~100 period for a short while; in the long run [thousands of years] there is no power at 100 years or 107 years or 108 years [as I mention in my paper] or at 172 years, but at 88 years which then becomes the long-term average length of the ‘cycle’ just as 11 years is for the sunspot ‘cycle’.
The fundamental problem with your stuff is right at the beginning as there is very little similarity to the actual sunspot data which makes all the rest moot [and not even wrong]. Perhaps I should just submit your writing to Ap.J. tonight and see what say about it.
Geoff Sharp (15:15:18) :
If I overlaid my graph, your HMF graph, the sunspot graph, Scafetta’s solar velocity graph and probably Vukcervic’s graph they would all agree.
‘would’? do it, then we can see.
Leif Svalgaard (16:53:07) :
Oh no! then we’ll get Svaalgard, Svalgard, Sualgard, etc, many more changes of getting it wrong. Try to google scholar these misspellings and see how many hits you get 🙂
Svalbard: High arctic Norwegian island territory. Home of snow, ice, rocks, northern lights, polar bears, Musk Oxen, Reindeer, charming cottages, and the world’s highest lattitude university.
Leif Svalgaard (15:53:17) :
Geoff Sharp (15:15:18) :
If I overlaid my graph, your HMF graph, the sunspot graph, Scafetta’s solar velocity graph and probably Vukcervic’s graph they would all agree.
‘would’? do it, then we can see.
and since your period is long, we need several cycles, say the last 3000 years for comparisons [HMF and SSN could be replaced – or spliced to – the 14C and/or 10Be data]. This would be a plot worth seeing, instead of the self-congratulatory bragging we have seen [from several people].
Leif Svalgaard (17:38:26) :
and since your period is long, we need several cycles, say the last 3000 years for comparisons [HMF and SSN could be replaced – or spliced to – the 14C and/or 10Be data]. This would be a plot worth seeing,
Do you have reliable proxy data that can be used at this scale? To my knowledge the proxy data has only been good enough to show the grand minima/maxima trends, it doesnt get down to the individual solar cycle level going back 3000 years?
I suspect not and it’s probably a loaded question…we only have 300-400 years worth of data that can be used but the wave is certainly evident in that data.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwavesm.png
Tip: Be sure to discount the grand minima when matching the wave patterns. They are a result of an unrelated process.
tallbloke (00:51:53) : “Chris, the ice ages are an effect of the Milankovitch cycles (probably) not the cause.”
Could not agree more, Tallbloke. You must have misunderstood my post, or at least the way I worded it.
Humor me for a minute: I still have fixed in my mind the comparison to the steep-walled 1998 global temperature spike and Hotrod’s comparison (and striking resemblance) to the shape of the 100-foot wave that hit the Draupner Rig (Jan, 1994, I think?).
That will always be one of my favorite threads on this site!
When I look at a graph, I can’t help but see waves.
And when they are static, as Vuk mentions, then, even then, I see standing waves.
Admittedly, these “disturbances” are only visible on a graph [for our human temporal perspective], but that does not mean they are not “disturbances”.
Over what continuum, however, I have no idea…
For example, the “disturbance” of say, the AMO “cycle”…propagates over space/time.
Or at least it propagates over an XY graph….LOL.
Or…in the cause of the 1998 temp spike and the Draupner Rig 100-footer, the second one at least being a rogue wave…. such is explained better perhaps by quantum mechanics.
I guess that is what kind of blows my mind: looking at the resemblance of waves, their troughs and crests, to the ones you can measure on a graph over the days….or eons.
Surfs up, dude. Kawabunga.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Geoff Sharp (20:02:25) :
Do you have reliable proxy data that can be used at this scale? To my knowledge the proxy data has only been good enough to show the grand minima/maxima trends, it doesnt get down to the individual solar cycle level going back 3000 years?
The 14C data has a 10-yr resolution which should be enough to show cycles of 80-170 years
Tip: Be sure to discount the grand minima when matching the wave patterns. They are a result of an unrelated process.
Well, the minima must occur BETWEEN the maxima so there is not much wiggle room. And you have absolutely no reason to assert that they are due to another process. Or are you asserting that the maxima are due to Babcock-like crapshots? [which they probably are].
What you need to make is a graph showing 14C, Vuk’s curve, and whatever curves you might have like AM or whatever you think is doing something. That would give three curves and they should be unadorned with spurious interpretation, just the data.
Leif Svalgaard (21:39:46) :
The 14C data has a 10-yr resolution which should be enough to show cycles of 80-170 years
You well know 1 record every 10 years will not suffice for this type of analysis. Any chance of you going back further with the HMF records?
Well, the minima must occur BETWEEN the maxima so there is not much wiggle room. And you have absolutely no reason to assert that they are due to another process. Or are you asserting that the maxima are due to Babcock-like crapshots? [which they probably are].
Grand minima always occur centered at the top of the wave, so they happen at the same time as maxima, the difference being that sometimes we get longer stretches as we see since the Dalton (210yrs), not all options are used on most occasions which allows the unused AM to be utilized, this causes grand maxima in one form.
You may disagree with the reason but I certainly do have one. It is laid out clearly on my blog as you know.
Lennart S (04:55:51) :
tallbloke (00:51:53)
You are perhaps referring to this:
http://www.solstation.com/stars/sol.htm [some 6 clicks down]:
If this is correct: What triggers these magnetic instabilities that also governs our climate?
Hi Lennart,
I was referring to this article in New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325884.500-suns-fickle-heart-may-leave-us-cold.html
I can’t answer your followup question with any certainty, but I’ve described my line of research and in my response to Chris.
Leif Svalgaard (05:38:43) :
tallbloke (23:06:09) :
And you are told the green curve is the sunspot number.
No, you were told that the green curve was B determined from the sunspot number.
Hi Leif,
I don’t need to argue this point with you, I’ll just quote what you said again:
” We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
This says we can determine B from the sunspot number Rz (green curve), not that the green curve is B determined by the sunspot number
We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the Rz as shown in Figure 8.”
Approximately. I realized that my statement was open to misinterpretation after I posted. It’s the quantities in the equation which are arbitrary, I completely agree there is an inverse square relationship.
No need to tweak a physical relationship. We know whey Lockwood’s curve for cycle 14 is too low: He uses too few stations for those years and [and this is the bad part] deliberately omits other stations that give higher values so that he can maintain that there is a larger centennial increase in B.
That’s a serious accusation and ascription of motive to Lockwood.
Leif Svalgaard (05:59:30) :
The historical record is too short to determine a good value for the Gleissberg cycle length. The 14C record extends over 12,000 years and it’s power spectrum shows it better: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-INTCAL98-14C.png
….please, spare us the numerology.
Sorry Leif, no chance of that. I notice that in the noisy and inconclusive graph, the larger amplitude ‘kick’ around 88 years is the first subharmonic of the ~176 year period Geoff refers to.
Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
You well know 1 record every 10 years will not suffice for this type of analysis. Any chance of you going back further with the HMF records?
10 years is quite enough, that gives you 17 points to define your 172-year cycle. When people plot the 11-year sunspots cycle from the 11 yearly values that is also enough, so you’ll have even better time resolution. So what is that with “You well know”? I and every thinking being well know that if 11 points is enough to define an 11-yr cycle, then 17 points is enough to define a 172yr cycle, there being ~10 points to the cycle in both cases.
Grand minima always occur centered at the top of the wave, so they happen at the same time as maxima
So when we have a Grand Minimum it is also a Grand Maximum?
You may disagree with the reason but I certainly do have one. It is laid out clearly on my blog as you know.
No, nothing is ‘clearly’ laid out. Explain again what causes the 11-yr cycle with its polarity reversals, and why maxima are cased by another process [which one?] than minima.
tallbloke (23:06:09) :
I don’t need to argue this point with you, I’ll just quote what you said again:
” We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
But you are arguing. The two ‘from’s make the B transitive making it clear that what is meant was “B from IDV, and B from Rz”
If you want the green curve to be Rz, then the blue curve must be IDV. In fact, both are B. This is also clear from the Figure itself where it says [in blue] B(IDV) and [in green] B(Rz) and [in red] B(obs). No reasonable person can argue that the green curve must be the sunspot number.
It’s the quantities in the equation which are arbitrary, I completely agree there is an inverse square relationship.
B = a + b*sqrt(Rz) contains no arbitrary quantities. B is the magnetic field [not arbitrary], Rz is the sunspot number [not arbitrary in the relation – although one might say that the way it is defined is arbitrary], a is the physical floor corresponding to tha case of no sunspots, so not arbitrary, and b is the contribution of a ‘single’ spot, so not arbitrary. All four quantities have well-define physical meaning, none are arbitrary. The values of a and b are found by a least-squares method, and there is no arbitrariness in that eiter.
“so that he can maintain that there is a larger centennial increase in B.”
That’s a serious accusation and ascription of motive to Lockwood.
Indeed, but it happens to be true. And it happens very often that people cherry pick data to support their view. This is just an example of that, nothing more.
Sorry Leif, no chance of that. I notice that in the noisy and inconclusive graph, the larger amplitude ‘kick’ around 88 years is the first subharmonic of the ~176 year period Geoff refers to.
The solar activity graph is noisy. And you’ll not get a subharmonic without the fundamental frequency being present too. Furthermore it is the 88-year cycle that people have noticed and which was named the Gleissberg cycle. The graph is not inconclusive, there is clearly power at 88-years rising above the background [that itself is rising as characteristic for time series with most of the power at very long periods – millennia]
So, yes, there is a chance of the 88-year cycle being there.
Leif Svalgaard (15:49:18) :
“The fundamental problem with your stuff is right at the beginning as there is very little similarity to the actual sunspot data ……
Perhaps I should just submit your writing to Ap.J. tonight and see what say about it.”
————————–
Presumably you would have to obtain my permission to do that, I have not received a request yet. It could be an interesting affair, which could give me a priceless publicity.
However, since that paper is a bit out of date, I am currently updating my hypothesis on the Polar Fields, which appear far more promising. I will be using extensive quotes from two papers:
Y.-M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley, Jr
‘Role of Meridional Flow in the Evolution of the Sun’s Polar Fields’ from
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1
and
S. K. Solanki et al
‘Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field on the solar surface’ from:
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Germany
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
Will be using their graphs in combination with mine, which you maybe familiar with, but since SC24 posts, regrettably are not there any more, you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv.jpg
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MPI.gif
Will be also using Livingston & Penn results in support of this graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LP-project1.gif
and of course my main graph, but will tidy up the numbers a bit.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif
Leif Svalgaard (01:34:38) :
Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
You well know 1 record every 10 years will not suffice for this type of analysis. Any chance of you going back further with the HMF records?
10 years is quite enough, that gives you 17 points to define your 172-year cycle. When people plot the 11-year sunspots cycle from the 11 yearly values that is also enough, so you’ll have even better time resolution. So what is that with “You well know”? I and every thinking being well know that if 11 points is enough to define an 11-yr cycle, then 17 points is enough to define a 172yr cycle, there being ~10 points to the cycle in both cases.
If I had the cycle max readings every 10 years I might have a chance, but trying to decipher at which point in the cycle or using an average of 10 years will not cut it. I am surprised you would suggest such a weak analysis.
Grand minima always occur centered at the top of the wave, so they happen at the same time as maxima
—————
So when we have a Grand Minimum it is also a Grand Maximum?
Still not up with the program I see…If your are ever in my part of the world let me know…it might take a face to face meeting to get the data across, this method or learning in front of an audience is not working.
You may disagree with the reason but I certainly do have one. It is laid out clearly on my blog as you know.
———————————-
No, nothing is ‘clearly’ laid out. Explain again what causes the 11-yr cycle with its polarity reversals, and why maxima are cased by another process [which one?] than minima.
This has nothing to do with the 11 year cycle. I personally dont think anyone has a solid answer for that yet. Maxima and grand minima are caused by 2 different processes, but I am not going to discuss it here…it is frowned upon.
You have my email, feel free to contact me… anything we discuss will be between us only.
Leif Svalgaard (15:49:18) :
Since the Gleissberg cycle the past 300 years has been a tad over 100 years long, any curve with that period built in will match. It is a fluke that we have had a ~100 period for a short while………
I agree 107 years is more appropriate, as I stated elswhere.
As you are aware, I compiled an extensive album of secular variations of the Earth’s magnetic field from 1600 -2000.
Both summits of North magnetic pole are roughly at 65 degrees North. Here is a sweep of 360 degrees parallel at 65N, at steps of 10 degrees and time scale of 10 years.
It clearly shows something going on at around every 50 and 100 years or so
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MS60N.png
This could be of profound significance not only in understanding magnetic fields, but interpreting C14 an B10 count records.
Also coincidental with markers in the anomaly formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNAnomaly1.gif
Vukcevic (02:48:43) :
Presumably you would have to obtain my permission to do that, I have not received a request yet.
I thought you said “your are on!” or similar. Well, is the paper good enough shape to release it for scrutiny? Or don’t you want to make the effort anymore?
It could be an interesting affair, which could give me a priceless publicity.
Jack the Ripper got a lot of publicity too.
However, since that paper is a bit out of date, I am currently updating my hypothesis on the Polar Fields, which appear far more promising.
If the paper is out of date, why do you peddle it?
So ‘far more promising’ means that the old paper was not all that promising.
Geoff Sharp (03:11:07) :
Leif Svalgaard (01:34:38) :
Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
If I had the cycle max readings every 10 years I might have a chance, but trying to decipher at which point in the cycle or using an average of 10 years will not cut it. I am surprised you would suggest such a weak analysis.
You don’t seem to have any idea of analysis. You don’t have cycle max readings every ten 10 years. You have a sample every ten years and sampling a 172 cycle at 17 points gives a good definition of the cycle. Better than what we get by sampling the sunspot cycle every year. The very fact you you yourself provides a plot of your purported 172 cycle means that you can see it.
Vukcevic (03:24:25) :
This could be of profound significance not only in understanding magnetic fields, but interpreting C14 an B10 count records.
Total nonsense, no significance at all. The effect of the Earth’s magnetic field is carefully compensated for by people interpreting the cosmic ray counts.
Geoff Sharp (03:11:07) :
this method or learning in front of an audience is not working.
This is the way science usually progresses: you publish your paper so it comes in front of an audience, and the system works well, provided the paper has any worth. Indeed, worthless and meaningless papers [if they survive the review process – which some do] will have no impact and will just be ignored.
Leif Svalgaard (04:42:11) :
Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
If I had the cycle max readings every 10 years I might have a chance, but trying to decipher at which point in the cycle or using an average of 10 years will not cut it. I am surprised you would suggest such a weak analysis.
————–
You don’t seem to have any idea of analysis. You don’t have cycle max readings every ten 10 years. You have a sample every ten years and sampling a 172 cycle at 17 points gives a good definition of the cycle. Better than what we get by sampling the sunspot cycle every year. The very fact you you yourself provides a plot of your purported 172 cycle means that you can see it.
Nonsense..grand minima are big events that show in a 10 year sample, what we are looking for is the subtle changes through the cycles to determine the wave pattern. Your flogging a dead horse on this one.
Leif Svalgaard (04:42:11) :
what we are looking for is the subtle changes through the cycles to determine the wave pattern. Your flogging a dead horse on this one.
A 10-yr mean gives a good definition of the wave form of a 172-yr wave or a 100-yr wave. It looks to me you are just looking for a way of not doing the analysis because you are afraid of the outcome. So, one more time: make a time series of 10-year averages of reconstructed SSN [from 14C] and this already exists so should be easy. Then make a series of Vuk’s formula averaged over 10-yr windows [should be trivial too]. Then make a series of AM [or whatever you use] averaged over 10 year windows [also trivial as you have the data]. Do this for 3000 years or more [if you really want to convince anybody. Then plot the three series on top of each other for everybody to see the 172-yr cycle, the 107-yr cycle, and the 80-yr cycle, or the lack of said cycles, whichever way the plots comes out. If I were reviewing a paper of yours claiming what you do claim, I would ask for such a plot [reviewers do nasty things like that to get clarification] and tell the Editor that if such a plot is not produced to my satisfaction, the paper should be summarily rejected. [and it will be].
Leif Svalgaard (04:59:12) :
Geoff Sharp (03:11:07) :
this method or learning in front of an audience is not working.
—————–
This is the way science usually progresses: you publish your paper so it comes in front of an audience, and the system works well, provided the paper has any worth. Indeed, worthless and meaningless papers [if they survive the review process – which some do] will have no impact and will just be ignored.
But you still have no understanding of the principles involved so there must be something missing…perhaps you need to read the data as if you were reviewing, which means having a total understanding. It wont happen on here, my offer stands.
Leif Svalgaard (05:12:38) :
A reviewer wouldn’t ask for data that is not available. To analyze sunspot cycle data you need detail records…we have it back to around 1700, beyond that at the micro level we have very little. It will only show the major peaks and troughs, what we looking for is the subtle detail between those points, what you dont understand is that in the proxy records the smaller detail is over ridden by the grand minima and maxima. If your idea was so easy why hasn’t anyone done a detailed reconstruction of solar cycles though the Holocene…simple answer, it cant be done.
Geoff Sharp (05:18:34) :
But you still have no understanding of the principles involved so there must be something missing
What is missing is you explaining your ‘principles’ and quantifying them so that they can be understood. And i’m sure you are correct that it won’t happen here on this blog, and I’m afraid elsewhere neither. If you cannot explain it, you have got nothing. And your website does not contain anything useful to further that understanding. So, I take it that you, again, refuse to make the graph I ask for. Work with Vuk if you must. Or Scafetta. He might be able to see though the fog.
Geoff Sharp (05:31:31) :
To analyze sunspot cycle data you need detail records
We are not analyzing the sunspot cycle, but the 172, 107, or 80 year cycles. And in spite of the data not being there as you say, you still see the patterns you see.
Leif Svalgaard (04:42:11) :
I thought you said “your are on!” or similar. …
Flattered by your deep interest in something you regularly summarily dismiss as nonsense. If you read my post again, you will find it was strictly conditional, and you turned it down.
‘Ah well!’ I said, perhaps I should have added
Laocaun : “I fear Danians even when they are offering gifts!”
Vukcevic (06:08:09) :
you will find it was strictly conditional,
on what? I must have missed it.
Leif Svalgaard (08:58:25) :
on what? I must have missed it.
Quotes:
M.V. If you are really serious about it, lets go trough to it together, either privately or publicly (I do not mind}..
L.S. Writing the paper is your job…
So it is, same as what I do with it.
” Papers published in the journals of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) present the results of significant original research that have not been published previously.”
“…have not been published previously.”
Vukcevic (10:19:33) :
“…have not been published previously.”
But it has not been properly published before. And in any case it is always allowed to expand on previous work. So, write it up.
Leif Svalgaard (10:39:44) :
“But it has not been properly published before. And in any case it is always allowed to expand on previous work. So, write it up.”
Off course,…
You obviously missed my post of (02:48:43):
Where I said: “However, since that paper is a bit out of date, I am currently updating my hypothesis on (should be ‘with’) the Polar Fields, which appear far more promising. I will be using extensive quotes from two papers:….”
I am emailing authors of the papers quoted for comments, but do not expect mention of the roman gods.
Anyway, see my post.
No haste: “what you can do today, leave for tomorrow, and tomorrow tick it off as done yesterday”.
Vukcevic (11:12:14) :
which appear far more promising.
So, the old paper was far less promising…
I will be using extensive quotes from two papers:….”
You don’t write papers by extensively quoting other people unless it is a review paper of their work.
No haste: “what you can do today, leave for tomorrow, and tomorrow tick it off as done yesterday”.
Then spare us the deluge of links to your old outdated ‘paper’ in the meantime. They just dilute the discussion, especially when combined with extensive self-congratulating snippets. Bring something to the table, or stay off it.
Vukcevic (03:24:25) ” http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MS60N.png “
I would be interested in:
a) a detailed explanation of what these curves represent.
b) links to the time series.
c) hovmollers for latitudes & longitudes you find to be particularly interesting.
A note regarding (c): You can make color-contour plots in Excel – here’s an example:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ClimateRegimeChangePoints.PNG
Leif Svalgaard (05:40:47) :
Geoff Sharp (05:31:31) :
To analyze sunspot cycle data you need detail records
—————————
We are not analyzing the sunspot cycle, but the 172, 107, or 80 year cycles. And in spite of the data not being there as you say, you still see the patterns you see.
Yes I need the detail sunspot record to produce a graph to show a solar cycle modulation wave, the proxy records do not contain this detail. I dont need the detail records to see patterns in grand minima, which I have shown. Simply put, the larger solar movements are displayed in the proxy records, the smaller modulations are not.
There are 2 streams going on here that you seem to be confusing. Solar cycle modulation and grand minima are separate, one is about a sudden halt to activity the other is about the background cycle modulation strength. The B-L theory has trouble coping with this which is a severe weakness. Grand minima is a repeating disturbance that is disconnected from solar cycle modulation.
Geoff Sharp (17:16:04) :
Yes I need the detail sunspot record to produce a graph to show a solar cycle modulation wave, the proxy records do not contain this detail.
It is not what you need, but what we need, that is being discussed, namely simply to show the run of solar activity with time in relation to the various cycles that have been proposed; 10-yr means are sufficient for that.
Simply put, the larger solar movements are displayed in the proxy records, the smaller modulations are not.
A 100-yr cycle is not a small modulation.
Solar cycle modulation and grand minima are separate, one is about a sudden halt to activity the other is about the background cycle modulation strength.
There is no sudden halt to activity during the Grand Minima we know abut [Spoerer, Maunder, even Dalton – although not a Grand Minimum]. Activity continues through the minimum, as clearly shown by the cosmic modulation proceeding as normal. The minimum may simply be a visibility issue caused by variations in the temperature of the spots. But, whatever causes the seeming lack of spots, the activity continues unabated.
The B-L theory has trouble coping with this which is a severe weakness.
I have shown you many times that B-L can cope nicely with bouts of subdued activity if need be, but it may not even be an issue, since activity does not disappear, showing that the dynamo is still working.
Grand minima is a repeating disturbance that is disconnected from solar cycle modulation.
is on its face a contradiction in terms, as the traditional definition of a Grand Minimum means the lack of a visible solar cycle, thus modulation.
So, produce a plot showing 10-year average values of SSN [e.g. Usoskin’s], Vuk’s numbers from his formula, and your numbers from your ‘disturbance function’ for some thousands of years. Then you can show us that your 172-yr cycle and Vuk’s 107-yr cycle coexist and are both present, as you suggested back in Geoff Sharp (15:15:18)
Thanks Dr. Lafe? lol
HMF in time…important in learning how the solar cycle is working in time. ISMF over HMF over Earths magnetic field interwoven in the leftover debris of time.
Thanks for removing the 172 year tatoo “mark of Geoff” from the back of my neck.
Leif Svalgaard (17:59:25) :
Your all over the place Leif, SC20 has all the data you care to look at, almost all the solar metrics are reduced compared with the cycles around it. Of course the dynamo is still running, the issue is at what level. A grand minimum is going to be substantially lower in those metrics than SC20.
We seem to be talking past each other on the wave graph issue…so lets just drop it. Anyone who cares to look can see the wave in multiple records over the last 400 years. Sure it would be nice to go back further….but we cant. If you think we can, have a go at it yourself and show me.
Carla (18:26:44) :
Welcome to the discussion Carla…you might find it safer here.
A function of nothing other than the relative positions of Jupiter, Uranus, & Neptune:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/f_UN_J.png
A function of Sunspot Number:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/f_R.png
Suggested: Open in separate tabs & blink between them.
To be clear: The first plot is not a sine wave fit. It is based on nothing other than NASA Horizons output for J, U, & N.
[If anyone wonders “why start at 1840?” the answer is simple: I investigate terrestrial polar motion and the records start in the 1840s.]
Paul Vaughan (23:22:10)
In theory, due to Titus-Bode Law, any function relating to the orbits, can be shown to have a major component with an oscillating period in the region of 10-11 years, as vukcevic and Sharp have demonstrated, hence no surprise that the sun cycles are of a similar period.
Leif..
On pages 17&18 of IDV09 where comparison of Observed is used, I started noticing fluxuations between IDV and Obs, bound to be some, no big deal, negligible.
Exceptions 1978, 1989, 2001 seems to have issues?
Was checking out the high ends for the entire period when I noticed.
Geoff Sharp (20:50:05) :
Welcome to the discussion Carla…you might find it safer here.
Thanks Geoff. Did I tell you that my flywheel is a primary and necessary component of my system? None of the lesser systems on the drive train move without it. But the linkage… oh man…now that’s a sticky wicket. lol
fabron (01:35:30) :
major component with an oscillating period in the region of 10-11 years, as vukcevic and Sharp have demonstrated, hence no surprise that the sun cycles are of a similar period.
The surprise is the coincidence that the Sun cycles with a similar period. The ~10-yr period is also found in sun-like stars, so seems to be set by properties of the star [Sun] rather than the planets [unless you postulate the Sun-like stars also have Sun-like planetary systems, which is possible].
Carla (05:45:30) :
Exceptions 1978, 1989, 2001 seems to have issues?
Near solar maximum when the HMF is higher than normal, the deviations will also be larger. Crudely, we expect the error to be a proportion, say 5%, of the total, so 5% of 9 nT = 0.45 is naturally higher than 5% of 4 nT = 0.20. This is one part of the answer. Another part is that we expect missing data [spacecraft coverage] to increase the error in the observed data. If one plots the difference between inferred HMF and HMF observed, one finds that the difference increases as the proportion of missing data [which can be as high as 60-70% in some years] go up. And 1978 and 1989 has much missing data. 2001 is an exception and may be a clue [that needs more investigation] as to why there is this difference. If you look at the lower plot on page 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf you’ll note that the standard deviation of observed B [the orange curve] seems to have the same ‘hump’ in 2001 as B from IDV, so perhaps there is a clue in the variability of B. But all this is nitty-gritty stuff, that eventually will be resolved, that does not change the bigger picture.
Paul Vaughan (23:22:10) :
A function of nothing other than the relative positions of Jupiter, Uranus, & Neptune: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/f_UN_J.png
Trivial sleight of hand, of course. Jupiter’s period is not quite right, but inclusion of other ones fixes that. To make it a bit [but only a bit] more meaningful, Saturn should have been in the mix.
Paul Vaughan (23:22:10) :
A function of Sunspot Number: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/f_R.png
Not to speak of the semi-fictitious ‘function’.
If one considers the set {J,S,U,N,JS,JU,JN,SU,SN,UN} the lowest & highest frequency elements are UN & J.
Paul Vaughan (17:39:50) :
If one considers the set {J,S,U,N,JS,JU,JN,SU,SN,UN} the lowest & highest frequency elements are UN & J.
Interesting correlation Paul, have you tried graphing them together and going back to 1700 to see if the match continues?
Paul Vaughan (17:39:50) :
If one considers the set {J,S,U,N,JS,JU,JN,SU,SN,UN} the lowest & highest frequency elements are UN & J. And?
What are the two functions plotted?
Geoff Sharp (20:50:05) :
Sure it would be nice to go back further….but we cant. If you think we can, have a go at it yourself and show me.
Yes we can. For this purpose the 10-yr values from the 14C series are sufficient, and they do not show neither a 107-yr cycle no a 172- yr cycle, but their power spectrum has a broad peak around 88 years, so that settles that, and, as you say, perhaps it is time to drop that settled matter.
Paul Vaughan (17:39:50) :
Cant quite understand the sunspot plot….how was it derived?
I’m still working on this, but here’s something to consider:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm
Geoff Sharp (18:29:24) “Interesting correlation Paul, have you tried graphing them together and going back to 1700 to see if the match continues?”
This was just something that suddenly dawned upon me late at night after a long day – so I just quickly used the data I had on-hand, generating the graphs within a few minutes. I’ve been swamped with my other research, but eventually I’ll get around to obtaining a 3000BC-3000AD series of coordinates (which I need for other work) from Horizons.
It may be interesting to use the approach to explore an alternate to Desmoulins’ – and compare all 3 series using cross-wavelet phase-differencing, to see the phase-lag patterns. If there’s just phase-drift, it will be evident quite quickly; on the other hand, if there is sustained loose-resonance, that will also be apparent quite quickly.
So many interesting things to investigate. What I really want to do is keep working on precipitation, as I see it as the weak link in human understanding of climate.
Geoff Sharp (21:25:16) “Cant quite understand the sunspot plot….how was it derived?”
Perhaps I’ll check my notes sometime (I grabbed the plot quickly from a file full of columns), but my intuition / memory is:
(Log_2(R+1))'[11.1a/2] where the ‘ indicates rate-of-change (i.e. differencing), the square brackets indicate integration over a sliding-window, “_2” indicates base 2 (but any other base you like for interpretive purposes will do), & “a” (annum) indicates years.
This is just a standard transform based on the “ladder of powers” covered early in Stat 101, combined with some lessons I’ve learned, about the effects of integrating over harmonics of cycles, from programming & running time-integrated cross-correlation analyses during my M.Sc. education/research.
It doesn’t actually matter what function one uses, as all the transform accomplishes is a scatter (heteroscedasticity) adjustment (via 1:1 transform) & a phase-shift; it doesn’t change the period. Thus, if I used any of the other columns from the file from which I grabbed the plot, I would just have found myself needing to use a different column from the other (UN,J) file – in which I had sines, cosines, -sines, & -cosines of the angles with which I was working …which cover phase-shifts for all multiples of quarter-cycles …which is exactly what you get when you difference & integrate strategically over harmonics. In the absolute worst-case scenario I’d find myself using a double- or half-angle theorem (from basic trigonometry) – and the curves would still phase-match loosely.
If this doesn’t make sense, just use plain sunspot numbers and slide your curve in steps of 11.1a/4 over the red graph in an image editor (after scaling 1840-2010 to unit length via stretching/squeezing).
Paul Vaughan (22:38:40) :
Your in a different league to me Paul, but interested to see what your research produces, The Desmoulins test is in place this cycle, will the lag behind catch up? I see he is still updating his website so it will be good to watch. But whoever finally works out the 11 yr cycle will have bronze statues erected in their honor.
I had trouble matching up the sunspot records on your graph, the peaks and troughs didnt seem to line up with the actual count….is there a reason?
something i will learn about. wow, is an understatement. luv the blog
Leif Svalgaard
How does the next installment work Leif, what is the normal time period for the reviewers to respond. Looking forward to seeing their nasty comments 😉
Geoff Sharp (08:19:06) :
what is the normal time period for the reviewers to respond. Looking forward to seeing their nasty comments 😉
This is the status of the paper as I write:
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Complete 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Started 2009-10-07 23:04:41
Author Approved Converted Files 2009-10-07 23:04:40
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2009-10-07 21:59:05
What is happening is that a request has gone out to a number of reviewers [at the editor’s discretion] to see if they are willing and able to review the paper. This stage can be either short [a week perhaps] or long [a month or more] depending on the reviewer. If it takes too long, the editor will assigned another reviewer.
The author is encouraged to submit a list [minimum 5 items] of reviewers that are knowledgeable about the subject. The editor is not bound to select from that list and often does not. Another list can be gotten from the list of references in the paper. It is my experience that the selection usually is ‘fair and balanced’ for reputable journals [and JGR is].
Leif Svalgaard (08:55:43) :
Is there a submission fee?….and do the reviewers receive remuneration?
Geoff Sharp (08:19:06) :
Looking forward to seeing their nasty comments 😉
After a reviewer has accepted, he usually has a month to respond. In some cases he drags it out [for perhaps personal reasons]. The worst case I personally have endured took six months.
The innocently sounding items:
Initial Quality Control Complete 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Started 2009-10-07 23:04:41
cover a nasty reality. In the distant past, the paper was often handwritten or typed and was typeset from the submitted text. Then about 30 years ago, the journals thought they could save money by requiring the authors to submit ‘camera-ready’ manuscripts that did not require typesetting and could be reproduced in the journal at no cost to the publisher. This brought about an unevenness in style and ‘print’ quality of the papers [scientists may be lousy typesetters, an example: http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf ].
But, the publishers discovered another [business] problem. They want to assert copyright over the paper, but if it is ‘camera-ready’ there is no ‘creative’ element involved in their publication, so the publisher cannot claim copyright. Mainly for this reason, they went back to the old way of doing it. To make it clear that the publisher is doing ‘creative’ work [necessary for copyright], the submitted version has to be in a [virtually] unreadable style [see below], and the publisher then turns the paper into a readable ‘work’, by arranging the pieces such that the paper can be read. The ‘initial quality control’ is a check that the paper meets the standard of unreadability required by the journal.
Here is our submitted version:
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09-Submitted.pdf
It is made hard to read, by the requirement that the text and the Figures, and [most distractingly] the Figure captions be separated into different sections of the paper. This means that the reader does not see where the Figure goes in the text, and cannot interpret the Figure without having to hunt down its caption somewhere else. All in all, it is an enormous pain and extra burden on the reviewer, but the publisher can now claim copyright because of the ‘creative’ work of making the paper readable by putting things together where they belong.
Geoff Sharp (09:13:46) :
Is there a submission fee?….and do the reviewers receive remuneration?
No to both.
There might be a publication fee [‘page charge’] when the paper is finally published. for my last paper in JGR, it came to US$ 11,000. Admittedly, that was a large paper with many [expensive] color Figures, and a more typical charge would be $3,000.
The issue with unpaid reviewers is an interesting one. If there is money involved, there might be issues with impartiality [who pays for what?]. Most reviewers do it because there is a certain ‘honor’ in being selected as a reviewer, or at least recognition that your peers regard you as an ‘expert’ on the subject. Here is a note from the editor from our IDV05 paper: “[26] Arthur Richmond thanks Joseph King, Kalevi Mursula, and Ian G. Richardson for their assistance in evaluating this paper.” Interestingly there were three reviewers [normally only two]. This can happen for several reason, mostly because there was dissent, but also [and we choose to believe that this was the case here 🙂 ] in case the editor felt that this was an important paper, and therefore should be submitted to extra scrutiny.
Leif Svalgaard (09:49:38) :
This is a real learning curve, I am blown away. I cant believe the costs incurred by your last paper. This is not how science should work.
Geoff Sharp (10:14:16) :
I cant believe the costs incurred by your last paper. This is not how science should work
Considering that the total cost in producing the paper in north of US$200,000, the publication cost is still but a minor portion. The real problem is that the journal then puts the paper behind a pay-wall [although AGU is more reasonable ($9) than most others (~~$35)]. THIS is not conducive to educating and informing the public, and is an abomination. There is a ‘pay-up-front’ option where the journal will remove the pay-wall, if the authors pay up-front an extra considerable sum – comparable to the page charges.
When we first wrote about ‘the doubling of the sun’s magnetic field’ six years ago, our letter to Nature was effectively rejected. You can follow the exchanges between us and referees here:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling%20of%20Open%20Flux.pdf
In the end, Nature pulled a trick on us. There is a limit of 4 pages for a ‘Letter’. Nature suggested that we shorten the paper to a ‘short contribution’. This has a page limit of ONE page, and it is impossible to get our point across in such a short space, so we gave up. Our paper was eventually published in JGR four years later, after numerous revisions and rejections and resubmissions. During all of this Lockwood was a constant reviewer and consistently recommended rejection, until he saw the light in 2007 and admitted [with Rouillard] that the aa-index was wrong. He even tried to take credit for discovering this. From his latest 2009 paper: “Lockwood et al. (2009b) derived a corrected aa index, aac”, or from his 2007 paper: “the aa index has been corrected to allow for intercalibration errors [Lockwood et al., 2007]” without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.
Don’t I know it. My research career was not short enough in my opinion. It was the most embittering experience I never want to repeat again. The only good thing that came out of the ordeal was that I learned, there can be found a researcher here or there who is worth a damn. Call me a quitter, but I didn’t want to stick around long enough to find out if I would be one of them. The environment was just too toxic.
Leif Svalgaard (10:58:50) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:11:01) :
During all of this Lockwood was a constant reviewer and consistently recommended rejection, until he saw the light in 2007 and admitted [with Rouillard] that the aa-index was wrong. He even tried to take credit for discovering this. From his latest 2009 paper: “Lockwood et al. (2009b) derived a corrected aa index, aac”, or from his 2007 paper: “the aa index has been corrected to allow for intercalibration errors [Lockwood et al., 2007]” without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.
Your last two comments were disheartening there Leif.
Your earlier comment on the financial aspect.
First thoughts in my head, “Greedy *expletive* Capitalists.”
But this takes the cake.
Quote LS “We examined this carefully. Figure 4 of our “long” paper (that none of the participants were given)”…
Looks as though you were deliberately put off or prolonged. huh
Now that you are older and wiser, what do you feel his (Lockwood) motivation for doing this was?
Carla (16:25:47) :
Now that you are older and wiser, what do you feel his (Lockwood) motivation for doing this was?
Not much older, and not much wiser.
The behavior [by L] is just normal human reaction. I criticized something he was immensely proud of and my criticism might have had funding consequences, so his reaction was perhaps understandable. However, science corrects itself and wrong results are eventually buried and forgotten. Now, Lockwood deserves great credit for bringing this issue to the fore. Although I had remarked on this 20+ years before, my remarks had no effect then. The importance of a scientists work does not rest on him/her being right, but on how much other research it motivates and initiates, and Lockwood scores high on that.
Geoff Sharp (06:12:16) “I had trouble matching up the sunspot records on your graph, the peaks and troughs didnt seem to line up with the actual count….is there a reason?”
Sure – and I’ll reiterate that it is the phase (not amplitude) discrepancies which are most interesting (at this stage). [For example, you know there will be a discrepancy around 1800 – what will interest me is its shape relative to earlier & later phase-difference patterns.] As W.S. Cleveland points out, models are tools. (When someone calls me a “tool”, I don’t take it as a compliment.) My experience has been that Nature reveals further truth when we are patient. I don’t see it as a priority to investigate this further at this time, but if insight dawns upon me when I’m out for a walk on the mountain, I won’t resist it.
–
Geoff Sharp (06:12:16) “But whoever finally works out the 11 yr cycle will have bronze statues erected in their honor.”
Persecution is more likely if the timing of the announcement is off.
Continuing with the theme of incrementalism – and since this thread is about “review” – I invite you to review the draft I posted:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/DRAFT_VaughanPL2009CO_TPM_SSD_LNC.htm
– –
Pamela Gray (13:26:42) “The environment was just too toxic.”
I could quibble over the word “too”, but I otherwise agree wholeheartedly (wrt to my own experiences).
Leif Svalgaard (09:30:24) : “… but the publisher can now claim copyright because of the ‘creative’ work of making the paper readable by putting things together where they belong.”
And in a later post: “… without credit to us for pointing this out; something he strenuously opposed for several years. You see, personal behavior and failings can have important impact on scientific endeavor.”
Carla (16:25:47) uses the word: “disheartening” which goes some small way to encapsulating my feelings… but only a small way. Words like despair and anger follow. I am fighting resignation with some success, mostly because Leif has shown that rejecting that option has, in the end, the greater value; but it is a close call for me even at my very small end of the rainbow.
Roger Carr (20:08:15) :
I am fighting resignation with some success, mostly because Leif has shown that rejecting that option has, in the end, the greater value
The human condition applies to scientists and science too. Dealing with jerks is the same no matter what the situation is. It may take a lifetime to learn to do this gracefully.
Leif Svalgaard (15:49:18) :
(vukcevic)…….Perhaps I should just submit your writing to Ap.J. tonight and see what say about it.”
No, tanks a bunch.
vukcevic (02:58:12) :
No, thanks a bunch
It would give you much needed credibility…
Moving through the process:
Stage Start Date
Contacting Potential Reviewers 2009-10-12 11:20:11
Waiting for Reviewer Assignment 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Complete 2009-10-08 13:38:40
Initial Quality Control Started 2009-10-07 23:04:41
Author Approved Converted Files 2009-10-07 23:04:40
Preliminary Manuscript Data Submitted 2009-10-07 21:59:05
Leif Svalgaard (12:48:46) :
It would give you much needed credibility…
As good as a jump from the Golden Gate bridge.
vukcevic (13:04:39) :
As good as a jump from the Golden Gate bridge.
I guess you are the closest judge of your own work…
Pardon me for slipping in just so I can check the “Notify me” box so I do not miss the next episode.
ditto
Leif Svalgaard (09:30:24) :
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09-Submitted.pdf
It is made hard to read, by the requirement that the text and the Figures, and [most distractingly] the Figure captions be separated into different sections of the paper. This means that the reader does not see where the Figure goes in the text, and cannot interpret the Figure without having to hunt down its caption somewhere else. All in all, it is an enormous pain and extra burden on the reviewer, but the publisher can now claim copyright because of the ‘creative’ work of making the paper readable by putting things together where they belong.
Reading this and your other comment about paywalls and public access to knowledge, I’m firmly of the opinion that scientists should form a committee of agreement, and assert copyright over their own material, and publish it on a website for all to see. Then if the journals want to print it so they have something to put between the covers of their publications, they pay for the priviledge.
They have had a free ride for too long.
tallbloke (23:53:15) : “Reading this and your (Leif) other comment about paywalls and public access to knowledge, …
Wholly agree with this comment, but can see how it will take time to get the hard glue in this pot fluid again so it can be re-poured into the mold the 21st century will demand. The steps Shorty sets out in his comments sound like a good beginning.
An example of resistance to change has poked its head up these past few weeks. Books for e-readers which could be purchased over the web from anywhere are suddenly being locked into territories. This book cannot be purchased from Australia or this country or that. Turf wars… but I figure that in this, as in the scientific area noted above, the dinosaurs will, albeit reluctantly, finally retire into history.
tallbloke (23:53:15) :
scientists should […] publish it on a website for all to see.
I’m doing my bit…
Leif Svalgaard (08:39:17) : “I’m doing my bit…”
Thought about the fact that you already do publish on your own website as I was responding to tallbloke, Leif. I believe that your doing this demonstrates an understanding of the potential of the web; and the demands which will be increasingly made for scholarship to be open and available for comment, modification and expansion in something close to real time… a daunting thought in many ways, and sure to create its own unique problems, but, nevertheless, the way it will be.
Pre-publication of “Reconstructing The Heliospheric Magnetic Field Since 1835” here has demonstrated the capacity of the web to attract comment, tap the knowledge (and lack of knowledge) of others, and generally disseminate scholarship at a speed undreamed of until now.
Liberating for the open mind. Dangerous for the closed. Posing more questions… but, despite this, the way it will be short of shutting down the web.
On Tips & Notes… today, this theme is picked up in a comment by AnonyMoose (11:30:10) : Bloggers are reviewing peer-reviewed research for the Ardi fossil. Let’s see how quickly that science changes.
Or, put another way, the web is a disruptive technology.
“Christensen demonstrates how it is not unusual for a big corporation to dismiss the value of a disruptive technology because it does not reinforce current company goals, only to be blindsided as the technology matures, gains a larger audience and marketshare, and threatens the status quo.
Hello What’s Up With That,
I am sending a news release regarding Earth’s magnetic field that you can use on your blog. Please consider using it. You can find images on my website.
Dennis
CRAM SCHOOL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dennis Brooks
Phone: 1-808-566-0654
Email: dennisbroo@gmail.com
Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Produced By An External Dynamo System, Not An Internal Dynamo.
Researcher finds that Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo. Nor is it produced by ocean current. The dynamo is outside the Planet! New findings by independent researcher, Dennis Brooks, show that Earth’s magnetic field and the planet itself are components of a complex dynamo system, which surrounds the planet. The planet and its magnetic field are part of the dynamo.
According to this new theory, no internal dynamo or ocean current helps in producing or maintaining the magnetic field because other planets with magnetic fields do not have ocean currents or iron cores.
Image by NASA
Each planet does not have a unique way of producing its magnetic field. The magnetic field of each planet is produced by a planetary dynamo system and its ring current.
For many years researchers thought that a similar dynamo system was within the planet and that this internal dynamo generated the magnetic field. However, we know now that it is too hot inside the planet to produce and maintain a magnetic field there.
The planetary dynamo system is composed of a magnetosphere, the planet, the magnetic field, radiation belts, ring current, and charged particles from the solar wind. The planet is the central component of the system and its rotation plays an important part in operating the dynamo and generating ring current. The magnetic field is generated by the system’s ring current, which is made up of charged particles. The magnetic field captures even more charged particles and brings them into the dynamo system as fuel. Everything works together.
Earth’s inner and outer core simply cannot provide the fuel a dynamo system needs. If earth’s dynamo had to depend on energy from the planet for fuel, the entire planet would have been completely consumed many years ago.
To learn more about Earth’s magnetic field, Visit
http://sites.google.com/site/earthsmagneticfield/
Dennis Brooks (10:56:35) :
because other planets with magnetic fields do not have ocean currents or iron cores.
It is correct that the oceans have nothing to do with it, but an iron core isn’t necessary. It is enough that there is circulation in metallic hydrogen, e.g. in Jupiter and Saturn, or just circulation is the conducting plasma as in the Sun.
However, we know now that it is too hot inside the planet to produce and maintain a magnetic field there.
It is the hot conditions and the enormous pressure that create the conductivity necessary to support the dynamo.
The magnetic field is generated by the system’s ring current, which is made up of charged particles.
These particles drift in the Earth’s magnetic field and are ultimately controlled by the Sun, but has nothing to do with maintaining the dynamo.
So, in all, your new theory is not viable. To be told that, is always a let-down [I know, because some of my ideas have also in the past been shut down], but continue your study of our cosmos and derive joy from learning about this wondrous place.