Solar Max – So Soon?

Guest post by David Archibald

Dr Svalgaard has an interesting annotation on his chart of solar parameters – “Welcome to solar max”:

Graphic source:  http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

Could it be?  It seems that Solar Cycle 24 had only just begun, with solar minimum only two and a half years ago in December 2008.

The first place to confirm that is the solar polar magnetic field strength, with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory: 

Source:  http://wso.stanford.edu/

The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum.  The northern field has reversed.  There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record.  Another parameter that would confirm solar maximum is the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, also from the WSO site.

The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.

If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle, though Usoskin et al in 2009 proposed a short, asymmetric cycle in the late 18th century at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum:  http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf

Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long:

The green line is the solar cycle record with alternate cycles reversed.  The red line is the model output.  Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated.

This model has the next solar maximum in 2013 and minimum only four years later in 2017.  This outcome is possible based on the Sun’s behaviour to date.

About these ads

274 thoughts on “Solar Max – So Soon?

  1. Darn sun’s going weird on us.
    We don’t really need another Dalton, not with the population size we’ve got to feed.

  2. Wow!

    No one really knows what it means … yet we know the sun is such a massive massive factor influencing our lives, that even an almost insignificant change in the sun could lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths on earth.

    Potentially the biggest thing that has happened to humanity, or perhaps nothing at all.

    Drum roll & queue the profits** of doom. (**not a spelling mistake)

  3. Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long

    Polar field formula (first version published in Jan 2004) extrapolates ‘normal’ length for SC24, next min arround 2017-18, but then things may get more interesting.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  4. The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record.
    There are five reversals. The first one in 1957-1958: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf

    >i>The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
    In cycle 21 it only took one year.

    If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle
    Just because maximum is early does not mean that the cycle will be short. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png

    If the cycle is long or even just average in length, the polar fields may have time to grow so that cycle 25 might be a large cycle. If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.

  5. The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record.
    No, there are five reversals in the record. The first one in 1957-1958: http://www.leif.org/EOS/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf

    The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
    In cycle 21 it only took one year.

    If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle
    Just because maximum is early does not mean that the cycle will be short. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png

    Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model
    If the cycle is long or even just average in length, the polar fields may have time to grow so that cycle 25 might be a large cycle. If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.

  6. The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
    In cycle 21 and cycle 22 it only took one year.

  7. Very interesting post. Is it possible the magnet pole reversal phase could take longer though in a weak cycle? In the strong cycle the switch looks to have happened in the space of around 1 year – perhaps in a weak cycle it will take 3 years due to the amplitude of the pattern being less.

  8. Very interesting !

    The sun is the main climate driver (with volcanos). It has been and it’s still the case today.

    Once again we can see that our weak scientific knowledges on the sun can not predict its future behavior.

    How can computer climate projections to do any accurate forecasts ?

  9. “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

  10. vukcevic says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:25 am
    Polar field formula (first version published in Jan 2004) extrapolates ‘normal’ length for SC24, next min arround 2017-18, but then things may get more interesting.
    So disagrees with Ed Fix’s…

    BENG says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:03 am
    Very interesting post. Is it possible the magnet pole reversal phase could take longer though in a weak cycle?
    Yes, this is possible and the polarity could change back and forth more than once, as the polar fields are the result of rather random flux arrivals. Weak cycles tend to have a drawn-out maximum, e.g. cycle 14:

  11. Bob the swiss says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:12 am
    The sun is the main climate driver (with volcanos). It has been and it’s still the case today.
    No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.

  12. “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    NeilM: I don’t know, but I’d guess with very high subjective probability: Jupiter, Venus, Earth (+possibly other planets). Such a theory would be astronomical if anyone could explain the physics, but as they have not yet done so, many people call it “astrological”. Such theories are unacceptable in many scientific circles. Personally, I am more open-minded about the cumulative effects large gaseous bodies can have on other large gaseous bodies.

    Rich.

  13. See – owe to Rich says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:20 am
    Personally, I am more open-minded about the cumulative effects large gaseous bodies can have on other large gaseous bodies.
    The effect would be much larger if Jupiter and Saturn were not gaseous.

  14. All I want to know is if it will get cooler or will it get warmer? Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions? Even before these latest solar shenannigans the correlation was not obvious.

  15. If the extended solar minimum of Cycle 23 was the cause of the severe winters we’ve had these past two or three years, the next Cycle could result in a series of winters more like that of ’63. In addition, the less energetic jetstreams in both hemispheres will mean more of the unsettled weather we’ve had, including more flooding and more mini heat waves.

    Irrespective of the outcome, the warmists will blame Ag e’Dubalu, their malign god of climate.

  16. Strongly disagree!

    Not before 2014. Next minimum around 2020.

    See “butterfly” diagram:

    Sunspots are not even near equator.

    And short cycles are strong! Long ones, like the SC 24, are weak.

  17. Leif: The effect would be much larger if Jupiter and Saturn were not gaseous.

    Yes! I’m assuming you mean that if they were solid – and still the same size – then they would be more massive and their graviational pull would be greater.

    Jcarels: If one uses an model based on the planets, how to explain the maunder minimum?
    I doubt that you’ll be allowed to debate that here. Try tallblokes’ talkshop.

    Lawrie: Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions?
    There are two questions there: first, will the change be significant, second will it make climate scientists revise their projections? On Total Solar Irradiance alone I don’t think the change will be that significant. But the Svensmark Hypothesis is that weak sun affects the Earth’s albedo, which would be significant.

    For the second question, some climate scientists will revise, and some won’t. It’ll be a bloodbath, or a mudbath, or some other painful thing as new data is analyzed and promoted or disdained by various camps.

    Rich.

  18. The delay/failure of the southern half of SC24 could make this weak cycle long/short.
    Leif, you are correct about orbit and axis orientation, but the implication for N. Hemisphere Summer grows in importance, for Earth does not receive the TSI from the Sun with such factors corrected out.
    [snip]

  19. Jcarels says: May 8, 2011 at 2:46 am
    If one uses an model based on the planets, how to explain the maunder minimum?

    Resonance systems are well known in many branches of physics. There is a degree of planetary synchronisation (Titius –Bode law). An article published in 2004
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf ( page 2 fig2.)
    shows that may be a ‘possibility’. Maunder min was only one in the sequence of minor and major anomalies as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

  20. Interesting!

    Shiney ball theory gets another airing. We don’t really know what effect element ‘A’ has on element ‘B’, but we know for sure element ‘C’ overpowers element ‘A’. Makes sense to me, sarc off:-)) The Sun does possess 99.9% of the mass of the solar system. We possess less than a few hundreths of the mass of the solar system, if that much if it makes any sense. Who can say for absolute certainity that a 0.1% change in TSI & a 6-10% change in Extreme UV doesn’t affect us in some unknown way? Of course, if we did know, that won’t get us a UN Global Intellectual Socialist Elitists Guvmnt (They know what’s best for us better than we do) & massive wealth transfer to the poor people, you know those who’ll receive about $390 each for every $1,000,000 that will go to their little guvmnts/leaders/business interests secret bank accounts, etc.

  21. Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 1:58 am
    So (you) disagrees with Ed Fix’s…

    I often disagree even with people I can identify by their previous work, since I don’t know who is Ed Fix ( FixEd, fixed ) or who or what is fixed, so I shall disagree.
    I will agree with :
    Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am
    No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.

  22. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am

    No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.

    So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?

  23. Well thankfully the GCM’s picked this spot on……..
    otherwise I just might’ve become a tad sceptical…..

  24. Alan the Brit says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:04 am
    …….
    I think that the claim that solar variation is not sufficiently large to account for the MWP, LIA, modern warming period, etc, is most likely correct.
    Since oceans absorb huge amount of energy I think that:
    Energy in = Energy out but only if integrated over period spanning centuries.
    Oceans behave in a manner resembling to a Galileo’s thermometer; but what makes them do that is an idea I’ve been working on for some time now (about 60-70% of work is completed).

  25. Mike McMillan says:

    Darn sun’s going weird on us.
    We don’t really need another Dalton, not with the population size we’ve got to feed.

    Don’t worry Mike, we’ve nearly doubled CO2 thanks to industrial emissions, that’s about 30% more food under similar conditions of heat and moisture. Oh, hang on, they’re trying to tax us into the stone age to stop us boosting the world’s plant growth. Panic Mike!!!

  26. Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am
    Bob the swiss says: May 8, 2011 at 1:12 am
    The sun is the main climate driver (with volcanos). It has been and it’s still the case today.
    No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.

    Yes, main driver for long term ice age and interglacial. I’m more a fan of those effects getting a boost from volcanic activity or lack thereof. A similar boost coined the phrase, “1800 and frozen to death”.

  27. I have a simple theory. The Sun is ultimately responsible for all the global warming or cooling we experience.. period. Anything we do here on our little planet may trap a little heat for a while, but ultimately it will be given up to space.

    If the Sun’s output goes down, we will cool. If it goes up, we will warm. It may take a while, but it will happen. It’s like a diet. If you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain weight and vice versa.

  28. Alan the Brit says:

    The Sun does possess 99.9% of the mass of the solar system. We possess less than a few hundreths of the mass of the solar system, if that much if it makes any sense. Who can say for absolute certainity that a 0.1% change in TSI & a 6-10% change in Extreme UV doesn’t affect us in some unknown way?

    You are (intentionally?) missing the point. The Sun is a churning ball of plasma with strong magnetic currents. Despite the relative masses , it is not unreasonable to suggest that nearby massive bodies and magnetic fields may interact with the Sun to produce small perturbation in the surface activity. Sun spots are small perturbation in the surface activity and are known to affect climate.

    Our severely limited knowledge of what happens inside the Sun makes it difficult to formulate a mechanism and chaotic activity makes it hard to spot a simple correlation. To that extent it remains “astrology” to some, however the proposition is not unreasonable.

  29. Two short cycles would be expected if we assume that the solar cycles develop like an interference of two sinusoidal curves with similar, but not identical frequencies; resulting in a beat. The moment the beat occurs one extra pass through zero happens.

  30. Dave (UK) says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:54 am

    “If the extended solar minimum of Cycle 23 was the cause of the severe winters we’ve had these past two or three years, the next Cycle could result in a series of winters more like that of ’63. ”

    Even if there were similar external conditions I think a ’63-like event is unlikely since we are starting from a warmer climate that at that time.

  31. “If the Sun’s output goes down, we will cool. If it goes up, we will warm. It may take a while, but it will happen. It’s like a diet. If you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain weight and vice versa.”

    Rising CO2 is like eating slightly more cake each day.

  32. Mike McMillan says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:23 am

    Newman in 1980 determined that corn growing conditions shifted 144 km per degree C. The good news for the US is that the total corn growing area doesn’t change much, it just shifts about 300 km south. The rest of the world is not so good. Canada’s wheat crop will be wiped out by the 2 degree drop reducing the growing season by 30 days.
    Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142.

  33. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
    NeilM says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
    “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    Astrology…

    Coupled with Dynamology.

  34. onion2 says:
    May 8, 2011 at 6:08 am
    “Rising CO2 is like eating slightly more cake each day.”

    And where’s the postulated, never observed, positive water vapor feedback that the AGW scientists need to maintain their catastrophe predictions in your cake analogy?

  35. This is a highly non-rigourous idea that I tried recently. The methodology is questionable but the result is intersting enough to have a look at.

    The idea came as an experiment to see how misleading the IPCCs arbitrary selection of “last 50y of 20th century” was as a period to focus on. (Round number don’t count as a reason in science). It turns out that choice fits their argument perfectly but is not representative.

    First I calculated the linear trend for all the possible 50 year periods for HadCrut3 data and plotted the 50 year slopes against the *start* of the 50 year period.

    It should be noted that this process itself is transforming the data and the form of the output is quite dependant on the length of the filter. (slopes or around 30 years gives a similar form but with triangular rather than sinusoidal profile).

    Anyway, I so struck by the simplicity of the graph that I decided to fit a cosine plus linear trend. It was not perfect but is was a very close fit. So I decided to integrate the function analytically and reconstruct the temperature record from it.

    Here’s the reconstructed trends
    based on that simple empirical model of the Hadley/CRU data.

    It is purely based on the *form* of the data , no physical model or assumptions made.

    I don’t think it can be taken too seriously as a predictive model , although I’d give it better odds than a lot of current climate models which failed in the first tens years of extrapolation. ;)

    I do not think the form of the 50 years slopes is can be just a coincidence or an artefact of selective filtering, so there is something to made from a closer look.

  36. P. Solar says:
    May 8, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Even if there were similar external conditions I think a ’63-like event is unlikely since we are starting from a warmer climate that at that time.

    Unless I’m mis-remembering the stats from last century, the temperature gains in the 20th Century have been reversed by the cooling of the past decade. So, are we starting a new solar cycle with a warmer climate than ’63?

  37. R Babcock says: (May 8, 2011 at 5:42 am)
    “It’s like a diet. If you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain weight and vice versa.”

    Unfortunately your example implies an unlimited amount of calorie consumption along with an unlimited amount of calorie burning. Let’s refine it by giving the consumption a fixed amount, much like the Sun which varies little. A 3000 daily calorie consumption will mean weight gain to someone who only burns 2000 calories a day but will mean weight loss for someone who burns 4000 calories a day. The intake is fixed (Sun’s energy) and the variables are completely outside the influence of the intake (Earth’s shape, it’s inclination and it’s orbit). So while the Sun establishes the parameters of climate, slight changes in solar output are swamped by other factors that have nothing to do with the Sun itself.

  38. Total Solar Irradiance from the SORCE instrument is showing a normal solar cycle ramp-up and it didn’t really decline at solar minimum beyond that which would be expected.

    SORCE is showing nothing unusual happening in TSI other than than cycle 23 was a little longer than normal.

    The total energy being directed at Earth is changing by such small amounts (a change of +/- 0.4 watts/m2 at the TOA – remember we divide that by 4 for a rotating sphere and 30% of it is just reflected away anyway) so it should make no difference to Earth temperatures.

    It needs to change by 10 to 40 times more than that to cause Little Ice Age conditions.

  39. NeilM says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am

    “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    Likely solar tides due to planets and/or barycenter stuff. Those rankle the continuum here enough that Anthony has banished them to the ether. You are welcome to discuss them at RealClimate.

  40. From my layman’s perspective the butterfly diagram that Edim posted earlier:

    provides good evidence to suggest that solar maximum is still some way off.

    Anyone care to comment? Vuk? Leif? Tallbloke? (glad to see you’re still around).

  41. P.Solar on modelling HadCRUT3: you should take a look at Scafetta (2010), which has an excellent fit to two cosines (periods 20 and 60 years) plus a quadratic.

    Rich.

  42. “If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed”

    The IPCC GHG models failed to predict that warming would level off in 1999. Does this mean the GHG theory behind them has also failed?

  43. “I do not think the form of the 50 years slopes is can be just a coincidence or an artefact of selective filtering, so there is something to made from a closer look.”

    So, what is it P. Solar?

    You’re just looking for more funding, aren’t you?

    sarc/

  44. I could use some help please.

    In the second diagram in David’s article the polar magnetic field in both hemispheres each show a dominant 22 year cycle upon which there appears to be a superimposed annual cycle. Are these annual cycles in the polar magnetic field strength caused by the changing vantage point that we have of the Sun’s poles as the Earth moves around the Sun?

    Thanks in advance.

  45. Astrology or Astronomy?

    The clock strikes twelve and moondrops burst
    Out at you from their hiding place
    Miss carrie nurse and susie dear
    Would find themselves at four winds bar

    It’s the nexus of the crisis
    And the origin of storms
    Just the place to hopelessly
    Encounter time and then came me

  46. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
    NeilM says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
    “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
    Anyone care to enlighten me?
    Astrology…

    That continues to be a problem for mainstream science, especially in the US. Fear that their work will be labelled “Astrology”.

    Similar fears gripped the scientists of the past which prevented progress for almost 2 thousand years.

  47. http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html

    The above reference provides a possible reason. It claims that as the Earth moves
    up and down across the ecliptic plane the measurement aperture used at the Wilcox Solar Observatory moves location in the solar coordinate system. They filter this annual variation out with a filter. Is this the correct reason?

  48. tallbloke says:
    May 8, 2011 at 6:15 am
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
    NeilM says:
    May 8, 2011 at 1:45 am
    “(based on forces that dare not speak their name)” ???
    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    Astrology…

    Coupled with Dynamology.

    tallbloke, what is Dynamology? I visualize the center of mass for the solar system (COM) which is in or near the sun and constantly changing as well as the sun’s mass, moving internally, as the COM moves and compensates with the COM. The sun’s internal movement affects its magnetic field.

  49. “Will the change be significant enough to make the climate scientists revise their projections of continued warming with continued emissions? ”

    Only if it affects their funding.

  50. DirkH says:
    May 8, 2011 at 6:25 am

    “And where’s the postulated, never observed, positive water vapor feedback that the AGW scientists need to maintain their catastrophe predictions in your cake analogy?”

    It has been observed.

    In terms of the analogy perhaps it’s the fatter you get the less exercise you want to do.

  51. onion2 says:
    “Rising CO2 is like eating slightly more cake each day.”

    This incorrectly implies that CO2 isn’t useful. It also vastly overstates the contribution of CO2 emissions to the Earth’s total radiative balance. Even a little extra cake would mean 100 calories or so, or about 5% of the total energy balance. If you want to preserve your anology you’d have make it a nibble of carrot.

    Even so, it would be possible to throw off your normal weight by indulging in that healthy bite. It would take a very long time and well before the results became problematic, unrelated natural processes (death from old age) would naturally limit the imbalance. The truth is that there would be no way to predict the actual effects without calculating unknown variables like total caloric intake, exercise regimens, sleep duration, water consumption, etc.

    Any nutritionist who attempted to project weight gain from a daily bite of a healthy vegetable would (correctly) be laughed into silence. Any professional who tried to present a bite of carrot as a potentially fatal dietary mistake would lose their credentials, and any that tried to extort money in order to force you into alternatives would likely go to jail.

  52. Though long-term Milankovitch and solar cycles are unquestionably major climate determinants, paleo-geologic eras are driven more by global bathymetric regimes (deep-ocean “magmatic episodes”) in context of plate tectonics. Planet Earth is less an oblate spheroid than a subtly pear-shaped ovoid which periodically expands/contracts by a factor of ~.00689%, perhaps one quarter-mile on her 4,000-mile equatorial radius.

    Over some 65-million years from the Chicxulub Impact which ignited the planet’s oxygen-rich atmosphere, six well-defined geologic eras have averaged 12 – 16 million years apiece. At ~ 2.6-million years, our current Pleistocene Era accordingly has 10 – 14 million years to run. Since the Pleistocene by definition is characterized by cyclical Ice Ages averaging 102,000 years interspersed with median 12,250-year Interglacial Epochs such as the current Holocene, we anticipate that, regardless of tactical astronomical and atmospheric factors, this geophysical strategic pattern will persist for some time yet.

    Since the Pliocene Era ended, North and South American continents have walled off Eastern from Western Hemispheres, interfering with global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Only when “continental drift” re-distributes these landmasses, liberating fluid air-and-water flows again, will Earth abandon Pleistocene Ice Times.

    Meanwhile, absent a 1,500-year “cold shock” called the Younger Dryas which set back the post-glacial clock c. BC 8700 – 7200 (from 10,700 years-before-present, YBP), Earth’s “long summer” aka the Holocene Interglacial Epoch was due to end c. AD 450, coincident with a protracted period of “Roman Warm.” Global Warming?– as Earth “exhales,” expanding tectonic Rings of Fire from early 1800s suggest the opposite.

  53. We need to send most of our climate scientists and academics to the Sun to research what is happening.

    Dress light, take lots of water.

  54. Dave (UK) says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:54 am
    “Irrespective of the outcome, the warmists will blame Ag e’Dubalu, their malign god of climate.”

    Manmade CO2 is a sky god. A sky god who controls climate.

  55. To steal money and minds they are warning
    That a gas of life brings warming
    They are idle and ignorant of a sun which is shoning
    With less vibrance and vigor these mornings

    Please see that change is the universe’s law
    The cosmic flow knows not one nor all
    As specks of dust in this against this scale of force
    You’ll see the cold that is coming will be worse

  56. Late last night when I saw that David’s post had “outed” me and this model, my first thought was something like, “Now, it’s going to hit the fan.” And that’s ok.

    Several people seem to be arguing about whether “my prediction” has any merit without knowing what I actually wrote. Since Anthony has banned (for good reason) discussions over the role of certain forces on the sunspot cycle, I won’t get into that discussion here. For the record, I’m not actually making any prediction.

    What my paper in press actually describes is a dynamic simulation using ONE aspect of these forces on a VERY simple model that is NOT intended to actually represent any real aspect of the sun. It is merely a placeholder to explore the hypothesis (not theory) that some aspect of these forces MIGHT have an effect on the sunspot cycle. As a result, I am of the opinion that this avenue is worth pursuing, even though many respectable scientists (again, for good reason) regard this avenue as little more than astrology or numerology. Since I have no reputation in solar physics, I have nothing to lose.

    I let this model run out a few cycles into the future, and it did some things in the near future timeframe that it didn’t do at any other time (short sunspot cycles, etc.). What I conclude is that, if this avenue of inquiry has any merit, then the next couple of sunspot cycles may be quite different than anything we’ve seen in the past–at least the cycles we’ve had the instrumentation to study in detail. HOWEVER, the fact that the latest minimum is unique over at least the last century kind of says as much without any model.

    When I developed the first iteration of this model in 2008, it showed Cycle 24 starting an upswing around the start of 2010. When the actual sun started showing activity around Dec, 2009, it was gratifying, but hardly any sort of confirmation. David Archibald (who has been hounding me to get this in shape for publication for the past year and a half or so) has presented some current data that MAY correlate with something you might say a posteriori correlates in some way with what my simple model did. Again, interesting and at some level gratifying, but but it will be years before we can say there is any real correlation, let alone rule out coincidence.

    What David Archibald does is pull together information from disparate sources and points out the apparent correlations he finds. These correlations may or may not actually mean something, but they are generally interesting, and provoke lots of discussion. And, of course, he isn’t shy about stirring the pot. That can be fun, too–even if you happen to be in the pot.

  57. “Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
    Astrology…

    I have had fun describing the hypothesis as scientific astrology. I have yet to find enough evidence to dismiss it. Thought experiment: Suppose one had non radiating body of one solar mass in Mercury’s orbit. One would definitely see solar output being modulated its position. Could one model this? If so, within the model, slowly move the body out to Jupiter’s orbit. The magnitude of the variation would be greatly reduced but one solar mass would still have a significant effect. Now within the model start slowly reducing the mass to one Jupiter mass.

    If I understand Dr. Svalgaard, the model would show the induced variation would be reduced to below noise levels well before the mass was reduced to one Jupiter mass.
    At what mass (within an order of magnitude) would the model show insignificant induced solar variation?

  58. One question.

    If the Sun reaches its maximum and that maximum has a low TSI and the Earth’s temperature declines, does this mean that the Sun does influence the Earth’s temperature?

    Of course CO2 will increase due to the slower growth of plants [due to the coolness], so rising CO2 and a cooler planet. I’m sure it was predicted by AGW.

  59. For those of you adding solar to your theories, I will plead with you to clearly indicate this: State what is the mechanized and mathematically reasonable driver of measureable and observed temperature CHANGE.

    It is clearly understood by one and all that the Sun’s output keeps us reasonably and relatively constantly warm, and its solar TSI cycle impinges on the ANOMALOUS CHANGE we measure here cyclically by .01 to .03%. Everyone here agrees with that. So you look stupid when rhetorically responding with “Well wut wood hap’n if ol’ SOL dis’peard?!?!?!?”, she paraphrased.

    We can also all agree with this: The well-accepted construct, of which both maths and mechanisms match, of cyclical solar affects (.01 to .03%) on temperature change is hidden INSIDE Earth’s own wide, natural, intrinsic variation and is thus mechanistically and mathematically the case but not observationally the case on our thermometers.

    The argument centers on other postulated solar mechanisms. To that I say: The solar energy available for the known cyclic change is far and away greater than any other solar variation mechanism, such that THOSE affects you tout would hide inside the .01 to .03%! Solar enthusiasts postulate that there is Solar energy and mechanism available that drives MEASURABLE anomaly change in Earth’s temperature that is greater than TSI. To this I say, show how your maths and mechanism match and outruns TSI.

    Even then you are not done. Here is your blind spot. There are far more probable internal drivers of (naturally intrinsic and anthropogenic) temperature change you MUST rule out (show it is wrong or at least overrun with your idea) before haralding a poorly postulated ethereal solar affect.

    Because you have not, solar enthusiasts fail to convince me that solar variation of any kind is the driver of the temperature CHANGE/Fluctuation we have seen on our thermometers in the modern era.

    The null hypothesis stands: Solar variation is not the driver of observed anomalous temperature change.

  60. I really don’t understand these solar cycles at all and I’m not really that interested in learning. But it does strike me a bit strange to claim that the planets effect the sun, but the sun doesn’t effect the climate on the earth.

  61. Leif

    You stated that the last polar reversal was in the 57-58 timeframe, which was an extremely large solar cycle.

    Any thoughts on the mechanism for such a switch in a weak cycle?

    Were any of the previous reversals in a weak cycle?

    Is there a periodic component to the reversals?

    Thanks

  62. Re: onion2

    Rising CO2 is like eating slightly more cake each day.

    Nearly everybody agrees that eating more cake means you will gain weight. The CAGW crowd would also have you believe that gaining weight means you defecate less and therefore an enhanced weight gain feedback mechanism comes into play. This means that if you eat cake your weight gain will spiral out of control.
    Eating just one of those wafer thin mints will be okay though. Honest.

  63. Ninderthana says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:29 am
    It claims that as the Earth moves up and down across the ecliptic plane the measurement aperture used at the Wilcox Solar Observatory moves location in the solar coordinate system. They filter this annual variation out with a filter. Is this the correct reason?
    Indeed it is. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf

    Gary Palmgren says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:12 am
    If I understand Dr. Svalgaard, the model would show the induced variation would be reduced to below noise levels well before the mass was reduced to one Jupiter mass.
    At what mass (within an order of magnitude) would the model show insignificant induced solar variation?

    The issue is that tidal effects from Jupiter are about half a millimeter [proportional to the mass]. If Jupiter had the mass of the Sun [1000 times larger than it has], the tidal bulge would be 1000 times larger, i.e. half a meter. This is still insignificant. You have to move the perturbing body closer to the Sun. So let us move it ten times closer [to half an AU], now the effect is a thousand times larger [as it scales with the cube of the distance], or half a kilometer [which is still less than a millionth of the solar radius]. You have to move the body REALLY close to have any effect. There are binary stars that are very close, and on those there is an enormous effect.

  64. Alex says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:17 am
    So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?

    If I understand the discussion it is that the Sun’s output does not vary enough to cause the climatic shifts (for example, glacial versus interglacial) while Earth’s changing orbital shape and axis orientation do vary enough to produce the observed changes. I think most folks will agree that the Sun has to stay in our solar system for it to exist.

  65. Pamela Gray says: “The null hypothesis stands: Solar variation is not the driver of observed anomalous temperature change.”

    Before making that your “null hypothesis”, you first define what you regard as anomalous temperature change in that statement, without using bristle-cone pine , illogically inverted lake sediments and inconveniently truncated tree ring proxies.

    Since all temperate change is referred to as an “anomaly” anyway your null hypothesis is nullified.

  66. Tom t says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:26 am
    But it does strike me a bit strange to claim that the planets effect the sun, but the sun doesn’t effect the climate on the earth.
    The strange bit is the first part of your statement.

    Dennis Wingo says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:27 am
    You stated that the last polar reversal was in the 57-58 timeframe, which was an extremely large solar cycle.
    Any thoughts on the mechanism for such a switch in a weak cycle?

    The mechanism is the same in all cycles: transport of magnetic flux from dead sunspots to to poles. The polar fields at the beginning of SC24 were weak, so are easier to reverse.

    Were any of the previous reversals in a weak cycle?
    Since [as far as we know] the fields reverse in every cycle, yes, this also happens in weak cycles. An observed case is cycle 20, which was only half of that of cycle 19.

    Is there a periodic component to the reversals?
    No, other than the periodic solar cycle itself. The polar fields are the result of an essentially random walk of the flux. The total polar flux is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the total magnetic flux erupting during a cycle, so it doesn’t take much random variation of that to produce just about any polar flux you want.

  67. Ninderthana says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:29 am
    It claims that as the Earth moves up and down across the ecliptic plane
    It doesn’t. The Earth’s orbit is the ecliptic plane. If you had said the sun’s equatorial plane it would have been correct.

  68. P. Solar says:
    May 8, 2011 at 6:30 am

    Interesting. It’s good you question what it all means. You can fit part of a cubic curve with a parabola for a while….

  69. See – owe to Rich says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:03 am

    P.Solar on modelling HadCRUT3: you should take a look at Scafetta (2010), which has an excellent fit to two cosines (periods 20 and 60 years) plus a quadratic.

    Thanks, I’ll check that out. Maybe I’ve rediscovered the wheel ;)

    The quadratic is the integral of the straight line I found in the rate of change. An exponentially increasing CO2 level would produce linear increase in rate of change hence such a cubic temperature rise.

    Part of the rise I noted is likely to be CO2 attributable, a bit should be TIR, there may be other elements to it.

    I’ll have to look at what figures he gets for century long rise.

    Thanks for pointing me to that paper.

  70. John F. Hultquist says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Alex says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:17 am
    “So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?”
    I think most folks will agree that the Sun has to stay in our solar system for it to exist.

    some people [like Alex] may not know that and have to be told repeatedly.

  71. Comparing other star types with our star I’ve noticed similarities even with more exotic star types, take our star, it is less dense and it has an irregular pulse being less energetic over a longer time period than that of a Pulsar, neutron stars are very dense objects, the rotation period and the pulse interval between observed pulses are very regular (the regularity of pulsation is as precise as an atomic clock) compared to that of our star which appears to have a less energetic and irregular pulse over a much longer time frame.

    So what are the (simplistic) comparable factors between our star and a pulsar?

    1. Density (mass)
    2. Energy (electromagnetic radiation)
    3. Frequency (timing of pulses)

    Using these factors a simple interchangeable equation can then be constructed and a more detailed picture of the behavioral similarities of different star types can formed, and once we understand the important similarities we can then understand the irregularities between star types, and with more complex additions to the equation a greater resolution and understanding can be achieved.

    This is only a simplistic explanation from my own perspective of a much larger and complex subject that may be of some interest.

    Dismiss it if you like but note:
    Werner Becker of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics said in 2006, “The theory of how pulsars emit their radiation is still in its infancy, even after nearly forty years of work.”

  72. Sparks says:
    May 8, 2011 at 9:41 am
    Comparing other star types with our star I’ve noticed similarities even with more exotic star types, take our star, it is less dense and it has an irregular pulse being less energetic over a longer time period than that of a Pulsar, neutron stars are very dense objects
    Pulsars are not like the Sun and any comparison will be rather meaningless. Now, people are trying to find stars just like the Sun [called solar analogs] and see how they behave. Here is a report from a recent workshop on this: http://www.lowell.edu/workshops/SolarAnalogsII/program.php

  73. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low to low during days one through three (08-10 May). Thanks to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.

    Long term, Henrik Svensmark theory will play out. Combine his work with the current solar output being low for who knows how long, but at least another cycle. When is the solar system to break out of the current galactic spiral arm?

    Assuming solar maximum has been reached, and the length of solar cycle 24 continues out to another 6 to 8 years and solar cycle 25 be as low or lower in energy as current solar cycle 24, what happens to climate? Can we correlate climate changes on other planets such as Mars with changes on earth to support the changes in solar effects?

    Think about the long term (another 14 years minimum) meaning of Dr Svalgaard’s work.

  74. Gary Krause says:
    May 8, 2011 at 10:10 am
    Long term, Henrik Svensmark theory will play out. Combine his work with the current solar output being low for who knows how long, but at least another cycle. When is the solar system to break out of the current galactic spiral arm?
    It hasn’t going back in time. We’ll stay in the current galactic arm for thousands of years.

    Assuming solar maximum has been reached, and the length of solar cycle 24 continues out to another 6 to 8 years and solar cycle 25 be as low or lower in energy as current solar cycle 24, what happens to climate? Can we correlate climate changes on other planets such as Mars with changes on earth to support the changes in solar effects?
    If solar max for SC24 is close [speculation at this point] then there is a good chance that SC25 will be large. There is no evidence of correlated changes of the climate on other planets [lots of claims, but nothing with legs].

  75. “State what is the mechanized and mathematically reasonable driver of measureable and observed temperature CHANGE. ”

    I would say there are at least two things. The first is the solar wind variation resulting in the variation of cosmic rays and resulting changes in cloud cover. The second would be a change in spectral energy distribution. While TSI might be nearly constant, if the spectral balance change, it can have a significant change. Less ultraviolet, for example, could result in a significant change in how a given amount of solar energy heats (or doesn’t heat) the planet. UV can penetrate thin clouds (ever get a sunburn in a cloudy or foggy day? I have.) and it penetrates deeper into the ocean than visible light does. If there is less UV but more of some other wavelength, then how the Earth system responds when cloud cover changes is also different.

    I think it is more complex than many people seem to think.

  76. wws says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Astrology or Astronomy?

    The clock strikes twelve and moondrops burst
    Out at you from their hiding place
    Miss carrie nurse and susie dear
    Would find themselves at four winds bar

    It’s the nexus of the crisis
    And the origin of storms
    Just the place to hopelessly
    Encounter time and then came me

    Clearly Astronomy by Blue Oyster Cult.
    I have owned the vinyl LP since ~35 years ago or so. Great stuff.

  77. So could this mean that Hathaway was right all along about a Solar Max in 2011?

    Granted, if you say it’s going to be in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013…. you’re bound to get it right by default.

    From 2006 article:

    http://www.universetoday.com/8039/next-solar-max-will-be-a-big-one/

    Although there is that issue of it being really big.

    The cool factor of all this…
    We’re starting to identify some of the unkown unknowns.
    So now we know what we don’t know??

  78. Total spot area isn’t that great (so far) and the umbral extent is right along that line:

    The butterfly diagram below:

    shows a decidedly weak cycle with the Southern Solar Hemisphere component stalled.
    The Active Region composite for today:

    shows much the same (they do have the EIT image upside down …psstt), and you can see how the apparent view of the Sun is heading towards summer solstice looking at a rather limp southern component of SC24.
    What do we get from here on out? … a double low maximum? … a single long max or a single short max?
    Perhaps David has chosen the correct scenario.

  79. Just thought of this. If only one pole reversed, does that mean we have a magnetic monopole? An exceptionally large one, too.

  80. thanks very interesting. After the revelations of how climatology works as a science, astrology must be a mature branch of modern science. I appreciate the observations put forward by Fix and will wait with interest.This is science as I was taught, things that make you go hmmm.

  81. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:36 am

    The issue is that tidal effects from Jupiter are about half a millimeter [proportional to the mass]. If Jupiter had the mass of the Sun [1000 times larger than it has], the tidal bulge would be 1000 times larger, i.e. half a meter. This is still insignificant. You have to move the perturbing body closer to the Sun. So let us move it ten times closer [to half an AU], now the effect is a thousand times larger [as it scales with the cube of the distance], or half a kilometer [which is still less than a millionth of the solar radius]. You have to move the body REALLY close to have any effect.
    ~
    You say..let us move it ten times closer to half an AU, now the effect is a thousand times larger..
    Perfect Leif, for an introduction to Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW. What if any is your opinion on the role of ICW in the heating and expansion of solar wind? I’m reading they’re ubiquitous in the INTERPLANETARY SYSTEM and the closer you get to the solar corona, the more there is..
    Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW..

    Ion Cyclotron Waves in the Solar Wind from 0.3 to 1 AU
    Lan K. Jian1, C.T. Russell1, J.G. Luhmann2, A.B. Galvin3, B.J. Anderson4, S. Boardsen5,
    T.L. Zhang6, A. Wennmacher7
    Dublin, IrelandMarch 22‐26, 2010
    Summary
    Strong narrow‐band ICWs are detected extensively and discretely from at least 0.3 to 1 AU in the solar wind, far away from the influence of any planet. They are strongest when the field is more radial than the nominal Parker spiral. They propagate close to the magnetic field direction, and are below the local fpcand close to the He+gyro‐frequencies in the plasma frame
    The waves are both LH and RH in the s/c frame, but are intrinsically LH in the plasma frame. The comparison of the LH and RH waves in the s/c frame, and the radial variation of the frequency and wave power of the ICWs, is consistent with our closer‐to‐Sun generation and outward propagation scenario
    As the ICWs approach local fpcat a greater heliocentric distance, they can provide an energy source for extended solar wind heating
    A mission flying closer to the Sun should be able to see many more such ICWs with stronger wave power. More observations and coordinated models are needed to better understand these ICWs..

    http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/meetings/SWG/SWG_Mar_2010/Lan%20Jian-2010%20March%20SWG-ICWs%20in%20the%20Solar%20Wind-Updated.pdf

    Follow so far..ICWs as part of solar wind expansion..But..Seth Redfield et al (member Seth and the Cloud Cloud interactions and morphology spectral lines dude)
    What the team he is on, has learned is that there no ICWs in the Very Local Interstellar Medium. Too much damping going on because of NEUTRAL collisions. They also reiterated that there are 15 clouds within 15 parsecs of the sun. And that we are on border of the current cloud we are embedded..And that the cavity and clouds we are in IS NOT HOMoGENOUS throughout..

  82. Continued..
    Ion-Neutral Collisions in the Interstellar Medium: Wave Damping and Elimination of Collisionless Processes
    Steven R. Spangler∗, Allison H. Savage∗ and Seth Redfield†

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4121v1.pdf

    ..Introduction
    ..This paper will deal with two topics involving the interaction of ions with neutrals in the interstellar medium.
    1. Ion-neutral collisions constitute a damping mechanism for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves and turbulence in the interstellar medium. As a result, turbulence propagating from a central source of turbulence, such as a supernova remnant, is limited in how far it can go before being attenuated. In the case of the Diffuse Ionized Gas (DIG) component of the ISM [6, 9], which is probably the most extensive in terms of volume and contains the best-diagnosed interstellar turbulence, the dissipation lengths are short and place interesting constraints on the sources and mechanisms for interstellar turbulence. Alternatively, this damping length calculation could point to odd features of turbulent dispersal in the interstellar medium. This issue was discussed four years ago [25]. It remains an interesting topic worthy of attention, and there have been some developments in the last four years which are relevant to this topic.
    2. The nearest parts of the interstellar medium are the clouds of the Very Local Interstellar Medium (VLISM) [8, 21]. There are 15 of these clouds within 15 parsecs of the Sun [20], and they have typical dimensions of a parsec to several parsecs. The reason for discussing them in the present context is that astronomical spectroscopic observations [e.g. 18] have provided very good plasma diagnostics, including information on turbulence in the clouds. An obvious exercise is to compare the turbulence in these clouds with the paradigmatic turbulence in the solar corona and solar wind. As we will see, there may be important differences between heliospheric turbulence and turbulence in the Local Clouds. The strongest result is that signatures of collisionless plasma processes in the solar wind and corona are absent in the Local Clouds. As we discuss below, it is plausible that ion-neutral collisional processes are responsible for this difference.
    ..A COMPARISON OF SOLAR WIND AND VERY LOCAL INTERSTELLAR TURBULENCE
    The vicinity of the Sun is dominated by a “Local Cavity” in the interstellar medium, characterized by much lower than average densities [13, 29], and perhaps higher temperatures. However, in the immediate vicinity of the Sun there are many small, tenuous clouds [8, 21]. These clouds do not seem to extend beyond the vicinity of the Sun. Redfield and Linsky [20] report 15 of these clouds within 15 parsecs of the Sun. There are a number of interesting aspects of these clouds, such as the fact that the Sun is within, though close to the edge of one of them, the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) [20].
    Observations that show the existence of these clouds and provide diagnostics for their properties come from very high resolution astronomical spectroscopy [18]. The spectrometers used in this study, primarily the STIS instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope, have resolving powers of .. This allows absorption lines in the spectra of nearby stars to be resolved.
    ..Reasons for the absence of collisionless plasma processes in the Local Clouds
    The turbulence in the Local Clouds of the ISM, as diagnosed by spectral line widths, appears to differ in a number of respects from coronal and solar wind turbulence [26]. In particular, the characteristics attributed to collisionless processes for the interaction of charged particles and turbulence, such as ion mass dependent temperatures and large perpendicular-to-parallel temperature ratios, are not present. These properties have generally been attributed to ion cyclotron resonance processes in wave-particle interactions [10, 7]. In this section, we briefly consider possible explanations for this. The simplest answer is probably that the Local Clouds are collisional via the ion-neutral collision processes discussed in Section 1, whereas the solar corona at heliocentric distances ≥ 2.0R⊙ and the solar wind at 1 astronomical unit are collisionless plasmas.
    To accept this suggestion, we need to convince ourselves that the partially ionized plasma media of the Local Clouds are collisional. Following the suggestions of Uzdensky [27], we can define a collisional plasma in two ways.
    1. We can first ask if the ion cyclotron frequency greatly exceeds the ion-neutral collision frequency. If this is the case, processes which involve ion-cyclotron resonances can proceed throughmany cyclotron periods before being disrupted by a collision. For example, a distribution function which is unstable to the growth of Alfvén or Fast Mode waves will generate the unstable waves, or large amplitude, resonant waves will substantially modify an ion distribution function on time scales shorter than the collision time. According to this way of defining things, a plasma in which an ion cyclotron frequency is much higher than the ion-neutral collision frequency would be collisionless for that ion.
    2. The second criterion of collisionality according to Uzdensky considers the mean free path for collisions and the size of the plasma. If the mean free path for collisions is much larger than the size of the cloud, the typical ion in the medium would not have undergone a collision, and one would expect collisionless physics to be applicable.
    In the opposite limit of the mean free path being much smaller than the size of the cloud, the typical ion would have undergone numerous collisions. It seems plausible that collisions would redistribute the energy gained from collisionless processes among different parts of the distribution function, and indeed different species in the plasma. Support for these ideas may be found in [11], where it is noted that collisional parts of the solar wind at 1 AU, such as dense parts of the interplanetary current sheet, lack the collisionless indicators of temperature anisotropy and mass-dependent temperature.
    We have enough information about the Local Clouds to apply the above criteria. In Table 2 we list the proton ion cyclotron frequency, ion-hydrogen collision frequency, and mean free path, which are calculated from the plasma parameters listed previously in the table..

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4121v1.pdf

  83. It’s a good thing the Sun has nothing to do with climate or the weather, or it’s erratic behaviour would worry me. Co2 will keep us warm ! sarc/

  84. Mike McMillan says:
    May 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Just thought of this. If only one pole reversed, does that mean we have a magnetic monopole? An exceptionally large one, too.

    Or a Maunder Monopole?

  85. I’ve been seeing above the correlation with elliptical orbit and Milankovitch cycles. So then is Pluto’s orbit our first hand example within the system like now! of what an elliptical orbit might look like?

  86. rbateman says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm
    Mike McMillan says:
    May 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Just thought of this. If only one pole reversed, does that mean we have a magnetic monopole? An exceptionally large one, too.

    Or a Maunder Monopole?
    ~
    Great sense of humor..Rob..

    One more thing for the cosmic ray enthusiasts,
    A, P.Frisch et al fairly recent revision of fairly recent paper (I’ll be back)
    Was talking about how when you increase the density in the Very Local Interstellar Medium VLISM, that density increases the Anomalous Cosmic Rays ACR, being produced in the heliosphere by solar wind interactions. I gotta go back .. something about energy levels between the two species of Cosmic Rays CR. Galactic cosmic rays being of higher energies..but both should be in the record..but a higher population of the ACR type..with density increase..

  87. Carla says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    And that the cavity and clouds we are in IS NOT HOMoGENOUS throughout..

    Ok. Any known properties of the present cloud we are in that thin down the incoming GCRs/ACRs, so that when we are breaking free of this cloud, we get more as a direct consequence?

    Carla says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    I’ve been seeing above the correlation with elliptical orbit and Milankovitch cycles. So then is Pluto’s orbit our first hand example within the system like now! of what an elliptical orbit might look like?

    Not sure what you mean.

  88. Carla says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    I’ve been seeing above the correlation with elliptical orbit and Milankovitch cycles. So then is Pluto’s orbit our first hand example within the system like now! of what an elliptical orbit might look like?

    Not sure what you mean.
    ~
    Pluto’s orbit puts the ‘lip’ in elliptical..
    “””The orbit of Pluto is unusual in several ways. It is inclined more than 17° from the ecliptic (the plane in which the orbits of the planets lie). The orbit is also more eccentric (far from circular) than any other planetary orbit. At times, Pluto is closer to the Sun than the orbit of Neptune.
    Every 228 years, Pluto’s orbit brings it closer to the Sun than Neptune for a period of 20 years. From 1979 to March 1999, Neptune was the farthest planet from the Sun.”””

    http://www.nasm.si.edu/etp/pluto/pluto_orbit.html

    Pluto and Uranus having similar dipole configurations. The lie down and roll over kind..lol
    Your question, myself thought increases of cosmic rays due to that overlap ..
    LIC to MIC to G clouds. Our Local ..
    But thinning..I don’t know other than they can become trapped in the magnetic fields of many for long times.

  89. Mike McMillan says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:23 am

    We don’t really need another Dalton, not with the population size we’ve got to feed.

    Don’t worry. A Dalton will cure that problem.

  90. JG says:
    May 8, 2011 at 11:29 am

    So could this mean that Hathaway was right all along about a Solar Max in 2011?

    From the SWPC .pdf on solar predictions, Hathaways’ second prediction was:
    Author – Hathaway, et al. (2004)
    SSN prediction – 145 ± 30
    Year of Maximum – 2010
    Prediction Type – Fast meridional circulation speed of SC 22 leads to a strong SC 24

    You can read more about solar cycle predictions here.

    Of the 12 or so panel members of that team, only Leif seems remotely close to predicting it correctly. Leif was also the only member on that panel that used magnetic fields to formulate his prediction.

    Meridonal flow also looks promising in determining SSN. Choudhuri, et al. (2007) used a flux-transport dynamo model that also predicted a low SSN. Of which I think looks just as promising, if not more, than Svalgaard etal. (2005)

    I am curious Leif, did you have any discussions with Dr. Choudhuri, and if so, what is your thought about using a flux transport model for future predictions of solar cycles?
    Or even possibly combining the flux transport model with your current magnetic field strength method?

  91. “Alex says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:02 am

    No, the Earth’s orbit and axis orientation are.

    So if you “remove” the sun there wouldn’t be much change?”

    If you remove the sun, Earth would no longer go in an elliptical orbit but would go in a straight line. Any planet that goes in a straight line would approach absolute zero in a matter of time.

  92. Werner Brozek says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Since the Sun is too small to go Nova, I guess we’re stuck with ol Sol.

  93. The paleoclimatic record has a series of abrupt cooling events that are concurrent with abrupt changes in solar cosmogenic isotopes. (The abrupt change in cosmogenic isotopes is the smoking gun. The question is what causes the abrupt change in climate.) The abrupt cooling event comes in small, medium, large, and super large.
    The duration of the cooling event is directly dependent on the size of the cooling event. An example of the super cooling event is the Younger Dryas cooling event or the termination of the last interglacial period Eemian. The interglacial periods end abruptly, not slowly.

    As I have noted there is concurrent with these abrupt cooling events abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field. It appears a restart of the solar magnetic cycle causes an archeomagnetic jerk (geomagnetic field’s dipole axis abruptly changes orientation by 10% to 15% degrees with respect to the rotational axis of the earth) or a geomagnetic excursion (the event attempts to reverse the geomagnetic field.)

    Solar cycle 24 appears to be an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. Base on the paleo record we will have a chance to observe a restart.

    There are a whole set of astronomical anomalies that related to the solar mechanism and that can be explained by this mechanism. The mechanism explains how and why large stars form and what causes magtars and so on.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

    The Younger Dryas cold event at about 12,900-11,500 years ago seems to have had the general features of a Heinrich Event, and may in fact be regarded as the most recent of these (Severinghaus et al. 1998). The sudden onset and ending of the Younger Dryas has been studied in particular detail in the ice core and sediment records on land and in the sea (e.g., Bjoerck et al., 1996), and it might be representative of other Heinrich events.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise). Hodell et al. (1995) and Curtis et al. (1996), for instance, document the effects of climate change on the collapse of the Classic period of Mayan civilization and Thompson (1989) describes the influence of alternating wet and dry periods on the rise and fall of coastal and highland cultures of Ecuador and Peru.

    We discuss the possibility that an abrupt reduction in solar irradiance (my comment. the mechanism is not a change to TSI. See next paper for another hypothesis.) triggered the start of the Younger Dryas and we argue that this is indeed supported by three observations: (1) the abrupt and strong increase in residual 14C at the start of the Younger Dryas that seems to be too sharp to be caused by ocean circulation changes alone, (2) the Younger Dryas being part of an & 2500 year quasi-cycle * also found in the 14C record* that is supposedly of solar origin, (3) the registration of the Younger Dryas in geological records in the tropics and the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere.

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

    Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

    Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.

  94. Given that CO2 does not affect the climate in a significantly, why could another Maunder Min. not happen? Do we have a proof as to why the first Maunder Min happened?

    History will repeat itself if the Sun was the cause of the Maunder Min.

  95. I see the mention that the Sun has 99% of the mass in the solar system. But have you ever looked at the distribution of angular momentum in the system?

  96. Where is earth’s orbit relative to the solar equator? Also, is there a general directionality for high energy CRF through our solar system?

  97. Bill Illis says: “TSI … needs to change by 10 to 40 times more than that to cause Little Ice Age conditions.

    But what if the main mechanism by which the Sun changes our temperature is indirect?

    http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate.aspx

    eg. “Climate models only include the effects of small variations in direct solar radiation (infrared, visible and UV). The effects of cosmic rays on clouds are not included in models, and the models do a rather poor job of simulating clouds in the present climate. Since cloud feedbacks are a large source of uncertainty, this is a reason for concern when viewing climate model predictions.“.

    P. Solar – Your approach of fitting cosine+linear is more sophisticated than the IPCC’s linear-only approach, and may well be useful as a short-term predicter (and for longer than the linear model of course), but in the end it suffers from the same problems : it has no physical mechanism and it takes no account of longer cycles. There are longer cycles visible in our temperature history, and if one or more of those are turning now, then your improved predicter could soon deviate from the actual.

    There are countless places that I could provide links to, showing the existence of other cycles. I’ll give one, which maybe is a little more interesting than the average: \http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2007031924578
    NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
    … The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.
    The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin. …

  98. Ed Fix says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:02 am
    Ed, your model got its first outing when I used the same graphic in my last book a year ago (Figure 67). Ed’s model is a major advance in our understanding of the Sun. If you can predict solar activity, you can predict climate. Ed’s model’s hindcast match is about as good as you could hope for, which gives a lot of confidence about what it is predicting. It is fabulous knowing what is going to happen. For example, a number of papers have been published predicting (on no physical basis whatsoever) that we will have a mini-ice age by mid-century. Ed’s model says back to normal by mid-century.

    As a teaser, this is what I wrote for a review committee for Ed’s paper (taking out reference to certain forces that must not be named):

    “This is a very important paper because it provides a physical explanation for solar cycle behaviour. Many of the existing observation-derived rules for explaining the fundamental properties of the sunspot cycle have not, until this paper, been quantified. To a large extent, existing solar science is based on non-mathematical observation.

    In terms of some of the existing empirically-derived properties of solar cycle behaviour, this model shows that the Schwabe cycle is not important in itself and should be considered to be half a Hale cycle.

    This model explains why, for extended periods, a successive increase in solar cycle amplitude is seen before the system gets out of phase and phase destruction occurs. This paper explains why individual Hale cycles are not discrete magnetic events. The quantum of flux preserved in the system is the basis for the amplitude of the following cycle. Thus the sunspot cycle memory effect is explained.

    It also explains the Waldemeir effect – that strong cycles reach a maximum of amplitude in the shortest period of time. It also explains the amplitude-period effect (the anti-correlation between the peak amplitude of a cycle and the length of the preceding cycle) and the amplitude-minimum effect (the correlation between cycle amplitude and the activity level at the previous minimum).

    Further, I expect most of the existing science on solar cycle behaviour to be re-expressed in the frame of reference provided by this model. That in turn will result in refining and extension of this model.”

    Ed made a major scientific advance at home in his spare time.

  99. Malcolm Miller says:
    May 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    I see the mention that the Sun has 99% of the mass in the solar system. But have you ever looked at the distribution of angular momentum in the system?
    ~
    The solar system looks like a huge vortex type structure imho.
    Smaller, faster, shorter orbitting bodies corotating in higher levels of ionization at the center. with larger rings of larger bodies with longer orbits in corotating, in ever lowering levels of ionization.. throughout..

  100. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 9:57 am

    “Pulsars are not like the Sun and any comparison will be rather meaningless”

    I didn’t suggest that a pulsar is like the Sun, I wish I had a bigger brain to simplify further such a complex concept that I tried to explain above.

    “people are trying to find stars just like the Sun [called solar analogs] and see how they behave”

    One obvious problem with this approach is; what knowledge is there to gain and understand between two similar objects, other than what you can already observe with one? Very little!! maybe we could compare subtitle differences which to me is kinda superficial, It would be like comparing two apples, Hmm… They’re both green, similar in size and one a day keeps the doctor away. not too interesting.

    But if you compare an apple to an object that is similar in a class in that it is a fruit, then we can try to understand what the differences and similarities are and construct an understanding of the connections between the objects.

    If you have a set of predetermined results from Studying one apple then you are only seeking to confirm your results by finding and studying another apple. This is what “rather meaningless” means to me!! 8-)

  101. William says:
    May 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    ~
    “””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes
    relies on accurate models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
    the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
    spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
    the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
    MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
    However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
    heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
    forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
    anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
    atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974). The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
    creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
    vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
    that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
    density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.
    In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
    from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
    absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
    temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
    in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
    spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth.We also draw possible connections between
    interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””
    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
    of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
    Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
    rev. 3 Feb. 2011

  102. A Solar max from here on would be well within the standard deviation. Interesting times ahead.

  103. aaron says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    Where is earth’s orbit relative to the solar equator? Also, is there a general directionality for high energy CRF through our solar system?

    According to The Sky and Guide 8 plantetarium software apps, the Earths orbit is tipped to the Solar Equator. You can see this on solarcycle24.com in the STEREO AHEAD and BEHIND images, as well as the Active Regions image.

  104. fred.

    “The IPCC GHG models failed to predict that warming would level off in 1999. Does this mean the GHG theory behind them has also failed?”

    Actually not, a number of the models are consistent with the temperature series we have seen since 1999. You can see this clearly by looking at all the runs of the models.
    Some runs show less warming than has occurred, Some show a little more and some show a lot more.

    The different is this. Fix’s model looks to be deterministic. one set of inputs: one set of outputs. in a GCM the same inputs lead to different outputs because of natural variability in the models. IF GCMS gave you a deterministic answer then you could say they were wrong. But since they give a spread of results ( its the nature of the beast) we have a much more complicated situation.

  105. Thanks.

    I’m wondering if sign, distance, and amplitude may affect high energy CRF. Maybe there is a 20-28 yr periodicity.

  106. “Since the Sun is too small to go Nova, I guess we’re stuck with ol Sol.”

    Earth will be uninhabitable long before the Sun changes enough to really make all that much difference anyway.

    The primary cause will be CO2 depletion of the atmosphere. Once Earth cools to a point where plate tectonics stops or greatly slows, CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere at a greater rate than it is added. Once we reach a point where plant life can not sustain animal life, we are toast. Then the water will be lost to space and Earth will look a lot like Mars does today. It will be very dry.

    We have probably given things a million years or so of extended life by burning fossil fuel and returning some of that CO2 for another trip through the cycle but it eventually becomes limestone at some point. And with no subduction to cycle that CO2 back through a volcano, the CO2 eventually ends up at the bottom of the sea as limestone and eventually marble. My guess is we have about another 200-300 million years left of life on Earth and that is the end of it.

  107. Attached is a paper that shows the late 20th century warming and cooling correlates with solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts remove cloud forming ions by creating a space charge differential in the ionosphere. (See Brian Tinsley’s review paper.)

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

    “We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of
    solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades."

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit removes cloud forming ions.

    The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

  108. David Archibald says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    Well, David said quite a lot, actually.

    Wow. Did I do all that? I’ll have to remember to be humble when I accept my Nobel Prize :-)

    Most of the places you say it “explains…” this or that characteristic, I’d probably say, “Possibly provides a framework for explaining…”. And of course, the model in the form described in the current paper doesn’t really do any of that, but it does hint that it might be possible. That’s a big jump from possible to done.

    Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence, and for cracking the whip to get me to write it up.

  109. Carla says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm
    Perfect Leif, for an introduction to Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW. What if any is your opinion on the role of ICW in the heating and expansion of solar wind?
    Sure they are important, but are completely off topic and irrelevant.

    ClimateForAll says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm
    I am curious Leif, did you have any discussions with Dr. Choudhuri, and if so, what is your thought about using a flux transport model for future predictions of solar cycles?
    Of course I have. I have explained the polar fields to him and was a referee on his paper.

    Sparks says:
    May 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    If you have a set of predetermined results from Studying one apple then you are only seeking to confirm your results by finding and studying another apple. This is what “rather meaningless” means to me!! 8-)
    You don’t learn about apples by studying coconuts .
    Here is how we can learn from solar analogs: suppose we find twenty such. All twenty have activity cycles with the same characteristics as the Sun’s. Then we know that it are properties of the star itself that drive the cycle, rather than, for instance, their environment [planets, place in the galaxy, whatever].

  110. crosspatch says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    The tidal interactions of sun/moon on Earth should keep things going awhile, but a good solid whack by a large asteroid would also release a lot of CO2 from rock. Some hypothesize that this is what happened to Venus to make it so hot (it hasn’t cooled off yet).

  111. I think what Aaron was really asking was where, and if, any interstellar medium impact our planet.

    That is if, by CRF, he means Cosmic Ray Flux.

    Some scientists believe that interstellar medium, at the atomic and sub-atomic level, should be spatially homogeneous. The radiative energy from other masses outside of our solar system, should diffuse into an isotropic state, once within the boundaries of the Heliosphere.

    There has been quite a bit of debate on this subject here and other sites, e.g. solarcycle24.com, which rbateman suggested previously.

    Just recently, an article from New Scientist, had this to say:

    Cosmic rays crashing into the Earth over the South Pole appear to be coming from particular locations, rather than being distributed uniformly across the sky. Similar cosmic ray “hotspots” have been seen in the northern skies too, yet we know of no source close enough to produce this pattern.

    Later in the article, it is hypothesized that its origin must be within 0.03 LY, in order to have such high energy concentrated in this manner.

    It it also suggested that the energy is funneled, as some form of flux transport, in part due to magnetic reconnection.

    Having done some calculations of my own, the origins of these ‘hotspots’ would then be at or near the bow shock of the heliosphere.

    Recently, images coming from Voyager I & II, as part of the IBEX mission, show perturbations within the heliosphere; a collision of charged particles is suggested to be the cause of it.

    There doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to suggest any relationship between these two phenomenas, but there is enough to involve speculations.

    If I was left to speculate anything from all of this, would be that while the Sun may not be affected by interstellar mediums, it does seem that the lack of productivity by the Sun is having an indirect effect on our planet, in part due to not blocking CGR from entering our atmosphere.

    What a wondrous world we live in.

  112. ok. My two cents (and it’s likely worth less).

    I vote for complexity, but perhaps not in the same way as others. From what I have read and interpreted, there are probably multiple phenomena that are responsible for climate changes. First, obviously, is TSI, which has likely happened in the far, far distant past. Secondly, orbital mechanics – the perturbations in Earth’s orbit wrt the sun and earth’s tilt wrt the sun. Third, plate techntonics – the climate is drastically different when there are major land masses at both poles than when both poles are open water/ice.

    I think there is a quasi-fourth perpetrator: changes in the solar magnetic fields affecting solar wind/sun-earth magnetic field interaction, perhaps including the shielding/non-shielding of earth from cosmic rays (however you want to link it, with sunspots/no sunspots being an associated symptom of those solar changes). I say quasi because I’ve read enough literature (thanks to the Dr. S pointing me in the right direction) to believe that the climate changes were regional, not global. In this scenario, the interactions mentioned above creates some subtle, but impactful, changes on weather, such as driving the jet streams further south in the northern hemisphere (maybe a similar effect in the SH, but we don’t have much data). This would result in some areas, such as Northern Europe, North America, and Northern Asia having much colder regional climes. Areas just to the south of the jet stream would experience no change, and the equatorial regions would be warmer than normal (the jet streams would keep tropical heat from moving as far north as normal). Globally, it would all average out to ‘normal’ – and in keeping with TSI. Since most of our cultural history and scientific historical records are from those living in the regions subjected to cooling, they/we would assume that the earth as a whole must have been colder.

    The problem is that if the above scenarios are true, we may never be able to tease out what historical/prehistorical cold periods were caused by what series of events (particularly since more than one of the above things could have happened at the same time). And I think it’s a safe bet that there are other ‘climate changers’ that have left their mark on Earths climate history.

    So cheers to all. Many of you could be right, though all of us are undoubtedly wrong.

  113. One of the hotspots seen by IceCube points in the direction of the Vela supernova remnant, a possible source of cosmic rays, but it’s almost 1000 light years away. Cosmic rays coming from such large distances should be constantly buffeted and deflected by galactic magnetic fields on route, and should thus have lost all directionality by the time they reach Earth. In other words, such long-distance cosmic rays should appear to come from all parts of the sky. That’s not what has been observed.

    Our Galaxy is not a uniform elliptical, but a rather complicated spiral with a hub.
    Why should it uniformly modify the CRF? One can readily observe non-uniformity with a modest telescope. Dust clouds, star clusters, stellar nurseries, nova & supernova, etc.
    I don’t get the ‘should be uniform’ thinking.
    Perhaps this is something taken for granted and just not explained these days, or a simplification necessary to study other things.

  114. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    “You don’t learn about apples by studying coconuts ”

    What the f*** is that supposed to mean within context?
    I can’t believe I caught a pathological know-it-all in the wild, Ya gotta catch ‘em all!!

  115. rbateman says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    Our Galaxy is not a uniform elliptical, but a rather complicated spiral with a hub.
    Why should it uniformly modify the CRF? One can readily observe non-uniformity with a modest telescope. Dust clouds, star clusters, stellar nurseries, nova & supernova, etc.
    I don’t get the ‘should be uniform’ thinking.
    Perhaps this is something taken for granted and just not explained these days, or a simplification necessary to study other things.

    Cosmic rays are charged particles and are deflected and scattered by the very turbulent and tangled galactic magnetic fields. That is why we can’t tell where they come from. Don’t think that scientists are morons and just take things for granted. There are good reasons for these things. The uniformity of the cosmic rays is an observed fact. Or perhaps was. With the new 1 cubic-km cosmic ray telescope in Antarctica we are [finally - after a century of looking] beginning to see very small asymmetries, that might teach us something about the sources of GCRs.

    Sparks says:
    May 8, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    “You don’t learn about apples by studying coconuts ”
    What the f*** is that supposed to mean within context?
    I can’t believe I caught a pathological know-it-all in the wild, Ya gotta catch ‘em all!!

    It means that we who study this all agree that to learn about the solar dynamo we need to study stars like the Sun [solar analogs - the apples] and a large amount of work is going into finding such stars [we have only found a few so far that are close enough that we can get the resolution we need]. Lots of stars [the coconuts] have magnetic fields and stellar activity cycles and tell us something about them, but not much about the Sun. All kinds of stars give us a broad spectrum of possible configurations, but we need to tease out what is applicable to the Sun.

  116. “My guess is we have about another 200-300 million years left of life on Earth and that is the end of it.”

    Personally, if I get about 30 or so more I’ll be doing great.

  117. Before we measure something, we need an accurate measuring stick. Are we talking “solar max as per sunspot count” or “solar max as per 10.7 cm flux (Penticton)”? Given the Livingstone-Penn observations, we could come up with two different dates for “solar max”? Which one would be more meaningful/accurate?

    I’ve downloaded and plotted the Penticton 10.7 cm flux data from 1947 onwards. My favourite graph is the 27-day running mean (approx 1 Carrington rotation to even out the effect of individual disturbances on the solar surface). Looking at the ramp-up of cycle 24 versus 19/20/21/22/23, I don’t think we’re anywhere near the 10.7 cm max 27-day flux yet

  118. Walter Dnes says:
    May 8, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    Given the Livingstone-Penn observations, we could come up with two different dates for “solar max”? Which one would be more meaningful/accurate?
    I don’t think the timing will be much affected by L&P. The sunspot number will. F10.7 smoothed max is predicted to be somewhere in the range 120-140 [depending on whose prediction]. The last [unsmoothed] 27-day average is F10.7 = 113 so we are getting close.

  119. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    You obviously know everything or you have a need to express to everyone that you know everything. [snip - no need to hurl insults - Anthony]

    Give me an equation from my first comment or admit that you had no idea what my initial point was.

  120. Sparks says:
    May 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm
    Give me an equation from my first comment or admit that you had no idea what my initial point was.
    since pulsar pulses and solar cycles are generated by completely different mechanisms they are not describable by the same equation, but you are welcome to enlighten us otherwise.

  121. RE: [snip - no need to hurl insults - Anthony]
    That wasn’t an insult or intended as such… It was an opinion!

    Sorry!

  122. the angular momentum of solar system gives a convincing case and a good correlation with the solar activity. Landscheidt does have an astrology background but if you count in gravity this makes sense. Carl Smith made the plot of the angular momentum of the solar system. Based on this angular momentum solar activity can be forecasted in most cases. More info on:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/
    landscheidt.wordpress.com/

  123. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 11:35 pm
    Pulsars belong to their own solar systems, they must and do conform to certain basic principles or they wouldn’t exist, What are the basic laws that prove Pulsars exist?

    E=mc2

    How do we know pulsars have similarities with our sun?

    E=mc2

  124. Warren in Minnesota says:
    May 8, 2011 at 7:30 am

    tallbloke, what is Dynamology?

    A word I gently mock Leif Svalgaard with when he dismisses the study of the effect of the planets on the sun as Astrology. However, I agree with you that the shifting of the COM and the modulating effect this has on the sun’s internal ‘dynamo’ are involved in solar variation.

    A couple of NASA scientist think so too…

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/

  125. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:55 am
    If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.

    The MSFC panel prediction for cycle 24 failed, spectacularly. Does this mean the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed?

    ;-)

  126. Mike Jones says:

    P. Solar – Your approach of fitting cosine+linear is more sophisticated than the IPCC’s linear-only approach, and may well be useful as a short-term predicter (and for longer than the linear model of course), but in the end it suffers from the same problems : it has no physical mechanism and it takes no account of longer cycles. There are longer cycles visible in our temperature history, and if one or more of those are turning now, then your improved predicter could soon deviate from the actual.

    Firstly you should note I stressed this is non rigorous and I only posted this because I think the form is too strong to be a pure coincidence or an artefact of the processing.

    There is no intention to provide a physical explanation. This is at the level that science calls “observation”. You see effect, then later you try to explain it. Many climatologists work in opposition to science, they start with the explanation then spend 30 years trying to observe it !

    I am aware of 200 year cycles and the simple straight line + cosine is clearly only a crude approximation. Especially in the SST data there is a tendency for the amplitude to reduce over the couple of cycles in the sample. This may be better tracked by the pattern of at least two cosines interfering. This would probably lead to a much longer term as well.

    A straight line is always nice to fit but here it leads to cubic in the temperature reconstruction which will rise as sharply when extrapolated back into 19th c.

    This is the fundamental problem with extrapolating a model beyond the period for which you have data. A fact that the IPCC and all their modellers are wilfully ignoring and underestimating the uncertainly of.

    All I think can be gleaned from this is that the recent easing is predictable but won’t last long, so those inclined to think y2k was a turning point may be reading too much into a blip.

    It also suggests an underlying and accelerating warming , though much less than GCMs with artificial climate sensitivity.

    Scaffeta 2010 does the same thing with three cosines and gets much better results. (see the link posted earlier). It seems I’ve stumbled on something he has already worked on quite a bit, starting from a premise of planetary influence. He found 60% of recent warming was cyclic.

    The bottom line here is that a significant part of late 20th c warming was just natural cycles. IPCC are wilfully ignoring the obvious in concentrating their CO2 attribution to this period.

    My initial motivation for looking at the slope of all 50-year periods was to see whether this period was cherry-picked. Clearly it was. Tuning the models to fit CO2 based warming to later half of 20th c is a con.

    This took me an evening’s work and is a better fit to the full period of available data than 30 years worth of super-computers has managed.

  127. For all those arguing about “angular momentum” what happens when all the planets line up?
    Didn’t they do just that in 1999 on the 9th of September at 9 o’clock just before Y2k killed us all?
    Will Jupiter always have a giant red spot? and did it always have one or create one?
    Was Saturn much larger and create it’s rings a long time ago as it slowly turnd into a star?
    If Saturn turned into a star would it effect the orbits of the other planets in our solar system?
    If a solar flare destroyed the earth in 2012 couldn’t we live around the planets orbiting Saturn?

  128. It appears that all mechanical (gravity, angular momentum etc) ideas end up with insufficient power.
    Electro-magnetic ideas I have been highlighting for some time now are ‘inconvenient truth’, since they conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar ideas.
    Powerful magnetic fields of Jupiter and Saturn, aplying the simplest analogy, act as short circuits for billions of Amps of electric current rooted in the sun’s outer layer and looping out to the heliosphere’s furthest reaches. An example of this can be frequently seen in the the Earth’s magnetosphere interactions, when as much as one billion Amps is short-circuited in Arctic in single ‘zap’, releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy.
    For more details

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

  129. @P. Solar says:
    May 8, 2011 at 5:53 am

    “Even if there were similar external conditions I think a ’63-like event is unlikely since we are starting from a warmer climate that at that time.”

    Looking at CET monthly and annual temperatures throughout the year/s preceding: 1709, 1716, 1740, 1763, 1784 etc, I would not advise putting money on it.

  130. P. Solar – Yes I did note that you said your analysis was non rigorous, and please understand that my comment was not intended to be a criticism but an indication of a limit to its applicability. I agree that the form is too strong to be a pure coincidence or an artefact of the processing, that a significant part of late 20th c warming was just natural cycles, and that your work is a better fit to the full period of available data than 30 years worth of a particular set of super-computers has managed.

    But having said that, I don’t think you have good grounds for projecting your graph on an ever-increasing trajectory through to 2100, given that the whole formula is based on only about 150 years of data and that cycles and factors other than the one cycle you have identified would have been operating and will continue to operate.

    There was a post on WUWT some time ago, mapping observed temperatures to PDO and AMO, and I would suggest that these provide the natural cycle that you have mapped.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/

  131. Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 12:55 am
    If Ed Fix’s prediction fails it would mean that the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed.
    Leif Svalgaard says: May 8, 2011 at 1:59 am
    Astrology…

    It is difficult to tell whether these comments are meant as smears, sneers or observations… should the prediction fails then Ed Fix will be in some very august company… reality has confounded so many established experts – their theories, explanations, prognostications and reputations lie in tatters… However, on the plus side Ed Fix (and vukcevic) both have working formulae that can hindcast and forecast… the hindcasts (at the least) seem to be major advances for solar science… hopefully the professional prognosticators will now revisit reality so that they can demonstrate that they are not soothsayers, clairvoyants and charlatans.

  132. Carla says:
    May 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 8, 2011 at 8:36 am

    The issue is that tidal effects from Jupiter are about half a millimeter [proportional to the mass]. If Jupiter had the mass of the Sun [1000 times larger than it has], the tidal bulge would be 1000 times larger, i.e. half a meter. This is still insignificant. You have to move the perturbing body closer to the Sun. So let us move it ten times closer [to half an AU], now the effect is a thousand times larger [as it scales with the cube of the distance], or half a kilometer [which is still less than a millionth of the solar radius]. You have to move the body REALLY close to have any effect.
    ~
    You say..let us move it ten times closer to half an AU, now the effect is a thousand times larger..
    Perfect Leif, for an introduction to Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW. What if any is your opinion on the role of ICW in the heating and expansion of solar wind? I’m reading they’re ubiquitous in the INTERPLANETARY SYSTEM and the closer you get to the solar corona, the more there is..
    Ion Cyclotron Waves ICW..

    Ion Cyclotron Waves in the Solar Wind from 0.3 to 1 AU
    Lan K. Jian1, C.T. Russell1, J.G. Luhmann2, A.B. Galvin3, B.J. Anderson4, S. Boardsen5,
    T.L. Zhang6, A. Wennmacher7
    Dublin, IrelandMarch 22‐26, 2010
    ~
    Fairly recent presentation..They compared 1976 solar min to 2008 solar min and found that fewer ICWs (Ion Cyclotron Waves) are being produced this min..
    Second paper finds that they are absent from the Very Local Instellar Medium VLISM and that the Interstellar neutral collisions are cited as the reason for destablization of the ICW production.
    Ion-Neutral Collisions in the Interstellar Medium: Wave Damping and Elimination of Collisionless Processes
    Steven R. Spangler∗, Allison H. Savage∗ and Seth Redfield†

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4121v1.pdf

    Third article suggests that the Geomagnetic field/Carbon 14 graph data is muddled due to increases of ACR (which are not taken into account when the graph was produced) , which they suggest increase when the density around the heliosphere bubble increases.
    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
    of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
    Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
    rev. 3 Feb. 2011

    I would think that fewer ICWs being produced at the Corona/extended corona during this minimum should send up flags. Less heat being produced in the corona during this min. Fewer ICWs being produced in interPlanetary space as well.
    Why is the corona so much hotter than the solar surface? Scientists are still working on this aren’t they Leif? ICWs are very much a part of the heating and acceleration process from Corona to 1 AU where the majority of them are found and observed.

  133. tallbloke says:
    May 9, 2011 at 1:10 am
    The MSFC panel prediction for cycle 24 failed, spectacularly. Does this mean the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed?
    I would say so.

    vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 2:02 am
    Electro-magnetic ideas I have been highlighting for some time now are ‘inconvenient truth’, since they conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar ideas.
    I don’t know anybody who has outdated 1950’s solar ideas, except the pseudo-scientists from the Electric Universe cult, including you.

    releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy.
    You are off by some ten to twelve orders of magnitude. [perhaps you confuse Joule with erg]. The ‘zap’ you are talking about releases 10^14 Joules, equivalent to the sun’s output in a trillionth of a second.

    Malaga View says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:12 am
    the hindcasts (at the least) seem to be major advances for solar science…
    Except that they don’t match reality and that one can always hindcast to any required degree of accuracy. Forecast is the yardstick.

  134. So I wonder how the dynamo amplifies the tidal effects. Seems to keep the current about the same, but modulates the frequencies.
    ===========

  135. Carla says:
    May 9, 2011 at 5:34 am
    Why is the corona so much hotter than the solar surface? Scientists are still working on this aren’t they Leif? ICWs are very much a part of the heating and acceleration process from Corona to 1 AU where the majority of them are found and observed.
    ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand. all that is needed is that corona is heated, by whatever mechanism. And it is not that we don’t know how the corona is heated. The problem is that there are too many mechanisms that heat the corona. It is no problem getting it hot. The problem is to figure out the relative importance of the many proposed mechanism. So, when you hear “scientists do not know what heats the corona” it does not mean that we are in dark about why it is hot, but just that we would like to know which of the many ways is the dominant one. There could be several in combination. Probably are.

  136. Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 6:51 am
    I don’t know anybody who has outdated 1950′s solar ideas, except the pseudo-scientists from the Electric Universe cult, including you.
    I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
    What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.

  137. vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 8:30 am
    I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
    What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.

    But you do in fact [even if you deny it].
    Instead of telling us about your lack of concern you might respond to your being off in your energy estimate by a factor of a trillion.

  138. Always interesting, but the maximum for solar cycle 24 is at least a year, and more likely about 20-22 months or so away.

  139. I still wonder about the alternating shape of the peak of solar cosmic rays, from pointed to flatter, from one cycle to the next. There are about six solar cycles in each cycle of the PDO and when split by phase two of each type of shape and one of the other are in each phase. If it’s causal, it might explain the alternating cooling and warming phases of that particular oceanic oscillation.

    But, as we’ve hashed out before, where’s the energy from that particular signal. Might it not be from the tidal effects, since the energy required isn’t so terribly much. Compared to TSI, I mean.

    How to get from here to there is not yet seen, like the slips twixt cups and lips.
    ========

  140. kim says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:02 am
    I still wonder about the alternating shape of the peak of solar cosmic rays, from pointed to flatter, from one cycle to the next.
    That is but a small second order effect. One should wonder about the first order effect and if that is not even there, then second order doesn’t matter much.

  141. Lawrie Ayres says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:47 am

    He wants the bottom line, which is what the CAGW dispute comes to: does the Earth warm or cool?

    This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years. From my own work, a -0.3C global drop as per GISTemp equates to about 1.8X or -0.54C drop in the land-only data, and -0.63C drop in the continental US record. Over 15 years the CO2 content of the atmosphere is supposed to rise another 30 ppmv at least (the IPCC has an accelerated CO2 rise). The 3.75 W/m2 forcing/3C of CO2 doubling from 283 ppmv means that the additional 30 ppmv should give a 0.32C rise during this same time.

    Bottom line: weak cycle and low sunspot number gives -0.30C drop while CO2 modelling gives a 0.32 rise. Disconnect between theories: 0.62C, over 15 years, or 0.04C/year between model (3C middle case) and observation.

    By 2015 the disconnect is 0.17C compared to 2011, already not rising steadily (since 2003). 0.2C is about equal to the up-and-down variation we see in world temperatures. Should be pretty close to a CAGW killer, at least for the current models.

    Comments? Corrections?

  142. Doug Proctor says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:24 am
    This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years.
    Where do you get that understanding from? Archibald thinks and states that the cooling will be about ten times as much. That is, of course, what places him among the worst of the alarmists [albeit with opposite sign].

  143. See – owe to Rich says:
    May 8, 2011 at 2:20 am
    Personally, I am more open-minded about the cumulative effects large gaseous bodies can have on other large gaseous bodies.

    The effect would be much larger if Jupiter and Saturn were not gaseous.

    Well, yes… but then they would not be in the same orbits, would they? Nor would the Earth…

  144. Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 8:45 am
    But you do in fact [even if you deny it].
    in reply to:
    vukcevic: I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas

    Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.
    If you bothered to look at my article than you would see there are no errors.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

    You would also see in the quoted reference:
    NASA: MAGNETIC CLOUD BOUNDARY TIMES AS DETERMINED BY MFI DATA

    http://wind.nasa.gov/mfi/mag_cloud_pub1.html

    [Lepping et al., 1990] that the electrical current and the magnetic field are parallel and proportional in strength everywhere within its volume.
    That is not Electric Universe, that is a quote in a direct conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar idea that ‘nothing moves against solar wind’, apparently lot of electrons do, as shown in fig.2 in: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm).

  145. I read some where several years ago that there is a 110 year solar cycle. I’ve tried finding more info on it but without success. If you look at the 20th century you can see that the sunspot cycle was very minimal at the beginning of it and topped out during Cycle 19 around 1955. If some one could provide more info about the 110 year cycle that would be great!

  146. What I find fascinating is how weak the sun’s magnetic field remains, compared to the previous solar cycles.

  147. Back in the middle ages, the amount of surplus food was never great, so even small drops in supply meant people started going hungry.

    Today we live in a world where we are paying farmers not to farm. If there were a sizeable drop in agricultural productivity, we have plenty of options.
    Quickest would be to put back into production, all the land that has gone out of production in the last 100 years.
    Next we could start allowing GM foods.
    Next we could eat less meat and more grain. (Wouldn’t want to, but if starvation were the alternative …)

  148. vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:55 am
    Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.
    Your thoughts are revealed by your statements [if you are honest].

    in a direct conflict with the outdated 1950’s solar idea that ‘nothing moves against solar wind’, apparently lot of electrons do, as shown in fig.2 in:
    in the 1950s there were no solar wind ideas.

    Very energetic particles [e.g. cosmic rays] can always move against the solar wind. The effects [electric or magnetic] of electric currents cannot move faster than the Alfven speed. In the inner corona the Alfven speed is a third of the speed of light, as you move out in the solar system the speed decreases linearly with distance. At the Earth it is about 40 km/s. As Jupiter it is 5 times smaller, ~8 km/s, at Saturn ~4 km/s. The solar wind tsunami simply sweeps such influences away.

    You are still silent on your trillion times exaggeration of the energy released…

  149. P. Solar: I do not believe that we “know” that sun spots affect climate.
    We know that during periods in which there are fewer sun spots, the climate gets colder. But that does not prove that it is the sun spots that are the driver. It is more likely that sun spots are a symptom of whatever else is causing the climatic change.
    For example, fewer sunspots is evidence that the sun’s magnetic field has gotten weaker. It is also the magnetic field that protects the earth from galactic cosmic rays, which are believed to play a roll in cloud formation.

  150. Sarge says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:51 am
    Well, yes… but then they would not be in the same orbits, would they? Nor would the Earth…
    Yes, they would, as the orbit does not depend on the physical characteristics of the orbiting body [nor of the central body].

  151. Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2011 at 10:16 am
    ……………
    1.Your first comment is inappropriate and at least deserves a ‘snip’. Perhaps you care to apologise.
    2. As you should know CME pushes solar wind out of the way, so it can’t be swept away by the solar wind.
    3. My article is clear:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm

    Feedback: It may be as simple as this: if magnetic cloud hits large magnetosphere energy is taken out of it ( one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules, the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules . Anything else is a misquote.

  152. vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 11:20 am
    1.Your first comment is inappropriate and at least deserves a ‘snip’. Perhaps you care to apologise.
    Can’t see why? you have in the past been economical with the truth [even now, see below].

    2. As you should know CME pushes solar wind out of the way, so it can’t be swept away by the solar wind.
    The CME is part of the solar wind and sure enough pushes away anything in front of it as the solar wind [plus CMRs] would push away any influences from the planets.

    3. the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules . Anything else is a misquote.

    Here is the quote:
    vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 2:02 am
    “the Earth’s magnetosphere interactions, when as much as one billion Amps is short-circuited in Arctic in single ‘zap’, releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy.”

    10^24-10^30 Joules of energy in the Arctic…
    Misquote?

  153. Leif,

    Great solar dialog.

    Of interest to me wrt evaluating sources of decadal length earth cooling periods are the variations in:

    a) solar spectral irradiance during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles

    b) solar wind composition, intensity/density and frequency of perturbations during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles

    c) earth magnetic system changes that occur during a) and b) but which are independent of the solar magnetic system cycle . . . . that is coincident with but not correlated with each other.

    I am a fisherman for ideas on sources of decadal length earth cooling periods. : )

    John

  154. John Whitman says:
    May 9, 2011 at 11:46 am
    a) solar spectral irradiance during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
    There are 11-yr cycles, no 22-yr cycles. The ‘magnetic cycle’ is not a cycle, but simply two juxtaposed 11-yr cycles. So no differences.
    b) solar wind composition, intensity/density and frequency of perturbations during the ~22 year magnetic solar cycle and between such cycles
    Same answer as above.
    c) earth magnetic system changes that occur during a) and b) but which are independent of the solar magnetic system cycle . . . . that is coincident with but not correlated with each other.
    The Earth’s magnetic field as such has nothing to with the solar cycles. there are VERY small perturbations [less than 1%] cause by solar activity. and there is a small difference in the response of the Earth to the direction of the solar field. This is the 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity. It is explained [in part] in section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf but as a perturbation on a perturbation is of second order and has no detectable climate effects.

  155. To the rest of readers and contributors:
    I misquoted my own article by paraphrasing rather than using ‘copy and paste’:
    “one billion Amps, 10^24 -10^30 Joules, the Earth’s take (Fig 1.a) is usually 650,000A or 10^14 Joules”
    and posted: “when as much as one billion Amps is short-circuited in Arctic in single ‘zap’, releasing 10^24 -10^30 Joules of energy. For more details

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm”

    I also should have looked up details, before hitting ‘Post Comment’ button.
    Everyone is entitled to their views, even to consider above ‘dishonest’ or ‘economical with the truth’; I will only engage in an exchange where basic civility is observed.

  156. vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2011 at 8:30 am
    I do not subscribe to Electric Universe ideas, so you are wrong to include me there.
    Here is why you are on the same level as the Electric Universe people [your denial or no denial]: They [EU] claim that large electric currents external to the sun [from far away - the Galaxy or Jupiter makes no difference] have profound influences on the Sun and solar activity. You claim the same, hence can be lumped in with them as far as that goes.
    What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.
    Is a Vuk example of civil discourse.

  157. steven mosher says:
    May 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    fred.

    “The IPCC GHG models failed to predict that warming would level off in 1999. Does this mean the GHG theory behind them has also failed?”
    ___
    Steve says “Actually not, ….
    …The different is this. Fix’s model looks to be deterministic. one set of inputs: one set of outputs. in a GCM the same inputs lead to different outputs because of natural variability in the models. IF GCMS gave you a deterministic answer then you could say they were wrong. But since they give a spread of results ( its the nature of the beast) we have a much more complicated situation.”
    ______________
    And there is the rub, Steve. “But since they give a spread of results”… they can’t be falsified. Indeterministic.

    If GCMs can’t be falsified they are not science, they are just endless math calculations. (With all due respect for the math and what they are attempting.)

    In a nutshell, there are too many independent variables, too many dependent variables, too many outcomes to know causation or effect.

    When they are good they are very very good, but when they are wrong they are horrid (but good none the less?).

  158. @ Leif Svalgaard said May 9, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Leif,

    Thanks for the clarification. I can see a distinction in why one would say the geomagnetic activity has a 22-year cycle whereas the solar cycle would be considered 11 years.

    Thanks for the reference to your 1977 work. Those were the IBM Selectrixc (golf ball) typewriter days, weren’t they? : )

    Question: Does any aspect of solar wind reaching earth vary wrt the earths position relative to the solar equatorial plane? For example such aspects could be things like solar wind intensity/density or duration of maxs/mins or composition or frequency of storms/events (perturbations).

    John

  159. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 7:39 am
    ..ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand..
    ~
    Well..not exactly..seems part of this solar cycle 24 phenomenum..missing spots, low squashed polar fields, dominate surface field and low ICW counts..
    And ICW’s role in coronal heating and acceleration of solar wind/IMF ..ah..Think I’ll doing some reading on ICW’s making waves in the radiation belts down here for a while..maybe..

  160. John Whitman says:
    May 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    Thanks for the reference to your 1977 work. Those were the IBM Selectric (golf ball) typewriter days, weren’t they? : )
    Indeed they were. Great machine.

    Question: Does any aspect of solar wind reaching earth vary wrt the earths position relative to the solar equatorial plane?
    The relative number of days with one polarity vs. days with the other polarity varies through the year. This is called the Rosenberg-Coleman effect: http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric%20Rosenberg-Coleman%20Effect.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual%20Variation%201954%20and%201996.pdf

    But that is about it.

  161. Carla says:
    May 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    “..ICWs are irrelevant for the problem at hand..”
    Well..not exactly.

    They are exactly irrelevant. What matters is the magnetic field in the solar atmosphere. The ICW’s are just a proposed mechanism [one of many] for heating the corona, related to the magnetic field. The ICWs as such are not of interest.

  162. Leif – regarding the issue that has riled Vukcevic:
    Vukcevic : “Once I lived in a political system where I was classified by those who knew better than I do ‘what my thoughts were’.
    Leif : “Your thoughts are revealed by your statements [if you are honest].

    The political system that Vukcevic refers to was, I think you will find, that of the Soviet Union. In that system, your thoughts were not your own but whatever the authorities decided they were. I would suggest that you could reasonably expect Vukcevic to find your comment inappropriate.

    Unfortunately, the situation was then made worse by what appears to be an english-language error by Vukcevic, using “What” instead of “Who” : “What you know or don’t know isn’t really concern of mine.“. Using “Who”, the statement fits the context, and is reasonable.

    Now, can we all please get back to being civil.

  163. Mike Jonas says:
    May 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    The political system that Vukcevic refers to was, I think you will find, that of the Soviet Union.
    I have actually lived a while in the old Soviet Union, so knows the system well.

    Now, can we all please get back to being civil.
    One might hope for the best.

  164. Malaga View says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Very well said. Obviously cooling is not allowed.

    It is becoming more evident that amateurs and most academics are now on the same level on this topic, with Vukcevic for one, emerging above the surface.

  165. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Don’t be sloppy in quoting me. My prediction based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory is a 2.0 degree C decline for the US-Canadian border and consequent failure of the Canadian wheat crop. The UK, northwestern Europe will have a 1.5 degree C decline.

  166. Sunspot says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    It is becoming more evident that amateurs and most academics are now on the same level on this topic, with Vukcevic for one, emerging above the surface.
    You should pay more attention to the facts. Vuk’s scheme hindcasts [and predicts] that all solar cycles have the same length, except once per century where his formula slips.

  167. David Archibald says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    My prediction based on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory is a 2.0 degree C decline for the US-Canadian border
    which is ten times the 0.2 degree that Doug Proctor was saying. Or are you backing off from the 2 degrees?

  168. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 6:51 am
    tallbloke says:
    May 9, 2011 at 1:10 am
    The MSFC panel prediction for cycle 24 failed, spectacularly. Does this mean the ‘theory’ behind it has also failed?

    I would say so.

    Heh, maybe we’re at cross purposes here. I’m not talking about the heuristic method the majority of the panelists employed to make their failed prediction, but the “theory behind it”.

    Anyway, the point stands. The dynamologists have not been able to use their theory to make good predictions, except by predicting every outcome so at least one of them is somewhere near. So for you to demand falsifiability of the planetary solar theory is to invite the reply,

    “People who’ve set up their homes in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones.”

    I’m looking forward to a more coherent and settled version of the Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory so we can see it’s predictions and put them to the test.

    Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.

    May the better theory then result. (I forsee an amalgamation of the two).

  169. tallbloke says:
    May 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    Heh, maybe we’re at cross purposes here. I’m not talking about the heuristic method the majority of the panelists employed to make their failed prediction, but the “theory behind it”.
    The ‘majority of the panelists’? This was Hathaway’s method, alone. And David has repeatedly said that he didn’t know how it worked, so no ‘theory’ actually. The method failed, and the ‘theory’ that a correlation is the same as causation failed.

    So for you to demand falsifiability of the planetary solar theory is to invite the reply
    I do not demand falsifiability, but feasibility.

    I’m looking forward to a more coherent and settled version of the Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory so we can see it’s predictions and put them to the test.
    Leighton gave that long ago: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leighton-1969.pdf

    Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.
    since we have seen the paper, we cannot really comment, can we. You can always hope.

  170. The Grand Missing Correlation, otherwise known at the Great Climactic Coincidence.
    Things that really ruin your day: watching two phenomena coincide right under your nose like they’re supposed to and then you find out the wiring has melted.

  171. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:29 am
    Doug Proctor says:
    May 9, 2011 at 9:24 am
    This discussion goes off into the technical details as so much of AGW discussions do, without addressing clearly that we all started arguing about. As I understand things, if Ed Fix and other correlations are correct, a very short and therefore very low sunspot number for Cycle 24 will be associated with a -0.2 – -0.4C global temperature drop over the next 15 years.

    Leif wishes to know where I get this understanding from: I’ve been checking the land records such as New Haven, Connecicut for temperature drops wrt to sunspont number, and I see that these Continental US (and other European land stations) have, indeed, a 2C drop during a Dalton-like low sunspot interval. However, there is an insidious error here: that of conflating a land station change in temperature with that of a global change.

    I took the GISSTemp data for Global, SST and Land-Station only, plus US Continental graphs and compared on a date-basis changes in temperatures. Also subdivisions of the globe. Taking the amount of change for a variety of time-change events, I averaged out about 4 events. Not all that scientific, but the end result was telling. Then, taking the GISTemp Global change as a reference point, I came out with changes in individual parts of the globe as follows:

    1. GISSTemp 1.00
    2. Land-Ocean 1.2
    3. Global Meteorological 1.41
    4. Land Only 1.79
    5. SST 0.58
    6. NH 1.68
    7. SH 0.63
    8. Tropics 1.01
    9. Mid North Lat 1.84
    10. Mid South Lat 0.43
    11. Arctic 3.55
    12. Nh-Trop 2.43
    13. SH-Trop 0.43
    14. Trop-Trop 0.94
    15. Tokyo 2.62
    16. Greenland 3.21
    17. US Cont 2.09
    18. RSS(V3.3) 0.98
    19. UAH 0.96

    This means that for every 1C rise that GISSTemp shows, for example, the US Continental records will show 2.09C increases. Though there is some difference in drops, the results are similar. I also looked at individual stations like New Haven, and saw that the individual US station drops differently from the US continental. I can’t find my datasheet this moment, but the difference was on the order of another 2X in the NE continental Us. So when Archibald etc. say that New Haven drops by 2.0C during a low Sunspot Number of <50, I have to drop that to 1.0C for the continental US, then drop that to 0.45 or so for the global average. Then, because looking at the historical record of GISSTemp from 1880 to the present I see no sustained drops in the record of 0.45C, I suspect that the smoothed number is less than 0.45. Thus I get 0.3C.

    The key is that regional temperature variations are not mirrors of the global average. The Arctic, as per IPCC claims, warms more than the global average, in my estimation about 3.55X from observation. The Continental US average, about 2.09X the global. Within the Continental US the average is less than the high spots (I've misplaced the calculation sheet, but I doubt you disagree). Then smoothing over a 5-year period reduces the change even more.

    We have to compare apples to apples. If Archibald says that a 2C drop occurs worldwide, then the continental drops 4C or more. That's called an ice age.

    You guys with your computers can replicate my graph and hand calculator in an instant. Take individual rises over the last 120 years as broken down by Hansen et al. What counts in this debate is the truth of GISTemp and therefore the IPCC. Look at UAH and RSS as well for the same intervals. There will be some time-shifts necessary as the temperature changes in the southern hemisphere etc. are delayed in the northern hemisphere.

    It all comes from the global warming not being global, and regional changes not being equal in space or time. Global averages are grossly unrepresentative of the world, as the movement of the NYSE is grossly unrepresentative of my personal stock holdings. Both in a negative way.

  172. Likewise I hope Ed Fix’s forthcoming paper will clarify how the red planetary curve has been constructed and provide a similarly testable prediction.

    Ed was kind enough to send me a draft copy some time ago that may have changed but without giving too much away the primary input looks to be solar velocity measured from the SSB with some tweaks. Some of the model output is very close to the angular momentum output performed by Carl Smith in 2007, but interestingly Ed’s model does not hindcast the Maunder Minimum suggesting perhaps that further work maybe required.

    Hindcasting over very long time periods is necessary to prove models that attempt to predict solar output. Carl’s graph and the subsequent research that followed on from it, show good correlation with solar cycle modulation and grand minima over the entire Holocene.

  173. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Yes, you are quite right about hindcasting. It must be done as well as forecasting, otherwise one is merely trend-chasing.

  174. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    Carl’s graph and the subsequent research that followed on from it, show good correlation with solar cycle modulation and grand minima over the entire Holocene.
    We have been over this repeatedly, but there is no such correlation, only wishful thinking. A correlation can be quantified. So where/what is the quantity? What ‘number’ or correlation coefficient between time series are you claiming?

  175. Doug Proctor says:
    May 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Please do not ascribe views to me that I have not stated. To clear up the record, short cycles tend to be strong cycles, long cycles tend to be weak or are followed by weak cycles. If Solar Cycle 24 was to be weak and eight years long, that would be highly unusual. I continue to predict that this cycle will be 12 years long and that there will not be a solar polar magnetic reversal at maximum.

    I am predicting 2.0 degrees decline for the US-Canadian border. Others (paper in press) are predicting 0.9 for the planet as a whole. Everyone is predicting 1.5 degrees for northwest, maritime Europe. The tropics will hardly feel a thing.

  176. Mike Jonas and Sunspot your support is appreciated. Thanks. Now back to the science.
    Two important points here:
    – Sunspot 11 year cycle record is far too volatile to be tracked by a simple formula. Estimates of the SSN are subject to individual interpretations and variability of telescope selection (as discussed on here on numerous occasions).
    – Polar fields 22 year Hale’s magnetic cycle, in contrast is result of instrumental measurements, less prone to subjective interpretations, and more importantly far les volatile despite level of noise.
    If one of the above solar cycles is taking a shape of a higher regularity and predictability, then there is reason to believe that there is a harmony between two.
    Babcock-Leighton hypothesis is probably correct stating that polar fields are generated from sunspot remnants, but sunspot splitting, neutralising etc. and in particular randomness of 1/1000 of flux finally making it, it is plainly wrong. If that was correct than regularity of polar field would be far lower than one for the SSN, the reality is the other way around.
    Hathaway’s hypothesis of sunspot ‘reincarnation’ was long way of the mark to start off, his predictability method dismally failed.
    Schatten’s percolation dynamo is in conflict with basic physics, on solar magnetic field he states : ” Like sign attract, and unlike fields repel, essentially the opposite behaviour of magnetic fields in a vacuum, or subadiabatic atmosphere.”. This is an obvious non-starter.
    In my view there are two papers that come close to reality:
    Evolution of polar fields by Wang , Lean and Sheeley- from Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Lab, Washington
    and
    Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field by Solanki, Baumann, Schmitt & Schüssler – from Max Planck Institut.
    Both concentrate on the meridional flow, and their results are impressive, despite attempts by some to invalidate their findings. Links to the papers (and on personal note high agreement with my results) can be found here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm

    Since the days of Rudolf Wolf (1816–1893) the planetary effect was often considered as primary cause. Once magnetic cycle was discovered, planetary effect was readily discarded, forgetting that there is strong and continuous electro-magnetic coupling between the sun and planets. Space research is discovering further aspects of the irrefutable electro-magnetic links (example: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ ).
    Many reputable scientists from NASA and elsewhere are concentrating on solar not just magnetic but electro-magnetic activity.
    Once solar science is able to move away from the outdated ideas and fixations of primacy of magnetic field, from blinkered monochrome magnetic image, to the magnetic and electric duality of the real world, progress will be rapid.

  177. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    since we have NOT seen the paper, we cannot really comment, can we. You can always hope.

    In fact you are one of the priviledged few who has a preprint copy of Ed’s paper:

    Ed Fix says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:45 am

    After I wrote the earliest version of this paper, I sent it to a few people (including Leif Svalgaard) for comments or suggestions. David was the only one who responded with any sort of constructive comments. Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.

    Try searching your inbox. Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.

  178. vukcevic says:
    May 10, 2011 at 1:06 am
    Once solar science is able to move away from the outdated ideas and fixations of primacy of magnetic field, from blinkered monochrome magnetic image, to the magnetic and electric duality of the real world, progress will be rapid.
    As I said, you are firmly in the Electric Universe camp.

    tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
    Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.
    I get fringe proposals all the time. I don’t remember Ed’s though. A date might be helpful.

    Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
    Copyright has nothing to do with citing or revealing something. And I abhor the notion that science should be done as occultism. If you have something, put it on the table.

  179. So here I sit, the lone ranger scout..
    Why is it that so many of the tech. docs I read, open with the following statement?

    “””..variations in the physical properties of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM) modify the heliosphere..”””
    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions of the Heliosphere:
    Effect of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller

    1st cause..variations in the physical properties surrounding the heliosphere bubble will “shape it and size it.”
    Sun and its cycle are responding to EXTERNAL FORCE(S) first.

    Play nice now..

  180. Basic ignorant question here. Are these supposed ‘electric effects’ some manifestation of the tiny tidal movements within the sun from the motion of the planets or are they something else additional?
    ==================

  181. We have quite a few PT enthusiasts around here.
    I am just wondering if ANY ONE of them have taken the time to gobble up as much current info on the outer planets. Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and friends. You’ll find the environment of their orbits is quite unique with a higher density of more pure interstellar material. Their dipoles and rotation are unique in and of themselves among this group..
    This groups orbital parameters should be quite interesting in a few years and will change if the density within their orbit increases, might cause some dragon.. Oh yeah I can see now how ephemeris could be mucked up.. eeeeekkkkkk

  182. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
    Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.
    I did find it among the 9793 emails in my inbox. Paper dated 2-July-2008.

    Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
    I was not impressed by the write-up. Nor with the result. Ed advises: “the graph you’re looking for is Fig. 5 on page 6″. I reveal that one here: http://www.leif.org/research/Ed-Fix-Simulation.png
    Seems not to be something to write home about. And no different from so many other attempts that discover that the phase is wrong in 1810 and 1910 and therefore reverse the sign without justification [other than it makes the fit better]. Vuk does the same. Curiously Ed assumes tidal forces [no electric forces] and Vuk assumes electric forces [no tidal forces]. Their curve fitting leads to the same kind of fit, showing that this is just what it is: curve-fitting.

  183. One more thought..about rotation rates of change.
    Leif, could you comment on solar rotation and rates of change? ..

  184. Carla says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:41 am
    1st cause..variations in the physical properties surrounding the heliosphere bubble will “shape it and size it.”
    Sun and its cycle are responding to EXTERNAL FORCE(S) first.

    Apart from the dubious nature of this statement, those external forces vary on time scales of tens of thousands of years, not from one year to the next, so can hardly be responsible for the changes we see around us right now.

    Carla says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:33 am
    One more thought..about rotation rates of change.
    Leif, could you comment on solar rotation and rates of change? ..

    What is there to comment? There seems to be a weak [anti-]correlation between solar rotation and solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf in the sense that ‘the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation’. The rotation we are talking about is the surface rotation which may have very little to do [probably nothing] with the rotation of the sun as a whole.

  185. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:40 am
    I abhor the notion that science should be done as occultism. If you have something, put it on the table.

    I agree. I was just relaying from Ed what Elsevier had told him. Journals are on a course to nowhere with their outdated attitudes regarding IP IMO.

  186. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
    Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
    Ed uses a standard trick in this kind of ‘investigation’. Take a sine wave. Construct another one with a slightly longer period. After many cycles the two waves will have slid by each other several times and there is no correlation between them. Top panel of

    Now reverse the phase of the second wave where it is too much out of phase with the first [yellow wave on the lower panel]. All the sudden there is a respectable correlation R^2 = 0.4212.

  187. Leif’s knowledge is like a force of nature. There is a disturbance in this force of nature. I’m trying to figure out if the disturbance is in the core, in the dynamo, in the coronasphere, in the earth’s magnetism, in the music of the planetary spheres, at the heliopause, or external to that.

    And there’s the metaphor.
    ===============

  188. Y’all might like to see what the Hockey stick team says about global v regional cooling during the Maunder.
    “We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. ”
    Science 7 December 2001:
    Vol. 294 no. 5549 pp. 2149-2152
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1064363

  189. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:16 am
    I agree. I was just relaying from Ed what Elsevier had told him.
    I got the graph from Ed long before Elsevier did. What people send to me I share unless they expressly tell me not to.

  190. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:20 am
    I did find it among the 9793 emails in my inbox. Paper dated 2-July-2008.

    Well maybe that explains the poorer correlation. It’s a very early version. More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.

  191. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
    Ed: “Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.”
    BTW, Ed’s email to me starts out:
    “I have read your paper, “A PREDICTION FOR THE 24TH SOLAR CYCLE”, which predicts a peak of 67-81 for the next (current) solar sunspot cycle. I believe that prediction may be as much as an order of magnitude too high.”,
    so I assumed that Ed’s prediction is for a maximum of a tenth of mine; that would be a sunspot number of the order of 7-8. Reinforcing my general impression of his efforts. David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
    “While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”

  192. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:22 am
    Well maybe that explains the poorer correlation. It’s a very early version. More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.
    More tweaking, you mean. Curve fitting can always be improved, even to the point of a perfect match, eventually.

  193. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:33 am

    tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:22 am
    More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.

    More tweaking, you mean.

    Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.

  194. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:18 am
    Ed uses a standard trick in this kind of ‘investigation’. Take a sine wave. Construct another one with a slightly longer period. After many cycles the two waves will have slid by each other several times and there is no correlation between them. Top panel of

    Now reverse the phase of the second wave where it is too much out of phase with the first [yellow wave on the lower panel]. All the sudden there is a respectable correlation R^2 = 0.4212.

    This is what is so intriguing about the VEJ relationships with solar activity, they go a little out of phase, then the phasing comes back together. Over several hundred years the alignments of the planets and the solar cycles never go completely out of phase and “slide past one another”.

    By accusing planetary-solar investigators of ‘tricks’ you reduce your own credibility. You have Ed’s paper, I don’t so I can’t confirm or deny what he has done to generate his curve. I wish you’d refrain from insinuating that others are playing ‘tricks’ though.

  195. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:44 am
    Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.
    You mean, the one doing the tweaking, of course. But such is the nature of curve fitting, it can always be improved. The old epicycle remedy.

  196. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:31 am
    David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
    “While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”

    Poor Leif and David Hathaway, can’t hold more than two variables in mind simultaneously.

  197. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:50 am
    This is what is so intriguing about the VEJ relationships with solar activity, they go a little out of phase, then the phasing comes back together. Over several hundred years the alignments of the planets and the solar cycles never go completely out of phase and “slide past one another”.
    We only have three hundred years and during that time the phase has reversed twice already, so not so intriguing.

    By accusing planetary-solar investigators of ‘tricks’ you reduce your own credibility.
    ‘Accusation’ is a strong word. The one fooled first into such a trick is always the author himself. Ed describes his procedure thus: “I did something which might seem at first to be “making the data fit the model”” but later justified it by the fact that the fit did get better.

  198. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:52 am

    tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:44 am
    Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.

    You mean, the one doing the tweaking, of course.

    I can see why your prejudice might lead you to think that was what I meant. ;-)

    The old epicycle remedy.

    Depends whether rational and plausible reasons are found for the tweaks I guess.
    Easy to fool yourself once you tread into that territory though I agree.

  199. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:57 am
    Poor Leif and David Hathaway, can’t hold more than two variables in mind simultaneously.
    “Give me five and I can fit an elephant”

  200. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:01 am
    “Give me five and I can fit an elephant”

    Depends if they are free variables or not.

  201. tallbloke says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
    I can see why your prejudice might lead you to think that was what I meant.
    Well, what did you mean, then? Now, the prejudices of physical laws, correct science, cause and effect, etc, are good guidelines in any research. If you throw these to the wind you end up with the pseudo-science that holds so many it its thralls. To wit, your blog and comments here.

  202. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
    We only have three hundred years and during that time the phase has reversed twice already, so not so intriguing.

    Are you still taking just jupiter here?

  203. Norman Page says: May 10, 2011 at 7:21 am
    In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. ”

    I think they are partially right, it appears that the Maunder Minimum period cooling was mostly the North Atlantic phenomenon + ‘crosstalk’ in the rest of NH. I would say the MM cooling does not appear to do much with the solar irradiance; else some sections of the physics textbooks have to be revised. This is probably another one based on a reconstruction of the TSI using the Greenland 10Be data, not to be taken as a reliable pointer.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm

  204. Vucevic I agree with you that ” I would say the MM cooling does not appear to do much with the solar irradiance”
    I’m reasonably sure its to do with the solar magnetic field strength and the GCR – clouds – albedo connection. I just wanted to show that Mann Schmidt and co had about the same global – regional temperature difference as Archibald.

  205. Dr. Archibald/Leif,

    I meant not to ascribe statements to anyone that they did not make. Like others, over time the 2C drop got stuck in my head as having being made for the world, whereas what you say is, indeed, for a portion of the continental US, with 1.5C for a portion of Europe. The significance of the difference is great, obviously, as the skeptical position would be pleased to see a demonstration of the solar, rather than CO2, connection.

    http://nhclimateaudit.org/

    Reviewing my notes and an historical history of the New Hampshire temperature record, I find that NHamp has about a 4.1X decline in a given temperature change relative to the global record as shown by Hansen. The NHamp record shows large, high frequency variations, of course, and the authors use an 11 and 33 year moving average to smooth the trends out. This is too much, plus the GISTemp data-graphs we see use a 5-year smoothing function so a comparison is not possible. Awkward as it is, I quickly estimated with ruler and pencil trends as I saw them both in the NHamp long-term data-graph and the GISSTemp global data-graph:

    1900-1910: NHamp -0.8C, Global -0.2C, ratio 4.0X
    1915-1920: NHamp -2.3C, Global -0.03, ratio N/A
    1954-1965: NHamp -1.75C, Global -0.16?, ratio 11?
    1965-2000: NHMP +1.3C, Global +0.54, ratio 2.4X

    Not good enough for a peer-review paper, but perhaps enough to show what is going on: in the state of New Hampshire, temperature changes are >3X what is noted on a GISSTemp global scale. So a 2C change in Haven, for example, might be seen as a 0.5C change in the global record. Or less, as I suggested, due to smoothing algorithms. (The smaller the sample, the harder it is to see global patterns. Which makes you uneasy about the “reality” of short-term global patterns. As noted.)

    The relationship to the specific locations in New Hampshire to the State or to the Globe were not explained in the Solar Cycle 24 article. We read many, many articles pro- and con-CAGW that hint at positive and negative impacts on global warming. The fellow who asked the question asked legitimately a legitimate question. I apologize if the tone of my reply was offensive; the medium plus my style has undesired consequences at times. I stand by my conclusions, however. Global warming is not global, and significant temperature drops or rises in one part of the world are not necessarily representative of the globe as a whole but can be used to estimate the global changes.

    This is very significant, as the GLOBAL rise as proposed by the IPCC cabal of 3C to 5C means that the American mainland will be facing a 6 – 10C rise, while the Arctic, 9-15C rise. Of course this is going to be catastrophic! But let us think for a moment.

    Because the regional variations are so great, a projected 3-5C rise globally will show up – must show up – regionally in extreme ways. And if these extremes don’t now, by 2050 they must have a bizarre rebound to maintain the IPCC model. Each year that goes by makes the “correction” more extreme. The man-in-the-street will see it … if it occurs.

    Which, of course, it won’t. (According to the Suzuki team, the Arctic is already seeing a 5C rise in 201a0, with the Canadian Government weather maps handily show this. A close look at the map shows you that the open water beside the weather stations has the same effect as tarmac at airports, however. Here, cause and effect have been reversed.) So far there is nothing to say we are in a rapid rise in those sensitive areas. Forget the GISSTemp 0.01C rise to look for CAGW: look to the American Heartland.

    Again, sorry if I ruffled feathers.

  206. David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
    “While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”

    I also responded with a similar suggestion. Using solar velocity is the same as angular momentum, it will show the same roughly 10 year oscillation which is close to the solar cycle and never stay in phase. But solar velocity or AM can be used to determine overall solar modulation strength and also give a marker for grand minima. Solar velocity follows the same curve as the Sunspot cycle wave but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima. The only reason for the velocity wave and grand minima markers is the combined gravity of Uranus and Neptune at their conjunction.

  207. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
    No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?

  208. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    but one has to acknowledge the interruption caused by grand minima.
    ———————————–
    No, one has to show that there is something. And define ‘interruption’. What is it characteristics? Interruption of what?

    We have been over this several times but you still do not understand. Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe. My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur. Once you understand the background principles it all becomes clear.

  209. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm
    Lets start with the powerwave first, your diagram shows this easily because there is no grand minima in the timeframe.
    My wave has no physical significance. It is just there to aid the reader in following the trend that I think I see. He can the agree or disagree as he sees fit.
    My diagram is the same curve but over a longer time scale and has interruptions to the wave when grand minima occur.
    I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.

  210. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    My wave has no physical significance.

    The wave is the trend that we and many others have noticed. I have a driver for that trend where you ascribe to a random number generator.

    I take it that you ascribe physical significance to your curve and that ‘interruptions’ are where your physics fails.

    This is where your understanding fails you. There are two forces at play, one controls the background modulation while the other disrupts the solar cycle. Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper as “the force that dare not speak its name” is not open to discussion here.

  211. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 7:26 pm
    Can I suggest you have another go at reading my paper
    Your paper contains nothing new and is [as we have discussed many times] just curve fitting, finding different wiggles of different types. You are still pushing the Angular Momentum spiel in spite of having been shown that there is no free AM to exchange: the solar AM [wrt to the barycenter] precisely balancing that of the planets. This is a necessary consequence of physical laws. I still have to see a quantification of your data. Without that you have nothing [as you well know].

  212. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.

    You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.

  213. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
    So you have not shown you have an understanding of the theory.
    There is no theory to understand. The one physical element you used to invoke does not work, even Shirley understands that.

    You are also forgetting that there is now a peer reviewed paper by Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism that links solar path changes to solar output. This paper should be discussed in a separate article on WUWT once “the force that dare not speak its name” is allowed airspace.
    There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling.

  214. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm
    “Wolff and Patrone that provides a viable mechanism”
    There is no such mechanism.
    A mechanism means that you can specify a force in Newtons, a mass in kg that the force is acting on for a time t in seconds, giving rise to an acceleration and hence a velocity [in m/sec] displacing solar matter a distance in meter, causing a change in the magnetic field in Tesla of the sunspots, etc. THAT is a mechanism. It is OK if you have to assume [reasonable] values for some of the parameters because they may be poorly known, but the values should in real physical units. For examples see http://www.leif.org/EOS/Leighton-1969.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-Karak-2009.pdf Those are mechanisms.

  215. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.

    There is no such mechanism. What Wolff and Patrone point out is that IF you can find a coupling between what they calculate and solar phenomena [any phenomena] then there might be a cause-effect relationship, but they pointedly do not supply any viable coupling

    Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions. This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.

  216. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm
    You have to understand the theory before dismissing it with nonsensical statements. I challenge you to prove to me you understand the theory of both forces on my blog.
    I agree that is is useless to continue here at WUWT.

    Wolff and Patrone have provided a model built on sound physical attributes that provides a mechanism for solar modulation as a product of the outer 4 planet positions.
    I have studied that papaer and finds no references to sound solar physical attributes [they were astronomical attributes].

    This is what needs to be debated, the peer review process has certainly not found fault.
    You cannot fault a paper that conditions its result: IF such and such happens, THEN this and that will happen. That does not say that the IF is satisfied, and that is what is wrong with the W&P paper. No mechanism, only a hypothetical.
    See my comment
    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:59 pm”
    for what a mechanism is.

  217. Doug Proctor says:
    May 10, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Thankyou for being gracious. There is a paper coming that will be the last word on this subject. I will say, for all the North American academics reading, that the US and Canada is still an open territory (Europe has been done). With the demise of global warming, something will fill the gap, and that will be solar-climate studies based on solar cycle length. You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.

  218. David Archibald says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    You can generate a large number of papers and get that paper count up. Own a brand new field. Speak at agricultural conferences. That sort of thing.
    That smells more like alarmist propaganda than science…

  219. vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
    Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
    ‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’

    Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.

  220. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    is is useless to continue here at WUWT.

    “Resistance is futile.
    You will be assimilated.”

    lol.

    From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
    “One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). “

  221. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:20 am
    From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
    “One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE.

    What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block. If I am in an airplane at 30,000 feet I have more potential energy than at 10,000 feet. Descending gently from 30,000 to 10,000 feet changes my PE, but that has no effect on me as such as there is no coupling between me and the PE. Thus no mechanism to extract that PE. Should I crash into the ground, a coupling exists in the back reaction of the ground on me, but the W&P paper is silent on what their coupling would be and thus they have no mechanism.

  222. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:30 am
    What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block.

    Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
    I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.

  223. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 5:50 am
    Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
    I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.

    I understand their paper perfectly well. It will be worth your time to try to explain it so you can see where the problem lies.

  224. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
    “I understand their paper perfectly well.”
    No, you don’t.

    The paper is well-written and clear enough. There is no difficulty understanding it. Otherwise it would have been caught in peer-review, wouldn’t it? That is what peer-review is about. Not about whether the results are ‘correct’.

  225. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
    The example you gave shows that you don’t.
    Perhaps you do not understand my example. Try to work out what is wrong with it and put that on your blog.

  226. The problem is your understanding of Wolff and Patrone, not my understanding of your example, which shows that you think they are talking about gravitational potential energy with their ‘PE’ quantity.

    They are not.

    This is where you are going wrong in understanding the mechanism they have identified. They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy (assisted by a suitable flow) on the hemisphere facing the barycentre in amounts non-linearly proportionate to the distance of the stellar core from the system barycentre. This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential (because the exchange in places of the two masses under consideration would cancel the changes in that). It is because the distance between stellar core and system barycentre varies with the motions of the gas giant planets (predominantly) that the mechanism could potentially explain the correlations we have found between solar motion wrt to the centre of mass of the solar system and variation in levels of solar activity.

  227. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
    They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells
    Very clever misuse of ‘potential’ here. They calculate the potential energy and have not identified how to change that into kinetic energy, i.e. no coupling between the two, i.e. no mechanism.

  228. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
    They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy [...] This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential

    Contrast the above ‘understanding’ with what W&P actually claim:
    If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. [...] The exchange releases potential energy …”

  229. Wolff and Patrone:
    The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only inthe hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength andspatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy ofa few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions.

    Nice try Leif. Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?

  230. tallbloke says:
    May 11, 2011 at 8:32 am
    Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?
    It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.

  231. Leif Svalgaard says:
    It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.
    And in spite of your enthusiasm W&P note: “Clearly, Figures 6 and 8 are not strong enough to prove that planet-caused events have noticeably affected the Sun.”

  232. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 11, 2011 at 4:58 am

    vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
    Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
    ‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’
    ————————–
    Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.

    You obviously do not understand the principles involved. It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.

  233. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
    It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
    ——————————
    There is no challenge in something ‘not even wrong’

    A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website. There is a special forum area set up where you can prove to us you have a basic knowledge of the theory (in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216

  234. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website.
    so what? I think the shoe is on the other foot: convince me.

    in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)
    since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity. So you are welcome to quote me on that.

  235. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity.

    We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.

  236. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.
    As far as I can see there are no principles involved other than your hand waving. The AMT is in the ‘not even wrong’ category as it violates physical law: “there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar system barycentre; and the spin–orbit coupling hypothesis [...] must be discarded, http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRS.pdf . If that undermines my credibility in the astrology department, then this is something I have no problems at all living with.

  237. Geoff Sharp says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    There is no point arguing….you have no credibility.
    I don’t think you are presenting arguments of any kinds, just trying to play the ad-hom no-credibility card. But guess what. It doesn’t work here.

  238. P. Solar says:
    May 9, 2011 at 1:11 am

    “There is no intention to provide a physical explanation. This is at the level that science calls “observation”. You see effect, then later you try to explain it. Many climatologists work in opposition to science, they start with the explanation then spend 30 years trying to observe it”

    Can I Tweet this? you know for twits!! NO!!!!! I can’t that was such a brilliant remark that breaks boundaries on the blog-o-sphere.

Comments are closed.