February solar data shows the Sun to still be slumping – but NASA says 'twin peaks' may happen

Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.
How many peaks did cycle 14 have: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

I think it is worth noting that the 2nd peak of the last cycle was smaller than the initial peak so if we are using the past cycle as an analog, it would stand to reason that a 2nd peak in this cycle would probably have a lower smoothed amplitude than the initial one. To achieve that, we would 1st need to see some drop from the current levels of activity.
It was refreshing to see Dr. Phillips be candid in the lack of understanding of exactly what may happen next. Leif, David, your thoughts on Dr. Phillips commentary?

“Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are in fact twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
Is ths true? The SC14 was not a “double Peak-Type” but a “Sixpack-Type” ( http://kaule.ath.cx:9001/uploads/sc1424.gif ). The picture compares the “Waldmeier-discontinuity adjusted” SC14 with the SC24 as far as it happend. Not a strong similarity, not in the accumulated activity and also not in the shape.

“it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
I agree, this cycle has not peaked yet (it’s somewhat arbitrary anyway). It’s a weak (and that means long) cycle, the next minimum not before ~2021.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
All cycles have ‘messy’ plateaus.

Sorry, but consensus forecasting is NOT science. If it were we would not have quantum mechanics and the ether theory would still be enforced today.

For predicting solar cycles amplitude most solid ‘science’ could be the ‘pseudo-science’.
Here is an extrapolation from 2003, when I had no idea what all of this was about.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
So much for the experts. When the solar ‘science’ comes up with more reliable method, I shall switch to it, till then ….

I am not against accurate, verified models!! But, it is obvious to me, that [their words]:
“Pesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a blue-ribbon group of solar physicists who assembled in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next Solar Max.” ;
They do not have a model of how the Sun operates. In fact, they are just a group of “Blue-ribbon” statisticians. They predict the future based on the past. If they had a reasonable model of the internal workings of the Sun, they would have not missed Cycle 24 six times over.
I would suggest the following new internal Sun model:
1) Fusion takes place on the surface of the Sun’s Core [not in the center]. The center is the waste area of spent fusion [He]. Note: the core is 75% He / 25% H. Outside the core is 75%H / 25%He.
2) Fusion produces heat. The heat rises creating latitude oriented plasma loops [perpendicular to the Suns Equator]. Through these latitude [both north and south] loops runs the major longitude plasma loops that parallel the Sun’s equator. The latitude oriented loops power the longitude loops via magnetic fields. All initially driven by fusion heat: a massive heat engine!
3) As hydrogen is used at the core surface, it must be replaced for new fusion to occur. The replacement process takes about 50 years and is needed every 360 years.
4) The 11 year Sunspot cycle that we see is the movement of the latitude plasma loops over the core surface. We see the core fusion action via interlocked magnetic fields transmitted by plasma currents.
5) The diameter of the Sun should increase every 360 years then decrease for 50 years. More heat/internal pressure, then less heat/internal pressure. Note: since the fusion does not occur in the center of the core, it does not take 100,000 years for the photons to “escape”; they are driven via interaction with the plasma loops.
OK, now attack!!!

chris y says:
March 6, 2013 at 7:39 am
“If I recall Hathaway et al from NASA predicted a max SSN of 150-170 for cycle 24 before it started and has been revising downwards EVERY TIME since then.”
Hathaway’s forecast is a description of what the cycle looks like until now combined with a fit to a the average solar cycle and so by definition will change continuously with time, just like the weather forecast will. I’m sure you would prefer a weather forecast based on the latest observations and updated in real time. Or are one of those people that rely on the Farmers’ Almanac?

Dr. Lurtz says:
March 6, 2013 at 7:34 am
They do not have a model of how the Sun operates. In fact, they are just a group of “Blue-ribbon” statisticians. They predict the future based on the past. If they had a reasonable model of the internal workings of the Sun, they would have not missed Cycle 24 six times over.
You are displaying your ignorance. The prediction of a low cycle is based on an understanding of how the solar dynamo works.
For your new theory: it looks dead on arrival. The radiative interior containing the core is dynamically stable and does not convect [no rising loops]. Energy is transported by slow diffusion taking ~250,000 years.

tonyc says:
March 6, 2013 at 5:48 am
Another scientist with no fundamental understanding of how the sun works making another guess about the main source of warmth for the Earth. Yet, the science is settled.
======================
Let’s be fair. The solar weather guys do not claim that sunspot prediction is settled science. Neither do they claim that anyone who differs with them is either a charlatan, a nutcase, or an agent of the devil.
And and far as I can see they are considerably better at prediction than the Climate Change circus.

chris y says:
Here is my list of Hathaway predictions for solar cycle 24, and the date they were made. ………
01/2006- min 1/07, 145 pk, 2010
………………
At the time of that prediction Dr. H looked at my ‘pseudo science’ formula and went into trouble to reproduce it; here you can see the graph he plotted
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HatPlot.htm
had number of standard objections, and dismiss whole shebang as worthless.
Problem that the solar and the climate science have is that “the future ain’t what it used to be”. Yogi Berra

As per the standard “Perfects” whom display their dogma!!!
“You are displaying your ignorance. The prediction of a low cycle is based on an understanding of how the solar dynamo works.”
{Then this model must be wrong and need replacement!! Because they didn’t initially predict is low cycle!!!!!!!!!}
“For your new theory: it looks dead on arrival. The radiative interior containing the core is dynamically stable and does not convect [no rising loops]. Energy is transported by slow diffusion taking ~250,000 years.”
{Standard dogma: no creative thinking here. Standard answer: we are right and you are wrong. If you are so right, why are your predictions so wrong. Your answer will be “not my predictions, another s”. }
{Your criticism ~250,000 years sounds like the static earth theory; you would have been against tectonic plate movement. You are very careful to NOT put forth any new ideas; is this because you don’t have any? You only put forth standard statistical results. }

Dr. Lurtz says:
March 6, 2013 at 8:19 am
“You are displaying your ignorance. The prediction of a low cycle is based on an understanding of how the solar dynamo works.”
{Then this model must be wrong and need replacement!! Because they didn’t initially predict is low cycle!!!!!!!!!}
Oh yes we did: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf from October 2004. and Schatten [2003]: “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

Silver Ralph says:
……..
Hi Silver, The two numbers were known to Ptolomy of Alexandria (Jupiter sidereal & Jupiter-Saturn synodic periods)

Barry Cullen says:
March 6, 2013 at 9:20 am
@lsvalgaard; a dynamically stable solar interior just doesn’t make ANY sense, to me.
Then read this attentively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection_zone
“The Schwarzschild criterion expresses the conditions under which a region of a star is unstable to convection. A parcel of gas that rises slightly will find itself in an environment of lower pressure than the one it came from. As a result, the parcel will expand and cool. If the rising parcel cools to a lower temperature than its new surroundings, so that it has a higher density than the surrounding gas, then its lack of buoyancy will cause it to sink back to where it came from. However, if the temperature gradient is steep enough (i. e. the temperature changes rapidly with distance from the center of the star), or if the gas has a very high heat capacity (i. e. its temperature changes relatively slowly as it expands) then the rising parcel of gas will remain warmer and less dense than its new surroundings even after expanding and cooling. Its buoyancy will then cause it to continue to rise. The region of the star in which this happens is the convection zone.”
Helioseismology [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology ] allows us to measure precisely where the bottom of the convection zone is in the Sun namely at (0.713 +- 0.001)R(Sun). This means that thew inner 71% is dynamically stable and does not convect. This is a directly observed reality.

In reply to Pesnell
Pesnell says:
Pesnell notes yet another complication: “The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.” Solar activity went up, dipped, then resumed, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years. The same thing could be happening now. Sunspot counts jumped in 2011, dipped in 2012, and Pesnell expects them to rebound again in 2013: “I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014,” he predicts.
William:
Pesnell has no physical explanation for the observed abrupt change from solar magnetic cycle 23 to solar magnetic cycle 24 – the solar magnetic cycle prediction “models” are not based on a physical model of the sun – the solar magnetic cycle “prediction” models correlate past solar observations that were followed by a specific solar magnetic cycle behavior, Pesnell’s “prediction” is only valid if solar magnetic cycle 24 is the same as past solar magnetic cycles. Pesnell is likely not aware of cyclic climate change and cyclic abrupt climate change and likely is not aware there is correlation of cosmogenic isotope changes (the cosmogenic isotope changes are known to be caused by solar magnetic cycle changes and geomagnetic field changes) which indicates the sun is somehow causing past climate cycles (gradual type such as the Medieval warm period or the Little Ice Age and past cyclic abrupt climate changes such as the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event.
The following is an alternative prediction for solar magnetic cycle 24 based on a physical solar model and a physical explanation of what caused past cyclic climate change, past abrupt climate change, and the glacial/interglacial cycle.
There is obviously a physical explanation for the glacial/interglacial cycle. This is a proxy record of how the planet’s climate has cycled for the last 5 million years. The glacial/interglacial cycle is now roughly 100,000 years long with a long glacial period of 85,000 to 90,000 years and a short interglacial period of 10,000 to 12,000 years. The paleorecord indicates interglacial periods end abruptly. There is currently no hypothesis that can physically explain abrupt climate change or the glacial/interglacial cycle. The appeal to a super high amplification factor which would enable a small forcing change such as the amount of solar insolation at N65 to trigger the glacial/interglacial period was made in an attempt to explain what the past record. Current analysis and observation indicates however that the planet resists forcing changes by increasing or decreasing planetary clouds in the tropics, which is negative feedback rather than positive (amplification) feedback.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
Solar observations indicate solar magnetic cycle 24 is unusual, a special cycle, a prediction of how solar cycle 24 will unfold cannot therefore be based on observations of recent solar magnetic cycles. Solar cycle 24 appears to be the special once in 1450 year or 8000 year solar magnetic cycles that cause (assuming I understand the climate forcing mechanisms and solar magnetic cycle changes causes the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, the Heinrich cycle, and the glacial/interglacial cycle). The Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle has a periodicity 1450 years or 1000 years and the Heinrich climate cycle has a periodicity of 6000 years to 8000 years.
In the later part of the twentieth century the solar magnetic cycle, based on cosmogenic isotope analysis, was at its highest activity level and the longest high activity level in 11,000 years.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
Last Heinrich Event – Younger Dryas Abrupt Cooling Event
The Younger Dryas is one of the most well-known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, the Earth’s climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly (William: With 70% of the Younger Dryas cooling occurring in a decade. One of the unexplained paleoclimate puzzles is what is physically capable of cooling the earth so rapidly. A massive forcing change is required and a forcing change that over rides the planetary temperature regulating mechanism which is to increase or decrease clouds in tropics is required) returned to near-glacial conditions (Figure 6). This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and became common in Europe during this time. The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade (Figure 6; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).
William: This article hypothesizes that Younger Dryas abrupt climate change has caused by an interruption to the North Atlantic drift current. A series of papers in the last 10 years indicate the cooling due to a complete interruption of the North Atlantic drift current is orders of magnitude too small to explain the Younger Dryas cooling and that the interruption to the North Atlantic drift current occurred a 1000 years before the Younger Dryas cooling event.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
As Livingston and Penn noted the magnetic field strength of newly formed sun spots is decaying linearly. The sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that are formed at the solar tachocline (the tachocline is the thin layer that separates the solar convection zone from the solar radiative zone.) The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots can only decay linearly if the magnetic ropes that are formed at the tachocline and rise up to form sunspots are decaying linearly. (The observation that the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is decaying linearly supports the assertion that sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that are created at the tachocline.) The magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone require a minimum field strength to avoid being torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone. As the magnetic field strength of the magnetic ropes continues to decline the turbulence in the convection zone is tearing the magnetic ropes apart. The solar cycle 24 sunspot groups are observed to made up of many short lived tiny sunspots, which are referred to as spores.
As the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest activity in 11,000 years in the last 70 years and there are D-O cycles and Heinrich event cycles in the paleo record, if the sun caused the past climate cycles and as the solar magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is decaying linearly, assuming the past climate cycles were caused by the sun and the sun is entering the special cycle that cause climate cycles (we have already observed planetary warming, the warming however has stalled which cannot be explained the AGW hypothesis) the following a prediction for solar cycle 24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_poster.svg
If solar magnetic cycle is the special solar cycle that is hypothesized to cause Heinrich events, rather than the solar cycle that causes the D-O cycle which is a Maunder minimum type cycle, the solar magnetic cycle will be terminated and will not be physically capable or restarting via the normal mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes at the tachocline and that are then released to rise up to the surface of the sun. (The magnetic rope mechanism requires the residual solar magnetic fields from past cycle sunspots as a seed to form new powerful magnetic ropes. It appears based on observations solar magnetic cycle 24 sunspots are now too small and do not have sufficient field strength to survive the trip down through the convection zone to the tachocline. The number of sunspots and the lifetime of sunspot groups will continue to decline. The sun will be spotless in roughly 12 months. A spotless sun in the middle of solar magnetic cycle is anomalous as the normal solar magnetic cycle has a gradual rather than an abrupt end.
If solar observations in the next 12 months support the above prediction that solar cycle 24 is the special solar cycle that causes a Heinrich cyclic event rather than the type of solar magnetic cycle that causes a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, I can provide more details concerning what to expect next.

William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:09 am
the solar magnetic cycle prediction “models” are not based on a physical model of the sun
This displays your ignorance, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-forecast.pdf
The rest of your comment is [mostly wrong] speculation.

TheHermit says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:33 am
“…then its lack of buoyancy will cause it to sink back to where it came from.”
The sun sounds like a giant lava lamp. Groovy.
Actually, what it means is that the interior does not convect at all. The outer 29% does, that is where it looks like a lava lamp.

Press coverage of the NASA statement on this make it sound like the twin peak is already here for forming in progress and the word IF is avoided by the wordsmiths. At least they are exposed now.

Matthew R Marler says:
March 6, 2013 at 11:42 am
What counts as a “peak”; the smooth line (more representative of the underlying process?) for cycle 14 had only one peak, approximately a long “plateau” with a large standard deviation in the deviations from the smooth.
Ask Pesnell about this 🙂 More seriously, if one plots the activity separately for each hemisphere for cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/N-S-Asymm-SC14-month-Groups.png is is clear that the Northern Hemisphere [blue] peaks two years before the South [red], so in that sense you might talk about ‘two peaks’ although Pesnell did not do that. Here is more on such asymmetries: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

Need correct URL: More seriously, if one plots the activity separately for each hemisphere for cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/research/N-S-Asymm-SC14-month-Groups.png

In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:32 am
William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:09 am
the solar magnetic cycle prediction “models” are not based on a physical model of the sun
This displays your ignorance, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-forecast.pdf
The rest of your comment is [mostly wrong] speculation.
William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 10:09 am
As the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest activity in 11,000 years in the last 70 years
That is an oft repeated myth, but is actually not true: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
William, Hello:
1) Pesnell’s prediction of a twin peak in solar activity prediction is based on what? A physical solar model? What is the physical explanation for the observed linear decline of magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots? What is the physical explanation for the observed cycle 24 small and short lived sunspots? Your link to sunspot cycle predictions appears to have nothing to do with explaining the difference in solar cycle 24 and other cycles. Is there any discussion of why solar cycle 24 is different from other solar magnetic cycles among specialists?
2) You have copied your work on historic sunspot counts a couple of times, in response to my quoting of Usoskin’s paper that asserts that solar magnetic cycle activity in the later half of the 20th century was the highest in 11,000 years. I do not see how your work on historic sunspot count invalidates Usoskin’s Nature published paper that used cosmogenic isotope analysis to support his assertion. The issue is past and recent solar heliosphere changes, not sunspot counts. The assertion that the sun was at its highest activity level and the longest time at high activity in 11,000 years explains the late 20th century warming and will explain the cooling, if there is cooling caused by the solar cycle 24 slowdown or interruption.
3) I am predicting either: 1) a solar cycle slowdown which is not controversial as a cycle slowdown is now the consensus prediction and planetary cooling which some believe is controversial or 2) an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle and planetary cooling. Based on recent observations it appears the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle is most likely. The Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle, the Heinrich climate cycle, and the glacial/interglacial climate cycle happened for physical reasons. There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each of these events which indicates the sun is causing what is observed. There is a set of solar system observations, geomagnetic observations, and astrophysical observations to support the “speculative” and “wrong” solar model that I am proposing, however, I do not want to distract the conversation from solar cycle affects on planetary temperature unless there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
If there is planetary cooling, I will join the conversation in this forum to discuss how solar magnetic cycle changes cause planetary warming and cooling.
If there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, then understanding how that is possible and what to expect next is no longer an academic problem and I will return to the forum with papers and observations to support strawman hypothesized mechanisms to explain how the solar magnetic cycle can be interrupted.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

It could be this.
It could be that.
It could be something else.
Or it could be none of the above . . . . . . .
Ah – my memory of playing me up now I’m in my seventh decade: – “The Science IS settled” !
OK, they are MY capitals.
[And ‘Sarc’ – did you guess?]

Sparks says:
March 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm
The first peak occurs when the magnetic field winds up and after the polarity reverses the second peak occurs when the magnetic field winds down.
‘No, the first peak [if there are more than one] results from one hemisphere being more active than the other. The second peak occurs when the other hemisphere catches up: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Matthew R Marler says:
March 6, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your replies.
You are welcome.

Sparks says:
March 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm
At the start of a solar cycle when the Magnetic field is beginning to skew around the sun the magnetic field ‘winds up’ around the entire sphere, etc…
No, that is still not how it works. There is no ‘unwinding’ of the field.
William Astley says:
March 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm
An interruption to the solar magnetic cycle would occur if Livingston and Penn’s observation …etc
But what is an ‘interruption? You might just have said “hut-hut-hut occurs if L&P etc”. Is is disappearance of the cycle? Can’t be because we know that cosmic rays are still modulated during Grand Minima. Is it that the polarity of the poles don’t reverse? What? Be specific.
The tachocline rope model assumes that the seed to form the next rope at the tachocline is residual magnetic field from past cycle sunspots.
It is, but probably only from the last cycle, not several.
A minimum field strength is required for the past sunspots to survive their trip through the convection zone.
Just the opposite occurs: the weak seed field is amplified on its trip until it is strong enough to rise to the surface. On its way up it is shredded to pieces. Once at the surface the pieces reassemble to form a sunspot group. This process has been observed [it happens for every group] and the re-assembly has been known for more than 150 years. It is obvious for anyone simply watching.
The L&P effect is likely that the re-assembly process is operating less efficiently right now. We don’t know why, but there could be many reasons.

Walter Dnes says:
March 7, 2013 at 1:08 am
* the pink trace comes down to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK UP
* similarly, the red trace comes up to the zero line, BUT BOUNCES BACK DOWN
The pink trace is just the mirror image of the red tract [the latter being the real data], and, yes, it bounces around a bit as it always does [look at some of the other crossings].
At the very least, it would seem that we’re not at max yet, and will have to try the zero crossing again.
The two hemispheres are often out of sync [at times up to two years] and it is an oversimplification to think that there is such a thing as a single, well-defined ‘maximum’. The North has reversed now, but the South is still about a year away. Here are the detailed story: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png as you can see there is a strong annual variation having to do with we see the South pole better in March [and the North better in September]. The difference [green curve labelled N-S] between the blue (N)orth and the red (S)outh eliminates the annual variation and gives a rough indication of the Sun’s ‘dipole moment’.
Sparks says:
March 7, 2013 at 2:20 am
until it becomes unwound
It simply does not ‘unwind’, and the Sun’s magnetic field pervades the solar system at all times. Your picture of winding and unwinding is not a correct description. If one wishes to [over]simplify, one can describe the solar cycle as a conversion from poloidal fields (at solar minimum) [running North-South] to toroidal fields (at solar maximum) [running East-West] back to poloidal fields. But even that picture is too crude. The wound up [toroidal] fields disintegrate and the debris moves to the poles where it slowly cancels out the old polar fields and builds a new one with opposite polarity, which is then wound up again. There is no ‘unwinding’.

lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:48 am
the 14C residence time in the atmosphere and biosphere is too long to show the fine structure with such precision.
Dr. S. data disagrees with your comment.
Strange that from 1600-1650, the C14 shows what could considered normal solar magnetic cycles (periods 12, 9, 10 and 14 years) then suddenly switches to cycles which are more in line with the Earth’s field (18, 20 and 22 years) than again post 1710 back to the normal cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
More credible explanation is required for the anomaly and I have offered one:
Thus it could be concluded that the C14 data during Maunder Minimum, do not show solar but the Earth’s magnetic oscillations.
Dr. S. you do need to do better.

vukcevic says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:05 am
Dr. S. data disagrees with your comment.
No, your faulty interpretation of the data does. The storage in the 14C reservoirs attenuates periodic variations depending on their period. This means that for 11-yr variations the amplitude of 14C variations is 100 times smaller than for 10Be. For the 2300-yr Halstatt cycle the attenuation is a factor 10. For a 22-yr cycle the factor is 50, so 11-yr peaks will only behalf of 22-yr peaks which means that the power spectrum will seem to be dominated by 22-yr peaks rather than 11-year peaks, thus misleading people [like you] who does not know the science. The 10Be data shows the 11-yr cycle very clearly as slide 16 of the link I gave you demonstrates. When will you learn to listen?

vukcevic says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:05 am
Dr. S. data disagrees with your comment.
Further to modulation during the Maunder Minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png the power spectrum peaks nicely at 12.5 years. A bit too long for the planetary hypothesis, one may note, while I’m at it [but otherwise irrelevant]. So, listen and learn.

lsvalgaard says: March 6, 2013 at 11:13 pm
“And, by the way, what flips at solar maximum are just the polar caps, not the rest of the Sun.”…
I interpret this to mean that the polarity of the individual spots in each hemisphere do not reverse, when viewing the magnetograms at SOHO?
March 7, 2013 at 7:28 am. “If one wishes to [over]simplify, one can describe the solar cycle as a conversion from poloidal fields (at solar minimum) [running North-South] to toroidal fields (at solar maximum) [running East-West] back to poloidal fields. But even that picture is too crude. The wound up [toroidal] fields disintegrate and the debris moves to the poles where it slowly cancels out the old polar fields and builds a new one with opposite polarity, which is then wound up again. There is no ‘unwinding’.”
This seems to describe a magnetic field that is gimbaled and flips around, subjected to gyroscopic precession. Is there an electromagnetic equivalent to precession or P-factor that exerts a 90 degree torque toward the magnetic axis?

lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:15 am
Further to modulation during the Maunder Minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png the power spectrum peaks nicely at 12.5 years. A bit too long for the planetary hypothesis, one may note, while I’m at it [but otherwise irrelevant]. So, listen and learn.
Well, I am sure you must have noticed that there is very little or no difference between 10Be and C14 for the principal part of the Maunder Minimum between 1660 and 1700 (see graph)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
main differences are before 1660
Since V. I. Makarov & A. G. Tlatov agree with me; you do have to do better.
In Maunder Minimum, poleward migration rate of magnetic fields was about 0.7 m/s and solar cycle length was about 20 yrs. http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/21/193-196.pdf

ukcevic says:
Well, I am sure you must have noticed that there is very little or no difference between 10Be and C14 for the principal part of the Maunder Minimum between 1660 and 1700
And since 10Be shows a 12.5 yr period during that time what do you conclude about 14C if there is no difference?
Since V. I. Makarov & A. G. Tlatov agree with me; you do have to do better.
First, their data is old. Second, they did not take into effect the attenuation and delays caused by 14C storage. You still don’t learn anything. Here is some advice: when I tell you something take it to heart. Perhaps my good friend Miyahara could tell you some more: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf She finds periods from 9-14 years for Grand Minima.
The bottom line is that 14C is very much attenuated for periods as short as 11 years, and even delayed [20 year cycles are delayed 5 years, and 100-year cycles by 20 years] and thus are not very good for determining such periods. 10Be should be used. And there is a good solar modulation of cosmic rays during the MM.

lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 11:50 am
The bottom line is that 14C is very much attenuated for periods as short as 11 years, and even delayed [20 year cycles are delayed 5 years, and 100-year cycles by 20 years] and thus are not very good for determining such periods. 10Be should be used. And there is a good solar modulation of cosmic rays during the MM.
But there is no significant difference between C14 and 10Be data during 1660-1700 period, the principal part of the Maunder Minimum. See graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
You may whish to evade that part, it is your choice.

lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 1:13 pm
10Be shows an 11-year cycle and you say that 14C does not: http://www.leif.org/research/Maunder-Minimum-Cycles.png
Maunder Minimum was 1650-1700, and not 1600-1700.
There are only two cycles for 40 years (out of 50) for the part of MM 1660-1700 in both 10Be and C14 data (minimum to minimum 1660 to 1676 and 1676 to 1700).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
In Berggren paper only graph d (Fig.2.) only one out of six, shows any meaningful response during MM, but than it shows 5 cycles (10 years each) not 4 as you also wrongly suggest in http://www.leif.org/research/Maunder-Minimum-Cycles.png so I conclude that the Berggren result is due to filter ringing. I am interested in facts as contained in the data, the rest I’ll leave to you.

vukcevic says:
March 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Maunder Minimum was 1650-1700, and not 1600-1700.
Neither, new data [Vaquero et al. 2011; see Miyahara’s talk I linked to] puts the start of the MM at 1619. The cosmic ray record is contaminated by volcanic activity near and around 1700, so the data from the last decade of the 17th century are not reliable. The mark of a true pseudo-scientist is to cling to obsolete data as long as they ‘fit’, long past their ‘sell-by date’. You do a good job at that.

lsvalgaard says: March 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Bottom line: there is a vigorous cosmic ray modulation caused by the Sun during the Maunder Minimum, albeit with a little bit longer period [12-14 years] than we have had the past, say 50 years. As Berggren et al. put it: “10Be deposition is anti-correlated to solar activity over the 11-year Schwabe solar cycle, and correlated to neutron monitor data.
Thus you take Berggren et al paper as a final arbiter on this matter, and (btw) you extensively quote in number of your papers and presentations.
It can be easily demonstrated that the Berggren et al paper is worthless.
You said:
And 2f is marred by the poor data from Dye-3 as they explain in paragraphs [13] and [14]. So, the only one with good data is 2d. This is also explained in slides 16 and 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
– graph 2d shows 5 cycles in 50 years is 10 year per cycle.
– you said the Sun during the Maunder Minimum, albeit with a little bit longer period [12-14 years]
– Two Russian papers claim: In Maunder Minimum, poleward migration rate of magnetic fields was about 0.7 m/s and solar cycle length was about 20 yrs. http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/21/193-196.pdf
Berggren et al paper shows oscillations of 10 year period at MM.
Samples are from Greenland, where precipitations are direct function of what is happening just of its south western coast in the North Atlantic (sub-polar gyre) the source of the AMO oscillations, with periods of varying between 9,2 and 10.1 years.
10Be nucleation process is strongly affected by rate of the precipitations, so Berggren et al paper discovered the AMO and not the solar cycles in their analysis.
Let’s see what Dr. L Svalgaard has to say:
WUWT reader: Be-10 is a more direct proxy for solar output in general
L. Svalgaard: January 4, 2013 at 4:29 pm
No, 10Be depends on the geomagnetic field [the biggest factor], climate [the next biggest], and finally solar activity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/counting-sunspots-and-sunspot-inflation/#comment-1189981
My dear Dr. S you got yourself in a bit of a muddle in there.
However I agree with:
10Be depends on the geomagnetic field [the biggest factor], climate [the next biggest], and finally solar activity.
Lets consider them all in the reverse order:
– ‘solar activity’ [least] : it was non existent no modulation found.
– ‘climate [the next biggest]’ : was perceptible in samples as discovered as Berggren et al (2d graph) and coincidental with the AMO at 10 year periods, but much shorter than Dr. L.S. estimates at 12-14 years.
– ‘geomagnetic field [the biggest factor]’: most obvious and likely modulator at about 20 years as per two Russian papers quoted above.
m.a. vukcevic suggests that the solar magnetic field is not but the Earth’s field (which oscillates at about 21 or so years) is the modulator of 10Be and C14 during Maunder Minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMc.htm
Why all this matters:
– If it can be shown that the solar magnetic cycling was normal during the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the coldest part of the LIA, than it follows that recent decades of warming are not related with the high solar magnetic activity, i.e. reinforces the often repeated ‘the sun has nothing to do with it’.
– If solar magnetic oscillations were not present during coldest period in historical time, than it is plausible that the warmest period in the last three centuries could be related to more intense recent solar activity, and ‘the sun has lot to do with it’.
The choice is yours.
End of the essay (must be my longest post).

You see, science does make progress.
Agree, all interested should read the above essay by vukcevic and disregard the agreement among cosmic ray physicists that the solar dynamo cycled normally during the MM

lsvalgaard says:
“..the power spectrum peaks nicely at 12.5 years.”
So how can you be sure that there were 8 solar cycle maxima from 1605 to 1705 and not 9?

lsvalgaard
You said:
“Further to modulation during the Maunder Minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle-10Be-Maunder-Min.png the power spectrum peaks nicely at 12.5 years.”
so that would 8 per 100yrs, how do you know it is 8 rather than 9 as would be expected from the normal average period?

It is said that
new data [Vaquero et al. 2011; see Miyahara’s talk I linked to] puts the start of the Maunder Minimum at 1619.
Data from Colorado University (the TSI people) strongly dispute such assertion as unfounded.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/dTSI.htm

Edim says:
March 8, 2013 at 10:11 pm
So Leif, you do agree that there’s a correlation between global climate and solar cycle frequency (or scl inverse)?
No, there is no such correlation: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
vukcevic says:
March 9, 2013 at 3:59 am
“new data [Vaquero et al. 2011; see Miyahara’s talk I linked to] puts the start of the Maunder Minimum at 1619.”
Data from Colorado University (the TSI people) strongly dispute such assertion as unfounded.
That is not data measured by TIM, but simply Lean’s old, obsolete reconstruction using the Group Sunspot Number. Read Vaquero’s paper from the Sunspot Workshop http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Vaquero2.pdf or his paper with Usokin et al.:
Revisited Sunspot Data: A New Scenario for the Onset of the Maunder Minimum
Vaquero, José M.; Gallego, M. C.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kovaltsov, Gennady A.
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 731, Issue 2, article id. L24, 4 pp. (2011).
Abstract
The Maunder minimum forms an archetype for the Grand minima, and detailed knowledge of its temporal development has important consequences for the solar dynamo theory dealing with long-term solar activity evolution. Here, we reconsider the current paradigm of the Grand minimum general scenario by using newly recovered sunspot observations by G. Marcgraf and revising some earlier uncertain data for the period 1636-1642, i.e., one solar cycle before the beginning of the Maunder minimum. The new and revised data dramatically change the magnitude of the sunspot cycle just before the Maunder minimum, from 60-70 down to about 20, implying a possibly gradual onset of the minimum with reduced activity started two cycles before it. This revised scenario of the Maunder minimum changes, through the paradigm for Grand solar/stellar activity minima, the observational constraint on the solar/stellar dynamo theories focused on long-term studies and occurrence of Grand minima.
Also at http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1520
As I said, when I tell you something, pay attention and learn.

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 6:34 am
“We do have sunspot data for the 17th century,”
Thanks, that confirms what I suspected, there were 9 cycles (max to max) from 1605 to 1705, which shows no drift away from the Jupiter-Earth-Venus syzygy cycles:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/ANCIENT_DATA/earlyssn.dat

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 8:15 am
“Possible Confirmation Bias [you see what you want to see].”
Waldmeier says 1685 not 1687, which I presume is from sunspot observations and not a proxy. A max to max cycle of 20yrs from 1685 to 1705 is not realistic.

lsvalgaard:
There does seem to be standard Hale periodicity through the period in question.
Page 16: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 10:31 am
” The cycle length has not been constant over time, e.g. was above 12 years during the 19th century [where we do have reasonable data].”
11.53yrs average from May 1798 to Feb 1902:
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl5.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl13.html

vukcevic says:
March 9, 2013 at 11:50 am
Learning is for the acquiescent, outliers of science are domain of my interest.
That is OK, as long as they are treated scientifically, which you do not, so they are not of interest to science and wrongful conclusions are worthless [but can be entertaining].

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“It is not clear what you so desperately are try to get at.”
It’s very clear what I am getting at, which is that the cycles follow Ju/Ea/Ve syzygies for many hundreds of years. If there is any desperation, I would say it is your inflation of the average cycle length to attempt to disprove this fact.

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm
“The data speak for themselves,”
But you did not speak for the data, you started at 12.5yrs, then reduced than swiftly to 11.7yrs when challenged, and as you can go with 1685, that’s down to 11.43yrs.

Ulric Lyons says:
March 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm
you started at 12.5yrs, then reduced than swiftly to 11.7yrs when challenged, and as you can go with 1685, that’s down to 11.43yrs.
The power spectrum of the 10Be during the MM has a peak at 12.5 years. Counting cycles further back reduces that to 11.7 years. BTW, you are not ‘challenging’ anybody. I’m trying to tell you what the data show. I don’t know what period you are shooting for, but the data during the MM are not precise enough to pin down the cycle length with any precision, expect that it is likely a bit longer than recent values, just as it was during the 19th century. The cycle length is not constant but varies several years.
vukcevic says:
March 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Magnetosphere of Jupiter is huge (extends to more than 5 AU reaching Saturn’s orbit)
It is teeny tiny seen from the Sun [extends over something like a 1/50,000 of the sky].
and ‘if there is an electro and magnetic link to the polar fields (seed of the next cycle)
But since there is not, that idea is dead on arrival.
but every 19 or so years two magnetospheres join into an awesome magnetic entity
Nonsense.
‘If the link is achieved along the Parker spiral
But since there is no such link…
Solar wind velocity.
When slow and fast stream interact a ‘magnetic scattering region’ (also co-rotating interaction region) is created, location of its appearance along the Parker spiral
The solar wind expands radially, not along the spiral. The ‘spiral’ is just the location of where the region has been, not where it is. Garden sprinkler is a good illustration.
explain the ratios of velocities in the weak (longer) and the strong (shorter cycles).
Oversimplifying: stronger cycles come from a stronger solar magnetic field, but that doesn’t really matter as the solar wind speed does not vary as you think.
The best way to describe your nonsense it perhaps a comment by ‘Tom in Florida’:
Tom in Florida says:
March 7, 2013 at 5:33 am
Years ago I was stationed in Hawaii and my son was about 5 years old. He understood the correlation between putting up a Christmas tree and then having presents appear under it on the morning of Dec 25. His understanding was that Santa Claus came in the night and placed the presents there (theory). Then one Christmas morning he noticed the doors and windows were locked from the inside (real world data). He wanted to know how Santa could get in under those conditions. I realized it was time to explain the truth to him.
Moral of story: anything seems possible when you do not understand the science behind a theory.
Just wondering if David and Vuk know that the windows and doors are locked.

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm
” I’m trying to tell you what the data show.”
And I am having to continuously correct your miscalculations, e.g.:
“..was above 12 years during the 19th century”
when it was really ~11.53yrs on average between 1798 and 1902.
And:
There does seem to be standard Hale periodicity through the period in question.
Page 16: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf
Leif replies:
“Yes, with a 14-year period. Just shows how uncertain all this is.”
And to remind you, we were discussing whether there were one or two cycles from 1685(1687?) to 1705, and the 10Be graph on page 16 does not show a 14yr Hale signal around those decades.
lsvalgaard says:
“.. but the data during the MM are not precise enough to pin down the cycle length with any precision..] The cycle length is not constant but varies several years.”
It’s not as if I wouldn’t have noticed the length variations! The issue was not the precise average length, but the number of cycles during the 17th century.

vukcevic says:
March 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm
When slow and fast stream interact a ‘magnetic scattering region’ (also co-rotating interaction region) is created, location of its appearance along the Parker spiral
To idealize a bit: solar magnetic fields are organized into large-scales structures: polar fields and ‘sector structure’ http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields%2C%20the%20Solar%20Corona%2C%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
Along the sector boundary in the corona the field is generally multipolar and ‘closed’ so the solar wind has a harder time to get out. This means that the solar wind speed near the sector boundary is low. In the middle of a sector the field is generally weaker and unipolar and more ‘open’ and a high-speed stream will usually emanate from such areas. So, near the Sun you will have an alternation of slow and fast winds [in an ideal case four of each as we cross a sector boundary four times]. This does not change with the cycles, there is no difference between even and odd, or strong or weak, or negative or postive, or whatever cycles.
Because of solar rotation, solar wind of different speeds are emitted in the same direction, so fast wind will run into slow wind and produce a compression region by scooping up the plasma followed by a rarefaction region [a co-rotating interaction region – the Sun, of course, knows nothing about this as the wind is streaming away supersonically]. With increasing distance these regions will steepen into shocks [which BTW scatter cosmic rays out of the solar system]. In the way out to the heliopause there will be about 25 of these shocks wrapping completely around the Sun that many times. The latitudinal extent of these shocks [and the sector boundary – the heliospheric current sheet] changes with the phase of the solar cycle: small [~10-15 degrees] at solar minimum and large [~80-90 degrees] at solar maximum. This variation is the cause of the solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
This is how the solar wind speed varies.

lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 6:00 pm
….
Thanks for the links and the clear explanation. I’ll do some more reading.

Ulric Lyons says:
March 10, 2013 at 3:50 am
My point was that there should be 9 cycles from 1605 to 1705.
How many cycles should there have been 1605-1687? This is a better question as we know the answer [seven].
“And 1705 is also uncertain [again: no data].”
The observations say SSN 50 centered at 1705:
The Group Sunspot Number says 5.5 so that there is such a large discrepancy shows how uncertain the data is. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/GROUP_SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/yearrg.dat
1690 .0
1691 .0
1692 .0
1693 .0
1694 .0
1695 .1
1696 .0
1697 .0
1698 .0
1699 .0
1700 .4
1701 .5
1702 .6
1703 2.7
1704 4.1
1705 5.5
1706 3.2
1707 5.3
1708 2.8
1709 1.6
1710 .4
1711 .0
1712 .0

lsvalgaard says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:10 am
“The Group Sunspot Number says 5.5..”
Again indicating a maximum at 1705. I’ll take it that there were two cycles from ~1685 to 1705 like there should be.

1phobosgrunt says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:30 am
We need a mechanism..turbulence..this ol solar system ship can be rocked by the turbulence of the interstellar background. It’s a scaled up sorta thing.
No, the interstellar magnetic field [an turbulence] cannot travel upstream in the supersonic solar wind. The examples you mention are about what the wind from the Sun does to the Earth and not relevant for disturbances travelling towards the Sun.

vukcevic says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:52 am
with odd and even cycles alignment switching every 100+ years
Once! is not every…
And what do you conclude from that coincidence?

1phobosgrunt says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm
When the background pressure begins to change and the force exerted upon it increases and it compresses the bubble, the out going pressure not escaping. Changes in escape velocity’s slowing (suppressing) solar cycle length.
No, nothing that happens out at the outer fringes of the heliosphere bubble can affect the solar cycle as the solar wind blows supersonically: 10 tines faster than changes can propagate back to the Sun. The solar wind particles that leave the Sun are travelling faster than the escape velocity from the Sun [at the distance where the particles are – otherwise they will just fall back onto the Sun]. Fire a gun at a stationary object far away. Now fire the gun at an object moving towards you [but still far away], there will no difference ion the recoil, or the bullet will not ravel slower when aimed at the moving object.

vukcevic says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:52 am
with odd and even cycles alignment switching every 100+ years
correction: increasing by 17 degrees per cycle wrapping around in 360/17 = 21 cycles or .233 years.

1phobosgrunt says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Wouldn’t that change the rate of charge exchange with our closer than thought object. Create more Anomalous Cosmic Rays?
Yes, the size of the heliosphere [whether caused by changes in the Sun or the interstellar medium] does control the flux of cosmic rays [normal and anomalous ones], but that does not influence solar activity or the solar cycle length. To keep with our gun analogy: a machine gun moves down a moving line of enemies. How they move and how close or far they are will determine the number of dead bodies found at various locations on the battlefield, but will not influence the functioning of the gun.

Looking at the graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Odd-Even.gif
the odd cycles have some tome to go (about 5 cycles or 110 years) to hit 540ish degree before another dip as one in 1910, making it 220-230 years.
However, the even cycles are about to hit the ceiling on the next minimum like and on the next around 2040 dip as in 1810, making it 230 years.
So situation cycles are approaching now are more like one about 1800 .
🙂
Lot of fun for the next generation of ‘planetary’ nutters.

lsvalgaard says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:38 am
“At that ‘maximum’ in 1695 there were only one sunspot group observed [on 27-30 May], so observations invalidate your assumption.”
The 10Be graph shows normal Hale periodicity 1685 to 1705 implying two cycles. In fact the Hale signal through those decades is the clearest in the whole series:
Page 16: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf
As you prefer to refer back to sunspot observations, there are zero sunspots from 1690 to 1699 except for 1695, which has 1 group and SSN = 6, again indicating a maximum there.

vukcevic says:
March 11, 2013 at 1:24 am
You are correct 200+ years, but when odd and even cycles are plotted separately…
This has nothing to do with odd/even cycles, Parker spiral, or anything interesting. It is just that Saturn goes around in its orbit at a bit slower than twice Jupiter’s period, so each time Jupiter is in certain position, Saturn will be alternatively on one side of the Sun and on the other [not quite, hence the 17 degree slip] explaining the 180 phase shift. No fun at all.

@lsvalgaard
Like I said the Hale signal at 1685 to 1705 is the clearest part in the series on page 16 here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf
That is two cycles there, plus the 7 cycles from 1605 to 1685 makes 9.

lsvalgaard says:
March 11, 2013 at 7:52 am
…..
Yes, the astronomic geometry is such as you describe.
Let’s consider what an electric or magnetic geometry would look like.
Assume that flow of plasma or a magnetic line is to connect the sun, Jupiter and Saturn in that order at solar minima. As you say it can’t go backwards against solar wind, and jump from one side of solar system to the other. To follow path of least resistance (at the solar minima) it has to go around stepping sideways, else it gets swept by solar wind all the way to the far reaches of the heliosphere. Applying 180 degree requirement (Parker spiral angle for crossing J and then S orbits) and assuming SC24 and SC25 about 11 years long, then the electric or magnetic geometry is
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Odd-Even.htm
It identifies correctly1810 and 1915 and the next (most likely grand) minima; chance or not, I would say it is matter of conjecture, not that you would agree.

lsvalgaard says:
March 11, 2013 at 12:33 pm
In all my years of teaching and educating people I have never come across anybody as learning resistant as you.
How true, possibly the most exceptional example of D&K syndrome, you might say.
If you have a better explanation for the 100+ years cycle than one in the link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Odd-Even.htm
let’s see it.

vukcevic says:
March 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm
If you have a better explanation for the 100+ years cycle than one in the link
Your ideas are not an ‘explanation’ at all. Just nonsense hand waving. The angles just keep wrapping around 360 degrees because a circle is round. There are no discontinuities or jumps
http://www.leif.org/research/Even-Odd-Vuk-Nonsense.png
The wrap-around s is elementary. Schoolchildren know this. Now you do too.

vukcevic says:
March 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm
did not predict forthcoming strong minimum, but simple planetary one I wrote 10 years ago (2003) did.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S [05/2003]
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24” it is important to be correct for the right reason.
I don’t understand why it works, but just coincidence for 3 successive events
I once flipped a coin three times in a row, it came up heads all three times.
There is nothing mysterious or noteworthy of the 180 degree shift as I have already explained [Jupiter makes two laps when Saturn makes one]. And it is good to see that you have abandoned your magnetic/electric ‘explanation’ [“I don’t understand how it works”], no understanding is needed for coincidences.

vukcevic says:
March 11, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Correct 3 out of 3 from the possible 25 ?
Now you are wasting everybody’s time. The individual cycles are not independent. There is a long cycle, so the issue is when the other minima of the long cycle are when one is chosen and there are not much choice. But this is also irrelevant as the ‘100-yr dips’ have no connection with the wrapping around at 360 degrees of the regular orbiting. In any event, it is good that you have given up your goofy magnetic/electric nonsense.

Jon says:
March 11, 2013 at 5:25 pm
“There is general agreement among cosmic ray physicists …”
How is your English???? General to me mean the majority … not all!
But does not exclude ‘all’. In this case I do not know of any dissenters.
And in science “general agreement’ means that the data [or theory] are compelling enough to accept whatever it is as a fact. E.g. there is general agreement that the Earth is round, or that the Sun is powered by fusion of hydrogen to helium, or that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, If of 100 scientists a majority, 51, hold a certain view we would not call that ‘general agreement’.

Jon says:
March 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Yes, I know it does not “exclude all” but it is normally used to indicate a majority, not unanimity
No, not just ‘a majority’ [greater than 50%], but an ‘overwhelming majority’. As I said, for the case at hand, I know of no dissenters.
At one time the “general agreement” was that the earth was flat
General agreement is no guarantee for correctness, but just agreement with the data we know at any given time.