Watch sunspot group 1158 form from nothing

UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this.  Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.

Solar Magnetics Movie

The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:

“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Solar and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

249 Responses to Watch sunspot group 1158 form from nothing

  1. Yarmy says:

    Hypnotic and beautiful.

  2. etudiant says:

    It is a mystery to me that we can observe these spectacular solar flares and never draw a conclusion.
    While we are tying ourselves into knots to deal with AGW, a putative eventuality at best, there is no effort at all to harden our electronics to survive a substantial solar flare.
    The 1859 Carrington event may have been the largest in over 2000 years, according to the Greenland ice core data, but there was a comparable biggie late in SC 23 that fortunately was aimed away from earth.
    Given the complete dependence of our society on electronics, this lack of action borders on the irresponsible.

  3. Greg Cavanagh says:

    Is it possible to put a scale at the bottom of the video, possibly a date too. I know, more work and all. Thanks for the vid though and your efforts involved.

  4. Steven Kopits says:

    Let repeat the desire for scale. Just how big are those things?

    Great video, though. Absolutely cool.

  5. John says:

    Appropriately enough, the new sunspots in this view look like melanomas!

  6. HR says:

    Is this real time or sped up?

    And can I ask another dumb question is this matter or energy?

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Anthony and Leif.

  8. Bob Barker says:

    It is amusing to me that no sooner had the prognosticators at NASA made their latest sunspot forecast adjustment downward, the sun throws them one “out of bounds”. Yes I know they are not forecasting daily events, but still it must have them muttering to themselves. They sure have had a time with cycle 24.

  9. Yarmy says:

    “Great video, though. Absolutely cool.”

    Literally!

  10. Anthony Watts says:

    The magnetic movie and Leif’s point:

    “incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots”

    Reminds me of watching alka-seltzer tablets in water when they float on the surface.

  11. John-X says:

    All Right 1158! You kicked the Sunspot number up to 100 for the first time in Solar Cycle 24! Way to ‘Git – r – done!’

    Rock on little spot!

  12. R. de Haan says:

    Really great info thanks a lot Leif and Anthony

  13. INGSOC says:

    Spectacular is too small a word to describe such a sight. I am in awe. It must be such an exciting time to be a solar scientist like Dr Leif. So much to see and so many toys to watch it with! Truly amazing. It will take me days to get this out of my head. Awesome…

    Thanks very much for posting this Anthony et al!

  14. INGSOC says:

    ebruary 16, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    The magnetic movie and Leif’s point:

    “incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots”

    Reminds me of watching alka-seltzer tablets in water when they float on the surface.

    Also gives the impression of enormous depth as “holes” seem to form. It is simply, mind-bogglingly, amazingly, awesomelyfantasticasious! wow…

  15. Baa Humbug says:

    Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.

  16. INGSOC says:

    Something goofed there. I meant to quote Anthony’ earlier post. Likely just me. I hope a full length movie is being made up somewhere. It would make for one heck of a screensaver. I’d love to get a close up of the edges. A side view would give this some great context.

    Again, thanks very much.

  17. Gaylon says:

    Very hot vid’s! Thanks Leif and Anthony.

    A general question: it appears that there are three seperate “upwellings”, is this an accurate description of how these spots form? And if so are the upwellings gaseous, plasma or magnetic in origin?

    Thanks

  18. John F. Hultquist says:

    This animation and others available will give a scale perspective.

    The current sunspot is said to be wider than Jupitor. See this one:

  19. Ray says:

    Is the area of white equals the area of black? Is there a balance in the polarities or are they off balance… causing explosions?

  20. Richard Day says:

    As Mr. Spock would say, “fascinating”.

  21. Jim Barker says:

    Very nice. Thanks, Anthony and Lief.

  22. Robert of Ottawa says:

    What I find intriguing about sunspots is that the centre appears BLACK – that is, not emitting any light. That must mean that the sunspot goes down to a layer that is opaque, or cold(er).

    Leif?

  23. Baa Humbug says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.
    This is one of the mysteries of sunspots. Now, the magnetic field is actually dragged along by the plasma, so the ordinary magnetic rules don’t really apply. A partial [but perhaps too technical] explanation my be Ken Schatten’s: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf

  24. pesadia says:

    Amazing really, especially as we will be controling these great magnetic ruptures, once we have gained full control of earths environment. Something to look forward to in the near future. Maybe Al, Phil, or Mikey could start the ball rolling in time for the next big conference.
    Absolutely mindblowing footage.
    Many thanks to all those involved.

  25. pRadio says:

    Thanks Leif,
    great Video of our busted Sun (maybe healed). Lets go
    Solar cycle 24…… Just in time for ARRL DX CW!!!!

    VY 73, pRadio

  26. Robuk says:

    Steven Kopits says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Let repeat the desire for scale. Just how big are those things?

    Try these,

  27. Vinnster says:

    “Bob Barker says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    It is amusing to me that no sooner had the prognosticators at NASA made their latest sunspot forecast adjustment downward, the sun throws them one “out of bounds”. Yes I know they are not forecasting daily events, but still it must have them muttering to themselves. They sure have had a time with cycle 24.”

    It is a new phenomenon that has only been observed in the last few years.

    It is the “Al Gore Effect”

  28. Ray says:
    February 16, 2011 at 3:09 pm
    Is the area of white equals the area of black? Is there a balance in the polarities or are they off balance… causing explosions?
    There is balance, but the fields can get twisted up [watch some of the spots rotate and also move relative to others]. That twisting stores energy in the magnetic field above the spots and when the energy density becomes too high, things go ‘bang’.

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    February 16, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    What I find intriguing about sunspots is that the centre appears BLACK – that is, not emitting any light. That must mean that the sunspot goes down to a layer that is opaque, or cold(er).
    The interior of a sunspot looks darker because it is a bit colder than the surrounding photosphere, but that is only by contrast. It is actually VERY hot, like 4000-5000 degrees Centigrade and by itself could be brighter than white hot iron. In fact, if you removed all parts of the sun outside the ‘black’ part of the smallest sunspot you could see and only let that black part hang in the sky like the Cheshire Cat’s grin, that tiny black spot would shine brighter than the full Moon.

  29. Jim Arndt says:

    To me it looks like a thunder storm being created as seen from above or even a lava lamp. Simple but still looks like it. Just my two cents.

  30. Konrad says:

    Leif,
    will the associated CMEs be strong enough to cause a significant Forbush decrease?

  31. R says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    And can I ask another dumb question is this matter or energy?
    Both: matter that radiates energy

  32. Vinnster says:
    February 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    It is amusing to me that no sooner had the prognosticators at NASA made their latest sunspot forecast adjustment downward, the sun throws them one “out of bounds”.
    Weak cycles often show very large fluctuations, e.g solar cycle 14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png

  33. Regg says:

    These are beautiful to observe and trying to understand is as challenging.

    Yet enjoy while we still have a satellite up there – because with the current cuts in research and programs, these are all to vanish quite soon. That’s the choice you’re pushing.

  34. Konrad says:
    February 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm
    will the associated CMEs be strong enough to cause a significant Forbush decrease?
    I would think so. Depending on what you mean by ‘significant’, but certainly observable.

  35. Konrad says:
    February 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm
    will the associated CME
    Time to make some prediction: since the magnetic field in 1158 points roughly northwards [white is out, black is into the Sun], the CME should be born with a leading edge that has northwards field. That should mean that initially the geomagnetic storm will not be very strong. Whether it later strengthens depend on how much the southward field on the ‘backside’ of the magnetic cloud is compressed. So, I predict a moderate storm only.

  36. AJB says:

    Fantastic stuff but sadly I’d need to kick over a train load of Leif’s copper buckets before I could even start to comprehend what’s going on here; far too easy to liken it to familiar phenomena here on Earth. How much light do plasma chamber experiments throw on this and should we perhaps be building bigger and better ones?

  37. The Hinode spacecraft also captured [some years ago] the birth of an active region at high resolution and cadence:

    And some comments back then:

    http://www.physorg.com/news109430733.html

  38. SABR Matt says:

    It blows my mind that there are stars out there that are, if I read the text correctly…5000 LIGHT YEARS?? in diameter?? Holy cow!

  39. Marc DeRosa says:

    A series of short movie clips associated with the recent X2.2 flare arising from NOAA AR11158 (including the movies appearing above in this blog entry) have been assembled into a 10-minute YouTube movie:

    This compilation was produced by Karel Schrijver of the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab (the PI institution of SDO/AIA).

  40. Clay Ross says:

    The techniques that work only until a prediction is published are called “AlGore-isms”. Correct algorithms produce reliable predictions.

    CCR

  41. Matt says:

    Looks like mitosis.

    It’s alive….ALIVE!

  42. David Ball says:

    Uber cool. Thanks Leif and Anthony.

  43. AJB says:
    February 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    How much light do plasma chamber experiments throw on this and should we perhaps be building bigger and better ones?
    The laboratory experiments have difficulties in recreating space environments. They are are not big enough and the plasma is not thin enough and they have walls that interfere. We have, on the other hand, anyway been able to learn a lot about some of the fundamental processes that go on from laboratory experiments, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf
    Underlying almost every phenomenon that we observe are electric currents that are generated by movement of plasma across magnetic fields, or separating magnetic fields of different directions. These currents are often filamentary and unstable and prone to explosions [as we just witnessed]. Space plasmas are very poor in sustaining electric currents as these simply short out. On the other hand, magnetic fields essentially ‘live forever’ in a space plasma, being showed around by the plasma.

  44. SABR Matt says:
    February 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    It blows my mind that there are stars out there that are, if I read the text correctly…5000 LIGHT YEARS?? in diameter?? Holy cow!
    You must have misread something. There are no stars that big.

  45. Trevor J says:

    Just a reminder this has no affect on the temperature of Earth. Even thou it is the size of Jupiter. The temperature is only affected by the SUVs /sarc

  46. Marc DeRosa says:
    February 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm
    A series of short movie clips [...] have been assembled into a 10-minute YouTube movie
    Thanks Marc. This beats the 3 gigabyte file that was distributed before :-)

  47. Trevor J says:
    February 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    Just a reminder this has no affect on the temperature of Earth.
    Hold the sarc, even the very largest flares [and this one wasn't] only increase the energy output of the Sun by 0.0003 of what we get all the time.

  48. captainfish says:

    Hey Leif,
    The reference by SABR Matt (February 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm) to stars being LIGHT YEARS in diameter is in reference to

    as posted by John F. Hultquist – February 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    On there, it showed a White Dwarf at ~800 LY and a Red Dwarf at ~5000 LY … SABR and even I took that to mean Light Years.

    (see, even nubes are on this site)

  49. captainfish says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    The reference by SABR Matt (February 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm) to stars being LIGHT YEARS in diameter is in reference to [...] and even I took that to mean Light Years.
    Some major confusion on part of the producer of that clip. It also says that the sun has a diameter of 8 lm [probably 'light minutes']. The distance to the Sun is 8 light minutes. The distance to Rigel is 800 ly and to VY CMaj 5000 ly, so the numbers are indeed light years, but they represent the distance from the earth, not the diameter of the star…

  50. Bill Jamison says:

    Wow that was amazing and beautiful!

    Very cool stuff.

  51. Just The Facts says:

    The Magnetosphere was being buffeted and contorted on Feb 15th;

    but seemed to be reasonably stable on Feb 16th:

    All are available here:

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/

  52. Fascinating movies and will be watching the skies (if they’re clear) for aurora’s over the next few days.

    Until I read this post, I didn’t realize that Canis Majoris was a red supergiant possibly becoming a nearby supernova in a very short period of time (geologically speaking). What I’m curious about is what effects would the gamma ray flux from Canis Majoris going supernova have on the Earth’s climate? Is this something that could trigger another ice age? Yet another thing to worry about.

    Maybe we should try to get watermelons to start worrying about real dangers to the Earth like Carrington event magnitude CME’s directed our way, dinosaur killer asteroids and nearby supernova’s. Windmills are the last thing we need to deal with these dangers.

  53. Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
    February 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm
    What I’m curious about is what effects would the gamma ray flux from Canis Majoris going supernova have on the Earth’s climate? Is this something that could trigger another ice age? Yet another thing to worry about.
    5000 light years is FAR off, so not to worry.

  54. UK Sceptic says:

    The eruption of matter/energy resembles a geyser or a fountain.

  55. vukcevic says:

    Baa Humbug says: February 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.

    Schatten’s hypothesis is not accepted by everyone. In absence of a credible alternative I put forward a far simpler solution to this problem, based on the basic electro-magnetic principles.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSG.htm

    May I point out that Dr. Svalgaard classified above as ‘bad science’; of course he is entitled to his views on the above as is on the Schatten’s hypothesis, and I have no intention of engaging in a pointless and fruitless discussion.

  56. Matt says:
    February 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Looks like mitosis.

    It’s alive….ALIVE!

    You are not alone with that observation. Dr. Attila Grandpierre, Hungarian astrophysicist, rock star & shaman says somewhere solar photosphere may actually be a more favorable environment for life than Earth, as there is orders of magnitude more free energy available there. See e.g.

    Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 2(1), 12-28, 2004
    Conceptual Steps towards Exploring the Fundamental Nature of our Sun
    Attila Grandpierre

    Quite characteristic of him starting the paper with a motto from Anaxagoras (459 BC): “The purpose of life is the investigation of the Sun, the Moon, and the heavens.”

    He also argues information content of the Sun is very high while observed decay time of fine magneto-hydrodynamical structures is much longer than one would think based on simple physical models. The guy is somewhat crazy, but may have a point.

  57. Viv Evans says:

    Outstanding!

    Thanks, Anthony, Leif, and all who have posted video clips here.
    This is not just another great lesson on the Sun – watching these videos shows the terrifying beauty of our star.

    I’m blown away …

  58. TFNJ says:

    Boris Gimbarzevsky is concerned about windmills. Let me assure him that they are equally effective against solar storms, CO2 induced heating, and blowing volcanic ash back to Iceland.

  59. vukcevic says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:31 am
    May I point out that Dr. Svalgaard classified above as ‘bad science’;
    No, it is not ‘bad science’. It is not science.

  60. Terry W says:

    Amazing. Simply Amazing.

    That much activity over just 5 days is humbling.

    Thanks, Anthony and Lief.

  61. Jeff Id says:

    Thanks Leif, awesome.

  62. Douglas DC says:

    Thanks you Leif, as usual ,a good bit of informaton to digest….

  63. AJB says:

    Leif Svalgaard says February 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I just skimmed that PDF very briefly. This is just the sort of up to date primer I’ve been after for a long time; masses of diagrams and links for anyone wishing to dig further. Just fantastic, many thanks Leif.

  64. johnnythelowery says:

    On deciding to educate myself on all things to do with Climate since 2008…the most
    interesting thing i’ve found is the disconnection of the activity of the Sun and earth’s climate. Having heard about minimums and solar flares since a young kid, to find out that the linkage, if there is one, is: tenuous and the physics unknown. Makes these threads to me the most interesting. I always look forward to a good solar thread!!

  65. rbateman says:

    The Magnetic view shows pure upwellings, while the visible light view comes up spinning like tornadoes and cyclones.
    Why is that?

  66. rbateman says:
    February 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    The Magnetic view shows pure upwellings, while the visible light view comes up spinning like tornadoes and cyclones. Why is that?
    The upwellings are not very visible, only when concentrated into spots can you easily see the field. But look closely: the larger magnetic areas also rotates.

  67. West Houston says:

    The video confuses distance of the stars from Earth with diameter. VY Canis Majoris is 1800-2100 times the Sun’s diameter. Impressive still!

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070522232706AAF37ir

  68. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Yes, there is some slight motion in the magnetic upwellings, but nothing compared to the visible.
    That one can spin like a top and the other rotates like a rusted bearing is what I find so perplexing.

  69. rbateman says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    That one can spin like a top and the other rotates like a rusted bearing is what I find so perplexing.
    A lot depends on where grey-scale and colorizing scheme. Possibly those could be matched better. No doubt that this region will be studied a lot so perhaps some light may be shed on this in future. Rotation of spots and magnetic fields are ‘hot’ topics for the moment. Here is an example: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kazachenko2009.pdf

  70. Annei says:

    Amazing to see. Thank you Anthony for posting this.

  71. captainfish says:

    Thank you Anthony and Thank You Leif.
    I appreciate the science, the news, the explanations,…. and all of your followups!!!
    You rock!!!

  72. The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with nrothward field.

  73. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Cool. Looks like a flock of Mandlebrots having fun.

  74. M. Simon says:

    While we are tying ourselves into knots to deal with AGW, a putative eventuality at best, there is no effort at all to harden our electronics to survive a substantial solar flare.

    We are better off than you think and not as good off as we should be. Preventing radiation emission from electronics has a reciprocal effect of protecting it from emitted radiation.

    Military stuff designed to resist a nuke EMP is best.

    Commercial devices are next.

    Industrial devices are at the bottom of the list.

    Of course the above is not exhaustive or definitive. It indicates the general trends.

  75. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with nrothward field.”

    There was an interesting impact on the magnetosphere at about 3:30 UT yesterday/6 seconds into this video:

    Was that the CME? It doesn’t look anything like what occurs about 30 seconds into this video;

    which is the CME impact referenced here:

    http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=03&month=08&year=2010

  76. Just The Facts says:
    February 18, 2011 at 11:47 am
    “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with northward field.”
    It hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.

  77. Leif Svalgaard says:
    It hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17.
    Sorry, on Feb. 18

  78. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    “This is messy business.”

    Yes, still so much to be learned and discovered. That’s what makes it all so interesting. We are playing on the outer bounds of human knowledge. I am particularly curious to see if the CME’s impact on the Magnetosphere has a measurable impact on Atmospheric Circulation and Vorticity. And it just so happens that I recently built an Atmosphere Reference Page to keep an eye on things:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/

  79. Just The Facts says:
    February 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    I am particularly curious to see if the CME’s impact on the Magnetosphere has a measurable impact on Atmospheric Circulation and Vorticity.
    Long time ago we thought so [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0.pdf ] Unfortunately, as with so many Sun-Weather-Climate relationships the signal seems to have disappeared, although it still has some supporter [e.g. Brian Tinsley].

  80. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Baa Humbug says:
    February 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.

    Possibly Ampere’s pbservation that parallel currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel, applies here, to sunspots.

  81. Zeke the Sneak says:
    February 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    Very interesting, but can someone (Leif?) explain the ‘like’ polarities being attracted to each other please? I thought ‘like’ repelled and ‘unlike’ attracted in magnetism.
    Things are much more complicated in a plasma. The fields there are controlled by movements of the plasma, not by electric currents [which are by-products]. Ken Schatten has an explanation here: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf The coalescence of like elements into sunspots is an observed fact.

  82. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    “The fields there are controlled by movements of the plasma, not by electric currents [which are by-products].”

    What I said is, that electric currents in two wires flowing in the same direction attract, and electric currents flowing in the opposite direction repel. This may explain the reason that these sunspots of like polarity experience long range attraction at different latitudes. (ref. Thornhill, Scott)

    Your abstract does say it has a numerical model which fits some sunspot behavior, but not all. I need time to read the paper to see how modeled “percolation” is a better explanation than Ampere’s Circuital Law.

  83. Zeke the Sneak says:
    February 18, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    What I said is, that electric currents in two wires flowing in the same direction attract, and electric currents flowing in the opposite direction repel. This may explain the reason that these sunspots of like polarity experience long range attraction at different latitudes. (ref. Thornhill, Scott)
    Those two gentlemen don’t know what they are talking about. In the solar photosphere the plasma movements are not controlled by electric currents but by thermal convection. The controlling parameter is called the Plasma Beta: “Beta is a parameter indicating the relative importance of kinetic to electromagnetic phenomena”, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(plasma_physics)
    In the photosphere and below, beta is higher than one, so the plasma moves the fields around. In the corona, beta is lower than one so the magnetic fields control the plasma.

  84. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “Unfortunately, as with so many Sun-Weather-Climate relationships the signal seems to have disappeared”

    I don’t know about “disappeared”, from what I’ve read thus far I’d call it not effectively measured. I don’t think the Vorticity Area Index as you describe it, “The vorticity area index is a measure of the size and prominence of all the low pressure troughs in the region of the Northern Hemisphere north of 20 ° N.” is an effective measure of the phenomenon I am looking for.

    I think that if and when the polar voritices coalesce into a single funnel during the Polar Winter and when in the Spring the coalesced funnel breaks up/down are key measures of the polar vortices. According to this paper on the Final Warming Date of the Antarctic Polar Vortex and Influences on its Interannual Variability;

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7598/is_20091115/ai_n42654411/

    “several studies (including Waugh and Randel 1999; Waugh et al. 1999; Karpetchko et al. 2005; Black and McDaniel 2007) have indicated a trend over the 1980s and 1990s toward a later vortex breakdown.”

    This is a good paper exploring the Polar Vortices;

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    and the chart on page 10 shows the vortex break-up dates for the Northern Hemisphere since 1960 and Southern Hemisphere since 1979. Note that there appears to be a bit of disagreement in the literature as to whether the vortices break up or down, but either way, when it occurs, it seems to have a significant impact on Earth’s atmospheric circulation and oscillations. For example, this year the Arctic Polar Vortex does not appear to have coalesced yet;

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml

    and thus the multiple lobes of the uncoalesced Polar Vortex have reached down to lower latitudes this year, similar to what occurred in 1985:
    ” The January 1985 Arctic outbreak[1] was a meteorological event, the result of the shifting of the polar vortex further south than is normally seen.[1] Blocked from its normal movement, polar air from the north pushed into nearly every section of the eastern half of the United States, shattering record lows in a number of states.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1985_Arctic_outbreak

    This paper summarizes some of the differences between having a coalesced and uncoalesed polar vortex:

    http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/Manney-ExtremeArcticWinters_ACP.pdf

    “The first three Arctic winters of the ACE mission represented two extremes of winter variability: Stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs) in 2004 and 2006 were among the strongest, most prolonged on record; 2005 was
    a record cold winter.”

    “Temperature and vortex evolution was very similar in the two years [2004 and 2006], with the vortex breaking down throughout the stratosphere, reforming quickly in the upper stratosphere, while remaining weak in the middle and (especially) lower stratosphere.”

    “2005 was the coldest winter on record in the lower stratosphere, but with an early final warming in mid-March.”

    “Disparate temperature profile structure and vortex evolution resulted in much lower (higher) temperatures in the upper (lower) stratosphere in 2004 and 2006 than in 2005. Satellite temperatures agree well with lidar data up to 50–60 km, and ACE-FTS, MLS and SABER show good agreement in high-latitude temperatures throughout the winters. Consistent with a strong, cold upper stratospheric vortex and enhanced radiative cooling after the SSWs, MLS and ACE-FTS trace gas measurements show strongly enhanced descent in the upper stratospheric vortex in late January through March 2006 compared to that in 2005.”

    This paper from Kniveton and Tinsley discusses the “Daily changes in global cloud cover and Earth transits of the heliospheric current sheet”:

    https://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/tin_dcgcc.pdf

    E.M.Smith has had some interesting speculation in the area as well:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/

    This article states that polar vortices “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.”

    http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/I

    thus tonight I did a simple test in my kitchen sink. I filled it with water, pulled the plug, turned on the garbage disposal to add some vorticity and then right as the vortex was forming I hit the water to create a wave. The wave broke up the vortex. Rudimentary, but a basic proof of concept. My question is whether a CME, Solar Sector Boundary, a combination thereof, or other solar phenomenon, could sufficiently disturb and disrupt the magnetosphere as to precipitate the break up/down of a polar vortex.

     

    “although it still has some supporter [e.g. Brian Tinsley].”

    Yes, amusingly, on September 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm I wrote to you:

    “Are you familiar with Brian Tinsley?

    http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html

    I feel like you and Brian might be able to sort all this out over a couple beers…”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/nasa-cosmic-rays-up-19-since-last-peak-new-record-high/#comment-195980

    You responded that;

    “Yes, Brian is a good friend of mine. The first paper you referenced is based on early work by Wilcox, myself, and others.

    He is still working on an effect that I have abandoned long ago.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/nasa-cosmic-rays-up-19-since-last-peak-new-record-high/#comment-196004

     
    Can you forward this thread to Brian and ask him if he might want to comment? I would be most interested to hear his thoughts on the subject and would be happy to buy the beers… :)

  85. Just The Facts says:
    February 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    I don’t think the Vorticity Area Index as you describe it, “The vorticity area index is a measure of the size and prominence of all the low pressure troughs in the region of the Northern Hemisphere north of 20 ° N.” is an effective measure of the phenomenon I am looking for.
    I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves and not by any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.
    Ill contact Brian.

  86. Just The Facts says:
    February 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm
    thus tonight I did a simple test in my kitchen sink. I filled it with water, pulled the plug, turned on the garbage disposal to add some vorticity and then right as the vortex was forming I hit the water to create a wave. The wave broke up the vortex. Rudimentary, but a basic proof of concept.
    Indeed, but the waves come from below…

  87. Just The Facts says:

    Here is the impact of the X class flare on Earth’s Magnetosphere – (February, 18th 2011 Magnetosphere Activity from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.)

    You should also download and watch the much higher resolution avi version, which is very cool:

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110218.avi

  88. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 18, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Schatten has an explanation here: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf The coalescence of like elements into sunspots is an observed fact.

    Models are nice. And I think that Schatten does an incredible job of comparing and contrasting different models (numeric & computer, deep & shallow dynamos, etc.). I think using Parker’s theory to develop a “percolation force” which can cause like polarities to attract is a must-read for those who like theoreticians performing truly incredible feats of explanatory gymnastics. See page 140 of the pdf.

    An alternative is found in the simple Terrella experiments carried out by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900’s. He put a positively charged magnetized sphere in a vacuum tank and directed a stream of electrons at it. This created a donut of circulating charge around it. With varying currents, discharges move from mid to low latitudes, looking very like sunspots.

    Image of the Terrella: http://www.phy6.org/Educatcc/Figures/terr_vac.gif

  89. Zeke the Sneak says:
    February 18, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    An alternative is found in the simple Terrella experiments carried out by Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900′s. He put a positively charged magnetized sphere in a vacuum tank and directed a stream of electrons at it.
    The problem with this is that the image does not transfer. The Sun is not positively charged, and there is no stream of electrons from outer space impacting the Sun.

  90. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    “I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves and not by any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.”

    Can you provide some references to support this statement? I agree that there are a number of terrestrial influences on vortex formation, persistence and breakdown, but to exclude “any influence from CMEs, flares, or other assorted solar stuff.” seems a bit presumptuous given how little we know about the subject.

  91. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Fine. However, some people like experiments. And the sun does have a magnificent bright torus, or donut ring as shown in the SOHO UV images. This matches the torus found in Birkeland’s laboratory sphere.

    http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4ADBF_en___US334&q=kristian%20birkeland%2C%20terrella%20experiment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

  92. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    “Indeed, but the waves come from below…”

    I agree that my kitchen sink vortex modeling system might not be a particularly accurate representation of earth’s climate system, however I do think that it helps to demonstrate that a shock to a nascent or weakening vortex that is near its critical state can result in vortex breakdown. And I also agree that there are certainly are waves from below Seismic waves, Electromagnetic waves and Ocean tides/upwellings/waves come to mind. However, I think Rosby waves and Tropospheric Planetary waves come as much from within as from below, and I don’t see any basis for excluding potential “above” wave sources such as solar and cosmic influences, e.g. Boundary layer waves, Alfvén waves, etc. What makes you think that the waves that influence the formation, persistence and breakdown of polar vortices (only) “come from below”?

  93. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    “I think that the breakdown of the polar vortex is governed by upwards travelling waves”

    Also, from a lexicon perspective, I find your statement that “breakdown”… “is governed by upwards travelling waves” confusing. Wouldn’t the process you refer to be better described as a break-up of the vortex? A solar or cosmic triggered top down vortex collapse would seem to be more a break-down. And when the vortex is disrupted from within the atmosphere or medium the vortex would break-apart.

  94. Just The Facts says:
    February 18, 2011 at 11:53 pm
    What makes you think that the waves that influence the formation, persistence and breakdown of polar vortices (only) “come from below”?
    The energies involved. Here is how the polar vortex works:

    http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/PV/index.shtml

    http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/isavelyev/GFD-2/Rossby%20waves.pdf

    Zeke the Sneak says:
    February 18, 2011 at 10:53 pm
    Fine. However, some people like experiments. And the sun does have a magnificent bright torus, or donut ring as shown in the SOHO UV images. This matches the torus found in Birkeland’s laboratory sphere.
    Like in Figure 7 in http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
    But it is not formed by the same process, so, as I said, the image does no transfer. But some people refuse to learn; their loss.

  95. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 7:48 am
    Also, from a lexicon perspective, I find your statement that “breakdown”… “is governed by upwards travelling waves” confusing.
    I use the standard meteorological lingo. Not responsible for your confusion.

  96. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 8:28 am

    “I use the standard meteorological lingo.”

    The following quotes are from one of the papers I cited above; Stratospheric Polar Vortices by Darryn W. Waugh Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA and Lorenzo M. Polvani Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union:

    “These studies have shown that there are significant trends in the springtime Antarctic vortex and that the vortex has become stronger, colder, and more persistent (i.e., breaks up later) since 1979; see Figure 8. The colder vortex and delay in breakup are attributed to…”

    “(e.g., the breakup of the Arctic vortex shown in Figure 4 corresponds to a period when the NAM is around “3).”

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    I haven’t received the new handbook on “standard meteorological lingo”, but it seems that both breakup and breakdown are being used to describe the phenomenon. We might as well put some sense to it…

    “Not responsible for your confusion.”

    Yes you are. If we cannot effectively describe the phenomenon how are we supposed to effectively discuss and debate its behavior? My lexicon of up, down and apart is logical, why do you think your confusing “standard meteorological lingo” is better?

  97. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am

    “The energies involved.”

    Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?

  98. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:37 am
    but it seems that both breakup and breakdown are being used to describe the phenomenon. We might as well put some sense to it…
    In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied. Ice breaks up, cars break down. A google search on ‘polar vortex breakdown’ yields 151,000 hits. On ‘polar vortex breakup’ has only 13,800 hits. I rest my case.

  99. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:43 am
    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am
    Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?
    too many ‘nots’ for my taste. But I can try to explain [may not succeed]. The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.

  100. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Dr S, inre the terella experiments:

    Using his magnetized sphere in a vacuum, Birkeland was able to understand earth’s auroras, and predicted that these would take place simultaneously at both poles. He did outstanding observational work in the Arctic and in the laboratory. He was vehemently opposed by Chapman and died beleiving his life’s work was being ignored. However, in the 80’s his observations were verified when military aircraft detected electrical current sheets in the auroras.

    I say this because it would not be the first time Birkeland’s terrella observations were dismissed out of hand, as you are doing, because they did not fit popular assumptions about electricity in space.

    The discharges from the toroid ring do migrate from different latitudes depending on current input in the terrella experiment. Sunspots behave the same way and the sun does have a torus. Sunspots of the same polarity attract as do electric currents in wires, when flowing in the same direction. You can also observe twisted Birkeland currents on the sun.

    And your Schatten pdf does not even begin to pretend to approach the twisted vortex filaments in the sunspot penumbras; yet electric vortexes are to be expected where there is current. http://www.oca.eu/ukmhd2004/Abstract/sunspot.jpg

  101. Zeke the Sneak says:
    February 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm
    I say this because it would not be the first time Birkeland’s terrella observations were dismissed out of hand, as you are doing, because they did not fit popular assumptions about electricity in space.
    I’m a great fan of Kristian Birkeland and a student of his work. But he was also a product of his times and we have learned a lot since. His ideas about aurorae have some truth, but also some errors in the details. E.g. the Birkeland currents do not come from the Sun, but from the Earth’s magnetosphere and half of them flow up rather than down. His ideas about the ‘solar streams’ were totally wrong. You can see some of this thoughts here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Birkeland-1919.pdf

  102. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:48 am

    “In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”

    What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there. In the case of my kitchen sink experiment the vortex broke-down. Also, in this very cool tornado video, it also appears that the tornado breaks-down:

    “Ice breaks up, cars break down.”

    And relationships break up, whereas people break down. So what? We aren’t discussing ice or cars or people, we’re discussing vortices.

    “A google search on ‘polar vortex breakdown’ yields 151,000 hits. On ‘polar vortex breakup’ has only 13,800 hits.”

    Since when is Google an accurate representation of standard meteorological lexicon? And double quotes provide for a much more precise search than do single quotes. I did a Google Scholar search for “polar vortex breakdown” resulting in 84 papers and “polar vortex break-down” resulting in 13 more, for a total 97 papers using breakdown. I did the same search for “polar vortex breakup” and got 111 papers and “polar vortex break-up” resulted in 50 more, for a total 161 papers using breakup. Furthermore the breakup papers seem to be published more recently than the breakdown papers. The top 5 papers using “polar vortex breakdown” were published in 1977, 1986, 1998, 2002, 1986, whereas the top 5 using “polar vortex breakup” were published in 2005, 2005, 2002, 1996 and 2005.

    I rest my case.

    Yeah, it seems really weak, it must need rest…

  103. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    The top 5 papers using “polar vortex breakdown” were published in 1977, 1986, 1998, 2002, 1986
    And how many of those papers show that the causation is flowing down, i.e. that the breakdown is caused by effect from above?

  104. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    Furthermore the breakup papers seem to be published more recently than the breakdown papers.
    So, accepting that they imply a direction these papers agree that the break-up is from below.

  105. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am

    But I can try to explain [may not succeed].

    What is your concern about success? Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts or can you not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?

    “The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.”

    Can you provide some references to support these statements? Can you also define “coming down”. Is it solar and cosmic, or is it any energy traveling downward in the atmosphere/vortex? For example, this paper found, “Clear signals of gravity waves whose phases propagate upward, suggesting downward energy propagation, are detected in June and October when the polar night jet (PNJ) was present. ”

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1

    Earlier in this thread you stated that “this is messy business” and now you are making pronouncements about phenomena that we can’t accurately measure, much less analyze and understand.

  106. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    “And how many of those papers show that the causation is flowing down, i.e. that the breakdown is caused by effect from above?”

    This is completely irrelevant to the break up versus down lexicon argument. Can I take your redirection as an admission that the “standard meteorological lingo” might not be as standard as you purported it to be?

  107. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts or can you not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?
    It was not my ability I was doubting…

    this paper found, “Clear signals of gravity waves whose phases propagate upward, suggesting downward energy propagation
    Gravity waves are upwards travelling waves, that derive their energy from below. some of is reflected down. Learn about gravity waves here: http://kingfish.coastal.edu/physics/var/research.html

    Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    “standard meteorological lingo” might not be as standard as you purported it to be?
    I’ll concede that lingo can change. However in the standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics” ISBN 0-471-72018-6 (2006) it says (page 172): “as the sun returns in September [they were discussing southern hemisphere] at the end of the long polar night, the temperature rises and the vortex weakens, eventually breaking down in November”.

  108. Even the authors of the paper you cherry picked: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1
    use the standard lingo [as is proper]:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, D23104, 12 PP., 2004
    “the enhancements are especially large when the polar vortex breaks down in spring”

  109. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    So, accepting that they imply a direction these papers agree that the break-up is from below.

    Somewhat, I also see suggestions of breaking-apart. Not much about them breaking-down. The following animation doesn’t address the break up direction up or down, but it does help to visualize the process and its complexity, in this case a split:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov

  110. Just The Facts says:

    Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 19th 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology.

    Here’s the link to the high res download avi file:

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110219.avi

    What I find particularly interesting in the Feb 19th activity is that Earth’s Magnetic Field (top left box) became splayed out and seemingly very stable as the day progressed. Usually Earth’s Magnetic Field is contorted and highly variable.

  111. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    “Even the authors of the paper you cherry picked: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JAS2539.1
    use the standard lingo [as is proper]:”

    Cherry picked? I’ve read a number of papers and noticed the discrepancy in lexicon. I pointed it out to you and you claimed it didn’t exist. I demonstrated that it did, and you claimed that it didn’t matter. Then you conceded “that lingo can change”, but argued that your lingo is better than other scientists lingo, because your lingo is in the “standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics””. And somehow all this means I’ve cherry picked something?

    Can you explain the basis on which you think the paper I presented was “cherry picked”?

  112. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    “It was not my ability I was doubting…”

    Maybe you should be. Between your CME impact predictions and that Google search survey, I am beginning to doubt your abilities…

    “Gravity waves are upwards travelling waves, that derive their energy from below. some of is reflected down. Learn about gravity waves here: http://kingfish.coastal.edu/physics/var/research.html

    That’s good stuff, I am going to have to invest some time getting to know gravity.

    “I’ll concede that lingo can change. However in the standard text book by Seinfeld&Pandis “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics” ISBN 0-471-72018-6 (2006) it says (page 172): “as the sun returns in September [they were discussing southern hemisphere] at the end of the long polar night, the temperature rises and the vortex weakens, eventually breaking down in November”.

    Great, and I can show you 161 papers that reference vortexes breaking up. My point is that the lexicon is confused and we should establish clear and logical definitions for our discussion. Speaking of confusion, how about this sentence from the paper “EOS Microwave Limb Sounder observations of the Antarctic polar vortex breakup in 2004″:

    “Poleward transport at progressively lower levels, filamentation, and mixing are detailed in MLS HCl, N2O, H2O, and O3 as the 2004 Antarctic vortex brokeup from the top down in early October through late December.”

    http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/ManneyEtAl_2005GL022823.pdf

    So it appears that the lexicon is in flux and that sometimes polar vortices do break-down …

  113. Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    Can you explain the basis on which you think the paper I presented was “cherry picked”?
    Because the authors themselves prefer ‘breaking down’ so you quote selectively.
    Maybe you should be. Between your CME impact predictions and that Google search survey, I am beginning to doubt your abilities…
    My CME prediction was spot on. I predicted that the field would be Northwards and that the storm therefore would be moderate, and it was. Kp only reached 5. The Google search is what it is, not being skewed by the 2002 situation [see below]

    we should establish clear and logical definitions for our discussion
    The lexicon is but a strawman. In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup, whatever, comes from below [the troposphere], not from outer space. Therefore breakdown, breakup do not say anything about direction of causality as you contended so strongly. The shift from breakdown to breakup [and the flurry of papers] may have a lot to do with the famous case in 2002 when the southern vortex broke up [like ice would] into two before breaking down two months later. So both terms seem logical and clear. Perhaps some people that use break-up too loosely should take note of your admonition.

    Speaking of confusion, how about this sentence from the paper “EOS Microwave Limb Sounder observations of the Antarctic polar vortex breakup in 2004″
    There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex. In any case the cause is upwards travelling gravity waves from the warming troposphere.

  114. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am
    There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex.

    This paper is a good example of this more refined usage:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C1174:VIASMO%3E2.0.CO;2

    “For larger amplitude the disruption of the vortex is more severe, and the vortex core breaks up and reforms (Figs. 3b,c). For HB 5 3000 m, the high PV remnants are completely destroyed before a new vortex core rebuilds.
    We now examine in more detail the HB 5 3000 m calculation, which shows the clearest and most dramatic vortex breakdown–recovery cycles.”

    So the standard lingo ‘breakdown’ can include break ups [perhaps several]. No confusion needed. It is time for you to own up to this. And perhaps to return to the topic from your detour into linguistic confusion. I’m a bit amazed that the mods have been lenient with you so far [not doing their job?]

  115. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am

    “Because the authors themselves prefer ‘breaking down’ so you quote selectively.”

    This is absurd. I have been referring to this paper on WUWT since December;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/#comment-557155

    and the reason that I call out break-up date is because the title of the table I cite on page 10 is titled VORTEX BREAK-UP DATE:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf

    When I cited the paper above I wrote that, “Note that there appears to be a bit of disagreement in the literature as to whether the vortices break up or down, but either way, when it occurs, it seems to have a significant impact on Earth’s atmospheric circulation and oscillations.”

    I am not purporting that Break-up is “the standard meteorological lingo”, as you seem to be arguing, but rather that there appears to be confusion in the vortex lexicon and that for this argument’s sake we should establish clear definitions so that we don’t waste days on semantics. Obviously it didn’t work out as planned…

    “My CME prediction was spot on.”

    What? First you said on February 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm that “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with nrothward field.”

    Then I pointed out that the magentoshpere was calm on the 17th;

    and you corrected yourself by saying that it, “hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.”

    and then corrected yourself again, “Sorry, on Feb. 18″

    And even the corrected correction I question because it looks to me that the first light gust hit at around 1:00 UT, but that the X-class flare impact began at about 5:20 UT:

    High res download of the same: http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110218.avi

    “The Google search is what it is, not being skewed by the 2002 situation”

    Your Google search is what is, which is garbage. As I pointed out above Google is not representative of “standard meteorological lingo”, but more troubling is you use of single quotes. Go to Google, search for magnetosphere animation with no modifiers you get 51,200 results. If you add in single quotes ‘for magnetosphere animation’ you still get 51,200 results. If you add double quotes “magnetosphere animation” you get the 317 correct results.

    “The lexicon is but a strawman.”

    Lexicon is simply the language of the debate. There is no straw involved.

    “Therefore breakdown, breakup do not say anything about direction of causality as you contended so strongly.

    I never said that the name did or should reference causality. Can you point out where I “contended so strongly”? I think the name should reference the location where the break begins, vortices either break-up, break-down or break-apart.

    “The shift from breakdown to breakup [and the flurry of papers] may have a lot to do with the famous case in 2002 when the southern vortex broke up [like ice would] into two before breaking down two months later. So both terms seem logical and clear.”

    No, in 2002 the southern vortex broke apart (we still aren’t talking about ice). I am not sure which direction the subsequent split vortices broke, but this is extraneous for the moment. I think the goal at the moment is to identify how a single coalesced polar vortex breaks, we can discuss non-formation and split lobe breaks at some point in the future.

    “There is no confusion because the vortex then did break up into three pieces before breaking down completely later, so breaking up [into pieces] seems to be part of the breaking down of the vortex. In any case the cause is upwards travelling gravity waves from the warming troposphere. .”

    Yes there is confusion, read your own writing from an objective point of view. In 2004 the Southern vortex broke down, because it broke “from the top down”. How many pieces it breaks into and how they subsequently break, is not yet part of this discussion.

  116. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 3:20 am

    In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup,”

    This statement is erroneous, I see no agreement in the literature on traveling gravity waves. For example this paper;

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/MWR3086.1

    found that “a key to understanding the 2002 SH warming is to determine the source of this large upward flux of planetary wave activity in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, which preceded the warming. Observations showed that the 100-hPa poleward eddy heat flux immediately preceding the warming was much larger than that seen in any previous year (Allen et al. 2003; Sinnhuber et al. 2003; Weber et al. 2003; Harnik et al. 2005; Newman and Nash 2005; Scaife et al. 2005).

    The source of this wave energy flux may be related to tropospheric blocking. Observational studies have identified a connection between stratospheric warmings and tropospheric blocking events in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (e.g., Quiroz 1986; Mechoso et al. 1988). Niishi and Nakamura (2004, hereinafter NN04) argue that the 2002 SH major warming was forced by large planetary wave fluxes emanating from a tropospheric blocking ridge over the South Atlantic. This ridge formed as part of a Rossby wave train, which NN04 argue originated from enhanced deep convection around the South Pacific convergence zone.”

    comes from below [the troposphere], not from outer space.

    Thus far I have not come across anything the literature that indicates that vortex breaking can be caused or contributed to by forces from outer space, but there is still much research to be done. Too bad Brian’s not around to point me in the right directions…

  117. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
    This is absurd. I have been referring to this paper on WUWT since December;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/#comment-557155

    And there you were even confused about breakup/down:
    Just The Facts says:
    December 23, 2010 at 7:05 am
    “I have been looking into when the vortexes form and when they break up/down. [...] This page offers a bit of background on polar vortex breakdown [...] when each vortex formed and broke-down? [...] proxies for vortex formation and breakdown?

    I am not purporting that Break-up is “the standard meteorological lingo”, as you seem to be arguing, but rather that there appears to be confusion in the vortex lexicon and that for this argument’s sake we should establish clear definitions so that we don’t waste days on semantics. Obviously it didn’t work out as planned…
    As I have shown nobody is confused, except you. And you are still wasting time on this [and will presumably continue to do so]

    “My CME prediction was spot on.”
    What? First you said on February 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm that “The CME has just hit the Earth. As predicted it starts out with northward field.”
    and you corrected yourself by saying that it, “hit at 01:00 UT on Feb. 17. Since then several gusts have appeared. This is messy business.”
    and then corrected yourself again, “Sorry, on Feb. 18″

    The 17th was just a typo that I instantly corrected and was not a prediction but an observed fact. The real prediction was that the storm would be only moderate because the field was northward. Here you can see when it hit the Earth: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/dimages/magneka/20110218.html this is observation. A geomagnetic storm has three phases: the initial phase where the magnetosphere is compressed [this produces the sharp jump at about 1 UT], a main phase where the ring current has been build up [about 6 UT], and a recovery phase seceral hours later.

    If you add double quotes “magnetosphere animation” you get the 317 correct results.
    You get what contains exactly those words in that sequence. This is not ‘correct’ as you’ll miss ‘animation of magnetosphere’ and similar.

    Lexicon is simply the language of the debate.
    It is silly to discuss the lexicon, when one should concentrate on the substance. To wit: your confusion.

    I think the name should reference the location where the break begins, vortices either break-up, break-down or break-apart.
    The substance was whether the cause and energy would come from below or from above. Where the break occurs is not relevant to this. And, as I showed, even after breaking up or apart, the vortex may still exist for several month before the whole system finally breaks down. You are confusing the temporary break ups with the final breakdown. Or are just being sloppy without giving too much thought to what actually happens.

    No, in 2002 the southern vortex broke apart
    “Atmospheric angular momentum balance for the southern hemisphere during the polar vortex break-up of September 2002 DIETER PETERS, CHRISTOPH ZÜLICKE Tellus A Volume 58, Issue 4, pages 508–519, August 2006″
    That people use sloppy terminology is no excuse for you to do the same. Better to stick with established standards.

    How many pieces it breaks into and how they subsequently break, is not yet part of this discussion.
    The discussion is [was?] about whether the energy and cause of the breakup/down/apart of the polar vortex comes from above or from below. This has nothing to do with nit-picking about words that you yourself use inconsistently.

  118. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 4:10 am

    “So the standard lingo ‘breakdown’ can include break ups [perhaps several].

    Yes, that’s my point. Both terms are used, and often used interchangably, thus we might as well give them clear and logical definition.

    I’m a bit amazed that the mods have been lenient with you so far [not doing their job?]

    That’s funny, because I approved a bunch of our comments… Now I have to go develop low bandwidth versions of the Atmosphere and Ocean Reference pages, and add this rotating animation of “the Sun as it currently appears, formed from a combination of the latest STEREO Ahead and Behind beacon images, along with an SDO/AIA image in between.”;

    to our Solar Reference page, but I’ll be back later and would really like to try to get past the rhetoric and get down to the business of accessing whether solar and cosmic forces have any significant impacts on Earth’s atmosphere, its circulation and its vortices.

  119. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 11:22 am
    “In all cases, the papers agree that the cause [upwards travelling gravity waves] of the breakdown, breakup,”
    This statement is erroneous, I see no agreement in the literature on traveling gravity waves. :
    “a key to understanding the 2002 SH warming is to determine the source of this large upward flux of planetary wave activity in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere, which preceded the warming.”

    You are confusing the issue again. The upward flux of planetary waves are the gravity waves. That they get their energy from heating of the troposphere is clear. That heating can be from the rising sun, but also via Rossby waves from lower latitudes.
    You are evading the real point of the discussion [from space or not].

  120. word press is confused about a closing italics mark.

    [Where exactly, please? Show me the post and sentence and I'll fix it. ~dbs]

  121. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
    This is absurd.
    ————————–
    Perhaps this will bring you out of your linguistic misery:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. D5, 8321, doi:10.1029/2002JD002098, 2003
    Cumulative mixing inferred from stratospheric tracer relationships
    Olaf Morgenstern, Adrian M. Lee, and John A. Pyle
    The breakup phases of the polar vortices in the two boreal winters covered by the simulation are studied in some detail. In both winters, before the final warming, separate canonical correlations appear. Mixing manifests itself in a progressive merger of the correlation curves marking the polar vortex and middle latitudes. We introduce a method to quantify the origins of fractions of simulated air masses based on tracer relationships describing the situation prior to the final warming. In both years, several weeks after the final vortex breakdown of the polar vortex, the method retrieves realistic quantities of former polar vortex air.
    ————–
    All you need to realize is that you can have break ups, break aparts, and all that, before the final breakdown. Then you can have your cake and eat it, and satisfy normal standard usage, all at the same time, and have no need to waste any more words on this.

  122. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 11:45 am
    Yes, that’s my point. Both terms are used, and often used interchangably, thus we might as well give them clear and logical definition.
    They have a clear and logical definition already: the vortex can break up, re-form, several times, until finally it breaks down and is gone until next year.

    That’s funny, because I approved a bunch of our comments…
    Based on their merit, no doubt.

  123. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
    I never said that the name did or should reference causality.
    Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    “In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”
    What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there.
    ——————–
    Just to set the record straight…

  124. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:38 am

    “You get what contains exactly those words in that sequence. This is not ‘correct’ as you’ll miss ‘animation of magnetosphere’ and similar.”

    Yes, but with such a broad search you also capture results like these;

    “Magnetosphere, revisited (from 2007)
    Jan 25, 2010 … Animation Cartoons and animation • palette.png Art Videos related to art … Magnetosphere, revisited (from 2007) … cyriak’s animation mix …
    http://www.web420.com/…/104-Magnetosphere,+revisited+(from+2007) – Cached”

    “Multiscale Processes in the Earth’s Magnetosphere: From Interball …
    Jan 28, 2011 … The advantages of these powerful instruments for magnetospheric … for Rigging and Animation in Maya XP 3 windows panda COOKING THE dan …
    binhyen.softarchive.net/multiscale_processes_in_the_earths_magnetosphere_from_interball_to_cluster.505362.html – Cached”

    neither of which are particularly relevant… Using double quotes is a much more precise search method and certainly the better method for assessing the commonality of a phrase.

  125. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:54 am

    You are confusing the issue again.

    It’s funny how facts can do that…

    The upward flux of planetary waves are the gravity waves. That they get their energy from heating of the troposphere is clear. That heating can be from the rising sun, but also via Rossby waves from lower latitudes.

    This is a broad generalization and glosses of much nuance. In their paper “Tropospheric influence on the diminished Antarctic ozone hole in September 2002″, Nishii and Nakamura stated that:

    “Our diagnosis reveals that the warming was associated with propagation of a Rossby wavepacket from a prominent tropospheric blocking ridge over the South Atlantic into the stratospheric polar-night jet that had already weakened unusually. The blocking developed from anomalies that had formed as a component of another Rossby wavetrain that appeared to be forced in mid-September by anomalous deep cumulus convection in the South Pacific Convergence Zone. ”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019532.shtml

    In “The Role of Cumulus Convection in Hurricanes and its Representation in
    Hurricane Models” Roger K. Smith, stated that:

    “Thought experiments which idealize a deep convective cloud as a transient
    buoyancy source in a stably-strati ed non-rotating environment at rest suggest that the subsidence occurs at the leading edge of a horizontally-propagating internal gravity wave that spreads out from the cloud (Bretherton and Smolarkiewicz, 1989; Nicholls et al., 1991, Bretherton, 1993; Mapes, 1993). This subsidence leads to an adiabatic temperature rise in the cloud environment, which tends to adjust the cloud-free environment towards the moist adiabatic lapse rate found in the cloud (Fig. 3). If the buoyancy source is switched off after a time t*, a gravity wave spreads out from it, this time with ascent at the leading edge, and adjusts the fluid back to its unperturbed state. Thus transient heating leaves no permanent eff ect near the heat source, but produces a pair of outward-moving disturbances separated by a distance proportional to t*, between which the air is warmed through adiabatic subsidence.”

    http://www.meteo.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~roger/Publications/S2000.pdf

    There does seem to be some agreement in terms of the direction that polar vortices break, i.e.

    “Hence, although the final warming is a top-down process, with the vortex breaking first at upper levels, these modeling studies suggest that vortex remnants are in fact long-lived higher up, in the westward flow regime.”

    http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/orsolini2005jas.pdf

  126. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    Using double quotes is a much more precise search method and certainly the better method for assessing the commonality of a phrase.
    But should be used in an unbiased manner. For example “polar vortex breakup” would find papers that say “polar vortex breakup can happen several times with the vortex reforming before the final breakdown” giving the false impression that breakup is preferred over breakdown. But, the usage is actually very clear in that case and no cause for confusion and not a sign of a lexicon in flux. But I thought you were done with the rhetoric… and ready to be substantive…

  127. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    “All you need to realize is that you can have break ups, break aparts, and all that, before the final breakdown. Then you can have your cake and eat it, and satisfy normal standard usage, all at the same time, and have no need to waste any more words on this.”

    You are still wrong, here are examples of papers that refer to final breakup/break-up…

    “presumably as the result of the Northern hemisphere winter vortex
    final breakup in late spring.”

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6587/1/03-0405.pdf

    “through vortex erosion events and dilution after the vortex final break-up,”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP.561..559G

    “The vertical scale for temperature is reversed. (b) date of the Arctic vortex final break-up”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/l95h1l012m604482/

    Just admit that there are some inconsistencies in “standard meteorological lingo” and let’s move on.

  128. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Based on their merit, no doubt.

    Some of them…

  129. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    “Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
    I never said that the name did or should reference causality.
    Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    “In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”
    What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there.”
    ——————–
    Just to set the record straight…”

    You are conflating causality with direction. I am still considering causality, however I am quite confident that up and down connote direction in the English language…

  130. Just The Facts says:

    Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 20th 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:

    Here’s the link to the high res download avi file:

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110220.avi

    It appears that for the first 8 1/2 hours the magnetic field remains splayed out and stable, before slowly returning towards a more active state.

  131. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    “done with the rhetoric… and ready to be substantive…”

    Yes, let’s move on. Here is a summary of Solar Influences and associated energy flows:

    Are you in agreement with the influences noted and associated magnitudes?

  132. Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 11:45 pm
    Just admit that there are some inconsistencies in “standard meteorological lingo” and let’s move on.
    There are no inconsistency in standard usage, just some people being sloppy. Accept that, and you can move on [prediction: you won't, prove me wrong].

    Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 12:17 am
    Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 20th 2011[...]
    It appears that for the first 8 1/2 hours the magnetic field remains splayed out and stable, before slowly returning towards a more active state.

    It helps to know a bit about the data. The first 8 hours the data is missing and the simulation is stuck on its prior value, so no wonder it looks stable [from ACE]:
    2011 02 19 2100 55611 75600 0 -5.6 -0.7 -4.2 7.0 -36.6
    2011 02 19 2200 55611 79200 0 -5.5 -2.2 -3.9 7.1 -33.8
    2011 02 19 2300 55611 82800 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0000 55612 0 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0100 55612 3600 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0200 55612 7200 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0300 55612 10800 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0400 55612 14400 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0500 55612 18000 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0600 55612 21600 9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9 -999.9
    2011 02 20 0700 55612 25200 0 -0.5 -3.7 -4.6 5.9 -51.0
    2011 02 20 0800 55612 28800 0 -0.7 -0.5 -4.6 4.6 -79.7
    2011 02 20 0900 55612 32400 0 -1.0 0.1 -5.6 5.7 -80.0

    Just The Facts says:
    February 20, 2011 at 11:59 pm
    however I am quite confident that up and down connote direction in the English language…
    Usually not when used in breakup/breakdown. Another thing for you to accept and another chance for you to move on [prediction: you won't, prove me wrong].

  133. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 9:32 am
    Are you in agreement with the influences noted and associated magnitudes?
    It doesn’t take a solar physicist to disagree. For example it states that the variation of TSI is less than 2 W/m2 (1.3% of 1368), yet also claims that solar UV [which is part of TSI] varies 16 W/m2. Some of the arrows go the wrong way., but let’s deal with one thing at a time.

  134. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    It doesn’t take a solar physicist to disagree. For example it states that the variation of TSI is less than 2 W/m2 (1.3% of 1368)
    If the delta is not % but W/m2, then UV variation would be 0.15 W/m2, which is more like it [although a bit high]. The chart omits to tell you that there are variations almost a hundred times larger due to the varying distance to the Sun.

  135. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    “There are no inconsistency in standard usage, just some people being sloppy. Accept that, and you can move on [prediction: you won't, prove me wrong].”

    “Usually not when used in breakup/breakdown. Another thing for you to accept and another chance for you to move on [prediction: you won't, prove me wrong].”

    Tabled without resolution for expediency’s sake.

  136. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Tabled without resolution for expediency’s sake.
    Refusing to learn is poor strategy…

  137. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    “It helps to know a bit about the data. The first 8 hours the data is missing and the simulation is stuck on its prior value, so no wonder it looks stable [from ACE]:

    Yep, it appears that ACE was knocked off line on 19th and resumed on the 20th. Interestingly, the ACE Interplanetary Magnetic Field plots seem to have data;

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html

    and the ground based k-indexes show stability during the time in question:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/k-index.html

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html

    I am not sure what to make of the Costello Geomagnetic Activity Index:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rpc/costello/pkp_15m_7d.html

    Hopefully it’s a communication issue so we’ll get a look at all of the original data in the coming days. It is difficult to analyze these phenomena if we cannot effectively measure them, e.g. if the satellites get knocked out when there’s a large event.

  138. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    “It doesn’t take a solar physicist to disagree. For example it states that the variation of TSI is less than 2 W/m2 (1.3% of 1368), yet also claims that solar UV [which is part of TSI] varies 16 W/m2.”

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm
    If the delta is not % but W/m2, then UV variation would be 0.15 W/m2, which is more like it [although a bit high].

    So you are saying that the influences noted in the summary appear accurate, and the magnitude of potential variances appear reasonable except for UV, which might be a bit high?

    What are your thoughts on the prelim findings from Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM), i.e.:

    “In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

    “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    Cahalan, as well as groups of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Johns Hopkins University, presented research at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December that explored the climate implications of the recent SIM measurements.

    Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.

    Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,” Cahalan said.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

    Some of the arrows go the wrong way., but let’s deal with one thing at a time.

    Which arrows?

    The chart omits to tell you that there are variations almost a hundred times larger due to the varying distance to the Sun.

    The chart does, but on the site where it’s posted it is right next to an eccentricity graphic and “a.)” is “Changes in the Earth’s Orbit”:

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

  139. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Refusing to learn is poor strategy…

    Somehow you’ve made it this far using such an approach, so one never knows…

  140. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    Interestingly, the ACE Interplanetary Magnetic Field plots seem to have data;

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html

    The 8 hour missing data are off the right-hand edge…

    I am not sure what to make of the Costello Geomagnetic Activity Index:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rpc/costello/pkp_15m_7d.html

    The Costello doesn’t always work. The problem is that these statistical methods depend on ‘normal’ variability of the field and the field on the 19th was extraordinarily quite. I first thought that was instrumental failure, but the data from another satellite [WIND] shows otherwise: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/ no doubt this interval will be studied closely.

    It is difficult to analyze these phenomena if we cannot effectively measure them, e.g. if the satellites get knocked out when there’s a large event.
    such is Nature. Same with anemometers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer] during hurricanes and tornadoes.

  141. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    So you are saying that the influences noted in the summary appear accurate, and the magnitude of potential variances appear reasonable except for UV, which might be a bit high?
    No. I’m saying that the chart has many problems and is confusing. For example, in the top row one may based on some of the boxes get the idea that what is shown is the quantity and its variation. Yet in some boxes only one number is given [in other a delta is also given]. If the solar number given is the quantity, them that is not too interesting, because for an influence you need a variation, a delta [otherwise you just have a tiny constant influence which is very hard to observe].

    If the SIM’s spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.
    This still needs to be firmed up. Modelling of the effects suggests very small effects.

    “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate,”. He is talking about the stratosphere which is not where our climate comes from.

    Some of the arrows go the wrong way., but let’s deal with one thing at a time.
    Which arrows?

    All the arrows point down, while in reality many of them should point up or at least go both ways, e.g. tropospheric dynamics breaking down the polar vortex, or the atmospheric E field mostly controlled by thunderstorms.

    Another glaring problem is that the various arrows should have a thickness proportional to the amount of energy [or 'influence' if one wants to stay vague and non-committal] involved. Overall, I found the chart tendentious and [mis]leading.

  142. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm
    Refusing to learn is poor strategy…
    Somehow you’ve made it this far using such an approach, so one never knows…

    Your nastiness doesn’t become a gentleman, but one might have presumed too much…

  143. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    “The 8 hour missing data are off the right-hand edge…”

    ? The chart runs through 51 days, 31 days in Jan and 20 days in Feb, which means that the plot shows data for both of the days in questions, i.e. Feb 19th and 20th.

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html

  144. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm
    “The 8 hour missing data are off the right-hand edge…”
    ? The chart runs through 51 days, 31 days in Jan and 20 days in Feb, which means that the plot shows data for both of the days in questions, i.e. Feb 19th and 20th.

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html

    Look here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3
    The big spike in B was on the 18th [my notice of 'the CME has just hit']. You’ll find that spike on your plot on the penultimate day [number 49 I reckon from their way of counting]. That makes DOY 50, the 19th.

    Your problem is that the tick mark labelled 50 marks UT 00:00 on the 50th day, so the 51st day begins at the very right-hand edge of the plot, meaning that the date after 00:00 would off the chart. I don’t know how better to explain it, except perhaps making several sketches and more elaborate expositions. Hopefully what I have said here will suffice, but as you say “one never knows…”

  145. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    “The problem is that these statistical methods depend on ‘normal’ variability of the field and the field on the 19th was extraordinarily quite. I first thought that was instrumental failure, but the data from another satellite [WIND] shows otherwise: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/ no doubt this interval will be studied closely.”

    For clarity, are you saying you think that the NICT Magnet Field animations for Feb 19th and 20th are accurate, still in question or some combination thereof?

    This also offers a good segue, let’s dig into magnetic fields. To get started, let’s talk about the aa index, as many of the papers I’ve found rely on it and I know you’ve got issues with it, i.e.:
    IHV: A NEW LONG-TERM GEOMAGNETIC INDEX
    Leif Svalgaard1, Edward W. Cliver2, and Philippe Le Sager3
    “The long time series of the aa index (Mayaud, 1972) is commonly used to investigate geomagnetic activity and the Sun-Earth connection. The validity of any analysis based on aa rests on the assumed constancy of the calibration of this index over time. Svalgaard et al. (2003) have presented evidence of the non-constancy of the aa calibration. The present paper seeks to explain and elaborate on the methodology of that study.”

    “When we use the IHV index to reconstruct the aa index – the standard index used for long-term studies of geomagnetic variability – for the last 100 years, we find that the reconstructed aa lies above the observed aa before 1957, with the greatest discrepancy (~5-10 nT) occurring for the first two decades of the 20th century. Thus any claim based on the rise of aa (as observed and reported by ISGI (Service International des Indices Geomagnetique)) since 1900 may be inaccurate. Implications of the non-constant calibration of the aa index were addressed in Svalgaard et al. (2003).”

    http://www.leif.org/research/IHV%20-%20a%20new%20long-term%20geomagnetic%20index.pdf

    Are you are confident in the validty of the aa index after 1957? How has your paper been received, has it withstood scrutiny to date?

    Based upon your aa/IHV index research has Cliver lost confidence in his paper “Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.25, 1998)” and his finding that;

    “During the past ~120 years, Earth’s surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation with aa minimum values suggests the existence of a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar irradiance that underlies the 11-year cyclic component. Extrapolating the aa-temperature correlations to Maunder Minimum geomagnetic conditions implies that solar forcing can account for ~50% or more of the estimated ~0.7-1.5°C increase in global surface temperature since the second half of the 17th century.”?

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Cliver.pdf

  146. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    For clarity, are you saying you think that the NICT Magnet Field animations for Feb 19th and 20th are accurate, still in question or some combination thereof?
    I have now explained this several times. Let me try one LAST time [after that you are on your own]: There are data missing from the record. Probably because of communications problems. The simulation is [apparently] designed to run on, updated when new data arrives, so missing data causes the simulation to continue for many hours with the latest data it had, leading to flatlining of the graph.

    Are you are confident in the validity of the aa index after 1957? How has your paper been received, has it withstood scrutiny to date?
    That the aa-index is wrong before 1957 is now mainstream science and several authors use a corrected version. The definitive paper on this problem [and its resolution] is http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf

    Based upon your aa/IHV index research has Cliver lost confidence in his paper “Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.25, 1998)”
    Cliver is a co-author of the definitive paper linked to above. And the conclusions of the earlier papers are no longer valid. That does not deter some people to still cite them when it is convenient for their own agenda.

  147. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    No. I’m saying that the chart has many problems and is confusing. For example, in the top row one may based on some of the boxes get the idea that what is shown is the quantity and its variation. Yet in some boxes only one number is given [in other a delta is also given]. If the solar number given is the quantity, them that is not too interesting, because for an influence you need a variation, a delta [otherwise you just have a tiny constant influence which is very hard to observe].

    I agree here, not sure why there’s a delta for some and not others, nor why they’ve tried to make all the arrows one directional. Regardless, I am particularly focused on energy sources, amount of energy and variance. For TSI, they say 1368 W/M2, +-1.3, whereas Kopp and Lean, in their paper “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance” found that:

    “The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view-limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate-relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates. ”

    Do you have a reliable reference for extraterrestrial energy sources, amount of energy and variance?

    He is talking about the stratosphere which is not where our climate comes from.

    I have number papers that address potential stratospheric influences, particularly in terms of vortices, but to maintain focus I am going stick to the big picture (energy inputs) and geomagnetism for now.

    “Another glaring problem is that the various arrows should have a thickness proportional to the amount of energy [or 'influence' if one wants to stay vague and non-committal] involved.”

    That’s a good idea. Maybe when we’re done we can put something like that together.

  148. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    “Your nastiness doesn’t become a gentleman, but one might have presumed too much…”

    You’ll find that I reflect. I am not one to initiate nastiness, but when it’s presented, I certainly don’t shy away…

  149. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 9:16 pm
    Do you have a reliable reference for extraterrestrial energy sources, amount of energy and variance?
    I think so [some might disagree] having provided some of those myself, but it is a big job to put all that together. A reasonable overview [which I do not always agree with, but it is not too bad] is here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf

  150. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    You’ll find that I reflect. I am not one to initiate nastiness[...]

    Just reminding you of:
    Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    “What is your concern about success? Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts”

  151. Just The Facts says:

    Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 21st 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:

    Here’s the link to the high res download avi file:

    http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110221.avi

  152. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    How has your paper been received, has it withstood scrutiny to date?
    A shorter and more accessible version of the geomagnetic indices papers is here:

    http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf

  153. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    Here is Magnetosphere Activity for February, 21st 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
    and what is the point?

  154. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    “Just reminding you of:”
    Just The Facts says:
    February 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    “What is your concern about success? Are you not confident in your ability to elucidate your thoughts”

    Yes, that was in response to:
    “Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am
    But I can try to explain [may not succeed].”

    You initiated it, I just responded…

  155. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    “and what is the point?”

    I figured it worthwhile to have a few days before and few days after the event. When I have a chance I’ll combine them all into one video. As I said, first area of focus is extraterrestrial influences on geomagnetism.

  156. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    I think so [some might disagree] having provided some of those myself, but it is a big job to put all that together. A reasonable overview [which I do not always agree with, but it is not too bad] is here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf

    Now that’s one way to shut me up, it will take a while for me to read through and research that. See, no need for nastiness, you’re better off tossing valuable references at me…

  157. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 10:08 pm
    first area of focus is extraterrestrial influences on geomagnetism.

    That is well-understood, as described in http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf

    “The confirmation by spacecraft measurements of what workers in solar-terrestrial relations had so long suspected namely that a solar wind connects the magnetic regimes of the Sun and the Earth has finally brought about an understanding of one half of the relationship [activity] while the discovery of the ionosphere and measurements of solar ultraviolet and X-ray emissions have brought understanding of the other half [regular diurnal variation]. Today we have a quantitative understanding of these phenomena [although the
    microphysics is still debated] allowing us to model quantitatively the geomagnetic response to solar and interplanetary conditions.”

    To wit the animations you are collecting.

  158. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 10:00 pm
    Yes, that was in response to:
    “Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 9:52 am
    But I can try to explain [may not succeed].”
    You initiated it, I just responded…

    But I was right, I didn’t succeed. So your over the top response was not called for.

  159. Just The Facts says:
    February 21, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    See, no need for nastiness
    As you I just respond…

  160. Philip Mulholland says:

    Is this food fight still going on guys?
    I’m running out of popcorn.

    Here’s a good Thesaurus for you:-
    Break-up: separation
    Breakdown: failure

  161. Philip Mulholland says:
    February 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Is this food fight still going on guys?
    I’m running out of popcorn.

    I think it has petered out, but you never know…

  162. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    “I think it has petered out, but you never know…”

    There’s no petering out, just doing my homework (and some of my real work).

  163. Just The Facts says:

    Philip Mulholland says: February 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    “Is this food fight still going on guys?”

    I’d did go to the food store today, but I think we’ll try to keep that all in the fridge for now…

  164. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    “But I was right, I didn’t succeed. So your over the top response was not called for.”

    It wasn’t “over the top”, it was funny, and turned out to be reasonably accurate, i.e. what you originally were trying to explain was that, “The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above.” and I said that a reason you might not succeed was if you could “not provide sufficient references to support your assertions?” This may in fact turn out to be the case, because it is difficult to prove or disprove your statement, given that there is significant disagreement on the amount of incoming extraterrestrial energy, its variability and its impact. With that said, I will still do my best to prove you wrong, for the good science of course…

  165. Just The Facts says:

    For geomagnetism, let’s start with some of the weaker references. What are your thoughts on Landscheidt’s paper “SOLAR WIND NEAR EARTH: INDICATOR OF VARIATIONS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” and his findings that:

    “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years."?

    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html

  166. Just The Facts says:

    And this paper by El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib relies on (Landscheidt, 2000) and Lockwood et al. (1999) called “Can we use the aa geomagnetic activity index to predict partially the variability in global mean temperatures?” found that;
    “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the aa geomagnetic activity index, have displayed good correlations with global temperature (Landscheidt, 2000). Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C. In addition, the solar energetic eruptions, which dragged out or/and organized by the observed variations in the solar wind, are closely correlated with the near-Earth environment (El-Borie, 2003a;b). Comparison of the aa geomagnetic with the solar wind, post-1965, showed a fairly good match, indicating that the aa variations were mostly due to similar variations in the solar wind, which must have their origin in solar physical processes (Feynman, 1982; Kane, 1997; El-Borie, 2003a;b).”

    http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS/PDF/Pdf2006/Oct/El-Borie%20and%20Al-Thoyaib.pdf

  167. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    It wasn’t “over the top”, it was funny
    The food fight goes on. It was not funny at all. It was uncalled for. And I did not succeed, so was right.

    given that there is significant disagreement on the amount of incoming extraterrestrial energy, its variability and its impact.
    There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2. “Impact” is in the eye of the beholder and some are not seeing very well.

    Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    his findings that: “Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature”
    Is simply not correct. Geomagnetic activity recently has been on par with what it was in the 19th century, e.g. slide 25 and 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Physics-based%20Long-term%20Geomagnetic%20Indices.pdf
    While temperatures are not.

    Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    Lockwood et al. (1999) found that the total magnetic flux, leaving the Sun and driven by the solar wind, has risen by a factor 2.3 since 1901, leading to the global temperature increased of 0.5º C.
    Is not correct either. The magnetic flux now is back to where it was in 1901. e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf

    Why don’t you do some analysis yourself to get a feeling for this.

  168. Just The Facts says:

    The following vein of thought is quite interesting, this non-peer-reviewed 2009 article by Václav Bucha: “Geomagnetic Activity and the Global Temperature” states that;

    “We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”

    “As a consequence of geomagnetic storms, indicating the enhancement of the solar wind, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the polar vortex. There they take part in perturbing the processes in the polar region and in changing the direction of the flow of the polar air to the lower latitudes.” And “At the time of La Nina and under low values of the AA index, the wind blows from the polar region over North America and from the Atlantic towards the pole via Greenland. Surface temperatures in Eurasia are below normal. Under El Nino and increased values of the AA index, the vortex shifts towards Europe and rotates couterclockwise.”

    “This leads to the increase of surface temperatures in Eurasia and increases the global temperature.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/c071v0t195182757/

    And this 2010 paper, “Geomagnetic activity related NOx enhancements and polar surface air temperature variability in a chemistry climate model: modulation of the NAM index” by A. J. G. Baumgaertner1, A. Seppälä2,*, P. Jöckel1,3, and M. A. Clilverd2 states that;

    “Statistically significant temperature effects that were observed in previous reanalysis and model results are also obtained from this set of simulations, suggesting that such patterns are indeed related to geomagnetic activity. In the model, strong geomagnetic activity and the associated NOx enhancements lead to polar stratospheric ozone loss. Compared with the simulation with weak geomagnetic activity, the ozone loss causes a decrease in ozone radiative cooling and thus a temperature increase in the polar winter mesosphere. Similar to previous studies, a cooling is found below the stratopause, which other authors have attributed to a decrease in the mean meridional circulation. In the polar stratosphere this leads to a more stable vortex. A strong (weak) Northern Hemisphere vortex is known to be associated with a positive (negative) Northern Annular Mode (NAM) index;
    our simulations exhibit a positive NAM index for strong geomagnetic activity, and a negative NAM for weak geomagnetic activity. Such NAM anomalies have been shown to propagate to the surface, and this is also seen in the model simulations. NAM anomalies are known to lead to specific surface temperature anomalies: a positive NAM is associated with warmer than average northern Eurasia and colder than average eastern North Atlantic. This is also the case in our simulation. Our simulations suggest a link between geomagnetic activity, ozone loss, stratospheric cooling, the NAM, and surface temperature variability.”

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/30171/2010/acpd-10-30171-2010.pdf

  169. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    The following vein of thought is quite interesting
    There must be hundreds of such non-convincing papers that claim such relationships. Good for funding to claim that one’s work is important for climate.
    The stark fact is that geomagnetic activity in the 20/21th century is not significantly larger than in the 19th. Same with the solar wind magnetic flux. Temperatures are very different between the two periods. Now, the usual way this is ‘explained’ is that the higher recent temperatures are just the expected effect of AGW.
    If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].

  170. Just The Fac says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    “There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2.

    What? This chart say that TSI is 1368 W/M2 with a variance of +- 1.3:

    The figure on page 2 of this deck shows TSI satellite measurements differences from 1355 – 1375 and the variances that vary, though in a relatively narrow band:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster%20Presentations/Poster_Scafetta_TSI%20Composites.pdf

    Slide 18 of this deck shows a comparison of the different TSI composites and slide 19 shows the differences between them:

    http://www.hao.ucar.edu/EDDY2010/Presentations/Wigley.pdf

    The Kopp and Lean paper I pointed out above found that;
    “The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml

    Slide 13 this deck shows how SORCE/TIM TSI compares with other TSI measurements:

    http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/woods_svecse.pdf

    I am not arguing that these differences are important from a climatic perspective, rather I am saying that the fact that we are still figuring how to accurately measure TSI is indicative that the study of solar influences on Earth’s climate system is still in its nascent stage.

  171. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    “There is no significant disagreements about amount or variability in W/m2.”
    What?

    ——– WordPress screwed up again ———–
    The are no disagreements. The various [older] measurements are discordant with SORCE. But there is growing agreement that SORCE is correct. In any event the differences are very small, MUCH smaller than the uncertainty in the albedo [which actually determines how much TSI gets to the surface.

    But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.

  172. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    There must be hundreds of such non-convincing papers that claim such relationships. Good for funding to claim that one’s work is important for climate.

    I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?

    “The stark fact is that geomagnetic activity in the 20/21th century is not significantly larger than in the 19th. Same with the solar wind magnetic flux. Temperatures are very different between the two periods.

    That’s relevant if I were trying to link geomagnetic activity with significant temperature changes from prior centuries, however that is not my goal here. For arguments sake, let’s say that the Little Ice Age was caused primarily by an increase in volcanic activity, elongated by an increase in albedo due to snow and ice accumulation, and slight decrease in TSI due to the Maunder and Dalton minimums. . Furthermore, looking at the 20th and 21st centuries, once we account for Oceanic Oscillations (PDO, AMO, El Nino, etc.), Atmospheric Oscillations (AO, AAO, NAO, NPO, MJO, EQUINOO, SO, etc.), urban heat islands, land use changes, aerosols/particulates, poor measurement practices and a number of other know variables, there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained. With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand. My goal here is to better understand extraterrestrial influences on Earth’s climate so that I can incorporate them into the list of climatic variables that I am compiling.

    If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].

    Interesting, I need to get some sleep, but I will do some research into that tomorrow.

  173. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 8:50 pm
    rather I am saying that the fact that we are still figuring how to accurately measure TSI is indicative that the study of solar influences on Earth’s climate system is still in its nascent stage.
    This is silly, TSI is measured well enough for this purpose. Show me how knowing TSI accurately to twenty decimal places is going to make any difference. What is more important is to measure the SSI [Solar Spectral Irradiance, how the output vary with wave length], but even here this is just a question of data, and not indicative of any nascence. We have asked these questions for 400 years now. That we still don’t know is perhaps more indicative of there not being anything there.

  174. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
    I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?
    I have already. The correlations are simply not there, let alone the mechanisms.

    That’s relevant if I were trying to link geomagnetic activity with significant temperature changes from prior centuries, however that is not my goal here [...] there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained.
    So, no reason to desperately look for an explanation of something that may not need be explained.

    With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand.
    you might end up like the Black Knight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

    Unknown unknowns don’t do much for me.

  175. Just The Facts says:
    February 22, 2011 at 9:56 pm
    I agree, but this is not a refutation of references I’ve cited. Do you see any basis to question the validity of their findings?
    First, the analysis is shoddy [e.g. computing correlation coefficients between heavily smoothed data] and the data does not support their ‘findings’.
    A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
    The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.

    Recent papers have looked at this in a rigorous manner: e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf From their conclusion:
    “we applied those procedures to temperature and geomagnetic activity time series. [...] a rigorous test between both variables shows that no significant correlation exists between them”

    So, perhaps we can put this to bed now and not waste any more time on this.

  176. Just The Facts says:

    I still need to catch up a several of the previous posts, but back to the recent X class flare, what are your thoughts on this article, which states that;

    “The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s. When the sun sends a mass of hot plasma hurtling toward the planet in a coronal mass ejection, the plasma is imprinted with its own magnetic field separate from the sun’s. Astronomers can’t predict the direction of the plasma’s magnetic field until the burst hits Earth.

    If the plasma’s magnetic field is parallel to the Earth’s, the incoming charged particles are effectively blocked from entering Earth’s magnetosphere. An identical flare with a perpendicular magnetic field would have triggered a much stronger storm.”?

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/weak-solar-storm/#more-52010

  177. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    “The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
    That is the way mother Nature works. I, in fact, predicted just that just after the flare and long before its field was observed by ACE, and that prediction came out beautifully [as it should have, as this is not contentious]:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    Time to make some prediction: since the magnetic field in 1158 points roughly northwards [white is out, black is into the Sun], the CME should be born with a leading edge that has northwards field. That should mean that initially the geomagnetic storm will not be very strong. Whether it later strengthens depend on how much the southward field on the ‘backside’ of the magnetic cloud is compressed. So, I predict a moderate storm only.

  178. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    “The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
    That is the way mother Nature works, as explained in this paper

    http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf

  179. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    “there probably isn’t very much temperature change that needs to be explained.
    So, no reason to desperately look for an explanation of something that may not need be explained.”

    No desperation, just rigour.

    “With that said, I’d be willing to bet my left arm that the sun influences Earth’s climate in ways that we have yet to discover and understand.”
    you might end up like the Black Knight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

    Now that’s funny. But only time and research will tell who’s right. Given the openendedness of my position, I’ll put a constraint on it and say that discovery/credible demonstration of an as yet unknown/unproven solar influence on Earth’s climate will occur within your lifetime. If I am wrong, I will admit as such in an epitaph, though not remove my own arm. Now remember, exercise and a healthy diet, as I might need some time on this… :)

  180. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    No desperation, just rigour.
    The links you provided don’t have much of that commodity, but perhaps your bar is much lower than mine.

    Given the openendedness of my position
    Science is always open by definition, and your relentless peddling of low-quality papers does not bode well for a resolution if those are the standard bearers of your position. Better be a tad less open and a tad more critical.

  181. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
    say that discovery/credible demonstration of an as yet unknown/unproven solar influence on Earth’s climate will occur within your lifetime.
    I have already read hundreds of papers [stretching back centuries] claiming precisely that, so fully expect such demonstrations to continue indefinitely.

  182. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 22, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    “”If we want to be very technical about it we have to take the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field into account. This makes the Earth more ‘sensitive’ to the solar wind and thus results in an artificial [small] increase in geomagnetic activity [for a given solar wind].”

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    “The storm was so weak because the flare’s magnetic field happened to be aligned parallel to the Earth’s.”
    “That is the way mother Nature works, as explained in this paper

    http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf

    Very interesting and ridiculously complex. The combination of these variables must makes it quite challenging to isolate and assess the potential influences of historical CME impacts on Earth. Correct? How far back do we have data on the direction of the magnetic fields of Earthbound CMEs? At what points during transit was the direction of field measured?

    In your paper that you state that;
    “Due to everpresent fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection 32 occur often enough within a three-hour interval at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the impression that reconnect ion and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”

    Are these fluctuations in the “direction” of the interplanetary magnetic field? Could a CME leave the sun misaligned with Earth’s magnetic field, but fluctuate during transit and passage through the bow-shock as to be aligned upon arrival?

    Do you agree with this summary of alignment/connection?
    “When Bz is south, that is, opposite Earth’s magnetic field, the two fields link up,” explains Christopher Russell, a Professor of Geophysics and Space Physics at UCLA. “You can then follow a field line from Earth directly into the solar wind” — or from the solar wind to Earth. South-pointing Bz’s open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth’s atmosphere!”

    Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?

    Can you explain this statement from your paper further?

    “A plasma particle that has an initial guiding center velocity, carrying it across a boundary between magnetic fields of different direction, will continue its motion when the two fields have a parallel component but will be reflected back when the magnetic fields on either side of the boundary have an anti-parallel component. In loose terms we may say that the solar wind plasma can penetrate deeper into the geomagnetic field at places where the field direction is the same as the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind because it takes longer for the plasma to realize that something is wrong.”

    i.e. is the plasma’s “realization” mechanism one of the following?

    “1) The plasma is completely diamagnetic and excludes the field from its interior by flowing around the field region, or 2) The plasma remains non-diamagnetic as it encounters the magnetic field and crosses it by means of an electric polarization and corresponding.”

  183. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
    The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.

    Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset?

    I have more confidence in my local bank’s temperature record than I do in GISS’… Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?

    Furthermore, your comparison is irrelevant to Bucha’s finding that:

    “We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December

    and Baumgaertner, Seppälä, Jöckel and Clilver’s finding that:
    “Our simulations suggest a link between geomagnetic activity, ozone loss, stratospheric cooling, the NAM, and surface temperature variability.”

    You seem to be arguing the lack of correlation and/or causality of the last century or centuries temperature changes to solar activity, whereas, I, and both of these references argue for influences on Earth’s climate, and particularly on Earth’s polar vortices, due to solar variability.

    Here’s another one, “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit Tung:

    “The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC, with a statistically significant zonal mean warming of approximately 4.6 K in the 10–50-hPa layer in the mean and 7.2 K from peak to peak. This magnitude of the warming in winter is too large to be explainable by UV radiation alone. The evidence seems to suggest that the polar warming in NH late winter during SC-max is due to the occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), as noted previously by other authors. This hypothesis is circumstantially substantiated here by the similarity between the meridional pattern and timing of the warming and cooling observed during the SC-max and the known pattern and timing of SSWs, which has the form of large warming over the pole and small cooling over the midlatitudes during mid- and late winter. The eQBO is also known to precondition the polar vortex for the onset of SSWs, and it has been pointed out by previous authors that SSWs can occur during eQBO at all stages of the solar cycle.”

    So, perhaps we can put this to bed now and not waste any more time on this.

    No, this one just had a cup of coffee…

  184. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    Very interesting and ridiculously complex.
    Nature is complex. It took us ~150 years to figure this out. Every complicated question has a simple answer which is wrong. There is no way around the complexity [if you want to understand - otherwise you just take it on faith].

    The combination of these variables must makes it quite challenging to isolate and assess the potential influences of historical CME impacts on Earth. Correct?
    Not really, as we can invert the process and assess the variables from the size and evolution of observed CMEs. E.g. see Figures 7 and 8 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JA013232.pdf

    How far back do we have data on the direction of the magnetic fields of Earthbound CMEs? At what points during transit was the direction of field measured?
    since 1963. The field was measured ‘at the Earth’.

    Are these fluctuations in the “direction” of the interplanetary magnetic field?
    Mostly, yes.

    Could a CME leave the sun misaligned with Earth’s magnetic field, but fluctuate during transit and passage through the bow-shock as to be aligned upon arrival?
    Not unless it is disturbed by another CME running into it [or it runs into one ahead]. This happens but not often.

    Do you agree with this summary of alignment/connection?
    “When Bz is south, that is, opposite Earth’s magnetic field, the two fields link up,” [...] “You can then follow a field line from Earth directly into the solar wind” — or from the solar wind to Earth. South-pointing Bz’s open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth’s atmosphere!”
    Mostly, but there is more to it. The fields also link up at other orientations [e.g. East/West; this is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect], but not so efficiently.

    Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?
    I’m not sure what you mean. This occurs every few hours all the time and has been followed since 1963 by spacecraft and since the 1840s by proxies.

    Can you explain this statement from your paper further? …
    “crosses it by means of an electric polarization and corresponding….”

    There is still debate about the ‘micro-physics’ and we have made progress since 1977. The physics of this reconnection process was poorly known in 1977 [and only general - but still largely correct - hand-waving arguments could be made]. Today we know a lot more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf
    [another complex paper].

  185. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset? [...] Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?
    Did Landscheidt use UAH?

    Furthermore, your comparison is irrelevant to Bucha’s finding that:
    “We are able to establish the key fact that there exist statistically significant relations between the increasing global temperature and geomagnetic activity in the month of October and December”

    Were these data taken on the 23rd or the 24th of those months?
    The trends in temperatures are highly correlated so it doesn’t really matter which one your use. If it does, you are just cherry-picking data that fits. ”

    You seem to be arguing the lack of correlation and/or causality of the last century or centuries temperature changes to solar activity, whereas, I, and both of these references argue for influences on Earth’s climate, and particularly on Earth’s polar vortices, due to solar variability.
    specifically it was geomagnetic activity [and not solar activity, e.g. UV] we were discussing. Did you study this paper carefully:
    “Recent papers have looked at this in a rigorous manner: e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf From their conclusion:
    “we applied those procedures to temperature and geomagnetic activity time series. [...] a rigorous test between both variables shows that no significant correlation exists between them””

    Here’s another one
    There are hundreds out there. Enough for every taste. As far as I am concerned, they all fail. Let me remind you: “But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”

  186. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    The links you provided don’t have much of that commodity, but perhaps your bar is much lower than mine.

    Now you are tossing food, and the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.

    Science is always open by definition, and your relentless peddling of low-quality papers does not bode well for a resolution if those are the standard bearers of your position. Better be a tad less open and a tad more critical.

    Again food. The word I used was “openendedness” not “openmindedness”, and the only “low-quality papers” I’ve cited (my bike is downstairs right now, no peddling going on here) were Landscheidt’s and, El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib’s, which I caveated with the statement, “For geomagnetism, let’s start with some of the weaker references”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/watch-sunspot-group-1158-form-from-nothing/#comment-605212

    and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.

    I will be offline for the next 24 hours, so please take your time and see if you can put a fork in the solar influences on vortices front.

  187. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.
    As I said, your bar is much lower than mine. The shoe is on the other foot: the papers have yet to be substantiated. Most scientists don’t bother wasting time on refuting weak papers.

    and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.
    I don’t see the merit of this. It only shows that you are not conducting a serious discussion.

    you can put a fork in the solar influences on vortices front.
    “But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”

  188. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.
    “I don’t see the merit of this. It only shows that you are not conducting a serious discussion.”

    The blogosphere has a word for a person behaving like that: ‘a troll’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

  189. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    “Do we have reliable records of when this phenomenon, i.e. alignment/connection has occurred previously?”
    I’m not sure what you mean. This occurs every few hours all the time and has been followed since 1963 by spacecraft and since the 1840s by proxies.

    Particular to CME impacts on Earth, i.e. do we have reliable records as to which ones were aligned upon impact?

  190. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm
    “Science is always open by definition”
    Again food. The word I used was “openendedness” not “openmindedness”

    Who said anything about “openmindedness”. Let me spell it out for you [I really didn't think had to]: Science is always “openended”, because we don’t know where we’ll end up. Scientists are generally not “openminded”, but are very conservative. It takes a VERY good argument [you know "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"] or evidence to overturn a generally accepted paradigm. It happens from time to time, we call that progress.

  191. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 8:36 pm
    Particular to CME impacts on Earth, i.e. do we have reliable records as to which ones were aligned upon impact?
    Since 1963 we have direct measurements. But is is really simpler than that: a geomagnetic storm has three phases. An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME. This has nothing [or little] to do with the direction of the field. Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up. This is called the main phase. If the alignment is wrong the main phase will be stunted of even missing. If the alignment is perfect, you get a very large and clear main phase. Things being messy, you can get intermediate effects when the direction is not steady. You can see that here: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2011,01,27
    On the 14th the CME started out with southwards field [negative Bz] and storm began, but the just before midnight the field turned northwards and the storm was quashed and fizzled out.

  192. Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME. This has nothing [or little] to do with the direction of the field. Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up. This is called the main phase. If the alignment is wrong the main phase will be stunted or even missing. If the alignment is perfect, you get a very large and clear main phase.
    Back in 1962 it was known that some storms developed while other fizzled: e.g.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/JZ068i001p00125.pdf

    As Akasofu and Chapman noted in their conclusion “The variety of development of the storms seems to suggest some intrinsic differences between the solar stream far beyond what we would expect from a mere difference between their pressures. The nature of their intrinsic differences is at present unknown.”

    Joe Dungey had suggested that the magnetosphere was ‘open’ and that magnetic field lines could reconnect [if their direction were right] and in that in that way energy could be fed into the magnetosphere. This was not generally accepted [remember: scientists are very conservative and just don't jump on every bandwagon they see]. Especially not by Chapman. It was only after Arnoldy [for solar wind Bz] and I [for By] showed that both Bz and By had measurable effects that the idea of a favorable direction took hold [but then acceptance was quick]. In fact, Akasofu was the referee on my first paper on this and rejected it flat out. He has later apologized, of course, but such was the state of the art back then, and such was the lack [which is proper] of openmindedness.

    So, the solution to the problem is the direction of the field in the CME.

  193. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    “the Vortex related references I’ve cited above have yet to be refuted.”
    “As I said, your bar is much lower than mine. The shoe is on the other foot: the papers have yet to be substantiated. Most scientists don’t bother wasting time on refuting weak papers.”

    The bar reference doesn’t make sense, if I had a lower bar for refutation I would consider more papers to be refuted, not less. Furthermore, I am simply pointing out that the possibility there is some solar influence on polar vortices exists and has some support in the literature. Thus some enterprising scientists might want to research this area further as there may be an opportunity for significant discovery and to prove Leif wrong.

    “and I only teed them up so you could put a fork in them for posterity’s sake.”
    “I don’t see the merit of this.”

    Of course there’s merit, I am eliminating potential variables from the conversation and my list.

  194. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    The blogosphere has a word for a person behaving like that: ‘a troll’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

    I am not really sure what to make of this. It’s kinda like me calling you a dumbass. So off that it is both confusing and somewhat comical. The first thing that I thought of when I read your comment was this:

    Don’t watch too much or it will suck out your brain… Anyways, congratulations on calling troll on me, it seems like only a matter of time before you’ll offer another proof of Godwin’s Law… :)

  195. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    Now that was all really good stuff.

    “An initial phase that is caused by the compression of the magnetosphere by the dynamic pressure of the CME.”

    Per this paper, “An empirical relationship between coronal mass ejection initial speed and solar wind dynamic pressure” by Cho, Bong, Moon, Dryer, Lee and Kim;

    “Interplanetary shocks that precede coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are mainly responsible for sudden impulses, which are characterized by a simple step-like increase in the horizontal H component. Such a magnetic field change has been explained as a compression of the magnetosphere by the passage of a sudden increase in the solar wind dynamic pressure. Strong compression of the dayside magnetopause could cause geosynchronous satellites to be exposed to solar wind environments where large fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field and highly energetic particles are present. In this study, we chose 26 event pairs consisting of a type II burst/CME occurring in conjunction with a sudden commencement/sudden impulse (SC/SI) whose solar wind, and Earth magnetic field data are available. We then investigated relationships among three physical properties (kinetic energy, directional parameter, and speed) of near-Sun CMEs, solar wind dynamic pressure, and SC/SI amplitude. As a result, we found that (1) the CME speed is more highly correlated with SC/SI amplitude than its kinetic energy and direction parameter; (2) by adopting the empirical relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure and amplitude of symmetric H (a steplike increase in the horizontal H component at low latitude), we could derive an empirical formula for the relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure near the Earth and the CME speed; (3) the CME speed has a linear relationship with the difference of magnetopause locations derived by using the model of Shue et al. (1998) at the subsolar point before and after the shock arrivals; (4) a fast CME greater than 1600 km s−1 could be a driver of the magnetopause crossing of a spacecraft at geosynchronous orbit. Our results show that the CME speed is an important parameter for early prediction of geosynchronous magnetopause crossing.”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JA015139.shtml

    Does this seem reasonably accurate? Do you agree with their conclusions?

    In terms of the force of the dynamic pressure, this CME observation from July 15, 2000 seems to indicate that 43 nPa;
    “On the 15th (DOY 197), there is a declining speed until a large forward shock arrives near 1437 UT. This shock is clearly identified by the abrupt and strong speed increase from about 600 km/s to over 900 km/s. This shock has a strong density and stronger temperature enhancement. The dynamic pressure reaches about 43 nPa (wow). At 1600 UT there is a further increase in the speed (eventually to about 1043 km/s), while the density and temperature have declined markedly. Unfortunately, there is a tracking gap after 2000 UT.”

    43 nPa is perceived to be pretty high to someone at MIT and that the sensors tend to bug out when something moderate happens.
    ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/imp/www/july_15_2000.html

    Here’s a plot from the day:
    ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/imp/www/cme_pdf/2000.197.dayplot.pdf

    This Dynamic Pressure gauge seems to indicated that dynamic pressure can get up to around 100 nPa;

    This paper reported that during “coronal mass ejection (CME) events during the period 07–12 November 2004″ “The CMEs, though started with a weak front end (370 kms -1 and 3.3 nPa), attained velocities up to 800 mks -1 , pressure up to 60 nPa and IMF components up to +- 50nT.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4S98V3S-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1655509116&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=778a2284489a47d63054e46a23f2fb3b&searchtype=a

    Do you have any good references on dynamic pressure, especially about height and length of the peaks?

    In terms of inbound energy waves, starting with 100 nPa (nano Pascals) of force does not seem promising, but I’ll check to see what’s out there.

    “Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up.”

    Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.

    Which reminds me, here is POES Northern Auroral Activity

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    POES Southern Auroral Activity;

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapS.html

    and POES Energetic Particles.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/tiger/index.html

    I am planning to build a WUWT Geomagnetism Reference Page this weekend. If you have any suggested current charts, graphs or animations for inclusion, please let me know.

  196. Just The Facts says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    The bar reference doesn’t make sense, if I had a lower bar for refutation I would consider more papers to be refuted, not less.
    It is not the number that is important but the quality. Instead of suggesting crappy papers, pick what you consider to be the absolute best, strongest, most compelling one and let us discuss that one.

    Just The Facts says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:50 pm
    It’s kinda like me calling you a dumbass.
    You just cannot let it go, it seems. Haven’t you insulted enough [and anonymously to boot]? The troll-characterization is accurate. Read the Wiki link I provided and ponder it, and perhaps you can improve your conduct accordingly.

    “But what is it you are trying to do? Are you interested in learning about these things or are you just peddling your personal views. You can ask for my opinion and I’ll give it freely, but I don’t want to argue about it. Take it or leave it.”

    Just The Facts says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm
    Now that was all really good stuff.
    All my stuff is good stuff.

    “Our results show that the CME speed is an important parameter for early prediction of geosynchronous magnetopause crossing.”
    Does this seem reasonably accurate? Do you agree with their conclusions?

    Yes, but this is old hat. Chapman and Ferraro explained all that back in the 1930s.

    Do you have any good references on dynamic pressure, especially about height and length of the peaks?
    The dynamic pressure P is calculated from the speed V and the density n: P = 2E(-6) nV^2 nPa. So for V = 1600 km/s, n = 100 /cm3, you have P = 512 nPa. for the more typical values V=400, n=5, P is 1.6 nPa. Thus a wide range is possible.
    You can get plots and listings here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
    The length of the peaks is always short [minutes to a few hours].

    In terms of inbound energy waves, starting with 100 nPa (nano Pascals) of force does not seem promising, but I’ll check to see what’s out there.
    The ‘energy waves’ is not how things work. The shock wave presses against the [very] strong magnetic field of the Earth, which is more than enough to keep the shock at bay. There are no energy transfer to the Earth in this process due to the pressure as such. Now, a compressed magnetosphere leads to other effects [currents] that in turn transfers energy and precipitates particles. I wrote some notes on this for ‘Climate Audit': http://www.leif.org/research/geoact.htm

    Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
    The ridiculously complex paper of mine is one of the best. An even earlier one [1973] has an appendix on calculation of energy: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
    There are, of course, lots of modern papers on the same subject. I’m sure you can find many without my help

    Which reminds me, here is POES Northern Auroral Activity

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

    The POES power input can be calculated quite accurately from my geomagnetic IHV index: http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf so is actually available way back into the 19th century. There is also this: http://www.solen.info/solar/poes/poes.html

  197. Just The Facts says:
    February 24, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    “As I said, your bar is much lower than mine.”
    The bar reference doesn’t make sense

    I don’t say things that don’t make sense. If you do not understand them at first, reflect on them to achieve enlightenment.

  198. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    Just The Facts says: February 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    “Then during the hours that follow, energy is fed into the magnetosphere and the ring current builds up.”

    Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.

    What do you think about the accuracy of this summary?

    “These measurements are made continually as the satellite passes over the polar aurora regions twice each orbit. Since 1978, observations from almost 300,000 transits over the auroral regions have been gathered under a variety of auroral activity conditions ranging from very quiet to extremely active. Power flux observations accumulated during a single transit over the polar region (which requires about 25 minutes as the satellite moves along its orbit) are used to estimate the total power input by auroral particles to a single polar region. This estimate, which is corrected to take into account how the satellite passes over a statistical auroral oval, is a measure of the level of auroral activity, much as Kp or Ap are measures of magnetic activity. A particle power input of less than 10 gigawatts (10,000,000,000 watts) to a single polar region, either in the North or the South, represents a very low level of auroral activity. A power input of more than 100 gigawatts represents a very high level of Auroral activity. Estimated power inputs as high as 500 gigawatts have been recorded into a single auroral region.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/BackgroundInfo.html

  199. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 6:38 am
    Do you have any good references on the mechanisms and the amounts of energy that is fed in under various combinations of Solar Wind – CME strengths and field directions – alignments? I will study this tomorrow.
    Asked and answered.

    What do you think about the accuracy of this summary?
    “These measurements are made continually as the satellite passes over the polar aurora regions twice each orbit.”

    just fine.

  200. Just The Facts says:
    February 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: February 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    “A simple plot shows this clearly simply by inspection: http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
    The green curve is aa shifted 7 years.”

    Are you kidding? Are you trying to refute the validity of these references using the highly suspect GISS dataset? [...] Perhaps a leap forward to the satellite age and start using the UAH temperature record?

    Adding UAH [and RSS for good measure] doesn’t make any difference:

  201. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 5:12 am

    “You can get plots and listings here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html

    That’s a good analysis/graphing tool, I’ve added it under Solar Wind on the WUWT Solar Reference Page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

    What are your thought’s on the WUWT Solar Reference Page? Do you see any significant gaps/missing plots/graphics/etc.? Are the graph titles/headers all correct? Does the order of the page make sense?

    “There is also this: http://www.solen.info/solar/poes/poes.html
    That’s good as well. I’ve added it to the draft Geomagnetism page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnatism/

    Password is: WUWT

    Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html

  202. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    What are your thought’s on the WUWT Solar Reference Page? Do you see any significant gaps/missing plots/graphics/etc.? Are the graph titles/headers all correct? Does the order of the page make sense?
    I suggest replacing the Oulu cosmic ray page with:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm

    Order is not too bad. Perhaps too many SDO corona images.

    Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html

    This one is on my screen all the time:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html

  203. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?
    Fix spelling of Geomagnatic

  204. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages
    This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png

  205. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    “Fix spelling of Geomagnatic”

    Yes, if it weren’t for spellcheck my writing might read like a 4th grader’s, and my handwriting is much worse…

  206. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Adding UAH [and RSS for good measure] doesn’t make any difference:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png

    I tend to agree, I don’t see much correlation, but it is hard to see with all the GISS garbage behind it. It might be more convincing without it and blown up to just the satellite era.

    Just for clarity, I do not think it is likely that a clear correlation between temperature and the aa index has been overlooked by the many thousands of scientists who have been studying Earth’s climate system for many years. Linear relationships are reasonably easy to find, and if it was just sitting out there, someone probably would have found it by now. However, Earth’s climate system’s immense number of variables, tremendous complexity and constantly evolving nature makes multivariate analysis seem like an understatement. For example, and intended only as baseless conjecture, we might find that there is a solar influence on Earth’s climate system, whereby when there is a strong El Nino, a weak AMO, the NAO is in a strong positive phase, the solar cycle is at its peak, the moon is Waxing Gibbous, it is late February, the Northern Polar vortex is in a weakened state, being disturbed by a moderate Rossby wavetrain, when a large CME impacts, with fields aligned, and the combination of all of these variables, and an array of others, results in the breakdown of the vortex 6 days later. My point being that I am just trying to understand all of the ways the sun might influence Earth’s climate system. I am agnostic to particular hypotheses, I just want the facts.

  207. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm
    My point being that I am just trying to understand all of the ways the sun might influence Earth’s climate system. I am agnostic to particular hypotheses, I just want the facts.
    It doesn’t look that way. The fact is that no significant correlation has been found, and no viable hypotheses have been put forward. It looks to me that you start with the premise [worth your left arm, IIRC] that there MUST be some influence, and then hunt for every goofy and shaky correlation that people have pushed, excusing failures as due to complexity. The NULL-hypothesis is that there is no influence. As far as I am concerned, the NULL-hypothesis still stands. That said, there is, of course, solar influences at a very low level [e.g. the 0.1C that changes in TSI produce], so the NULL-hypothesis should be amended by ‘significant’. Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this]. As sometimes [rarely] in science, there may be a surprise or two, but until they have surfaced, we should stick with the NULL-hypothesis.

  208. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    Here is a good article

    http://www.lanl.gov/history/admin/files/Journeys_of_a_Spacecraft.pdf

  209. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm (Edit)

    I suggest replacing the Oulu cosmic ray page with:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm

    Done.

    Perhaps too many SDO corona images.

    I didn’t build that part. If you where to remove a few images what would you remove?

    This one is on my screen all the time: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html

    Done.

  210. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png

    Done

  211. Just The Facts says:

    Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    February 25, 2011 at 5:12 am

    <i Instead of suggesting crappy papers, pick what you consider to be the absolute best, strongest, most compelling one and let us discuss that one.

    This is premature. At present I am still working to understand and document all of the potential climactic variables, thus it is logical to explore and research each potential variable.

    You just cannot let it go, it seems.

    That seems to be a trait we share…

    The troll-characterization is accurate. Read the Wiki link I provided and ponder it, and perhaps you can improve your conduct accordingly.

    Here is a lesson in Troll 101:

    Regardless of your perceived grievance, the label of Troll doesn’t apply.

  212. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 11:48 pm
    Regardless of your perceived grievance, the label of Troll doesn’t apply.
    Here is why the label applies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

    “a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”

  213. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 11:48 pm
    :Instead of suggesting crappy papers…”

    This is premature. At present I am still working to understand and document all of the potential climactic variables, thus it is logical to explore and research each potential variable.

    How about Jupiter shine? or Z-pinches from the electric universe? or:
    Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
    Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:
    Multi-million year climate data through proxies have recently been published that
    point to a clear trend of temperature differentials through time. In the past theories have been used to explain the broad ice ages by orbital forcing using Newtonian physics. The Damhsa (Gaelic for Dance) Theory is formulated by analyzing climate data and applying the General Relativity Theory and orbital forcing to the time series and proposes a solution to the variable data. This solution is gravitational waves. New theories on the inflation of the universe predict gravitational waves also. This change is extremely slow and not perceptible to human scale time but can explain the complex interactions of large-scale climate change and time. The climate fluctuations in time can be explained by gravitational waves of the expanding universe. The Earth’s position in space changes as the effects of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein. Recent climate data shows wave patterns of a non-linear nature, which would correspond with a large mass in space, such as Earth, exhibiting the effects of gravitational waves by slight changes in the position of Earth to the Sun, which would slowly affect climate over large timescales. Oscillating gravitational waves are the signature of the universe expanding. [SORCE meeting, 2008].

    You should up front filter out the low-quality papers, rather than wasting our time defending them, hoping to save your left arm.

  214. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 10:32 pm
    “Perhaps too many SDO corona images.”
    I didn’t build that part. If you where to remove a few images what would you remove?

    304, 1600, 171, 335

  215. Just The Facts says:
    February 25, 2011 at 11:07 pm
    “This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
    Done

    The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …

  216. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 8:22 am

    The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …

    Confused, I added it to the solar page, under the Wilcox Solar Polar field graph, and called it “Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined – 1966 to Present”.
    Are you saying that you also think it should also be on the Geomagnetism page under magnetometers? If so, do you think I should also add the Wilcox graph there as well?

  217. Just The Facts says:
    February 26, 2011 at 10:33 am
    “The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …”
    Confused

    <img class=”alignnone” title=”Boulder USGS Magnetometer” src=”http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png” alt=”” width=”632″ height=”506″>

  218. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Got it, corrected.

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 8:18 am

    304, 1600, 171, 335

    Removed, along with the associated table/key. Thank you for your help.

  219. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    The fact is that no significant correlation has been found, and no viable hypotheses have been put forward.

    We can argue about what constitutes a viable hypotheses later. First I would like to understand all of the potential extraterrestrial (solar for now) energy sources and how they interact with Earth’s climate system.

    It looks to me that you start with the premise [worth your left arm, IIRC] that there MUST be some influence, and then hunt for every goofy and shaky correlation that people have pushed, excusing failures as due to complexity.

    For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.

    The NULL-hypothesis is that there is no influence. As far as I am concerned, the NULL-hypothesis still stands. That said, there is, of course, solar influences at a very low level [e.g. the 0.1C that changes in TSI produce], so the NULL-hypothesis should be amended by ‘significant’.

    What about gravity? The sun’s gravity is major player in Earth’s Tides;

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8r.html

    and its Thermohaline Circulation;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    during the 18 year Saros Cycle and 54 year Triple Saros;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle

    Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this].

    They weren’t us.

    As sometimes [rarely] in science, there may be a surprise or two, but until they have surfaced, we should stick with the NULL-hypothesis.

    You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.

  220. Just The Facts says:
    February 26, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm
    We can argue about what constitutes a viable hypotheses later.
    I don’t argue about this. I decide what convinces me.

    For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.
    This you cannot do, as logic does not enter if you do not have a mechanism in mind.

    What about gravity? The sun’s gravity is major player in Earth’s Tides
    All this is cyclical and thus not climate-related anymore than the day-night or winter-summer cycles are.

    “Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this].”
    They weren’t us.

    What makes you think you can do better?

    You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.
    Suit yourself. Don’t forget that if you are looking for 95% significance, by chance you’ll find one approach out of twenty to be significant.

  221. Just The Facts says:

    How about Jupiter shine?

    Sure, easily disproven: “The intensity of moonlight varies greatly depending on the lunar cycle but even the full moon typically provides only about 0.2 lux illumination, so the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight

    and given that “The average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,403 kilometers (238,857 miles).”;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29

    versus “when Jupiter and Earth are closest, Jupiter is 390,682,810 miles (628,743,036 km) from Earth. ”

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_from_Earth_is_Jupiter#ixzz1F6epGlny

    or Z-pinches from the electric universe?
    Too theoretical. No measurements.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=959&sid=cd6a59a5aadf35a757653485683f9963

    or:
    Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
    Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:

    That’s just garbage…

    You should up front filter out the low-quality papers, rather than wasting our time defending them, hoping to save your left arm.

    I agree and do, however there was merit in posting Landscheidt, similar to how I took the time to eliminate Moon and Jupiter shine. However, I have yet to see any indication that the Vortice references I cited above are “low-quality papers”.

  222. Just The Facts says:
    February 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    “How about Jupiter shine?”
    Sure, easily disproven: “The intensity of moonlight varies greatly depending on the lunar cycle but even the full moon typically provides only about 0.2 lux illumination, so the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.”

    So, you discount because of energy considerations. This is the main argument that I tried to make [but resigned that I probably wouldn't get through]:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am
    “Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?”
    too many ‘nots’ for my taste. But I can try to explain [may not succeed]. The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.

    or Z-pinches from the electric universe?
    Too theoretical. No measurements.

    Actually, garbage. No theory.

    I agree and do, however there was merit in posting Landscheidt, similar to how I took the time to eliminate Moon and Jupiter shine.
    You should have elimiated Landscheidt too, before even posting it. BTW, there are people that peddle Jupitershine, e.g. Vuk.

    However, I have yet to see any indication that the Vortice references I cited above are “low-quality papers”.
    Energy considerations take care of those. Plus that statistics is poor: how many breakdowns have been observed? That makes such papers low-quality.

  223. Just The Facts says:
    February 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    “Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
    Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:”
    That’s just garbage…

    You have not provided any peer-reviewed papers refuting this…

  224. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    “For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.”
    This you cannot do, as logic does not enter if you do not have a mechanism in mind.

    Yes I can, it is just a matter of filtering imagination with reason. Lack of mechanism is logical basis for eliminating an imagined influence.

    All this is cyclical and thus not climate-related anymore than the day-night or winter-summer cycles are.

    They are all significant variables in Earth’s climate system, and Saros cycles differ in that their longer time scales of 18 and 54 years makes our short historical record ill suited to measure and analyze them.

    What makes you think you can do better?

    I said we, and would be more confident if Tinsley was involved, but we do have better access to research and data than ever before, and tools now exist to rapidly search and review it to find relevant facts.

  225. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    So, you discount because of energy considerations. This is the main argument that I tried to make [but resigned that I probably wouldn't get through]:

    You share responsibility for the many tangents, but I agree that we should refocus.

    You should have elimiated Landscheidt too, before even posting it. BTW, there are people that peddle Jupitershine, e.g. Vuk.

    You are wrong on this point. It is important to eliminate variables, and some of the people who are reading this thread might have had misconceptions about Landscheidt and Jupitershine. Hopefully we’ve helped to clear them up, mission accomplished, let’s move on.

    Plus that statistics is poor: how many breakdowns have been observed? That makes such papers low-quality.

    I agree, but this applies to every study on the matter. One of the vortex studies I posted above from the American Meteorological Society Online Journal “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit Tung of the Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington is “A statistical analysis of 51 years of NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data”:
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS3883.1 (Abstract and Full text)

    51 years, it’s not even one Triple Saros long…

  226. Just The Facts says:

    Getting back to the dynamic pressure of CME’s, this “study shows that the speed of compression (within three seconds of impact) increases with the dynamic pressure of the CMEs, and that this speed exceeds the speed of the CMEs in some (five) cases (suggesting impulsive response) when the dynamic pressure of the CMEs exceed about 20 nPa. The magnetosphere is also found to undergo damped oscillations for about two minutes after the impact of some extreme CMEs (24 October 2003 and 29 October 2003) until the magnetic pressure outside and inside the magnetopause balances. The speed of compression is also found to increase with the negative IMF Bz of the CME suggesting that part of the compression is due to CME pressure and another part is due to magnetic reconnection.”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSM33C..01N

    and this one says “the response of the magnetosphere and ionosphere to the coronal mass ejection (CME) events during the period 07–12 November 2004 is studied using Cluster and ground-based (ESR, EISCAT and Jicamarca radars and magnetometer) observations. The coordinated observations provide a good example of the magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling through prompt penetration electric field (PPEF). The strongest PPEF ever recorded appears to be generated in the magnetosphere by the v×B effect, which is mapped to the high latitude ionosphere along the geomagnetic field lines and promptly penetrated to low latitudes. The CMEs, though started with a weak front end (370 kms -1 and 3.3 nPa), attained velocities up to 800 kms -1, pressure up to 60 nPa and IMF components up to +-50nT. The impact of the CME compressed and deformed the magnetosphere such that Cluster, which was in the southern magnetospheric lobe, suddenly found itself in the magnetosheath. While crossing a compressed magnetosheath under steady solar wind pressure and steady velocity components, the magnetosphere shifted back to the Cluster position for about 1.5 h when IMF By1, which was negative before and after, became zero.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4S98V3S-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1657194735&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e01e57e5f9cb65f922ef37bfe2e1855e&searchtype=a

    Do the statements above seem accurate/reasonable to you? It seems that the magnetosphere gets whacked around quite a bit by dynamic pressure, but I don’t know how this could impact Earth’s climate system. Do you think that the magnetosphere undergoing “damped oscillations for about two minutes after the impact of some extreme CMEs (24 October 2003 and 29 October 2003)” could send waves of any significance towards Earth?

  227. Just The Facts says:
    February 26, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    Yes I can, it is just a matter of filtering imagination with reason. Lack of mechanism is logical basis for eliminating an imagined influence.
    That just about eliminates everything except TSI.

    They are all significant variables in Earth’s climate system, and Saros cycles differ in that their longer time scales of 18 and 54 years makes our short historical record ill suited to measure and analyze them.
    As they are cyclical, they don’t matter.

    but we do have better access to research and data than ever before
    Such as GISS

    some of the people who are reading this thread might have had misconceptions about Landscheidt and Jupitershine. Hopefully we’ve helped to clear them up, mission accomplished, let’s move on.
    It is my experience with these people that it is impossible to clear up their misconceptions. Same thing with rabid Sun-Climate worshipers or AGW-cultists.

    Just The Facts says:
    February 27, 2011 at 12:49 am
    Do the statements above seem accurate/reasonable to you? It seems that the magnetosphere gets whacked around quite a bit by dynamic pressure, but I don’t know how this could impact Earth’s climate system.
    They are accurate, but have no impact on the climate. It is a question of energy and density. The magnetosphere is orders of magnitude less dense than the ionosphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the troposphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans.

  228. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 5:17 am

    They are accurate, but have no impact on the climate. It is a question of energy and density. The magnetosphere is orders of magnitude less dense than the ionosphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the troposphere, which is orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans.

    Per this paper “THE EFFECT OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE ON THE EARTH’S MAGNETOSPHERE” by C. T. Russell, G. Le, S. M. Petrinec and M. Ginskey
    states that “a sudden compression of the magnetosphere launches both a compressional wave across field lines toward the Earth’s equator and a shear Alfven wave along magnetic field lines to the auroral ionosphere. The wave which causes the first ionospheric effect is not certain. Fast modes in general move faster than the Alfven velocity and the fast mode has a shorter path. However, the density of plasma in the equatorial plane is much greater than along the auroral field lines and thus the Alfven wave may arrive sooner.”

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/effect_magsphere.pdf

    Does this seem accurate? Can you explain and/or provide references on how increasing atmospheric density acts to diminish/dissipate the compressional and Alfven waves referenced? Do you know what happens to the energy?

    Similar to the Vortex paper I cited earlier, “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” this paper finds “SIGNALS OF SOLAR WIND DYNAMIC PRESSURE IN THE NORTHERN ANNULAR MODE AND THE EQUATORIAL STRATOSPHERIC QUASI-BIENNIAL OSCILLATION” By Hua Lua and Martin J. Jarvis. They “report statistically measurable responses of the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) to solar wind dynamic pressure. When December to January solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the Northern Hemispheric (NH) circulation response is marked by a stronger polar vortex and weaker sub-tropical jet in the upper to middle stratosphere. As the winter progresses, the Arctic becomes colder and the jet anomalies shift poleward and downward. In spring, the polar stratosphere becomes anomalously warmer. At solar maxima, significant positive correlations are found between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the mid- to late winter NAM all the way from the surface to 20 hPa, implying a strengthened polar vortex, reduced Brewer-Dobson circulation and enhanced stratosphere-troposphere coupling. The combined effect of high solar UV irradiance and high solar wind dynamic pressure in the NH mid- to late winter is enhanced westerlies in the extratropics and weaker westerlies in the subtropics, indicating that more planetary waves are refracted towards the equator. At solar minima, there is no correlation in the NH winter but negative correlations between December to January solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM are found only in the stratosphere during spring. Statistical evidence of a possible modulation of the equatorial stratospheric Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO) by the solar wind dynamic pressure is also provided. When solar wind dynamic pressure is high, the QBO at 30-70 hPa is found to be preferably more easterly during July to October. These lower stratospheric easterly anomalies are primarily linked to the high frequency component of solar wind dynamic pressure with periods shorter than 3-years. In annually and seasonally aggregated daily averages, the signature of solar wind dynamic pressure in the equatorial zonal wind is characterized by a vertical three-cell anomaly pattern with westerly anomalies both in the troposphere and the upper stratosphere and easterly anomalies in the lower stratosphere. This anomalous behavior in tropical winds is accompanied by a downward propagation of positive temperature anomalies from the upper stratosphere to the lower stratosphere over a period of a year. These results suggest that the solar wind dynamic pressure exerts a seasonal change of the tropical upwelling which results in a systemic modulation of the annual cycle in the lower stratospheric temperature, which in turn affects the QBO during Austral late winter and spring. These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs. Their combined effect in the stratosphere may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM and the QBO. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.

    Here’s another paper by the same authors:
    “Possible solar wind effect on the northern annular mode and northern hemispheric circulation during winter and spring” by Hua Lu, Martin J. Jarvis and Robert E. Hibbins that found “statistically measurable responses of atmospheric circulation to solar wind dynamic pressure are found in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) zonal-mean zonal wind and temperature, and on the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) in winter and spring. When December to January solar wind dynamic pressure (P sw DJ) is high, the circulation response is marked by a stronger polar vortex and weaker sub-tropical jet in the upper to middle stratosphere. As the winter progresses, the Arctic becomes colder and the jet anomalies shift poleward and downward. In spring, the polar stratosphere becomes anomalously warmer. At solar maxima, significant positive correlations are found between P swDJ and the middle to late winter NAM all the way from the surface to 20 hPa, implying a strengthened polar vortex, reduced Brewer–Dobson circulation and enhanced stratosphere-troposphere coupling. The combined effect of high solar UV irradiance and high solar wind dynamic pressure in the NH middle to late winter is enhanced westerlies in the extratropics and weaker westerlies in the subtropics, indicating that more planetary waves are refracted toward the equator. At solar minima, there is no correlation in the NH winter but negative correlations between P swDJ and the NAM are found only in the stratosphere during spring. These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs that may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008JD010848.shtml

    So it appears that there may be some correlations between solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM and QBO, however, as you and they say, it appears that there is no known mechanism whereby ” the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere.” Is this your interpretation as well?

  229. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 5:17 am

    That just about eliminates everything except TSI.
    And gravity. But before we eliminate other potential variables I’ll envisage any possible mechanisms and search the literature for any support.

    As they are cyclical, they don’t matter.

    Why?

    “but we do have better access to research and data than ever before”
    Such as GISS

    Yes, good example. For GISS we can easily pull the maps based on GISS data:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=01&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=2011&year2=2011&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    and we can see the large gray data gaps and the rosy red and dark red arctic heat assumptions GISS uses to inflate its estimates. We can also see that GISS shows a .46 degree positive anomaly, while RSS shows a .083 degree positive anomaly;

    and UAH shows a .01 degree negative anomaly:

    It is my experience with these people that it is impossible to clear up their misconceptions. Same thing with rabid Sun-Climate worshipers or AGW-cultists.”

    Some people are lost causes, but for others it is just a matter of the communication method. Often if you tell someone they are wrong, they will become defensive and counterproductively close their mind to new information. Whereas if you provide them with the data and references so that they can see and understand the facts for themselves, they are more likely to consider and potentially assimilate new information.

  230. Just The Facts says:
    February 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    compressional wave across field lines toward the Earth’s equator and a shear Alfven wave along magnetic field lines to the auroral ionosphere. [...]
    Does this seem accurate? Can you explain and/or provide references on how increasing atmospheric density acts to diminish/dissipate the compressional and Alfven waves referenced? Do you know what happens to the energy?

    These waves require an iononized medium to propagate, so do not penetrate below the ionosphere. By ‘equator’ they mean the equatorial plane, not that imaginary line on the globe at sea-level that separates the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres.
    About the energy: imagine you have a bullwhip [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip ] and you hold it at the thin end and wiggle that thin end vigorously. The think end will hardly move at all… Try it.

    Their combined effect in the stratosphere may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM and the QBO. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.
    this has been claimed from time to time. I do not find the data convincing and the authors have no idea how it might work.

    So it appears that there may be some correlations between solar wind dynamic pressure and the NAM and QBO, however, as you and they say, it appears that there is no known mechanism whereby ” the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere.” Is this your interpretation as well?
    There are correlations between the National Debt and Global Warming, and I’ll concur that there is no known mechanism and that it is likely that there are no unknown mechanism either [on grounds of lack of energy].

    Just The Facts says:
    February 27, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    “As they are cyclical, they don’t matter.”
    Why?

    Other shoe. The longer cycles [Saros etc] are not really about energy input but about angles. The various orbits are inclined [a little] towards each other so eclipses do not occur every time the bodies line up. They also have to be close to the same plane. This happens in cycles, but don’t impact the climate [energy again].

    We can also see that GISS shows a .46 degree positive anomaly, while RSS shows a .083 degree positive anomaly, and UAH shows a .01 degree negative anomaly
    So we don’t even have agreed upon data sets. Hardly a good basis for correlations.

    Some people are lost causes, but for others it is just a matter of the communication method.
    Those others are extremely rare. Show me some. I know of only one on this Blog [Carsten A.] who has seen the light, and that was only because he himself looked at the problem, not because the solution was communicated to him. Such people would on their own clear up thire misconceptions, eventually.

  231. Just The Facts says:
    February 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    These results suggest possible multiple solar inputs that may cause refraction/redistribution of upward wave propagation and result in projecting the solar wind signals onto the NAM. The route by which the effects of solar wind forcing might propagate to the lower atmosphere is yet to be understood.”

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008JD010848.shtml

    It seems that their Figure 4 is the crucial one. It shows [well-known] that dynamic pressure and F10.7 [UV proxy] are anti-correlated, more UV, less pressure. The ‘correlation’ with NAM does not impress me at all. Although I know Jarvis and he is a good scientist, this paper does not live up to his standard.

  232. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    These waves require an iononized medium to propagate, so do not penetrate below the ionosphere.

    Break out training wheels, I’m on essentially new ground here. For anyone following along the ionosphere;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere

    is “a portion of the upper atmosphere, between the thermosphere;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

    and the exosphere;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere

    distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation.”

    Here are various Real-Time Simulations of the Ionosphere-Thermosphere:

    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/ion/index.html

    About the energy: imagine you have a bullwhip [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip ] and you hold it at the thin end and wiggle that thin end vigorously. The think end will hardly move at all… Try it.

    Very good example, especially because the end of the bullwhip in this example is absurdly thin, i.e. “The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), due to the energy lost by thermal radiation overtaking the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. Above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the anacoustic zone prevents the transmission of sound.”

    this has been claimed from time to time. I do not find the data convincing and the authors have no idea how it might work.

    Just throwing it out there, what do you know about Atmospheric Tides?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide

    “The largest-amplitude atmospheric tides are mostly generated in the troposphere and stratosphere when the atmosphere is periodically heated as water vapour and ozone absorb solar radiation during the day. The tides generated are then able to propagate away from these source regions and ascend into the mesosphere and thermosphere. Atmospheric tides can be measured as regular fluctuations in wind, temperature, density and pressure. Although atmospheric tides share much in common with ocean tides they have two key distinguishing features:

    1. Atmospheric tides are primarily excited by the Sun’s heating of the atmosphere whereas ocean tides are excited by the Moon’s gravitational pull and to a lesser extent by the Sun’s gravity. This means that most atmospheric tides have periods of oscillation related to the 24-hour length of the solar day whereas ocean tides have periods of oscillation related both to the solar day as well as to the longer lunar day (time between successive lunar transits) of about 24 hours 51 minutes.

    2. Atmospheric tides propagate in an atmosphere where density varies significantly with height. A consequence of this is that their amplitudes naturally increase exponentially as the tide ascends into progressively more rarefied regions of the atmosphere (for an explanation of this phenomenon, see below). In contrast, the density of the oceans varies only slightly with depth and so there the tides do not necessarily vary in amplitude with depth.

    At ground level, atmospheric tides can be detected as regular but small oscillations in surface pressure with periods of 24 and 12 hours. However, at greater heights the amplitudes of the tides can become very large. In the mesosphere (heights of ~ 50–100 km) atmospheric tides can reach amplitudes of more than 50 m/s and are often the most significant part of the motion of the atmosphere.’

    The reason for this dramatic growth in amplitude from tiny fluctuations near the ground to oscillations that dominate the motion of the mesosphere lies in the fact that the density of the atmosphere decreases with increasing height. As tides or waves propagate upwards, they move into regions of lower and lower density. If the tide or wave is not dissipating, then its kinetic energy density must be conserved. Since the density is decreasing, the amplitude of the tide or wave increases correspondingly so that energy is conserved.”

    “The tides form an important mechanism for transporting energy input into the lower atmosphere from the upper atmosphere, while dominating the dynamics of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. Therefore, understanding the atmospheric tides is essential in understanding the atmosphere as a whole. Modeling and observations of atmospheric tides are needed in order to monitor and predict changes in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    Understanding that this is Wikipedia, does the last paragraph make any sense to you?
    Is it conceivable that solar impacts on the ionosphere could serve to influence/resist/bounce upward propagating atmosphere tides, as to alter wave behavior/circulation in the mesosphere?

    “There are correlations between the National Debt and Global Warming”

    No argument there, correlations don’t prove a thing, but they can be helpful in finding mechanisms that do.

    This happens in cycles, but don’t impact the climate [energy again].

    But there is a change in energy, i.e. gravity. Not saying that the Sun and Moon’s gravity is changing, but rather as the configuration of the Sun and Moon change over the Saros cycle, there are changes in the distribution of gravitational energy impacting earth. Changes in the distribution gravitational energy can impact the climate by affecting ocean circulations, e.g. upwellings, as well as atmospheric circulation.

    So we don’t even have agreed upon data sets. Hardly a good basis for correlations.

    No argument, every correlation with “global temperature” must be looked at with a jaundiced eye. It is such an absurdly complex measurement to make accuartly and current measurement methods are rudimentary at best.

    Those others are extremely rare. Show me some. I know of only one on this Blog [Carsten A.] who has seen the light, and that was only because he himself looked at the problem, not because the solution was communicated to him. Such people would on their own clear up thire misconceptions, eventually.

    I have no examples from WUWT, but I tend not to spend much time on those who have already made up their minds and have made up their minds poorly. I try to provide information the undecideds, as well as to those who are in a position to provide the information to other undecideds. With that said, outside of WUWT, one of my varied areas of expertise is change management, and I’ve found that, in many cases, it’s all about the delivery. With that said, I do come across those with closed minds who are no longer receptive to new inputs and information. In such cases I’ve learned to rapidly identify these individuals and not waste my time and energy on them.

  233. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    “It seems that their Figure 4 is the crucial one. It shows [well-known] that dynamic pressure and F10.7 [UV proxy] are anti-correlated, more UV, less pressure. The ‘correlation’ with NAM does not impress me at all. Although I know Jarvis and he is a good scientist, this paper does not live up to his standard.”

    I don’t think that Fig 4 is the crucial one. “Fig. 4 shows the time series of Jan-Feb mean ERA40-NAM near the tropopause at 150hPa (Fig. 4a), Dec-Jan mean solar wind dynamic pressure Psw DJ (Fig. 4b), and Nov-Dec mean 10.7-cm solar flux Fs ND (Fig. 4c). It shows that the NAMJF at 150 hPa is not correlated well with either Psw DJ (r = 0.37) or Fs ND (r = 0.20).

    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5932/1/LuJarvisHibbins_2008JD010848_JGR_NORA.pdf

    I am traveling through Thu, but will give this paper a good read this weekend and highlight the key correlations they claim.

  234. what do you know about Atmospheric Tides?
    The tides generated are then able to propagate away from these source regions and ascend into the mesosphere and thermosphere.

    The atmospheric tides [from the Sun and the Moon] are very important as they are one of the mechanisms by which the daily variation of the geomagnetic field comes about. See http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO-23,%20Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf
    They, of course, are not determining factors for the climate.

    But there is a change in energy, i.e. gravity. Not saying that the Sun and Moon’s gravity is changing, but rather as the configuration of the Sun and Moon change over the Saros cycle, there are changes in the distribution of gravitational energy impacting earth.
    No, that is not how gravity works. All the bodies in question are in free fall and feel no forces. The tides come about because of the finite size of the Earth that makes the gravitational potential slightly different on opposite sides of the Earth. The Saros cycle is about the line up between directions to the Sun and Moon as seen from the Earth, not about different ‘gravitational energy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
    For example, the Moon that a given distance [determining the tide] from the Earth once a month.

  235. Just The Facts says:

    I’ve added a bunch of new content to the Solar;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

    and Geomagnetism;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/

    reference pages, particularly under Solar Wind, where I added several somewhat redundant references. Would you mind reviewing the pages for accuracy, coherence, titles, order and the best plots for measuring/tracking solar wind, and provide your recommendations for deletions, changes and/or additions?

    Also, in the future, would you be open to providing brief descriptions/explanations as to what certain measurements/variables are and why they are important? We are getting a bunch of requests for tutorials/explanations and you are well positioned to answer many of them. I was thinking of recommending to Anthony that we open the reference pages for ongoing comment (Geomagnetism is currently hanging open), but strictly moderate them so only good questions and good answers are allowed to remain. What are your thoughts on this concept?

  236. Just The Facts says:
    March 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    Would you mind reviewing the pages for accuracy, coherence, titles, order and the best plots for measuring/tracking solar wind, and provide your recommendations for deletions, changes and/or additions?

    Also, in the future, would you be open to providing brief descriptions/explanations as to what certain measurements/variables are and why they are important?

    I would be glad to do both.

  237. Just The Facts says:

    I also just added a Source Guide to the end of the Solar page and added you to it. Please let me know if you would like that modified in any way.

  238. Just The Facts says:
    March 4, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    I also just added a Source Guide to the end of the Solar page and added you to it. Please let me know if you would like that modified in any way.
    Send me your email address.

  239. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: March 4, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Send me your email address.

    Done.

  240. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 28, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    “what do you know about Atmospheric Tides?”
    They, of course, are not determining factors for the climate.

    How are you defining a “determining factor”? Do you think that Atmospheric Tides may be influenced by changes in dynamic pressure?

    No, that is not how gravity works. All the bodies in question are in free fall and feel no forces. The tides come about because of the finite size of the Earth that makes the gravitational potential slightly different on opposite sides of the Earth.

    I agree that they are all in free fall, or else the gravity of the Sun, Earth and Moon would draw all of the bodies together, however, based on my research, different parts of Earth experience/feel different gravitational forces based upon their continually evolving proximity to the sun and moon, i.e.;

    “The arrows in the top diagram pointing toward the moon represent the force of the moon’s gravity at these three points. Since the force of gravity depends on distance, point A is attracted to the moon most strongly, point C least strongly, and point B at intermediate strength.”

    http://www.princeton.edu/~pccm/outreach/scsp/water_on_earth/tides/science/causes.htm

    “The relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth all affect the size and magnitude of the earth’s two tidal bulges.”

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/education.html

    The Saros cycle is about the line up between directions to the Sun and Moon as seen from the Earth, not about different ‘gravitational energy’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle

    I am arguing that different “relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth” result in different distributions of sun and moon’s gravitational energy across Earth. Earth’s Oceans are impacted by variations in the position of the sun and moon relative to earth e.g. during a Neap Tide;

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=hm&name=A4neapti

    and Spring Tide;

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/viewer.aspx?path=hm&name=A4sptide

    variations in the position of the moon relative to earth due to the inclination of the lunar orbit that results in Lunar Nodes. “Every 27.5 days the Moon completes a ‘nodal’ cycle. The Sun, Moon, and planets have a similar background of stars in their cycles but the Moon’s trajectory is 5 degrees from that of the Sun. This means that there are two points at which these two apparent orbits seem to cross. These are known as the ascending, or North node (or the Dragon’s head) and the descending or South node (Dragon’s tail).””The lunar nodes precess rather quickly around the ecliptic, completing a revolution (called a draconitic or nodical period, the period of nutation) in 6793.5 days or 18.5996 years (note that this is not the saros eclipse cycle)”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node

    and the distance of the moon and/or sun from Earth, e.g. during a Perigean Spring Tide;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perigean_spring_tide

    In addition to the 6585.3213 day Saros Cycle and almost 19,756 day Triple Saros, there is also the 10,571.95 days Inex Cycle that, “Unlike the saros cycle, the inex is not close to an integer number of anomalistic months so successive eclipses are not very similar in their appearance and characteristics. From the remainder of 0.67351, being near 2/3, every third eclipse will have a similar position in the moon’s elliptical orbit and apparent diameter, so the quality of the solar eclipse (total versus annular) will repeat in these groupings of 3 cycles (87 years minus 2 months).”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex

    The combined cycles of the Saros and Inex Cycles can be visualized here:

    And then layer on top of this,” A Saros series doesn’t last indefinitely because the three lunar months are not perfectly commensurate with one another. In particular, the Moon’s node shifts eastward by about 0.5º with each cycle. A typical Saros series for a solar eclipse begins when new Moon occurs ~18° east of a node. If the first eclipse occurs at the Moon’s descending node, the Moon’s umbral shadow will pass ~3500 km below Earth and a partial eclipse will be visible from the south polar region. On the following return, the umbra will pass ~300 km closer to Earth and a partial eclipse of slightly larger magnitude will result. After ten or eleven Saros cycles (about 200 years), the first central eclipse will occur near the south pole of Earth. Over the course of the next 950 years, a central eclipse occurs every 18.031 years (= Saros) but will be displaced northward by an average of ~300 km. Halfway through this period, eclipses of long duration will occur near the equator. The last central eclipse of the series occurs near the north pole. The next approximately ten eclipses will be partial with successively smaller magnitudes. Finally, the Saros series will end a dozen or more centuries after it began at the opposite pole. Due to the ellipticity of the orbits of Earth and the Moon, the exact duration and number of eclipses in a complete Saros is not constant. A series may last 1226 to 1550 years and is comprised of 69 to 87 eclipses, of which about 40 to 60 are central (i.e., total, hybrid or annular).

    http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

    We also have to take into account Earth’s rotation “The angular speed of Earth’s rotation in inertial space is (7.2921150 ± 0.0000001) ×10−5 radians per SI second (mean solar second).[11] Multiplying by (180°/π radians)×(86,400 seconds/mean solar day) yields 360.9856°/mean solar day, indicating that Earth rotates more than 360° relative to the fixed stars in one solar day. Earth’s movement along its nearly circular orbit while it is rotating once around its axis requires that Earth rotate slightly more than once relative to the fixed stars before the mean Sun can pass overhead again, even though it rotates only once (360°) relative to the mean Sun.[n 4] Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth’s equatorial radius of 6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2π radians needed by both cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m/s, 1,674.4 km/h or 1,040.4 mi/h.[17]“;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation

    changes in this rotation, “Over millions of years, the rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon: see tidal acceleration. However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds.[21] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is changing the distribution of the Earth’s mass thus affecting the Moment of Inertia of the Earth and, by the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the Earth’s rotation period.”;

    as well as changes in Earth’s Elliptical Orbit around the Sun (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession), i.e. Milankovitch cycles, whereby “the Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates more slowly. The combined effect of the two precessions leads to a 21,000-year period between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit, obliquity, moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle; currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    My point is simply that the sun and moon’s gravitational energy are important extraterrestrial variables in Earth’s climate system and should thus be acknowledged and accounted for.

  241. Just The Facts says:
    March 5, 2011 at 10:05 am
    I am arguing that different “relative distances and positions of the sun, moon and earth” result in different distributions of sun and moon’s gravitational energy across Earth. Earth’s Oceans are impacted by variations in the position of the sun and moon relative to earth e.g. during a Neap Tide;
    The direction is the important factor for this. Any distance effect is second order.

    We also have to take into account Earth’s rotation “The angular speed of Earth’s rotation in inertial space is (7.2921150 ± 0.0000001) ×10−5 radians per SI second (mean solar second).[11] Multiplying by (180°/π radians)×(86,400 seconds/mean solar day) yields 360.9856°/mean solar day, indicating that Earth rotates more than 360° relative to the fixed stars in one solar day.
    This has absolutely nothing to to with anything, being just that the Earth advances steadily in its orbit during a day, so makes the day 4 minutes longer.

    i.e. Milankovitch cycles, whereby “the Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years.
    No doubt, but is hardly of interest for the current climate debate.

    My point is simply that the sun and moon’s gravitational energy are important extraterrestrial variables in Earth’s climate system and should thus be acknowledged and accounted for.
    Apart from the Milankowitch cycles, it has not been demonstrated that the other cycles have any influence, so we can’t ‘account’ for their influence. To my knowledge these cycles are not used in any serious weather forecasting. Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.

  242. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: March 5, 2011 at 11:40 am

    The direction is the important factor for this. Any distance effect is second order.

    I think I agree with you. By “direction” do you mean the “position” of the sun and moon in relation to earth?

    This has absolutely nothing to to with anything, being just that the Earth advances steadily in its orbit during a day, so makes the day 4 minutes longer.

    Yes it does. If Earth wasn’t rotating then the effects of the sun and moon’s gravitational energy would be easier to identify and measure. Layering lunar orbit and cycles, on top of Earth’s orbit and cycles in order to identify the gravity effects at each location on Earth is very complex. i.e.:

    “As we have seen, tides are caused by the attraction of the Moon and Sun on water particles near the surface of the Earth. Since the orbits of the Moon around the Earth, and of the Earth around the Sun, are elliptical, the effects are variable in strength, like the resulting tides. The redeeming feature is that every aspect of each motion has a corresponding periodicity to which tidal variations can be related. The pages-long equation describing the paths of celestial bodies, a masterpiece of human ingenuity, was first set out by Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) and Pierre Simon de Laplace (1749-1827).”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3349/is_1_40/ai_n29150030/

    Adding Earth’s rotation into the equation adds significant additional complexity.

    No doubt, but is hardly of interest for the current climate debate.

    I am not really interested in the current climate debate at the moment. I am compiling a summary of all of the variables in Earth’s climate system, which I eventually plan to turn into a WUWT reference page.

    Apart from the Milankowitch cycles, it has not been demonstrated that the other cycles have any influence, so we can’t ‘account’ for their influence.

    “The Arctic Ocean as a Coupled Oscillating System to the Forced 18.6 Year Lunar Gravity Cycle” by Harald Yndestad, in Nonlinear Dynamics in Geosciences
    2007:

    “A wavelet spectrum analysis of an extensive historical Arctic data series concludes that we may be able to understand Arctic climate dynamics as an oscillation system coupled to the forced 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle. This paper presents the results from a wavelet spectrum analysis of the data series which included polar movement, Arctic ice extent and the inflow of North Atlantic Water to the Norwegian Sea. The investigation shows a correlation better than R = 0.6 between the astronomic 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle and identified 18 yr dominant cycles in the data series. The identified 18 yr cycles have phase – reversals synchronized to a 74 yr sub – harmonic lunar nodal cycle.”

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/t6831r104371u3j4/

    “A possible cause for the large temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic Water is the tidal oscillations resulting from gravity effects between the earth, moon and sun (Yndestad, Turrell and Ozhigin 2004). A gravity effect between these three bodies results in a set of long orbital cycles that may introduce climate oscillations on the earth (Pettersson 1915; Currie 1984; Imbrie and Imbrie 1980; Satterley 1996; Yndestad 2006.) An oscillating gravity effect on the climate fluctuations implies that there may be a coupled oscillation between gravity cycles and Arctic climate. This study investigates the relationship between the astronomic 18.6 yr lunar nodal tide and dominant cycles in polar motion, North Atlantic Water and Arctic ice extent. The investigation concludes that the Arctic climate variability can be thought of as an oscillator coupled to the forced 18.6 yr lunar nodal gravity cycle. This coupled oscillation has temporary harmonic cycles in which interference between cycles may introduce phase-reversals.”

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-DLT_oqrs2gC&oi=fnd&pg=PA281&ots=yGbmOA3lr7&sig=gU4Zcem4Z_iQGBoVsZlq4YHuQuo#v=onepage&q&f=false

    To my knowledge these cycles are not used in any serious weather forecasting.

    You are probably right, I doubt that the Met Office and Mark Serreze at NSIDC are using these cycles in their “serious weather forecasting”… :)

    Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.

    Why?

  243. Just The Facts says:
    March 5, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    “This has absolutely nothing to to with anything, being just that the Earth advances steadily in its orbit during a day, so makes the day 4 minutes longer.”
    Yes it does. If Earth wasn’t rotating

    That was not the issue [which you tried to demonstrate by quoting many decimals of irrelevant stuff] as to whether the difference between the siderial day and the synodic day was important, which it is not.

    “Apart from the Milankowitch cycles, it has not been demonstrated that the other cycles have any influence, so we can’t ‘account’ for their influence.”
    “The Arctic Ocean as a Coupled Oscillating System to the Forced 18.6 Year Lunar Gravity Cycle”

    As I said, your bar is much lower than mine.

    “Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.
    Why?

    Because strictly speaking there may not be such a thing. “In general relativity gravitational energy is extremely complex, and there is no single agreed upon definition of the concept. It is sometimes modeled via the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor[3] which allows the energy-momentum conservation laws of classical mechanics to be retained. Addition of the matter stress-energy-momentum tensor to the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor results in a combined matter plus gravitational energy pseudotensor which has a vanishing 4-divergence in all frames; the vanishing divergence ensures the conservation law. Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate in general relativity, but the [vanishing] divergence of the combined matter plus gravitational energy pseudotensor is a tensor.”

  244. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: February 27, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    “It seems that their Figure 4 is the crucial one. It shows [well-known] that dynamic pressure and F10.7 [UV proxy] are anti-correlated, more UV, less pressure. The ‘correlation’ with NAM does not impress me at all. Although I know Jarvis and he is a good scientist, this paper does not live up to his standard.”

    I think Figs 6, 8 and 11 are the important ones:

    “Fig. 6 shows the correlations between Psw DJ and the January, February, and March NAM (1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns), and January through March mean NAM (4th column) when Fs DJ is high; results are shown where NCEP-NAM (upper panels) and the ERA40-NAM are used (lower panels). It shows that for individual months and the Jan-Mar average, similar vertical correlation patterns hold for either the NCEP-NAM or the ERA40-NAM at all the pressure levels below 10 hPa. From the surface to 20 hPa, the January and February NAMs are highly correlated to Psw DJ, while weaker correlations are found in March. The highest correlations are found in February with maximum correlation coefficient rmax = 0.8 at 200 hPa, and r > 0.5 all the way from 1000 hPa to 50 hPa. In January and March, the vertical pattern of the correlations shows a double-peak altitude profile with one peak near the surface and another near 100-200 hPa, with a minimum 300-400 hPa. The correlation coefficients between Psw DJ and NAM JFM are greater than > 0.5 all the way upwards from the surface to 20 hPa with confidence levels > 98%, with a maximum correlation of 0.8 at 100-200 hPa. Above 20 hPa, however, the correlations are small and statistically insignificant.”

    “Fig. 8 shows the correlation between Psw DJ and Jan-Feb mean UJF extracted at 60°N, 150 hPa (left panel), and Jan-Feb mean TJF at 80°N, 200 hPa (right panel), at HS. Strikingly clear positive and negative correlations are shown for UJF and TJF, respectively, suggesting that a colder and stronger lower stratospheric polar vortex is present when Psw DJ is high. At those locations, the maximum differences are up to 14 m s-1 in UJF and 12 K in TJF.”

    “Fig. 11 shows the correlations between Psw DJ and the March mean ERA40-NAM at LS. It shows that significant negative correlations between Psw DJ and March mean NAM exist in the stratosphere and the correlation peaks at ~7 hPa with rmin = -0.65. No significant correlation is found in the troposphere, presumably implying a lack of coupling from the stratosphere to the troposphere.”

    I also thought the following paragraphs are worthy of additional scrutiny;

    “The total solar irradiance varies by about 0.1%, while the solar radiation in the ultraviolet (UV) part of the spectrum varies by about 5−8% over an 11-year solar cycle (11-yr SC) [Lean, et al., 1997]. The UV radiative forcing is strongest near the stratopause, where the solar UV is most effectively absorbed by ozone [Haigh, 2003; Hood, 2004]. As a result of insitu photolysis in the upper stratosphere, higher solar UV inputs at solar maxima cause thermal perturbations by increasing the temperature gradient between the tropics and the winter pole [Haigh, 1994; 1996]. In turn, it alters the upward propagation of planetary-scale waves as well as the Brewer-Dobson (BD) circulation, resulting in a strengthened polar vortex and dynamic feedback in the lower atmosphere [Kodera and Kuroda, 2002]. Numerous studies have revealed compelling evidence for the signature of the 11-yr SC in atmospheric wind and temperature [Labitzke and van Loon, 1988; Shindell, et al., 1999; Matthes, et al., 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005; Labitzke, et al., 2006; Salby and Callaghan, 2006; Camp and Tung, 2007].”

    “Possible solar influences on the NAM have been reported in the literature. Ruzmaikin and Feynman [2002] found that the NAM was skewed more negatively all the way vertically through the stratosphere and troposphere during the winters when solar activity is low (LS), while no clear tendency in the NAM was detected when solar activity is high (HS). Kodera [2002; 2003] found that the spatial pattern of the winter NAO is confined to the Atlantic sector at LS, whereas it shows a hemispherical structure at HS. Ogi et al. [2003] showed that the spring/summer circulation correlates well with the previous winter NAO at HS, whereas no significant correlation was found at LS. Gimeno et al. [2003] found that the NAO is positively correlated to the Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature during HS winters, while no significant correlation was found during LS winters. These observational studies seem to suggest that the 11-yr SC modulates the NAM in a systematic manner. Such a modulation is intriguing as no direct causal mechanism connecting the 11-yr SC and the NAM has been obtained.”

    “Correlations have been found between solar wind driven geomagnetic activity and
    atmospheric variables including temperature, geopotential height and the NAO [Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002; 2003; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004; Bochnicek and Hejda, 2005]. For the period of 1973 to 2000, Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003] showed that the variation of the winter NAO is positively correlated with the electric field strength of the solar wind, and suggested a solar wind generated electromagnetic disturbance in the ionosphere may dynamicly propagate downward to affect the NAO. For the period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, Bochnicek and Hejda [2005] found that the winter NAO is more positive when the geomagnetic index Ap is high, in line with the results of Boberg and Lundstedt [2002; 2003]. It is, however, apparent that a multi-decadal scale modulation of the relationship between the NAO and geomagnetic activity may exist, as the correlation tends to wax and wane over time-scales of a few decades [Bucha and Bucha, 1998; Thejll, et al., 2003; Palamara and Bryant, 2004]. Lu et al. [2007] demonstrated that there were multiple solar influences on atmospheric temperature, with both solar irradiance and solar wind drivers playing a role. They used the Ap index [Mayaud, 1980] as a measure of geomagnetic activity, which is indirectly dependent upon the solar wind characteristics. They showed that, for the period 1958-2004, the magnitude of the temperature response in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere to the geomagnetic Ap index is at least comparable to that associated with solar irradiance over the 11-yr SC.”

    “The transfer of energy from the solar wind to the Earth system is a complex process and can depend upon various solar wind parameters [Wang, et al., 2006]. Palmroth et al. [2004] have presented direct evidence for the dependence of Joule heating, generated by currents in Earth’s upper atmosphere, on solar wind dynamic pressure. These currents are driven in the outer magnetosphere by solar wind action and connect to make a circuit through the auroral zones in the lower thermosphere region where they dissipate energy. They can be divided into ‘region 1’ currents that flow down into the dawnside and up from the duskside of the higher latitude auroral zone and ‘region 2’ shielding currents, with the opposite sense to ‘region 1’ currents, which flow into and out of the lower latitude auroral zone. Palmroth et al. [2004] pointed out that both the ‘region 2’ currents and the weaker ‘region 1’ currents are highly correlated with magnetospheric pressure changes which are, in turn, balanced with changes in the solar wind dynamic pressure. They showed (their Fig 4) through magnetohydrodynamic numerical simulation that the Joule heating from these current systems is approximately proportional to the solar wind dynamic pressure. Hence, if solar wind geo-effectiveness is determined by the subsequent dissipation of magnetospheric energy into the neutral atmosphere through Joule heating, then the solar wind dynamic pressure can be used as a proxy for this geo-effectiveness.”

    “The importance of the solar wind dynamic pressure in transferring energy from the solar wind to the Earth’s atmosphere has been demonstrated by several authors. Shue and Kamide [2001] showed that, in a magnetic cloud, increasing solar wind density intensified the auroral electrojets for both southward and northward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). Boudouridis et al. [2003] demonstrated that, under IMF southward conditions, the solar wind dynamic pressure increases widened the auroral oval and decreased the polar cap size. Lu et al. [2004] reported that compressional waves from within the solar wind dynamic pressure enhancements could lead to penetration of solar wind matter and energy across the magnetopause into the magnetosphere. Palmroth et al. [2007] analyzed 236 solar wind pressure pulses separated into two groups, dependent upon whether the solar wind magnetic field increased or decreased at the time of the pressure pulse. They showed that both groups transfer energy to the magnetosphere; although coupling efficiency decreased when the magnetic field increased, and vice versa, the coupling energy within the pressure pulses with increased magnetic field remained the larger. Zhou and Tsurutani [1999] have shown that sudden increases in the solar wind dynamic pressure can generate global disturbances with Auroral activity appearing on the dayside and propagating to the nightside with ionospheric speeds consistent with the solar wind pressure pulse speed. In support of this, the inverse effect has been observed by Liou et al. [2006] whereby decreasing pressure pulses lead to a rapid extinguishing of auroral activity. Observations by Laundal and Østgaard [2008] indicate that the causative mechanism behind proton aurora precipitation during high dynamic pressure is connected to the compression of the magnetosphere, which is directly related to the solar wind dynamic pressure.”

    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/5932/1/LuJarvisHibbins_2008JD010848_JGR_NORA.pdf

  245. Just The Facts says:
    March 6, 2011 at 11:03 am
    indicate that the causative mechanism behind proton aurora precipitation during high dynamic pressure is connected to the compression of the magnetosphere, which is directly related to the solar wind dynamic pressure. [and other quotes]
    You keep bringing up influences on the upper atmosphere [which are not disputed - but makes for good fill-material that looks like science], but all of these things are either not related to climate at all or, at best, only marginally and unconvincing.
    Again, your bar is much too low [to be generous].

  246. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: March 6, 2011 at 9:23 am

    That was not the issue [which you tried to demonstrate by quoting many decimals of irrelevant stuff] as to whether the difference between the siderial day and the synodic day was important, which it is not.

    No. It is the combination of Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth. These variables act in concert to determine the constantly evolving “Gravitational Effect” on Earth.

    As I said, your bar is much lower than mine.

    For this exercise, as I said, “You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.” thus my bar is necessarily lower. However, in this particular instance, the more I read, the higher the bar goes. Gravitational Effects on Earth’s climate system appear well researched, supported and established within the literature, i.e.:

    “With the culmination of the 18.6-year cycle of the Moon in 2006 and again in 2024-25, also called the Major Lunar Standstill, we are afforded the unique opportunity to observe the monthly, annual, and 18.6-year wanderings of the Moon. The 18.6-year cycle is caused by the precession of the plane of the lunar orbit, while this orbit maintains a 5° tilt relative to the ecliptic. At the peak of this cycle, the Moon’s declination swings from -28.8° to +28.8° each month. What this means is that each month for the years 2005-2007 and also 2023-2026, the Moon can be seen rising and setting more northerly and also more southerly than the solar extremes, and will transit monthly with altitudes which are higher in the sky than the summer Sun and lower in the sky than the winter Sun.”

    http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html

    “Lunar cycles are varied and extremely complex and yet the moon has more effect on the earth than any other body except the Sun. Not only are ocean tides important in shaping the earth, and are affected more by the moon than the Sun, but tides in the air are important for determining the weather which in turn affects so many other variables from plants and crops, to animals and the economy.”

    “As was mentioned the 18.6 year cycle is important in determining the weather as is half of this, or 9.3 years. These cycles can be found in crop yields and in geological formations. However the moon is gradually receding from the earth which changes all of these periods very slowly. Professor Afanasiev of Moscow University has designed a method that he calls “Nanocycles method” of very accurately dating geological formations by finding the period which is presently 9.3 years and its interaction with the seasons. The 9.3 year cycle comes at the same time of year on average every 31 years because 9.3/.3 = 31. The nearest repeat of the seasons will actually happen after 28 years 2/3 of the time and 37 years 1/3 of the time. However this 31 years cyle of seasonal interaction of the is very sensitive to small changes because when the cycle was 9.2 years the interaction was in 9.2/.2 = 46 years. Professor Afanasiev has used this to accurately date deposits and so determine other geological cycles very accurately.”

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/lunar.shtml

    Science, “18.6-Year Earth Tide Regulates Geyser Activity” by John S. Rinehart, 1972

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Sci…177..346R

    Journal of Geophysical Research, “The 18.6-Year Cycle of Sea Surface Temperature in Shallow Seas Due to Variations in Tidal Mixing” by John W. Loder and Christopher Garrett, 1978:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1978/JC083iC04p01967.shtml

    Journal of Geophysical Research, “PERIODIC (18.6-YEAR) AND CYCIJC (11-YEAR) INDUCED DROUGHT AND FLOOD IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA” by Robert Guinn Currie, 1984:

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1984/JD089iD05p07215.shtml

    Climatic Change “Reconstruction of seasonal temperatures in Central Canada since A.D. 1700 and detection of the 18.6- and 22-year signals” by Joel Guiot 1987:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q76vw37g22557105/

    International Journal of Climatology “18.6-year luni-solar nodal and 10–11-year solar signals in rainfall in India”, by Kumares Mitra and S. N. Dutta, 1992:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370120807/abstract

    Journal of Geophysical Research, “High-Latitude Oceanic Variability Associated With the 18.6-Year Nodal Tide” by Thomas C. Royer, 1993:

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1993/92JC02750.shtml

    International Journal of Climatology, “Luni-solar 18.6- and solar cycle 10–11-year signals in USA air temperature records” by Robert G. Currie, 1993:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370130103/abstract

    IBM Research Center “Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem” by Martin C. Gutzwiller, 1998:

    http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v70/i2/p589_1

    Earth, Moon, and Planets “Lunar Influences On Climate” by Dario Camuffo, 2001:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/nq3376562761675r/

    American Meteorological Society “Millennial Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection? by Walter Munk, Matthew Dzieciuch and Steven Jayne, 2002:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C0370%3AMCVITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Geophysical Research Letters “The impacts of the Luni-Solar oscillation on the Arctic oscillation” by Renato Ramos da Silva and Roni Avissar, 2005:

    http://www.duke.edu/~renato/RamosdaSilvaandAvissarGRL2005.pdf

    Geophysical Research Letters “Possible explanation linking 18.6-year period nodal tidal cycle with bi-decadal variations of ocean and climate in the North Pacific” by
    Ichiro Yasuda, Satoshi Osafune and Hiroaki Tatebe, 2006:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025237.shtml

    Journal of Geophysical Research “The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the northeast Pacific” by Stewart M. McKinnell and William R. Crawford, 2007:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JC003671.shtml

    Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers “Lunar nodal tide effects on variability of sea level, temperature, and salinity in the Faroe-Shetland Channel and the Barents Sea” by Harald Yndestad, William R. Turrell and Vladimir Ozhigin, 2008:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008DSRI…55.1201Y

    Nature Geoscience “Significant contribution of the 18.6 year tidal cycle to regional coastal changes” by N. Gratiot, E. J. Anthony, A. Gardel, C. Gaucherel, C. Proisy & J. T. Wells, 2008:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n3/abs/ngeo127.html

    Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography “The influence of long tides on ecosystem dynamics in the Barents Sea” by Harald Yndestad, 2009:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009DSR….56.2108Y

    Given the large body of research that appears to support the influence of longer-term lunar and solar Gravitational Effects on Earth’s climate system, I am struggling to understand where your bar is on this matter. Can you please further elucidate your position such that I can identify the specific references that will most effectively address it?

    Perhaps the use of ‘gravitational energy’ is unwise.
    “Why?”
    Because strictly speaking there may not be such a thing

    The nature of gravity is very interesting subject, and one that I am interested to hear your thoughts on, but first I want to figure out how Earth’s climate system works. I admittedly don’t have much basis for “gravitational energy” other then the Wikipedia page that includes the quote you cited;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy

    and an initial desire to try to classify each variable in Earth’s climate system in terms of energy. As such, I am certainly open to more accurate terminology. What do you think the appropriate term for it is; Gravitational Effect, Gravitational Force or otherwise?

  247. Just The Facts says:
    March 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: March 6, 2011 at 9:23 am
    and an initial desire to try to classify each variable in Earth’s climate system in terms of energy. As such, I am certainly open to more accurate terminology. What do you think the appropriate term for it is; Gravitational Effect, Gravitational Force or otherwise?
    I’m sure you can find hundreds such papers, but that does not establish any effect on the climate [and none is generally accepted]. The proper term would be ‘tidal forces’.

  248. Just The Facts says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    I’m sure you can find hundreds such papers, but that does not establish any effect on the climate [and none is generally accepted].

    I disagree, I think that tidal forces effects on Earth’s climate are established and generally accepted, e.g.:

    “Climate: Present, Past and Future: Fundamentals and Climate Now” By H. H. Lamb, 1972:

    “Maksimov and Smirnov (1965) have calculated the changes in the mean slope of the surface of the North Atlantic Ocean from 45 degrees to 75 degrees N for the Januarys and Julys of the period 1870 – 1970 caused by lunar declination: the slope varies from about 6.5 cm upward in the years of maximum lunar declination named to 6.5 downward in the intervening minimum declination years. The authors believe that the corresponding differences of gradient force in the ocean surface must entail differences in the polarward component of ocean currents, and they found oscillations of about 19-year period and amplitude generally 0.2 – 0.4 degrees C superposed on the longer-term secular changes in the water surface temperatures of the North Atlantic between 55 degrees and 67 degrees.”

    “Rawson (1907, 1908, 1909) drew attention to the apparent existence of approximately 19 and 9 1/2 years cycles in the average latitudes of the subtropical high-pressure belts of the northern and southern hemispheres and in the occurrence of droughts recorded in South Africa from A.D. 1622 to 1900 and in Argentina from 1827 to 1900, such droughts being presumably connected with a persistent north or south displacement of the subtropical anticyclone belt.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=-lJ6XesnYYAC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=climate+tidal+force&source=bl&ots=cweznANPfq&sig=s58VumcCKXPp0KedSRfAFPzHdyk&hl=en&ei=eLN7Td6AFpOI0QGr6tTYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=climate%20tidal%20force&f=false

    As you’ve said, the literature is littered with references supporting the mechanics of tidal forces and their varied effects on Earth’s climate system. However, I think that the establishment bar you may be referring to is the demonstration of predictive capacity based upon tidal forces and sometimes, for the good of science, one has to try to poke holes in one’s own hypotheses. So I thought, if some organization today is leveraging tidal influences for predictive purposes, it would be the Farmer’s Almanac. “Founded in 1818, the Farmers’ Almanac’s timeless appeal has spanned three centuries, offering readers a trademark blend of long-range weather predictions, humor, fun facts, and valuable advice on gardening, cooking, fishing, conservation, and much more.”

    http://www.farmersalmanac.com/about/farmers-almanac-history/

    So I did some research and found an August 30th, 2010 Associated Press article based on interviews with Farmer’s Almanac Editors Sandi Duncan and Peter Geiger, that included this bold forecast:

    “Good news, winter haters: After record snowfall in the mid-Atlantic and unusually cold weather down South, the Farmers’ Almanac is predicting a “kinder and gentler” winter.

    After eyeing the skies, tidal action and sunspots, the folks at the 194-year-old publication say in their 2011 edition going on sale Monday that it’ll be cold but nothing like last winter, when 49 states saw snow and it got so cold in Florida that iguanas fell out of trees.

    “Overall, it looks like it’s going to be a kinder and gentler winter, especially in the areas that had a rough winter last year,” said managing editor Sandi Duncan.”

    “The Farmers’ Almanac, which claims 80 to 85 percent accuracy and says it correctly forecast heavy snow in Middle Atlantic states last winter, bases its predictions on a secret mathematical formula using the position of the planets, tidal action of the moon and sunspots.

    Ed O’Lenic from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center said the scientific community doesn’t accept tides, planetary alignment and sunspots as effective predictors of temperature or precipitation, but he stopped short of calling the almanac’s meteorological methods a bunch of hooey.

    “In science you have to have an open mind. Someday, someone could conceivably find some scintilla of evidence that it’s useful,” O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch, said of the almanac’s methodology. “For the time being, we have to stick with what produces results for us.”

    “For the record, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center anticipates a warmer-than-normal winter for the mid-Atlantic and Southeast and colder-than-normal weather in the Northwest. That puts it at odds with the almanac, which calls for mild temperatures in the Northwest and cold in the Southeast.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38906421/ns/weather/

    Ouch, we’ll that’s not very encouraging, both the Farmer’s Almanac and NOAA seem to have failed in their forecasts, but wait. There’s another Farmer’s Almanac, it’s the Old Farmer’s Almanac, published “since 1792, The Old Farmer’s Almanac has spoken to all walks of life: tide tables for those who live near the ocean; sunrise and planting charts for those who live on the farm; recipes for those who live in the kitchen; and forecasts for those who don’t like the question of weather left up in the air.”

    And here is the Old Farmer’s Almanac Atlantic Corridor Annual Weather Summary for November 2010 to October 2011:

    “Winter will be colder and drier than normal, on average, with below-normal snowfall in New England and above-normal snowfall elsewhere. The coldest periods will be in mid-December, January, and mid-February. The snowiest periods will be in early January and mid- and late February.”

    http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/2

    Hmmm, “with below-normal snowfall in New England” according to a January 28, 2011 Boston Globe article “In Somerville, New England’s most densely populated city, some snowbanks are so tall that they deflect the plume of snow cleared by plow trucks and send it sliding back down to the street, said Michael Meehan, a city spokesman. Between storms, crews have been trying to clear snow piles and dump them on basketball courts, while the real estate trust planning a 50-acre redevelopment at Assembly Square has offered the city private land for use as a snow farm.”

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/28/region_isnt_taking_massive_snow_accumulation_lightly/

    In terms of The Old Farmer’s Almanac forecast that “The coldest periods will be in mid-December, January, and mid-February.” here are Weekly Mean Temperatures for the Northeast:

    Week-Ending | Mean Temperature | Anomaly
    20101204 | 33.76 | 0.90
    20101211 | 26.15 | -4.02
    20101218 | 23.80 | -4.01
    20101225 | 22.68 | -3.12
    20110101 | 24.45 | 0.35
    20110108 | 24.73 | 2.00
    20110115 | 22.28 | 0.37
    20110122 | 20.86 | -0.54
    20110129 | 19.89 | -1.64
    20110205 | 19.93 | -2.15
    20110212 | 20.84 | -2.22
    20110219 | 25.70 | 1.20
    20110226 | 26.21 | -0.20
    20110305 | 28.28 | -0.41

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/us-weekly/wkly.temps.dat

    I guess that you could call December 5th – 25th “mid-December”, but the first half of January had the warmest anomaly of an otherwise freezing winter and “mid-February” i.e. Feb 13th – 19th, was actually the only positive anomaly in the month of February.

    In summary, the forecasts of Farmer’s Almanac, Old Farmer’s Almanac and NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center all appear to be highly suspect. The existence of tidal forces, and that they influence Earth’s climate system does appear established, however the specific influences, how they interface with all of the other climactic variables and reliable predictive capacity leveraging tidal forces does not appear established.

    The proper term would be ‘tidal forces’.

    Corrected. Thanks

  249. Just The Facts says:
    March 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    I disagree, I think that tidal forces effects on Earth’s climate are established and generally accepted
    If so, they should be used in operational forecasting, and they are not. But my main point [going back many posts] is that the tidal influence, if any, is cyclic and therefore not operative for climate change. Same thing with seasonal and daily variations.

Comments are closed.