Solar-Terrestrial Power Update

By Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.

The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle. Here’s a concise visual update based on the latest data:

LOD’ = rate of change of length of day

image

image

Data

ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/STATION_DATA/Monthly_data/moscow.tab

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

204 Responses to Solar-Terrestrial Power Update

  1. Mike says:

    How about a hint as to what this means.

  2. Reblogged this on insideamoronsbrain and commented:
    Very scholarly. Loved reading this one.

  3. The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle
    Beware of confounding. Hint: Cosmic rays are but a proxy of the solar cycle. Plot LOD’ against the sunspot number. Both going back much longer than the data you cherry picked.

  4. jorgekafkazar says:

    So the goosey LOD derivative proxy for something or other matches wiggles with a Moscow neutron count proxy for zonal winds? Or is it vice versa? Why is this tagged Neptune? Fascinating, but I’m not sure what it means, based on the above. I need to know more. Is there some sort of overall correlation coefficient? Why do the words “morlet wavelet” fill me with sudden apathy?

    The rule is: Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, then tell ‘em, then tell ‘em what you told ‘em.

  5. davidmhoffer says:

    Leif Svalgaard,

    Can you shed some light for us on what the sam heck this is? I got a better understanding of what Vaughn posted from your critique than from his post, and I know from past experience that getting Vaughn to explain it in something akin to english is just a waste of time.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Leif: Isn’t the Neutron count more closely inversely proportional to the speed/density of the solar wind than the sunspot count?

    Paul: The seasonal variation in zonal wind demonstrated by your second plot shows the primary overpowering influence of the equinox-solstice power house. This is a predictable ‘given’ quantity. Would it be possible to remove that to help us see what might be linked to variation caused by secondary factors?

  7. Mike McMillan says:

    So small blue and yellow blobs mean warming, and big yellow and blue blobs mean cooling. What could be more clear?

    A bonus 5 points for posting .png images instead of .jpeg’s.

  8. ferd berple says:

    I don’t see the evidence for cherry picking. I looked at both data-sets. One starts in 59, the other in 62. The work presented shows the record for the period in which the two data-sets overlap.

    A reasonable conclusion looking at the data presented is that a common factor MAY be influencing the LOA and Neutron counts. This would appear to be consistent with the theory that orbital mechanics play a role in earth’s LOA and solar activity.

    If sunspot numbers do not show a similar correlation prior to ’62, then this suggests that either (1) the correlation is simply coincidental, or (2) that sunspot numbers are not measuring the same aspect of solar activity as is measured by neutron counts, or (3) that older records are less accurate than newer records.

    As such, a lack of correlation between sunspot numbers and LOD on its own would not be sufficient to show that (1) was due to coincidence. It would be necessary to demonstrate (2) and (3) are both false as well.

  9. Mark says:

    What exactly does this mean? Some of us don’t have PhD’s in anything…

  10. Stephen Wilde says:

    The interesting point that Isee there is one of timing.

    The recovery was under way by the late 90s which predates the shift to a negative PDO and predates the cessation of the rise in ocean heat content. Those factors changed in the early 2000s.

    However it does match the cessation of stratospheric cooling, the change from decreasing to increasing cloudiness and as commented by me on many occasions the start of more meridional/equatorward shifting jetstreams/climate zones. All those last 3 items are timed for the period 1995 to 2000.

    So I’m sure that there is a link between the level of solar activity and the surface air pressure distribution and it is that which dictates the positions of the permanent climate zones and in turn the rate of energy flow from surface to space.

    Subject to modification by internal oceanic cycling, that is.

    And I prefer cloudiness changes from more meridional jetstreams rather than from more cosmic rays acting on the rate of cloud seeding.

  11. AndiC says:

    I would love to see this plotted against the Solar Cycle and/or Sunspot counts over as long a range as possible – as Leif intimated it’s better not to cherry-pick

    Intriguing nonetheless

    Andy

    PS Cool Yule to one and all

  12. paulsNZ says:

    At least its not a mann made cherry hockey stick.

  13. GregO says:

    Interesting link provided by anna v on a previous WUWT posting:
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15

    Tallbloke also blogs on these ideas as well.

    From the linked nasa article:

    “The annual changes in the length of the day,” says Gross, “are caused mostly by the atmosphere — changes in the strength and direction of the winds, especially the jet stream. The Sun warms the equator more than the poles. That temperature difference is largely responsible for the jet stream. Seasonal changes in that temperature difference cause changes in the winds and, hence, the length of the day.”

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Daily resolution LOD data start in 1962: ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now

    Daily resolution LOD data are needed for this type of analysis.

    Why?

    Refresher on high-frequency lunisolar components: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/

    The solar modulation of terrestrial zonal winds is beyond dispute.

    This post is just a quick update.

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ocean gyres [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png ] are driven by wind, which is driven by the pressure gradient force, which is driven by absolute equator-pole temperature contrast.

    The following animations will run in Firefox, but not Internet Explorer.

    Credit: Climatology animations have been assembled using JRA-25 Atlas [ http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/atlas-tope.htm ] images. JRA-25 long-term reanalysis is a collaboration of Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) & Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI).

    AnimNetSurfSolRad
    http://i53.tinypic.com/2r5pw9k.png

    AnimPrecipitableWater
    http://i52.tinypic.com/9r3pt2.png

    Anim2mT
    http://i55.tinypic.com/dr75s7.png

    AnimNetSurfHeatFlux
    http://oi54.tinypic.com/334teyt.jpg

    AnimVerticalVelocity
    http://i54.tinypic.com/2ch4x28.png

    AnimOmega700hPa
    http://i53.tinypic.com/28tvqt1.png

    AnimHeating
    http://i55.tinypic.com/317jchy.png

    AnimWaterVaporFlux_
    (column integrated water vapor flux with their convergence)
    http://i51.tinypic.com/126fc77.png

    AnimMSLP
    http://i54.tinypic.com/swg11c.png

    AnimWind10m
    http://i44.tinypic.com/28rgyzo.png

    AnimWind850hPa_
    http://i52.tinypic.com/nlo3dw.png

    AnimPolarWind850hPa
    http://i54.tinypic.com/29vlc0x.png

    AnimKEhfv
    http://i41.tinypic.com/8zenb7.png

    AnimWind200hPa
    http://i52.tinypic.com/zoamog.png

    AnimPolarWind200hPa
    http://i52.tinypic.com/cuqyt.png

    AnimWind550K
    http://i56.tinypic.com/14t0kns.png

    AnimWindZonal
    http://i51.tinypic.com/34xouhx.png
    [ Also see: http://ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/hot/ajh/qboanim.gif . You can see both the SAO & the QBO.]

    AnimTempZonal
    http://i56.tinypic.com/1441k5d.png

    AnimTropCycloneDays
    http://i44.tinypic.com/9thc8j.png

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/23/week-in-review-122311/#comment-152541

  16. Jay Curtis says:

    Hmmm. So, I suppose that this is related to the fact that places like San Angelo, Texas and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico got more cold air and snow a few days ago than they have received in 70 years. I’m tired of the cold weather already. How long will it last?

  17. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard,

    Can you shed some light for us on what the sam heck this is? I got a better understanding of what Vaughn posted from your critique than from his post, and I know from past experience that getting Vaughn to explain it in something akin to english is just a waste of time.

    VAUGHAN

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (December 26, 2011 at 12:35 am) asked:
    “Paul: The seasonal variation in zonal wind demonstrated by your second plot shows the primary overpowering influence of the equinox-solstice power house. This is a predictable ‘given’ quantity. Would it be possible to remove that to help us see what might be linked to variation caused by secondary factors?”

    See graphs on p.4 here … http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf … and then see the generalization outlined in section I.10 on p.9, but also note item#1 here [ http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/23/week-in-review-122311/#comment-152541 ] if you are planning to research solar excitation of specific dominant terrestrial temporal modes.

    Anecdote: There’s a super-easy, super-clear way to illustrate Mursula & Zieger’s (2001) long cycle. (Another day…)

    The coherence of solar variables with LOD is multiscale (SAO, annual, QBO, multidecadal, etc.)

    However: You may have no idea just exactly how involved it gets illustrating this. This is not a journey for the casual.

    Most members of the mainstream do not understand why their methods can’t detect these patterns, but you can rest assured that there are a few who understand that the microscope’s focal length has to be pegged to the changing solar cycle length. Those with weak functional numeracy foundations seem to think it’s OK to adjust ONLY the magnification, holding the focal length CONSTANT at either an arbitrarily or “optimized” (comical) setting — a serious blunder. (Dismiss with a hearty laugh anyone trying with plain FFT!)

    Also, many completely overlook the lunisolar variance. They’ll COMPLETELY MISS the Schwabe modulation of zonal winds. As I’ve explained patiently before, the modulation is of the MEAN. Yes, there’s also a modulation of the variance, but that doesn’t make the mean & the variance the same thing! Different moments have different properties.

    I’ve run into folks who can’t understand why a top-down view works better than a bottom-up view for LOD. This should be a no-brainer since SCL is NONstationary and hence the side-lobe helices aren’t straight phase lines in dominant-temporal-mode stack-plots. It’s an integral across timescale we’re pursuing — and the frequency modulations are MOVING with SCL.

    And of course there are still people (1) mistaking spatial phase reversals for temporal evolution and (2) not realizing that solar excitation can be either CONstructive or DEstructive, just like resonant swing pushes — i.e. we’re dealing with COMPLEX correlations, NOT linear ones. Bear in mind that a complex wavelet’s just a pattern resonator that can be set to imitate solar excitation of Earth’s natural frequencies.

    That’s about as many hints as I’m free to give at this time.

    Watch the wind animations – (the links lowest on the list above).

    Cheers.

  19. Paul Vaughan
    Thanks for your insightful graphs showing associations between LOD’ and neutron counts.
    See David Stockwell’s Accumulative Theory and related posts at Niche Modeling . He predicts a Pi/2 (90 deg) phase lag of the global temperature behind the integrated Total Solar Insolation (TSI) over the 11 year Schwabe cycle:

    You can also see a lag or shift in the phase of the TSI between the direct solar influence (in the red model) and the accumulated TSI (green model). This shift comes about because integration shifts a periodic like a sine wave by 90 degrees. . . .

    See Lag between HadCRU and TSI

    The red dashed line is at 2.75 years, a 90 degree shift of the solar cycle, or 11 years divided by 4. This is the shift expected if the relationship between global temperature and TSI is an accumulative one.
    While there is nothing to distinguish between the models on fit alone, the shift provides independent confirmation of the accumulative theory. . . .
    Accumulated solar irradiance, without recourse to GHGs, is highly correlated with global temperature, and recovers exactly the right phase lag.
    Accumulation of TSI comes about simply from the accumulation of heat in the ocean, and also the land.

    I recommend you evaluate the corresponding phase lags between LOD (similar to global temperature) and the integral of the neutron count (similar to TSI). If I have my associations straight, I expect you will find a simlar Pi/2 or 90 deg shift between the parameters (or proxies) that drive the zonal winds and the LOD.

    I second Tallbloke’s comments. Please explain what you are graphing, especially the colors on the left, vs the years on the right and the units of LOD’. Removing the annual cycle will help alot to show the secondary underlying Schwabe cycle.

    It would also help our understanding to swap axes on your upper graph so that time is vertical on both charts.

  20. Paul
    I’ll try again to match typing to thought:
    I am assuming the Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology hypothesis etc that there are associations between neutron counts, clouds, albedo, and absorbed insolation. Consequently there should be similar phase relationships in the LOD/rate of change in zonal wind system corresponding to what Stockwell predicts and finds in his accumulative theory for global temperature/TSI.
    I recommend you evaluate the corresponding phase lags between LOD (similar to global temperature) and the integral of the neutron count (similar to the integral of the TSI). If I have my associations straight, I expect you will find a similar Pi/2 or 90 deg shift between the integral of the parameters (or proxies) that drive the rate of change the zonal winds and the LOD. (Please check this early morning mental physics).

  21. Tony McGough says:

    I would love to understand what all this is about.

    Just because I have a PhD in Physics does not make me any kind of an expert in planetary dynamics (although I do understand what neutron counts are).

    It would be very helpful if Paul Vaughan could intermediate his knowledge – which he clearly wishes to share with us – through someone sympathetic to, and understanding of, the ignorance and lack of expertise of the vast majority of WUWT readers. We all know something, but none of us knows everything; what we have in common is the thirst for knowledge and the desire for sound science based on verifiable observations.

    WUWT is for popular consumption. Please explain in easy words.

  22. ShrNfr says:

    I suspect this has to do with the conservation of momentum and the total size of the earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to prove it since I do not have the heights of the various isobars over time, but if the upper atmosphere isobars are higher during a portion of the solar cycle due to more UV or cosmic rays or … It would stand to reason that since momentum must be conserved, the rotating earth atmosphere system would change in radians per fortnight accordingly.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    David L. Hagen,
    Thanks for your comments.

    The semi-annual grooves on LOD & aa are like train tracks that steer hard. At annual timescale, LOD is still grooved firmly due to the terrestrial north-south continent-ocean imbalance, but for aa the annual timescale train-ride isn’t so simple since the N-S balance isn’t so static. (Also keep in mind that the peaks aren’t in the same seasons.)

    The modulation varies with the field – e.g. geomagnetic, SST, wind, etc. fields have differing geometry. If people here are already confused with just 2 graphs of grain = 0.5a extent = 11a zonal winds on the table, it’s easy to guess what would happen if I shared multiscale multivariate results, such as those which I have showing coherence amongst geomagnetic aa index, solar wind, Southern Ocean SST’, LOD’, sunspot numbers, & ENSO.

    The ~1940 peak in a number of geophysical variables arises due to orbital modulation. You won’t find it in an unmodulated solar integral – (so we can’t limit our attention to unmodulated solar integrals).

    Regards.

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tony McGough (December 26, 2011 at 5:20 am)
    “WUWT is for popular consumption. Please explain in easy words.”

    I can suggest watching the wind animations to which I linked if you don’t know what the SAO (semi-annual oscillation) is. It’s pretty simple.

    The calculations, on the other hand, are well beyond most (possibly not all) of the audience here, which is precisely why I volunteer the graphs to the community.

    The WUWT community is vulnerable to abstract conception without access to the benefits of data-based conception. I brought a microscope, set the magnification to 6 months & the focal length to 11 years, and let people look. No computer model output. They’re real data, under a specific magnification at a specific focal length.

    Whether you trust your eyes is up to you. Everyone is free to believe in the mainstream narrative of solar-terrestrial relations, which is fundamentally incompatible with observation. I guarantee that the narrative will change if enlightenment prevails in our society & civilization.

    Regards.

  25. Pamela Gray says:

    Oh good heavens. All this can of course be modulated by intrinsic drivers. (Stephens words). End of debate.

  26. James of the West says:

    Paul,
    you would be surprised what people can understand when an article has an introduction, a body with associated graphs that are discussed in the body and a conclusion that outlines the significance of the information presented. If you just throw graphs on the table then everyone starts guessing why you put them there and what they could really signify. See Bob Tisdale articles for a comparison to this article in terms of structure.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 2:40 am
    Daily resolution LOD data start in 1962
    Daily resolution LOD data are needed for this type of analysis.

    1) your plot of LOD’ vs. Cosmic Rays shows a very strongly smoothed LOD’. Daily values are not needed for that. Good yearly values are available back to 1700 and with good enough resolution back to 1800: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess-and-Change.png Note that there is no 11-yr peak in either LOD or LOD’
    2) The semiannual variation is due to internal atmospheric dynamics and is unrelated to cosmic ray intensity [CGRs don't know about the Earth's seasons]

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 26, 2011 at 12:35 am
    Can you shed some light for us on what the sam heck this is? I got a better understanding of what Vaughn posted from your critique than from his post, and I know from past experience that getting Vaughn to explain it in something akin to english is just a waste of time.
    Even if an explanation could be construed, the ‘finding’ is just junk, dressed up to be incomprehensible to mainstream morons.

    tallbloke says:
    December 26, 2011 at 12:35 am
    Leif: Isn’t the Neutron count more closely inversely proportional to the speed/density of the solar wind than the sunspot count?
    Of all the solar variations, the solar wind speed/density has the least to do with cosmic ray modulation. A cosmic ray spirals around magnetic field lines. If those are smooth, the cosmic ray can make its way into the inner solar system. If the field lines have kinks or are turbulent, the cosmic rays are scattered and some of them [a few percent depending on energy] are scatted back out of the solar system and don’t reach us, hence the modulation. The magnetic field strength, B, has something to do with this and the modulation shows a reasonable correlation with B, which in turn is well correlated with the sunspot count. But the real modulator is the warp of the heliospheric current sheet as John Wilcox and I explained in our 1976 Nature paper. If the HCS is strongly warped [at sunspot maximum] the scattering is at a maximum and we see fewer GCRs. At solar minimum the HCS is rather flat and the modulation is least.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pamela Gray (December 26, 2011 at 7:32 am)
    “All this can of course be modulated by intrinsic drivers.”

    That’s exactly what I said on p.9. The point is it’s much simpler demonstrating modulations at the frequencies of known stationary dominant temporal modes (e.g. year, semi-annual, QBO) — i.e. start with the easy stuff, catalog it, and patiently explore how the orbital modulations of solar excitation integrate across dominant temporal modes.

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am) egregiously misunderstood as follows:
    “1) your plot of LOD’ vs. Cosmic Rays shows a very strongly smoothed LOD’. Daily values are not needed for that. Good yearly values are available back to 1700 and with good enough resolution back to 1800: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess-and-Change.png Note that there is no 11-yr peak in either LOD or LOD’ “

    You canNOT do this analysis with annual values — nor with monthly.
    Flat out TOO much aliasing of lunisolar pattern.

    Incredibly naive & foolhardy of you to suggest otherwise. Also very irresponsible of you since so many innocents blindly defer to your judgement. You need to be called for not even understanding the calculations I’ve volunteered.

    I challenge you to reproduce this exact graph:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png

  30. John Slayton says:

    Mornin’ Paul,

    All fields of inquiry have their specialized technical jargon, including my own (education). How does an intelligent layman react when confronted with unfamiliar language? Well, California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus was certainly intelligent, but he once remarked in a written decision that many experiences, too sad to relate in detail, had convinced him that large parts of the Education Code “were not meant to be understood.”

    Cal State professor Herbert Landar had a different perspective. Commenting on his collateral reading list and making the point that the titles on the list were there because they were important, not because he agreed with them, he gave us the following advice: “If you can’t make sense out of what you’re reading and it seems like so much nonsense, I beg of you, consider the possibility that it may be so much nonsense.”

    (Quote from memory is approximate. But hopefully clear.)

    Having a clear day in Sierra Vista. : > )

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am)
    “Even if an explanation could be construed, the ‘finding’ is just junk,”

    Your ignorance is showing. This isn’t a new finding. It’s an update.

    Reproduce the calculations (if you know how). My guess is you will do an analysis of something completely different and erect a strawman argument, because I honestly don’t think you can reproduce the calculations without serious trouble. Suggestion: Get help from one of your colleagues. Or ask me questions if you need to (but understand that I work the next 4 days).

    Calling this junk is absolutely unacceptable & totally irresponsible Leif. Buckle down & get a better handle on the geometry of this time series.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:23 am
    You canNOT do this analysis with annual values — nor with monthly.
    Flat out TOO much aliasing of lunisolar pattern.

    No aliasing at all. Your curve shows very heavily smoothing, so daily values are not needed. Show the values without smoothing.

    not even understanding the calculations I’ve volunteered.
    That you have ‘volunteered’ is commendable, but that does not mean that any of it is correct.

    I challenge you to reproduce this exact graph:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png

    Why should I? You can compare it with Gross’s graphs [Figures 3 and 4] in http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf

  33. Jeff C says:

    I have to agree with the bulk of the comments, this has to be one of the worst posts in WUWT history. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. Assuming it actually does mean something, how about explaining it for those of us that can’t read the author’s mind?

    Anthony must not be back from his Christmas break. Better to post nothing than something like this.

  34. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Calling this junk is absolutely unacceptable & totally irresponsible Leif.
    compare with Gross’s graphs [Figures 3 and 4] in http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf

  35. Tim Clark says:

    So, it ends with a hockey stick, or it’s worse than I thought, or whatever?

  36. Tim Clark says:

    Let me state clearly, regardless of the value or my understanding thereof, WUWT is the place for posting.

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    @James of the West (December 26, 2011 at 7:39 am)

    Call it ruthless prioritization if you like. I’ve no time for formalities. I need the few hours a week I have for calculations. No one else around here appears capable of doing them. (I mean no offense. This is a forthright honest assessment volunteered transparently.) Very serious financial backing is the only way I’ll be able to position myself to meet formal communication demands. Best Regards.

  38. Max Hugoson says:

    Leif has something I’ve experienced with a dear friend, who is a retired Chemical Engineering professor. I call it “professorial arrogance”. It results in proclimations of great “gravity”, centered on things COMPLETELY IN HIS REALM, but the pronounced inability to be flexible to changes and new ideas. 20 years ago, in some PAINFULLY long sessions I introduced said indivual to using MathCAD for technical write ups. He’s now in his ’80′s, and avidly uses MathCAD. But the transition from “Fortran” , calculators and engineering graph paper to the PC/MathCAD realm, was…to put it mildly, painful. I persisted, however, broke through the “professorial arrogance” and the result was a retired professor who published a third again as much in RETIREMENT as while
    active.

    So be kind to Leif. Give him some time to think things out. In a year he may consider this his “own idea”, and then it will garner great support.

  39. Paul Vaughan
    Thanks for the clarification/reminder that
    “At annual timescale, LOD is still grooved firmly due to the terrestrial north-south continent-ocean imbalance,”

    PS I encourage patience when responding to abuse or slow comprehension.
    Happy New Year

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am) wrote:
    “2) The semiannual variation is due to internal atmospheric dynamics “

    Yes, plainly evident in the animations to which I linked.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/25/solar-terrestrial-power-update/#comment-843523

  41. kim says:

    Leif, I don’t find Gross’s graphs in figures 3&4 in your link @ 8:40 AM, which I’ve been invited to compare with Vaughan’s graphs.
    ====================

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:40 am) wrote:
    “compare with Gross’s graphs [Figures 3 and 4] in http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf

    He’s looking at different features of the time series Leif. I have those & tons of other summaries on file. The time series has TONS of interesting features.

    You (or anyone else) should be able to isolate any of the features he illustrates, any of the features I illustrate, or any of the features anyone else illustrates. Patient diligence with the geometry is in order.

    For anyone reading here who is just starting out with LOD, I volunteered this to expedite introduction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/ .

    Regards.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    David L. Hagen wrote (December 26, 2011 at 9:00 am):
    “Thanks for the clarification/reminder that
    “At annual timescale, LOD is still grooved firmly due to the terrestrial north-south continent-ocean imbalance,””

    You’re welcome. I’m eager to show how this differs from annual variation of geomagnetic aa index, as I hinted at Judith Curry’s a few days ago. I have some beautiful results.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:38 am)
    “No aliasing at all. Your curve shows very heavily smoothing, so daily values are not needed. Show the values without smoothing.”

    You don’t appear to be making an effort to interpret correctly. Or somehow along the way maybe you’ve missed some fundamentals.

    It’s not a responsibility I enjoy, but the community needs to be aware that (so far) your comprehension is absent on this file. You’ll need to reproduce this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . It’s the way you’ll learn whatever it is you’re missing (which is difficult to diagnose given the info I have so far).

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 8:38 am)
    “That you have ‘volunteered’ is commendable, but that does not mean that any of it is correct.”

    My capacity to do the calculations is sound. Let’s see if you can do them.

  46. kim says:
    December 26, 2011 at 9:19 am
    Leif, I don’t find Gross’s graphs in figures 3&4 in your link @ 8:40 AM, which I’ve been invited to compare with Vaughan’s graphs.
    Scroll to the bottom.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 9:21 am
    He’s looking at different features of the time series Leif. I have those & tons of other summaries on file. The time series has TONS of interesting features.
    At least he clearly labels what he is looking at. I see something called the LOD. I assume that is the same as you call LOD. I see something he calls semiannual LOD. I assume that is the same as what you call ’0.5a’.
    Anyway, I always take a look myself. Here are plots of the variation of LOD with a grain of 1 day [to speak your abominable lingo]. On the plot at the right is the time series and 91-day and 365-year means. At the left is the FFT power spectrum with daily resolution. There are clear 1 year and 0.5 year lines, as well as the various tidal lines around 27-30 days [and their harmonics at half, one-third, etc of that], but no evidence of power near 10 years.

    Max Hugoson says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:57 am
    I call it “professorial arrogance”
    I call it ‘Professorial Expertise’ and a well-honed bullshit filter. Your filter seems to be seriously gummed up.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 9:42 am
    Anyway, I always take a look myself. Here are plots of the variation of LOD with a grain of 1 day
    http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess-and-Change-daily.png

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jeff C (December 26, 2011 at 8:39 am) wrote:
    “I have to agree with the bulk of the comments, this has to be one of the worst posts in WUWT history. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. Assuming it actually does mean something, how about explaining it for those of us that can’t read the author’s mind?
    Anthony must not be back from his Christmas break. Better to post nothing than something like this.”

    With serious financial backing I could do a lot more. I don’t have a lot of free time. Consider dropping the snark and being thankful for observation-based insights into nature that are volunteered. Who else here would (or even could) do the calculations and share them? Let’s see if Leif can reproduce the calculations.

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:45 am) posted
    http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess-and-Change-daily.png

    You have the data. Now are you going to do the analysis?

  50. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 9:53 am
    You have the data. Now are you going to do the analysis?
    Just did, and it shows no solar cycle effect. It is impossible to reproduce what you did as you do not describe it clearly. This is all one has to go by: “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle. Here’s a concise visual update based on the latest data:
    LOD’ = rate of change of length of day. 0.5a LOD’ 11a power.”

  51. John M. Chenosky, PE says:

    Mark says….”some of us don’t have PhDs in anything.”
    Don’t worry Mark it only means they have a certificate in intellectual masturbation.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:42 am)
    “On the plot at the right is the time series and 91-day and 365-year means. At the left is the FFT power spectrum with daily resolution. There are clear 1 year and 0.5 year lines, as well as the various tidal lines around 27-30 days [and their harmonics at half, one-third, etc of that], but no evidence of power near 10 years.”

    Now that you’ve done your quick introductory look, it’s time to get more serious about exploring the details of the geometry. Plain FFT can’t handle this job. I’ve warned of it’s limitations repeatedly in past WUWT discussions (and again above). The analysis NEEDS to be windowed at a TUNED window width.

    The power’s not at 11 years. It’s at 6 months (but you can find 11 year power in the temporal evolution of the 6 month power).

    Isolate the semi-annual variation. Then let a grain = 0.5 year Morlet extent = 7pi (~11 year) complex wavelet resonate with it. Should take 10min to reproduce my results EXACTLY. If you don’t isolate the semi-annual variation first, you’ll get different results. I actually suggest doing the analysis both ways and thinking carefully about why the results come out different.

    I need to go now. I work today and the next 4 days.

  53. Juraj V. says:

    AFAIK, LOD is well correlated with Pacific trade winds, which dictate the ENSO conditions, which.. the rest is history.

  54. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:19 am
    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:42 am)
    Now that you’ve done your quick introductory look, it’s time to get more serious about exploring the details of the geometry.
    There is no geometry involved that can be explored with time series analysis.

    Plain FFT can’t handle this job. I’ve warned of it’s limitations repeatedly in past WUWT discussions (and again above).
    If there is a signal strong enough to warrant your unqualified claim “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle” plain FFT is perfectly capable of finding it.

    The analysis NEEDS to be windowed at a TUNED window width.
    Gives you mostly a circular argument. And the time series is short enough that variations of the solar cycle length doesn’t matter.

    The power’s not at 11 years. It’s at 6 months (but you can find 11 year power in the temporal evolution of the 6 month power).
    Yet you claim “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle”

    Isolate the semi-annual variation.
    Gross did that and his plot [Figure 4] shows no solar cycle signal.
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf
    He describes the method thus: “annual and semi-annual period that are of interest in this study. They have been isolated from the total LOD signal by singular spectrum analysis (SSA), a data adaptive technique wherein a time series is decomposed into a set of orthonormal basis functions (called temporal empirical orthogonal functions) that are determined by the time series itself rather than being constrained to bc, for example, functions of sines and cosines”

    Juraj V. says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:22 am
    AFAIK, LOD is well correlated with Pacific trade winds, which dictate the ENSO conditions, which.. the rest is history.
    Indeed it is and Gross finds precisely that. Furthermore he shows that the dedacal signal in LOD is caused primarily by core-mantle boundary processes.

  55. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    (posted also on the other thread by mistake)
    Important question here is:
    What drives ‘global’ temperatures (Land and Land & Oceans) ?
    There are two major drivers:
    1. The AMO with principal the ‘9 year’ oscillation, which is not related to the sunspot cycle (but not totally immune to it) , for more details see:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO-NAO.htm
    see also:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf
    for the ‘9 year’ and importance of the AMO to global temps.
    2. the Solar magnetic (Hale) cycle, not the sunspot one.
    On this one I am writing more (on lines of the above linked as ‘theAMO-NAO’)

    Hope everyone had a good Xmas

  56. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:19 am
    The power’s not at 11 years. It’s at 6 months (but you can find 11 year power in the temporal evolution of the 6 month power).

    Yet you claim “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle”. Now, if you restrict yourself to claim that the [tiny] semiannual variation’s amplitude is controlled by the solar cycle, then we can make a simple test that everybody can understand [and that FFT can pick up]: we make a synthetic LOD’ series with an annual cycle of 1 plus a semiannual cycle of 0.5 on average, but the latter modulated by an 11-yr cycle of amplitude 1. For this series we can calculate the power spectrum and compare it with the actual spectrum: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Change.png
    The result of the modulation is a splitting of the 1/2 yr peak [right side]. No such splitting above the noise is seen in the actual spectrum. We would actually expect a tiny solar cycle modulation [splitting] of both the annual and the semiannual peaks because of the 0.1K temperature variation caused by the solar cycle change in TSI. You can, if you like, regard some of the minute peaks down in the noise as such side-lobes, but that’s a hard call.

  57. Pamela Gray says:

    Once again, if ANY intrinsic driver is capable of over-riding a solar modulation, the solar theory is DOA. As it does with CO2 theories. It completely boggles the mind that the truly powerful drivers are summarily ignored. The search for the single speck of liquid water on Mars is but child’s play compared to your search for a solar connection.

  58. AndyG55 says:

    “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle”

    And ???

    What are the implications in this.

  59. lgl says:

    Leif

    Why didn’t you include a 183 days smoothing window?

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm)
    “The result of the modulation is a splitting of the 1/2 yr peak [right side]. No such splitting above the noise is seen in the actual spectrum. We would actually expect a tiny solar cycle modulation [splitting] of both the annual and the semiannual peaks because of the 0.1K temperature variation caused by the solar cycle change in TSI. You can, if you like, regard some of the minute peaks down in the noise as such side-lobes, but that’s a hard call.”

    Now you’re thinking’s getting a little more clear but solar excitation doesn’t behave like a clean orbital cycle. The power’s smeared around and you can’t track it down with plain FFT. The pattern I’m showing is a property OF THE MEAN over 1 solar cycle. THAT is what you’re failing to comprehend (so far).

  61. lgl says:
    December 26, 2011 at 1:44 pm
    Why didn’t you include a 183 days smoothing window?
    The 31-day window was to suppress the solar and lunar tides but leave longer periods basically intact, the 365-day window was just because I was curious. Since the issue was the semiannual wave, both 183 and 365 days would effectively suppress the semiannual wave, so little to be learned if including the 183 day window. You can ignore the 365-day window if it bothers you.

  62. Jimmy Haigh says:

    The first thing that got me was a philosophical thing: a plot of the rate of change of the length of the day. Give me a few hours for a few beers and I’ll work that out and then get on to the rest of the post.

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am)

    Gross is studying a DIFFERENT statistic. After more than a full year you still do not realize the importance of tuning the window width. A complex wavelet can pick signals out of very messy data IF THE PROPERTIES ARE THERE ON AVERAGE. I’m trying to teach you something here.

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am)
    “Furthermore he shows that the dedacal signal in LOD is caused primarily by core-mantle boundary processes.”

    NASA now acknowledges climate’s role.

  65. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm)
    Now you’re thinking’s getting a little more clear but solar excitation doesn’t behave like a clean orbital cycle.
    I’m clarifying your obscure verbiage. And if you use a fixed window size [extent] also assume a clean cycle.

    The power’s smeared around and you can’t track it down with plain FFT. The pattern I’m showing is a property OF THE MEAN over 1 solar cycle.
    Yet you plot what looks like yearly data [at least very smooth] in your Figure 1.

    THAT is what you’re failing to comprehend (so far).
    What you are failing to show.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pamela Gray (December 26, 2011 at 12:54 pm)
    “Once again, if ANY intrinsic driver is capable of over-riding a solar modulation, the solar theory is DOA.”

    Like the day & year? Might as well make your narrative that simple.

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm)
    “the 0.1K temperature variation caused by the solar cycle”

    And how exactly is that distributed spatially over the globe in your abstraction?

  68. Gary Pearse says:

    Paul, you are most unkind to the many with gratuitous insults and a superior attitude – how only you can perform the complex calculations, etc. etc. It is amazing that seemingly intelligent people (as we have seen with a number of arrogant CAGW stars and yourself) seem unaware that with the internet they are putting their wares before not just the whole world but a concentration of the better minds that are attracted to a site like this. Arrogance makes the CAGW priests think they can pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with suprisingly unsophisticated parlor tricks. Many commenters have given you good advice, the pithiest was that of:

    John Slayton says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:31 am
    ““If you can’t make sense out of what you’re reading and it seems like so much nonsense, I beg of you, consider the possibility that it may be so much nonsense.”

    Paul, you are not a magician, you are supposed to be informing not performing. If the majority of the commenters on this site are not ‘getting it’ the failure is yours. I’m afraid I agree with those who feel that the objective is to be obtuse and unintelligible. You may not know that a superiority complex is the very gravest form of inferiority complex.

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:02 am)
    “It is impossible to reproduce what you did as you do not describe it clearly.”

    NOT TRUE.

    ALL of the info needed is given.

    Morlet complex wavelet
    grain = 6 months
    extent = 7pi ~= 11 years
    LOD’ = rate of change of length of day
    ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now

    If you were a student writing one of my exams your score would be 0. As I suspected you don’t understand the stats and you can’t do the calculations.

    You have all the info you need. Roll up your sleeves and learn how to escape the cross-scale exploratory limitations that have held you back. I’m trying to help you.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Gary Pearse (December 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm)

    Gary, the calculations are sound. There’s no sensible reason to tolerate Svalgaard’s suggestions otherwise. Just do the calculations.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm)
    “I’m clarifying your obscure verbiage. And if you use a fixed window size [extent] also assume a clean cycle.”

    Do the calculations for a variety of extents and you’ll learn something about FOCUS. The way my software works, I have dial, so I can tune manually. Doing this for some familiar datasets that one knows well is a helpful way to gain intuition – and soon enough with a bit of experience one can pre-tune. Just vary the extent. I know you know to vary the grain. There are academics sending out the same message: vary the extent. They realize features are being overlooked. Do the calculations and you’ll realize they are sound. I’m not here to BS.

  72. Scarface says:

    I once stumbled upon a publication by the FAO on LOD and Temperature, but I have never been able to fully digest it, so to say. It’s this one: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e00.htm#Contents

    The most intreging figure in it, in chapter 2, is a comparison between LOD and ΔT: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03b.htm#FiguraB

    Does any of you know this study or does any of you want to take a look at it and give a response, whether it is related to this post on LOD?

  73. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I love these Solar posts. Leif is a star I haven’t seen him caught out yet!

    Let’s raise our glasses to a true scientist: Leif Svalgaard.

  74. lgl says:

    Leif

    I was hoping a 183 window would show the pattern we already see in the 91 window more clearly. There is a solar cycle pattern in your 91 window. Compare 1985 to 1992 for instance. The 0.5 cycle does not go that deep at solar max.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    “I’m clarifying your obscure verbiage. And if you use a fixed window size [extent] also assume a clean cycle.”
    Do the calculations for a variety of extents and you’ll learn something about FOCUS. The way my software works, I have dial, so I can tune manually.

    Tune manually to what you wish for.
    As I said, If there were a strong signal simple FFT [or even just eyeballing] would pick it up. Gross showed you what the amplitude of the semiannual variation looks like. See if you can match his. Think about what it means that only the semiannual wave is ever so slightly [in your analysis] influenced by the solar cycle.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    “the 0.1K temperature variation caused by the solar cycle”
    And how exactly is that distributed spatially over the globe in your abstraction?

    Just like the other 99.9% of the photons from the Sun.

  76. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Juraj V. says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:22 am
    AFAIK, LOD is well correlated with Pacific trade winds, which dictate the ENSO conditions, which.. the rest is history.
    Indeed it is and Gross finds precisely that. Furthermore he shows that the dedacal signal in LOD is caused primarily by core-mantle boundary processes.

    But what causes the core-mantle boundary processes? The correlation I found with the motion of the other solar system planetary masses suggests that there is a connection between them and the stirring of the Earth’s internal porridge. And we’ve also found correlations between those planetary motions and the solar cycles. I suggest this is why Paul has found a correlation between LOD’ and the solar cycle.

    It’s a good puzzle.

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jimmy Haigh (December 26, 2011 at 3:07 pm)
    “I love these Solar posts. Leif is a star I haven’t seen him caught out yet!”

    We’ll see if he reproduces the calculations.

    There are several different ways to isolate the semi-annual wave and the results are robust across them. I did the update using a different method from the original post [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ ]. Same results. And the same results show up for a wide band around ~11 years (with the best focus in the middle). The results are stable. And there’s nothing wrong with the methods. They find widespread application, but they’re new enough (only decades old) that they’re not yet core in curricula. Everyone here could use them. There just isn’t a good introductory webpage yet that overviews them simply. I built online stats education modules for years. It would take a LOT of careful work to do a really good job.

    Season’s Best.

  78. tallbloke says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    But what causes the core-mantle boundary processes? The correlation I found with the motion of the other solar system planetary masses suggests that there is a connection between them and the stirring of the Earth’s internal porridge.
    It seemed to me [last time I looked at this] that such correlations brake down if we go back in time, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/FFT%20of%20LOD.png and http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Excess.png . The data is good enough for this.

  79. lgl says:
    December 26, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    I was hoping a 183 window would show the pattern we already see in the 91 window more clearly. There is a solar cycle pattern in your 91 window. Compare 1985 to 1992 for instance. The 0.5 cycle does not go that deep at solar max.
    According to Paul, there is a solar cycle in the 182-day period. Such cycle would be suppressed in a 182-day smooth. I can’t see any solar cycle in the 91-day window. Comparing this year with that year is not good enough to show cycles.

  80. lgl says:

    If there were a strong signal simple FFT [or even just eyeballing] would pick it up.

    And it is very easy to eyeball http://virakkraft.com/LOD-Solar.png

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif, it’s temperature GRADIENTS that drive the thermal wind. The data crush the silly notion of uniformity (e.g. polar night vs. polar day vs. equator – & the atmosphere doesn’t sit still – Earth’s a natural spatiotemporal filter). You’re going to have to drop that element of your narrative in order to continue being taken seriously on this particular point by sensible people. And again, Gross was looking at different statistics. You need to reproduce the graph. It’s the only way you’ll gain understanding. I encourage others to do the calculations too.

  82. tallbloke says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    And we’ve also found correlations between those planetary motions and the solar cycles. I suggest this is why Paul has found a correlation between LOD’ and the solar cycle.
    The decadal-type variations Gross is talking about are not [t]ied to the solar cycle. See Figure 1 of
    http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf
    The rest of that paper is illuminating too. Paul, too, would benefit from careful study of it. Especially Figure 7.

  83. Tallbloke said, “It’s a good puzzle.”

    Indeed! TSI variation on its own is nowhere near enough and geomagnetic change appears to be a stretch. LOD may be connected to core fluctuations which may be internal or in some way connected to orbital cycles. The shift in the tropical belt to me indicates that geomagnetic fluctuations may have some impact on cloud formation and distribution. The ratio of atmospheric absorption to surface absorption can easily double the impact of TSI changes if the duration is long enough allow OHC to reduce during a solar minimum.

    There are a lot of small impacts with varying time constants. The over estimation of 2XCO2 impact is muddying the likelihood that sensitivity is non-linear and regional. What this job needs is a new project manager!

  84. Pamela Gray says:

    A solar signal can be mathematically calculated. This is well known and is cyclical. Trouble is, the noise of long and short term intrinsic drivers bury it. Any other solar affect would be smaller than that for verifiable reasons. The debate must close, not because of proposed theories but because a.gnat’s ass just doesn’t matter to feet on the ground trends in anomalous temps.

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm)
    “Tune manually to what you wish for.”

    You’re not reading what I wrote. There’s a WIDE band centered around ~11 years that points at ~11 years. (That means you can be off by quite a bit and STILL hit the target …BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE RESONANCE IS.) If you would do the calculations you would be empowered to OBSERVE this instead of falsely speculating and falsely ascribing imaginary motives that do not exist.

    -
    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm)
    “As I said, If there were a strong signal simple FFT [or even just eyeballing] would pick it up.”

    And once again: You’re wrong if you’re referring to plain FFT. Some windowed versions could do the job. Remember that IT’S A PROPERTY OF THE WINDOW, so if you don’t window, you don’t see it.

    Instead of shooting the breeze, take 10min to do the calculations. You have all the info you need.

  86. GreatAnarch says:

    The claim here is that there is a correlation between length of day (or rate of change) and some index of solar magnetic activity. Do we need to go to periods of a full solar cycle to demonstrate this? Why not look for LOD effects in the aftermath of intense geomagnetic storms? I remember a claim that the intense events of early August 1972 changed the LOD for a time.

  87. Scarface says:
    December 26, 2011 at 2:36 pm
    The most intreging figure in it, in chapter 2, is a comparison between LOD and ΔT
    As the atmosphere heats up it expands and like a spinning ice skater extending her arms the rotation slows down…

  88. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am
    ..tallbloke says:
    December 26, 2011 at 12:35 am
    Leif: Isn’t the Neutron count more closely inversely proportional to the speed/density of the solar wind than the sunspot count?
    Of all the solar variations, the solar wind speed/density has the least to do with cosmic ray modulation. A cosmic ray spirals around magnetic field lines. If those are smooth, the cosmic ray can make its way into the inner solar system. If the field lines have kinks or are turbulent, the cosmic rays are scattered and some of them [a few percent depending on energy] are scatted back out of the solar system and don’t reach us, hence the modulation. The magnetic field strength, B, has something to do with this and the modulation shows a reasonable correlation with B, which in turn is well correlated with the sunspot count. But the real modulator is the warp of the heliospheric current sheet as John Wilcox and I explained in our 1976 Nature paper. If the HCS is strongly warped [at sunspot maximum] the scattering is at a maximum and we see fewer GCRs. At solar minimum the HCS is rather flat and the modulation is least
    ~
    Thanks Dr. S.

  89. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:15 am
    “And of course there are still people not realizing that solar excitation can be either CONstructive or DEstructive,”

    On what exactly ?

  90. Tony McGough says:

    Unhappily, I am still no wiser.

    Can someone explain the meaning of this correlation between the first derivative of the length of day and the neutron count, and how this is so very difficult to calculate? And why is it so important?

    Please do not use optical terms such as “focus” and “focal length” where they cause confusion rather than enlightenment. I don’t know how focus comes into Fourier Transforms. Is it an analogy?

    What are these chaps getting so wound up about?

  91. GeoLurking says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:49 am

    [lot-o-stuff clipped for brevity]

    “…
    Juraj V. says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:22 am
    AFAIK, LOD is well correlated with Pacific trade winds, which dictate the ENSO conditions, which.. the rest is history.
    Indeed it is and Gross finds precisely that. Furthermore he shows that the dedacal signal in LOD is caused primarily by core-mantle boundary processes.

    Wasn’t that in this paper?

    http://geodesy.eng.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Gross_Geodesy_LpER07.pdf

  92. noaaprogrammer says:

    Does LOD correlate with frequency of earthquakes of a chosen magnitude?

  93. jorgekafkazar says:

    Nice animations, Paul

  94. Steve Keohane says:

    At the beginning of the discussion, Leif said the correlation in graph 1 broke down prior to the start of the graph, calling it cherry picked. Without knowing why, is it not interesting that this is coincident with the loss of temperature and tree ring correlation? What shifted then?

  95. AndyG55 says:

    “The amplitude of Earth’s zonal winds is modulated by the solar cycle”

    1. You still haven’t said what the implication of this are. Why do you think it is so important?

    2. Even though you have found seemingly nice correlations, that does not imply causality (which you imply in the statement above).
    Both could be being forced by something else.

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    jorgekafkazar (December 26, 2011 at 7:24 pm)
    “Nice animations, Paul”

    That’s the spirit. Thanks jorgekafkazar.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Ulric Lyons (December 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm)

    Spatiotemporal pattern.

  98. Max says:

    I’m not sure about all the bickering, but if someone makes an implied claim in 2 charts and a couple tables of data, it should be explained sufficiently that everyone can clearly understand. Please do not pass the obligation onto the reader to “do the calculations” and then make accusations of ignorance if they don’t or present or suggest alternate methods or findings. The author should prove the short term correlation is causation, or at least give a rational explanation that is sufficiently entertaining, if nothing else, so the time is not wasted.

  99. Claude Harvey says:

    One hundred ten comments to a “blob-gram” is a pretty good day’s work. I have some ink-blots that may excite you folks to orgasm.

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s time to move on.

  101. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    Leif, it’s temperature GRADIENTS that drive the thermal wind.
    The last 0.1% of solar variation acts no different from the other 99.9%.

    And again, Gross was looking at different statistics.
    He isolated the semiannual component [without the lunisolar tides] and since you claim to be able to do the same, you need to show your curve [and also that from http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf ]and compare it with his to gain some credibility, unless you, as you suggest, feel it is time for you to ‘move on’.

    Whether or not one can tease any marginal correlation out of the data is really irrelevant, as what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter.

  102. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    And again, Gross was looking at different statistics.
    He isolated the semiannual component [without the lunisolar tides] and since you claim to be able to do the same, you need to show your curve [and also that from http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf ]and compare it with his to gain some credibility, unless you, as you suggest, feel it is time for you to ‘move on’.”
    To make it easier for you, here is the Potsdam curve:
    http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png
    There is no ‘efficient’ solar cycle variation [and of course not in the derivative either]

  103. jeez says:

    Quoting Paul Vaughan,

    Very serious financial backing is the only way I’ll be able to position myself to meet formal communication demands.

    I’ve been at nightclubs where I cheerfully offered money to the band to stop playing. Would a strategy, such as that, work here?

  104. Geoff Sharp says:

    I suspect if we had EUV data going back to cover the same period we could see a third option added to the first graph which would show the same trend. EUV and atmospheric zonal wind patterns are surely related.

  105. WillR says:

    Well, I read the whole thread. I am not going to comment on who is right and who is wrong — I did not “do the math” and probably don’t have time…. But, I can verify one thing (and it’s worth $0.02 I realize). FFT does not seem to work well at all with long period phenomena, noisy phenomena and random aperiodic phenomena of low frequency. I have recently done a lot of work with low frequency noise — I used other techniques and am looking at wavelets to tease out ode of the patterns and frequencies.

    I suggest that some of the doubters who are familiar with various forms of FFT analysis and Wavelets to consider the idea — if they have time to do a bit of number crunching.

  106. Khwarizmii says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    Scarface says:
    The most intreging figure in it, in chapter 2, is a comparison between LOD and ΔT

    As the atmosphere heats up it expands and like a spinning ice skater extending her arms the rotation slows down…

    That must be wrong.
    The graph shows the rotation slowing down before the atmosphere heats up.

    “Comparison of dT and ACI (Figure 2.3A) shows their close similarity in shape, but ACI runs several years ahead of dT. Shifting the ACI curve by 4 years to the right (Fig 2.3B) results in almost complete coincidence of the curve maximums of the early 1870s, late 1930s, and middle 1990s.”
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03b.htm#FiguraB

    Fascinating.

  107. ferd berple says:

    “what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter”

    orbital resonance:
    F(t) = disturbing force
    F(t) = A[cos((ω-ν)t)/(ω-ν) + cos((ω+ν)t)/(ω+ν)]
    Where v = frequency of oscillating body, ω = frequency of disturbing body
    As ω approaches v, F(t) – the disturbing force – increases without bound (infinite force).
    Similar result occurs at the harmonics of ω and ν

  108. kwik says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    “tallbloke says:
    December 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    And we’ve also found correlations between those planetary motions and the solar cycles. I suggest this is why Paul has found a correlation between LOD’ and the solar cycle.
    The decadal-type variations Gross is talking about are not [t]ied to the solar cycle. See Figure 1 of
    http://ebooks.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:8469:2/component/escidoc:8468/9810.pdf
    The rest of that paper is illuminating too. Paul, too, would benefit from careful study of it. Especially Figure 7.”

    Ah, there are so many interesting things to study! I wish I could have retired at 50 (or was it 52?) like the greeks do, and do it full time.

  109. kwik says:

    However, if LOD changes, say, 0.3 milliseconds, I think I would study something else?

  110. Scarface says:

    @Leif Svalgaard:

    Thanks! I thought LOD could be used to predict temperature change, but alas.
    Could you maybe explain why shifting LOD 6 years, gives a better curve-fit? Is it because it take’s 6 years to see the effect? Meanwhile, I keep wondering about the predictive powers of it.

  111. lgl says:

    Leif

    I can’t see any solar cycle in the 91-day window.

    Make a plot of the 91-day window only and I’ll show you.

    As the atmosphere heats up it expands and like a spinning ice skater extending her arms the rotation slows down…

    The problem is dT lags LOD.

  112. Mark says:

    So, here’s the question that noone has answered yet. What exactly is this graph showing? There’s alot of intellectual Jibber Jabber going on that is over the heads of the majority of us, but please do tell, what does this show?

  113. Geoff Sharp says:

    Mark says:
    December 27, 2011 at 2:21 am

    So, here’s the question that noone has answered yet. What exactly is this graph showing? There’s alot of intellectual Jibber Jabber going on that is over the heads of the majority of us, but please do tell, what does this show?

    The graph shows a relationship between the rotational speed of the Earth and the amount of cosmic energy received at Earth. There is a large solar component involved in the cosmic ray modulation that we experience over time, which maybe coincides with the rotation speed of of Earth. Our rotational speed maybe governed by physical forces that must be balanced when there are changes in the size/height of our atmosphere. Perhaps the reason for the atmospheric changes come from the same source as the cosmic ray flux modulation, which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.

  114. lgl says:

    Khwarizmii

    The graph shows the rotation slowing down before the atmosphere heats up.

    Or speeding up? LOD decreased after 1975. They are showing -LOD in the graphs.

  115. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am
    The graph shows a relationship between the rotational speed of the Earth and the amount of cosmic energy received at Earth.
    A couple of problems:
    1) the graph purports that the amplitude of the semiannual variation of the LOD has a solar cycle variation. It does not: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png In addition the semiannual variation of LOD is something that comes and goes twice per year.
    2) ‘cosmic energy’ ??? The total energy in the cosmic rays is comparable to that of star light and the cosmic microwave background, so forget about the ‘cosmic energy’ received. The cosmic ray flux is a proxy for solar activity, e.g. variations of TSI.

  116. Carla says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am
    ~
    Geoff, was wondering if you are continuing to see a drop in the solar wind speed averages?
    I copied this from http://www.spaceweather.com this morning.
    Solar wind
    speed: 240.1 km/sec
    density: 0.6 protons/cm3
    explanation | more data
    Updated: Today at 1254 UT
    When ever I see it below 260 km/sec it makes me a little freaked.

  117. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
    “you need to show your curve [...] and compare it with his to gain some credibility,”
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    “compare it with his to gain some credibility,.” [...] here is the Potsdam curve: http://www.leif.org/research/LOD-Semiannual-Var.png There is no ‘efficient’ solar cycle variation [and of course not in the derivative either]“

    See the articles to which I linked. This article is just an update. As indicated, one can isolate the semiannual variation any number of ways. The results are ROBUST ACROSS METHODS.

    Important: The summary in the image to which you linked has the focal length set SUPER-NARROW. As I have now told you countless times over the past year, if you change the window extent to something somewhat NEAR the solar cycle length (it doesn’t even have to be exact since the resonance is so strong), you’ll get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . (In interpreting the plot it’s important to remember that each dot on the curve is a property OF THE WINDOW.)

    The Lesson: Use the focal length adjustment on your microscope to bring things into focus. This will enable you to develop awareness of CROSS-SCALE morphology.

    You’re commenting about statistics you do NOT understand. You’re repeatedly commenting from a position of ignorance. I again advise you to do the calculations. You need to first develop awareness of fundamentals before you can constructively think critically about those fundamentals.

    Regards.

  118. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 10:01 pm)
    “Whether or not one can tease any marginal correlation out of the data is really irrelevant, as what is important are ‘effective’ relationships, that is: the influence is large enough to have consequences that matter.”

    There are many thousand people involved in the study of climate. Each of us has a different role.

  119. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm)
    “The last 0.1% of solar variation acts no different from the other 99.9%.”

    You keep shifting the focus away from orbital modulations (& Earth’s spatiotemporal filter more generally). You understand orbital modulations relatively well for the geomagnetic field, but you repeatedly deflect attention away from the solar input vector response of other fields. This is a rather curious double-standard.

  120. Carla says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 237.7 km/sec
    density: 0.6 protons/cm3
    explanation | more data
    Updated: Today at 1433 UT
    http://www.spaceweather.com
    And now the solar wind speed is below my floor..

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    Geoff Sharp (December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am)
    “[...] which firmly places pressure on those who subscribe to a null climate effect from Sol.”

    It does more than that. It empirically crushes their narrative.

  122. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way Leif, the spinning ice skater slowing her rotation down by the extention of her arms is an elegant analogy. One of your best posts to the reading public in my opinion.

  123. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Paul Vaughan says:
    December 26, 2011 at 8:07 pm
    “Spatiotemporal pattern.”

    So you say “solar excitation can be either CONstructive or DEstructive” on “Spatiotemporal pattern”. In what though ? SST`s ? ENSO ? land temp` anomalies ? can you be more specific please ?

  124. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:42 am
    <You keep shifting the focus away from orbital modulations (& Earth’s spatiotemporal filter more generally). You understand orbital modulations relatively well for the geomagnetic field, but you repeatedly deflect attention away from the solar input vector response of other fields. This is a rather curious double-standard.
    solar input vector response? more nonsense mumbo-jumbo.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:29 am
    This will enable you to develop awareness of CROSS-SCALE morphology.
    ditto

  125. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:29 am
    the window extent to something somewhat NEAR the solar cycle length (it doesn’t even have to be exact since the resonance is so strong),
    more nonsense mumbo-jumbo

    As indicated, one can isolate the semiannual variation any number of ways. The results are ROBUST ACROSS METHODS.
    So, show us yours.

  126. Pamela Gray says:

    First time I have ever spit coffee on my phone screen.

  127. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:44 am
    “And now the solar wind speed is below my floor..”

    See the impact of that on the ENSO, AO and NAO indexes, and less zonal jet stream.

  128. Pamela Gray says:

    Ulric, mathematically please. Or else u are just throwing stuff out there and hoping some of it will stick.

  129. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:42 am
    deflect attention away from the solar input vector response of other fields
    Enumerate what other fields. For each field describe the input vector. For each vector describe the response.

  130. Doug Proctor says:

    Paul,
    Check out Big Bang Theory on TV; it’s on at least once per night. You are the Dr. Sheldon Cooper. This is not a snark. It is an example of what happens when intellect overpowers social observation: we don’t understand anything but that we aren’t smart enough to deserve your time or energy.

    Like the others, I’m really interested in what you are saying – inside your brain. If you let the words get a little air, we’ll look forward, I’m sure, to what you will be thinking tomorrow.

    It’s like Schrödinger’s Cat.

  131. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Pamela Gray says:
    December 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
    “Ulric, mathematically please. Or else u are just throwing stuff out there and hoping some of it will stick.”

    That is not my style at all. If the relationships were not repeatedly observable in the short term, I would not even mention it.

  132. Pamela Gray says:

    If the mechanism is not mathematically plausible, or is less capable than a currently plausible mechanism is, I wouldn’t mention it. I think this view is a more discernable view u might want to consider.

  133. Carla says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    December 27, 2011 at 8:52 am
    @Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:44 am
    “And now the solar wind speed is below my floor..”

    See the impact of that on the ENSO, AO and NAO indexes, and less zonal jet stream.
    ~
    You know Ulric every where I look there seems to be less current available too. Less ionization, more negative junk hanging around.

    Pamela, you do know that there is a coupling effect between the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere? A top down coupling to bottoms up effect? Both are windy and have their own currents and charges? They might even charge exchange.

  134. Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm
    Pamela, you do know that there is a coupling effect between the ionosphere and the upper atmosphere? A top down coupling to bottoms up effect? Both are windy and have their own currents and charges? They might even charge exchange.
    There are currents in the ionosphere of the order of a million amps. Then there is a ‘leakage current’ down to the lower atmosphere of the order of a 1000 amps, or a thousand times smaller, so you can safely ignore the latter.

  135. Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm
    Then there is a ‘leakage current’ down to the lower atmosphere of the order of a 1000 amps, or a thousand times smaller, so you can safely ignore the latter.
    The leakage current is maintained by the approx. 2000 thunderstorms that are going on at any given time, so is basically maintained from below.

  136. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Pamela Gray says:
    December 27, 2011 at 10:42 am
    “If the mechanism is not mathematically plausible,”

    That depends on how effectively you could model it mathematically. A consistent physical response is definitely worth exploring.

  137. Stephen Wilde says:

    “There are currents in the ionosphere of the order of a million amps. Then there is a ‘leakage current’ down to the lower atmosphere of the order of a 1000 amps”

    So there is a ‘gradient’ that could vary over time ?

    “The leakage current is maintained by the approx. 2000 thunderstorms that are going on at any given time, so is basically maintained from below.”

    I seem to recall recent evidence of downward electrical transmission but cannot link to it at the moment.

    Then there is the matter of atmospheric chemistry involving the changing particle and wavelength products of solar variability having differential effects at different heights as a result of interactions with ozone so as to change the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere with a consequent redistribution of surface air pressure patterns (the permanent climate zones).

    Lots to be going on with and not wise to discount any of it in light of the observed behaviour of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and Joanna Haigh’s unexpected finding that ozone above 45 Km INCREASED at a time of lower solar activity.

  138. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    So there is a ‘gradient’ that could vary over time ?
    vary the number of thunderstorms…

    Lots to be going on with and not wise to discount any of it
    One has to put it in the proper perspective and deal with what is effective. The rest is interesting, but not important.

  139. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    ozone above 45 Km INCREASED at a time of lower solar activity.
    You have this slightly backwards or with the wrong emphasis. The correct way of stating it is that there is “a reduction in mesospheric ozone at higher solar activity”. The way you say it sort of implies that if you do away with solar activity altogether [so there is no EUV] one would get maximum ozone.
    http://heliophysics.nasa.gov/SolarMinimum24/ionoatmos/Merkel.pdf

  140. Geoff Sharp says:

    Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 5:36 am

    Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:08 am
    ~
    Geoff, was wondering if you are continuing to see a drop in the solar wind speed averages?

    Yes… the values over the past couple of days are the lowest I can remember in the last 4 years although we did have something similar just a little over two years ago. I am not sure the solar wind speed alone has much bearing as it varies so little over the solar cycle. Low readings at cycle max are not uncommon.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/wind_2011.png

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/104

  141. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The correct way of stating it is that there is “a reduction in mesospheric ozone at higher solar activity””

    I can live with that because all I need is differential variations in ozone quantities at different levels.

    A reduction in mesospheric ozone when the sun is more active results in a cooling mesosphere.

    A cooling mesosphere increases upward energy flux and appears to cool the stratosphere along with the mesosphere when the sun is more active DESPITE an increase in ozone below 45Km.

    The cooling stratosphere when the sun is more active increases the upward energy flux from the troposphere. The height of the tropopause rises especially towards the poles.

    A cooler stratosphere having increased the height of the tropopause especially above the poles intensifies the polar vortex and focuses it on the pole so that the jetstreams become more poleward and zonal. In contrast a warmer stratosphere during a period of quiet sun reduces the height of the tropopause at the poles causing the polar vortex to become weak and split into several components around the pole which forces the surface air pressure distribution equatorward for more meridional jetstreams.

    When the sun is more active global cloud cover reduces as a result of broader equatorial air masses, more solar energy gets into the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of El Nino but the warming effect is offset by the faster water cycle for little or no change in system energy content whilst mid latitudes at the surface become warmer due to more warm air flowing those regions as it flows faster on the way out to space.

    The opposite when the sun is less active.

    That is climate change with no significant change in total system energy content.

    And all because the ozone quantities in the mesosphere vary oppositely to the ozone quantities in the stratosphere when the level of solar activity changes.

    That is what has been confusing everyone.

  142. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    Low readings at cycle max are not uncommon.
    Are, in fact, the norm: http://www.leif.org/research/Climatological%20Solar%20Wind.png
    Shows that the density is lowest near max and that there is a local minimum in solar wind speed.

  143. Stephen Wilde says:

    In fact, exactly as I suggested here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

    “How The Sun Could Control Eath’s Temperature”

    I thank you for that link to the update of Joanna’s work which fits my hypothesis perfectly.

    It now seems to be accepted that the sign of the ozone response above and below 40/45 Km is different.

    That has implications as regards the ozone hole too.

    I am not aware of anyone else with a hypothesis that accounts for those findings.

  144. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    I am not aware of anyone else with a hypothesis that accounts for those findings.
    The link I gave you does a good job “The model and satellite data suggest that the ozone response is due to enhanced photochemical activity associated with larger UV variability”. I don’t think that your model can use that for anything, nor accounts for anything. Just hand waving, no numbers, no quantitative results, no predictive power [because no numbers].

  145. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    “I am not sure the solar wind speed alone has much bearing as it varies so little over the solar cycle.”

    Monthly values from 330 to >750Km/s is a considerable range.

  146. Carla says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 1:34 pm
    Lots to be going on with and not wise to discount any of it in light of the observed..
    ~
    New observed and modelled additions added regularly. Or more dots to connect..

    doi:10.1029/2011JA017126
    The ionospheric gravity and diamagnetic current systems
    Key Points
    •We have developed a model to calculate the gravity and diamagnetic currents
    •We show for the first time how the gravity current closes in the ionosphere
    •We perform tests of the diamagnetic current against theoretical predictions
    P. Alken S. Maus A. D. Richmond A. Maute

    Large-scale currents in the ionosphere are driven by a variety of sources, including neutral winds, gravity, and plasma pressure gradients. While the stronger daytime wind-driven currents have been extensively studied, gravity and diamagnetic currents in the ionosphere have received very little attention but can have substantial effects even during the night. With the availability of a new generation of magnetic field models based on high-accuracy satellite magnetic measurements, it becomes increasingly important to account for these smaller current systems. In this work, we use the stand-alone NCAR TIEGCM electrodynamics solver along with empirical density, wind, and temperature inputs to model the global current systems caused by gravity and diamagnetism in the F region ionosphere and calculate their magnetic perturbations. These results allow us for the first time to visualize the global structure of these currents and quantify their magnetic perturbations. We find a significantly higher gravity-driven current during the night than one would expect from the lower conductivity which is primarily due to a Pedersen current driven by.. polarization charges.. in the predawn sector. We find some discrepancies between the diamagnetic perturbation and a theoretical prediction which could be a result of magnetic tension due to the curvature of the geomagnetic field lines. These results will allow geomagnetic field modelers to account for these important current systems and create more accurate models. This work will also be crucial in analyzing ionospheric magnetic field measurements from upcoming satellite missions such as Swarm.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JA017126.shtml

    Dr. S. you may find the next interesting as well.
    doi:10.1029/2010JA015897
    Cluster observations of a cusp diamagnetic cavity: Structure, size, and dynamics

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    ~
    Good job .. starting to ring clearer over hear..more coupling to do..

  147. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Monthly values from 330 to >750Km/s is a considerable range.

    It does that over the entire cycle ie no real discernible change. You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.

  148. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    “It does that over the entire cycle ie no real discernible change. You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.”

    It does not do that year by year and don`t limit your perspective to “the solar cycle”. And no I don`t need to look elsewhere thanks, I have found a very pleasing relationship between monthly solar wind speed trends and changes of the ENSO index.

  149. Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    With the availability of a new generation of magnetic field models based on high-accuracy satellite magnetic measurements, it becomes increasingly important to account for these smaller current systems.
    You are missing the important point: that these currents are so small that it is only now with super-sensitive satellite measurements that we can even measure them. They have no significant effect on anything.

  150. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    Ulric Lyons, You need to be looking elsewhere, speed is of little consequence.
    Geoff, let the man have his innocent fun. It doesn’t hurt, and you are not going to sway him anyway.

  151. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The link I gave you does a good job “The model and satellite data suggest that the ozone response is due to enhanced photochemical activity associated with larger UV variability”

    That link says nothing about the system response to less ozone in the mesosphere. That is what I was referring to. Not long ago you averred that such a finding was impossible when I suggested it. You were wrong.

    Therefore it does no such job.

    It is well established empirically that more ozone gives a higher temperature and less ozone a lower temperature.

    It is well established empirically as to what happens to the tropopause and the surface pressure distribution below it as a result of changes in the temperature of the stratosphere and/or the height of the tropopause. My so called ‘hand waving’ is a simple application of that which is well known.

    Remember that not so long ago you rejected my New Climate Model on the basis that you did not believe that solar variability could have a top down effect on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. You were wrong.

    You maintained the established cpnvention that the sign of the temperature response as a consequence of solar changes was the same throughout the vertical atmospheric column. You were wrong.

    You would not accept my contention that chemical processes rather than radiative process were key to what happens in the atmosphere. You were wrong.

    In light of the confirmation that there is indeed a reverse sign solar effect in the mesosphere and in light of the empirical observation that the stratospheric temperature trend follows the mesospheric trend my hypothesis is correct even if minor flaws remain.

    On the basis of that simple change virtually everything else about climate variability falls into place on the basis of established knowledge which I should not need to repeat at length here.

  152. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 5:40 pm
    You were wrong.
    That I was wrong does not mean that you are right.
    Am I also wrong that chemical processes work through changes in the radiation? Just changing the chemistry doesn’t do anything unless it changes the radiative processes. What I objected to were your silly notions of solar wind pressure [and other things too many to mention].

  153. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Am I also wrong that chemical processes work through changes in the radiation? Just changing the chemistry doesn’t do anything unless it changes the radiative processes. What I objected to were your silly notions of solar wind pressure [and other things too many to mention].”

    You were wrong to suggest that radiative physics alone was what we needed to consider.

    Once one introduces a chemical process capable of slowing down or speeding up the flow of energy through the system such as increases or decreases in ozone quantities at different levels then your emphasis on radiative physics becomes inadequate. You would not accept that when I told you.

    I’ve never been emphatic about solar wind pressure. In fact I don’t recall using that phrase. Anyway it was under your kind direction long ago that I switched from whatever I was then proposing to variations in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun and that link now confirms me to have been right about that too even though you derided the suggestion at the time.

    As for being right I think you will find that so many observed and hitherto puzzling climate observations now fall into place that it is highly unlikely that I am fundamentally wrong but I may still be wrong or incomplete on certain aspects.

    I always told you it was a work in progress and Joanna Haigh’s findings which you now seem to accept constitute a large step forward because no other current climate description incorporates the obvious thermal consequences of her observations.

  154. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Geoff, let the man have his innocent fun. It doesn’t hurt, and you are not going to sway him anyway.

    Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? :)

  155. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm
    Once one introduces a chemical process capable of slowing down or speeding up the flow of energy through the system
    The only energy that flows through the system is radiation.

    proposing to variations in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun and that link now confirms me to have been right about that too even though you derided the suggestion at the time.
    I still don’t see the solar wind particles doing anything, and certainly not with the ozone.

    no other current climate description incorporates the obvious thermal consequences of her observations.
    I don’t think it was her observations. Try Jeff Harder of LASP.
    I can’t see what the obvious thermal consequences are. Tell me. This is my main problem: when asked about what your ‘theory’ is, I find myself at a loss for words. I realize that I cannot explain to somebody what it is, in a way that makes sense. That the world is not beating a path to your door may be a sign that I’m not alone. One would think that having THE correct climate theory would be of interest to a lot of people, scientists, politicians, lay people, tax payers, the IPCC, and such like. Perhaps you should try to submit it the Geophysical Research Letters. That would help you organize the argument.

  156. Geoff Sharp says:
    December 27, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    “you are not going to sway him anyway.”
    Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? :)

    You mean that you have given up on him too?

  157. kim says:

    Stephen, can you tell me if your work correlates with Erl Happ’s ozone hypotheses?
    =========

  158. Khwarizmi says:

    lgl says,
    Or speeding up? LOD decreased after 1975. They are showing -LOD in the graphs.

    Good point. I based my interpretation of the -LOD axis on Leif’s awful and incorrect “ice skater” explanation instead of taking time to read the relevant material first. Bad form from me, and I appreciate your correction.

    Given that causes typically precede their effects, I am amazed to find Pamela Gray describing Leif’s explanation as “elegant” rather than, say, “slightly backwards” or just plain wrong. ;)

  159. This was, probably, the most disgraceful thread on this site, ever.
    No wonder “a scientist” is becoming something ringing an inner alarm, and a Ph.D — a certificate of conformism, nastiness, and immoral greed.

  160. Khwarizmi says:
    December 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm
    Given that causes typically precede their effects, I am amazed to find Pamela Gray describing Leif’s explanation as “elegant” rather than, say, “slightly backwards” or just plain wrong. ;)
    My bad. I was trying to explain one of the causes of variations in LOD, e.g. of the seasonal variation. The longer period are probably partly due to core-mantle interactions, although a general warming may also be involved [although taken out by the detrending], see http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/28080/1/95-0060.pdf “ABSTRACT. Global warming, by definition, changes the atmospheric temperature field. Since this temperature change is not expected to occur uniformly, either geographically, or with height in the atmosphere, changes can be expected in the pole-to-equator temperature gradient which, by the thermal wind equation, will cause changes in the atmospheric zonal wind field. Conservation of angular momentum dictates that as the wind-driven axial atmospheric angular momentum changes, so will the length-of-day (LOD) [...] Furthermore, this study demonstrates that observed changes in the amplitudes of the seasonal LOD signals can be used to study the effects of climate change on the seasonal atmospheric zonal winds on interannual to decadal and longer time scales.”

  161. Alexander Feht says:
    December 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm
    This was, probably, the most disgraceful thread on this site, ever.
    No wonder “a scientist” is becoming something ringing an inner alarm, and a Ph.D — a certificate of conformism, nastiness, and immoral greed.

    So far, up to your post, we have been spared the real nastiness.

  162. crosspatch says:

    Bumped into this over at Tallbloke’s place:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/iron-line-to-the-pole/

    Wonder what that would look like updated to current. Has nothing to do with length of day but might have some bearing on what is to come with cycle 25.

  163. crosspatch says:
    December 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm
    Wonder what that would look like updated to current.
    Updated a little back [and extended onto the past\]: slides 40-44 of
    http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf

  164. crosspatch says:

    Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard!

  165. crosspatch says:

    So … looks like nothing changed much has changed … still looking to me like 2013.

    I got that from a link on Tallbloke’s site to this

    http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/

    I was particularly noticing “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism.”

  166. Stephen Wilde says:

    kim says:
    December 27, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    It has similarities wth Erl’s work but he doesn’t yet accept the implicatins of the reverse sign ozone response above 45km and that makes quite a difference in simplifying the necessary description substantially.

  167. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The only energy that flows through the system is radiation.”

    Of course it is but the upward speed of the outward flow can be slowed down. Ozone holds more solar energy and slows the loss of that energy to space. That is why there is an inversion at rhe tropopause above which the temperature rises until one gets to the stratopause. It is a variant of the greenhouse effect. Ozone reverses the adiabatic lapse rate in the stratosphere.

    “I still don’t see the solar wind particles doing anything, and certainly not with the ozone.”

    When I first refferred to both solar particles and wavelengths I was covering both options because I know that solar protons destroy ozone above 45km. However, you made it clear to me that there aren’t enough of them to achieve the required effect. That left wavelength variations and the link you kindly provided pins it down to that which is good enough for me.

    “I can’t see what the obvious thermal consequences are. Tell me.”

    Basic meteorology. If one changes the temperature of the stratosphere as the solar variations now seem to do albeit via processes going on in the mesosphere then the height of the tropopause changes too.

    Those solar changes affect the poles most via an effect on the polar vortices so the whole gradient of the tropopause height from equator to pole changes.

    That shifts ALL the surface pressure components poleward for an active sun and equatorward for a less active sun thus shifting the permanent climate zones for a perceived climate change for specific locations on the ground.

    There are then consequential effects on cloudiness, albedo and the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    So the solar changes alter the amount of enregy getting into the system. The shift of the surface pressure distribution operates negatively to offset that effect and parts of the surface enter or approach closer to different climate zones for a perceived change of regional climate.

    Since the system response to the solar forcing is always negative the total system energy content need not change much at all which is why the satellite record contains much smaller temperature variations than the surface record.

    Furthermore it deals with the early faint sun paradox. As the sun brew stronger over billions of years the climate zones just shifted a bit more poleward to maintain the basic system energy content caused prinmarily by the combination of solar input, atmospheric pressure and the strength of the bonds between water molecules.

  168. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 28, 2011 at 12:50 am
    Basic meteorology. If one changes the temperature of the stratosphere as the solar variations now seem to do albeit via processes going on in the mesosphere then the height of the tropopause changes too.
    Explain how in your New Model you explain that the height of the tropopause has increased [as observed] by 500 meter the last 4 decades.

  169. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Explain how in your New Model you explain that the height of the tropopause has increased [as observed] by 500 meter the last 4 decades.”

    The stratosphere cooled until the late 90s. The cause was the high level of solar activity cooling the mesosphere and the stratosphere following the mesospheric temperature trend. The cooling of the stratosphere was greatest at the poles which skewed the tropopause height gradient between equator and pole so as to pull the climate zones poleward.

    The tropopause will rise either from a warming below OR a cooling above.

    “Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric
    temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere
    varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low
    tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low
    tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”
    from here page 14:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-
    0442(2001)014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Have you actually read any of my stuff ?

    If so, you haven’t understood it.

  170. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 28, 2011 at 9:29 am
    The tropopause will rise either from a warming below OR a cooling above.
    Warming from below is the standard explanation, and the rise of the the tropopause has been steady and not related to solar activity.

  171. Stephen Wilde says:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    The earlier link didn’t work so here is one that should. Clearly a cooling from above has the same effect as a warming from below.

    The relative steadiness of the rise in the tropopause doesn’t mean it is NOT solar related because the changes are slow across multiple cycles and do not seem to respond much to the peaks and troughs of individual cycles.

    Furthermore it is telling that the cooling of the stratosphere ceased in the late 90s as the level of solar activity started to fall from the peak of cycle 23.

  172. kim says:

    How has the level of the tropopause changed in the last decade?
    =========

  173. Stephen Wilde says:

    “How has the level of the tropopause changed in the last decade?”

    Does anyone have that because I can’t find it ?

    At a guess I think it will have stopped or nearly stopped rising as the stratosphere has now stopped cooling.

    However residual energy in the oceans from past high levels of solar activity in the past could still be pushing it up a bit.

    I’ve always contended that we are dealing with a combined solar/oceanic interaction with each modifying the effects of the other.

  174. kim says:

    Well, if you’re right the tropopause height should have stabilized, because there doesn’t seem to be a lot of (missing) heat boiling out of the oceans. But, I’ll bet we don’t have enough information to settle the question.
    =============

  175. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm
    “Geoff, let the man have his innocent fun. It doesn’t hurt, and you are not going to sway him anyway.”

    Given the consistency of the relationship between solar wind speed trends and changes in the ENSO index that I have identified, I see no reason to be swayed by opinion.

  176. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    December 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Given the consistency of the relationship between solar wind speed trends and changes in the ENSO index that I have identified, I see no reason to be swayed by opinion.

    I have not seen this relationship. Do you have something to back up your claim?

  177. In the very beginning of this thread there was this welcome to Dr. Svalgaard’s world of pleasantries:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 26, 2011 at 7:57 am
    Even if an explanation could be construed, the ‘finding’ is just junk, dressed up to be incomprehensible to mainstream morons.

    The world’s self-appointed foremost Solar scientist at his best.

  178. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am)
    “more nonsense mumbo-jumbo”

    [commenting on Paul Vaughan (December 27, 2011 at 6:29 am) "Important: The summary in the image to which you linked has the focal length set SUPER-NARROW. As I have now told you countless times over the past year, if you change the window extent to something somewhat NEAR the solar cycle length (it doesn’t even have to be exact since the resonance is so strong), you’ll get this: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png . (In interpreting the plot it’s important to remember that each dot on the curve is a property OF THE WINDOW.)"]

    If you do the calculations, you might develop the conceptual understanding needed to both interpret the stats and see that the statement stands on fundamentals (akin to 1 + 1 = 2 — i.e. defensible via absolute logic).

    -
    Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am) repeating earlier request:
    “So, show us yours.”

    You’re not reading carefully. This is the second time you’ve asked for something I’ve already provided.

    -
    I’m not at all impressed with your behavior Leif Svalgaard. Your comments in this thread document the lowest integrity commentary I’ve ever seen from you. I’ve called your bluff in defense of the credibility of the WUWT community.

  179. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 28, 2011 at 10:39 am
    The relative steadiness of the rise in the tropopause doesn’t mean it is NOT solar related because the changes are slow across multiple cycles and do not seem to respond much to the peaks and troughs of individual cycles.
    In fact there are no solar cycle changes visible in the record at all. The changes you advocate take place on time scales less than seconds [chemistry, radiation]

    Alexander Feht says:
    December 29, 2011 at 5:09 am
    The world’s self-appointed foremost Solar scientist at his best.
    As I said, the nastiness begins with you.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    December 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
    Leif Svalgaard (December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am)
    You’re not reading carefully. This is the second time you’ve asked for something I’ve already provided.
    Then you should have no problem doing it again.

    I’ve called your bluff in defense of the credibility of the WUWT community.
    I’m sure they can make up their own opinion.

  180. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The changes you advocate take place on time scales less than seconds [chemistry, radiation”

    The changes I advocate take place over millennia as per Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Current Warm Period.

    Therefore there is a visible solar signal because we know that solar activity varies on those timescales.

    Individual chemical and radiative events occur in fractions of a second but the quantities of such events vary over much longer periods of time.

    You already know that from my previous comments so your raising the issue yet again is very puzzling.

    It is as though you wish to fool readers who do not have time to trawl back through the thread or through our exchanges on other threads.Why would you wish to do that ?

  181. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 28, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Furthermore it is telling that the cooling of the stratosphere ceased in the late 90s as the level of solar activity started to fall from the peak of cycle 23.

    The cooling continues until the present…
    http://igaco-o3.fmi.fi/VDO/presentations_2011/datasets/WS_2011_Tourpali.pdf

  182. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 9:52 am
    The changes I advocate take place over millennia as per Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Current Warm Period.
    Therefore there is a visible solar signal because we know that solar activity varies on those timescales.

    Not really [and the time scale is not important, the phases are], see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

    You already know that from my previous comments so your raising the issue yet again is very puzzling.
    I’m trying to get a coherent position out of the comments. It is hard.

  183. Stephen Wilde says:

    Not according to everyone:

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
    This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
    since 1996.”

  184. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 9:52 am
    Individual chemical and radiative events occur in fractions of a second but the quantities of such events vary over much longer periods of time.
    In particular on a time scale about 1,000,000,000 times longer, i.e. the solar cycle, so that should be visible.

  185. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 11:16 am
    Not according to everyone: “This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
    Makes a difference where in the stratosphere you measure. And there are no error bars on their imaginative lines. Perhaps you want to claim that we really don’t know what the temperature is doing.
    Anyway, here http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/ann_data.html you can get various data sets. This is a plot of the temperature at 30 hPa averaged over three year periods: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png
    You may either see the recent [and continuing cooling] or say that the data [everybody's] is so noisy that we don’t know.

  186. Stephen Wilde says:

    Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.

    You linked to a paper that showed a measurable reverse sign ozone reaction to solar variability above 40km. Ozone amounts affect temperature. Temperature affects the rate of energy flux from below and that affects surface pressure distribution for climate changes.

    Yet you say solar variability has no effect.

    Which is it ?

  187. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
    Yet you say solar variability has no effect. Which is it ?
    Nonsense. Solar variability has a large effect in the upper atmosphere, but a tiny one [0.1K] at the surface.
    Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.
    You can cheery pick periods to get any trend you want. Since 2004 the trend is down. But since you say “The changes I advocate take place over millennia” what difference does a few years make…
    The point is that you make sweeping general statements on cherry picked periods which you even claim are not relevant [not being millennia].

  188. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm
    Yet you say solar variability has no effect. Which is it ?
    Nonsense. Solar variability has a large effect in the upper atmosphere, but a tiny one [0.1K] at the surface.
    Your data looks flat or a slight rise if one just looks at the period late 90s to date.
    You can cheery pick periods to get any trend you want. Since 2004 the trend is down. But since you say “The changes I advocate take place over millennia” what difference does a few years make…
    The point is that you make sweeping general statements on cherry picked periods which you even claim are not relevant [not being millennia].

  189. Stephen Wilde says:

    So your entire position rests on the assumption that a cooler mesosphere at a time of active sun will have a zero effect on the upward energy flux from below ?

    The stratosphere is far far ‘thinner’ that the troposphere but still the ozone generated warmth puts an effective block on convection.

    I think you will find that a temperature change anywhere in the atmospheric column will have consequential effects right down to the surface by altering the environmental lapse rate and tropopause height for an air pressure shift at the surface, a shift in the permanent climate zones and a change in the speed or size of the water cycle.

    And I think we will eventually find that the change in trend in stratospheric temperatures in the late 90s was indeed a consequence of the change or pending change in the level of solar activity around that time.

    I know you will not accept that today and you will not be able to convince me otherwise either.

    Let history tell us in due course.

  190. Stephen Wilde says:
    December 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm
    So your entire position rests on the assumption that a cooler mesosphere at a time of active sun will have a zero effect on the upward energy flux from below ?
    No, it relies of the lack of a convincing correlation + mechanism.

    The stratosphere is far far ‘thinner’ that the troposphere but still the ozone generated warmth puts an effective block on convection.
    1000 times thinner.

    And I think we will eventually find that the change in trend in stratospheric temperatures in the late 90s was indeed a consequence of the change or pending change in the level of solar activity around that time.
    I have added the trend for 50 hPa as well. There was no significant secular change in solar activity is the 90s. The trend was up from the 1970s and back down in the 2000s.
    http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png

  191. Stephen Wilde says:

    and then there is this:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext/

    “Top-down solar modulation of climate: evidence for centennial-scale change”.

  192. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    “This is a plot of the temperature at 30 hPa averaged over three year periods: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Strat-30hPa-1979-2011.png

    and the de-trended profile follows this: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_4088.gif

  193. Paul Vaughan says:

    @Leif Svalgaard December 29, 2011 at 9:44 am)

    It’s not about “opinions” (quoting you). The calculations I’ve presented will be judged sound by any CAPABLE party on the basic of absolute logic.

    You owe me a public apology.

    Since you appear to be feigning that you can’t find the links I provided earlier, here they are again:
    1. Semi-Annual Solar-Terrestrial Power. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
    2. Solar, Terrestrial, & Lunisolar Components of Rate of Change of Length of Day. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/

    The comments you’re directing my way indicate ignorance of anything other than global & windowed narrow-extent power summary methods. If you don’t know how to do variable-extent wavelet calculations, indicate so.

  194. kim says:

    I don’t P, and don’t mind telling you. Sun thing is happening and we don’t know what it is, do we, Mr. Vaughn?
    ================

  195. Paul Vaughan says:

    kim, I have results I have not publicized. I can tell you this: Piers Corbyn is not BSing. The comment I dropped at Curry’s is no bluff. I won’t be sharing my new results at WUWT until we either get Svalgaard understanding variable-extent wavelets or get the WUWT community realizing the limits of Svalgaard’s expertise (which presently patently doesn’t extrapolate into the area of variable-extent complex wavelets, and more generally doesn’t even reach intermediate level data exploration). Regards, Paul Vaughan

  196. kim says:

    Thank you, and I’ll go check out v-ecw, and happy new year to you and everyone.
    ==============

  197. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    December 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Given the consistency of the relationship between solar wind speed trends and changes in the ENSO index that I have identified, I see no reason to be swayed by opinion.

    I am not sure if you saw my comment, so repeating just in case.

    “I have not seen this relationship. Do you have something to back up your claim?”

  198. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    December 27, 2011 at 5:26 pm
    Carla says:
    December 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    With the availability of a new generation of magnetic field models based on high-accuracy satellite magnetic measurements, it becomes increasingly important to account for these smaller current systems.

    You are missing the important point: that these currents are so small that it is only now with super-sensitive satellite measurements that we can even measure them. They have no significant effect on anything.
    ~
    Well just that they exist is interesting enough. Are they always present? How do they vary? Are diamagnetic drifts ubiquitous? What exactly is their contribution to the current system?
    But forget that for now..lol..

    It is a LOD angular momentum thread after all..
    So how do we slow down or speed up axial force?
    Diamagnetism??

    Electron Diamagnetic Effect on Axial Force in an Expanding Plasma: Experiments and Theory

    Kazunori Takahashi,1,2,* Trevor Lafleur,1 Christine Charles,1 Peter Alexander,1 and Rod W. Boswell1
    (Received 16 June 2011; published 28 November 2011)

    The axial force imparted from a magnetically expanding current-free plasma is directly measured for
    three different experimental configurations and compared with a two-dimensional fluid theory. The force
    component solely resulting from the expanding field is directly measured and identified as an axial force
    produced by the azimuthal current due to an electron diamagnetic drift and the radial component of the
    magnetic field. The experimentally measured forces are well described by the theory.
    ..For instance, acceleration processes
    in current-driven plasmas such as applied-field
    magnetoplasma-dynamic arcjet plasmas have been investigated
    [5,6]. Recent theoretical studies concerning the
    spontaneous formation of electric double layers (DLs)
    have shown that no additional net momentum is delivered
    by the DLs [7,8]. Instead, one- and two-dimensional theories
    have shown enhancements of the net axial force [7,9]
    from an expanding cross section or an expanding magnetic
    field (called thrust in the field of electric propulsion), even
    in current-free plasmas such as radio frequency (rf ) inductively
    coupled or helicon mode discharges. Although direct
    measurements of the net force from magnetically expanding
    current-free plasmas are presently under investigation
    [10–12], the role of the expanding magnetic field on the
    gain or loss of the axial force in current-free plasmas has
    not yet been described. In the present Letter, the axial force
    imparted from the magnetically expanding current-free
    plasma is directly measured for three different experimental
    configurations and compared with a two-dimensional
    fluid theory..
    ..Hence, the present theory
    clearly identifies the gain (loss) of the net axial force for
    negative (positive) radial gradient of the electron pressure
    in an expanding magnetic field in addition to the electron
    pressure term Ts inside the source tube.
    ..In summary, the direct measurements of the axial force
    imparted from magnetically expanding current-free plasmas
    have been performed in three different configurations
    and compared with a two-dimensional fluid theory. The
    gain of axial force by the presence of the expanding
    magnetic field is clearly demonstrated in the experiments.
    A fluid theory is developed which shows that the axial
    force is enhanced by the azimuthal current of the electron
    diamagnetic drift and the radial magnetic field. The directly
    measured and theoretical forces are in fairly good
    agreement..

  199. Carla says:

    From above post, ..axial
    force is enhanced by the azimuthal current of the electron
    diamagnetic drift and the radial magnetic field..
    And from an earlier post..
    ..While the stronger daytime wind-driven currents have been extensively studied, gravity and diamagnetic currents in the ionosphere have received very little attention but can have substantial effects even during the night. .

    And in the cusps during CEPs (cusp energetic particle) events we find CDCs (cusp diamagnetic cavities) enhanced, weak or sometimes absent.
    From the next article which is my new find of the New Year.

    This article will forever change the view on how we perceive solar energetic particle events and the reconnection process..

    I call it Dayside Reconnection..

    Cusp energetic ions as tracers for particle transport into the
    magnetosphere
    Trattner, K.J.1, S.M. Petrinec1, S.A. Fuselier1, W.K. Peterson2 and R. Friedel3
    Short Title: Cusp Energetic Ions
    Abstract
    The magnetospheric cusps are focal points in studies of both magnetic reconnection at the magnetopause
    and plasma entry into the magnetosphere. Contrary to a well-understood precipitating thermal
    magnetosheath ion population, the origins of energetic ions in the cusp regions are still a matter of
    controversy. It has been suggested that these Cusp Energetic Particles (CEP) with significant fluxes from
    magnetosheath energies up to several hundred keV/e are accelerated locally in the cusp. A recent paper has
    suggested local plasma conditions conducive to CEP acceleration in the Cusp Diamagnetic Cavity (CDC).
    An alternative source region for CEP events is the quasi-parallel bow shock, which is a well known particle
    accelerator. Energetic ions accelerated at the bow shock can be transported downstream and enter the cusp
    along newly reconnected field lines. Composition and energy spectra of these CEP events resemble those
    of bow shock energetic diffuse ions.
    We use recently developed techniques to determine the location of the reconnection site at the
    magnetopause, draping interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) lines over the magnetopause and mapping those
    field lines back into the solar wind to show the magnetic connection between the cusp regions, the Earth
    bow shock, and the upstream region. Several cusp crossings by the Polar satellite during variable IMF
    conditions are analyzed for patterns between the cusp, their connection to the upstream region and the
    appearance of energetic ions in the cusp. Local plasma conditions in the cusp are also documented. This
    analysis reveals that the occurrence of CEP events is not uniquely determined by local plasma conditions.
    The flux of CEP ions depends on the location of the quasi-parallel bow shock and the magnetic topology in
    the magnetosheath. Our analysis allows us to use CEP ions as tracers for plasma transport into the cusp and
    to better understand the magnetic topology between the solar wind and the ionosphere
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/timas/files/2011/03/Trattner_2008_JGR.pdf

  200. Ulric Lyons says:

    @Geoff Sharp says:
    December 28, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Ulric Lyons says:
    December 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Given the consistency of the relationship between solar wind speed trends and changes in the ENSO index that I have identified, I see no reason to be swayed by opinion.

    >>I have not seen this relationship. Do you have something to back up your claim?

    Yes the ENSO and OMNI data, study it for yourself.

Comments are closed.