MSM finally gets that the sun’s magnetic field has flipped

While we’ve known about this for quite some time at WUWT, going back to August 2013, the story is now starting to make the rounds in the MSM.

And, NASA has created a cool visualization of the event. Video follows. From the NASA video description:

This visualization shows the position of the sun’s magnetic fields from January 1997 to December 2013. The field lines swarm with activity: The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive. Additional gray lines represent areas of local magnetic variation.

The entire sun’s magnetic polarity, flips approximately every 11 years — though sometimes it takes quite a bit longer — and defines what’s known as the solar cycle. The visualization shows how in 1997, the sun shows the positive polarity on the top, and the negative polarity on the bottom. Over the next 12 years, each set of lines is seen to creep toward the opposite pole eventually showing a complete flip. By the end of the movie, each set of lines are working their way back to show a positive polarity on the top to complete the full 22 year magnetic solar cycle.

At the height of each magnetic flip, the sun goes through periods of more solar activity, during which there are more sunspots, and more eruptive events such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. The point in time with the most sunspots is called solar maximum.


Credit: NASA/GSFC/PFSS

The WUWT solar reference page has this revealing plot from Dr. Leif Svalgaard:

Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present

Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source
About these ads
This entry was posted in Solar and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to MSM finally gets that the sun’s magnetic field has flipped

  1. Malcolm Miller says:

    I don’t think that the MSM gives a stuff, unless there’s money in it. Alarm stories get the readers; all else is simply padding.

  2. Jim Hodgen says:

    But we’ve been assured by East Anglia and Trenberth that there are no Global-temperature-relevant parameters that are sun related. How can this be? /sarc-off

  3. A.D. Everard says:

    They haven’t found a way to blame humankind for the sun’s magnetic field flipping, or I’m sure it would be big news, demanding much funding, taxing and cut-backs (for us, of course). Too bad it couldn’t be caused by global warming… although someone somewhere is probably working on the idea.

  4. Bob Weber says:

    Questions for a solar scientist: does the sun’s magnetic flip change TSI any? Do TSI measurements integrate all solar outputs including flares, CMEs, filament eruptions, coronal hole emissions and subsequent electron & proton (solar wind) increases and lump them into this sole parameter? Is TSI an averaged number like SSN or 5-year running temperature averages? If so, what period of time over which TSI is averaged/smoothed?

  5. Bob Weber says:

    Last question was supposed to be: If it is, over what period of time is TSI averaged/smoothed?

  6. Louis says:

    “By the end of the movie, each set of lines are working their way back to show a positive polarity on the top…”

    When the movie ends, the positive polarity (green) is still on the bottom. Does the movie cut off too soon, or am I missing something?

    The movie starts with green on top and then switches to green on bottom around the year 2000. It then moves around a bit, but stays on the bottom until the end of the movie. What am I missing?

  7. MattN says:

    Sure did take a long time to flip this time. 13-14 years.

  8. vukcevic says:

    Detailed position of the amplitude of polar field (updatred regularly) here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm

  9. Sparks says:

    What was wrong with using the standardized color for magnetic polarity? Red = Positive and Blue = Negative. Just saying!

    It looks like 15 years of data was modeled for the animation, which suggests there is 7 years left of this solar cycle, putting solar minimum at 2020-2021, which seems just a bit to long.

    Louis says:
    December 30, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    The movie starts with green on top and then switches to green on bottom around the year 2000. It then moves around a bit, but stays on the bottom until the end of the movie. What am I missing?”

    When the video begins the positive magnetic polarity (green) is on top and the negative magnetic polarity (pink/purple) is on the bottom, this is also solar minimum, When the magnetic polarities reach the suns equator this is when the solar maximum occurs. The end of the video shows the current solar maximum.

  10. RoHa says:

    I’m sure this means were doomed.

  11. AJB says:

    Slow news day. That NASA vid was uploaded on the 5th of December. Gotta decorate fish and chip wrappers with something.

  12. vukcevic says:

    When magnetic field reversals are mentioned, term is often associated with the Earth’s magnetic field reversals. Fortunately, such events are rare (average 200-300 k years) and are far more sedate affairs :

    Last reversal occurred more then 41 k years ago during the last ice age, it is known as the Laschamp event.
    In the last 2-3 decades some more ‘rapid ‘ changes are observed; currently (2010) most of the Earth’s magnetic flux emanates from the Eastern Hemisphere:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMFd.gif
    Is this sign of another impending reversal?
    Difficult to say, but for a statistician (which I am not) most likely not.

  13. Mario Lento says:

    Sparks says:
    December 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    What was wrong with using the standardized color for magnetic polarity? Red = Positive and Blue = Negative. Just saying!
    ++++++++++++++
    It’s Christmas time… you know, green and red? Otherwise it’s Fesitvus for the Rest of Us.

  14. Mario Lento says:

    To my untrained eyes, it looks like the poles completed the flip around 2010… and then start edging towards the next cycle soon thereafter.

  15. Carla says:

    Bob Weber says:

    December 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    ————-
    The following article is not the answers to your questions but does have some relevant information, that you may find useful.
    For all of us actually..

    And Dr. S., found some newer articles that may make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Call Vera in for back up to smooth them back down. lol So, be prepared.. And Vuks you may be rather surprised or not?

    WEAKEST SOLAR WIND OF THE SPACE AGE AND THE CURRENT “MINI” SOLAR MAXIMUM
    D. J. McComas et al. 2013 ApJ
    The last solar minimum, which extended into 2009, was especially deep and prolonged. Since then, sunspot activity has gone through a very small peak while the heliospheric current sheet achieved large tilt angles similar to prior solar maxima. The solar wind fluid properties and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) have declined through the prolonged solar minimum and continued to be low through the current mini solar maximum. Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%). These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. The combination of lower magnetic flux emergence from the Sun (carried out in the solar wind as the IMF) and associated low power in the solar wind points to the causal relationship between them. Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/779/1/2

    and I still think the Voyager 1 got shrunk out of the heliosphere.

  16. Carla says:

    Are we ready, set, go…….

    This phenomenon can be explained by the occurrence of long-lived magnetic traps extending from the Sun to Jupiter and rotating along with the Sun.

    Jovian electrons and the solar wind during the minimum of the 23rd–24th solar activity cycle
    E. I. Daibog, K. Kecskemety, Yu. I. Logachev
    May 2013
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873813050158
    Jovian electrons in Earth orbit can be regarded as probes of the inner heliosphere’s structure. They readily penetrate into the inner heliosphere in periods of the optimum magnetic connection between Earth and Jupiter. Such a penetration is also occasionally observed at arbitrary Earth-Jupiter dispositions. This phenomenon can be explained by the occurrence of long-lived magnetic traps extending from the Sun to Jupiter and rotating along with the Sun.

  17. Carla says:

    2 Ready, set, go….
    “”… causing the IMF strength to peak near sunspot minimum rather than near sunspot maximum, …””

    The Solar Wind and Interplanetary Field during Very Low Amplitude Sunspot Cycles
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/764/1/90/pdf/apj_764_1_90.pdf
    Y.-M. Wang and N. R. Sheeley, Jr.
    2013 ApJ
    Cosmogenic isotope records indicate that a solar-cycle modulation persists through extended periods of very low sunspot activity. One immediate implication is that the photospheric field during such grand minima did not consist entirely of ephemeral regions, which produce a negligible amount of open magnetic flux, but continued to have a large-scale component originating from active regions. Present-day solar and heliospheric observations show that the solar wind mass flux and proton density at the coronal base scale almost linearly with the footpoint field strength, whereas the wind speed at Earth is uncorrelated with the latter. Thus a factor of ~4-7 reduction in the total open flux, as deduced from reconstructions of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) during the Maunder Minimum, would lead to a similar decrease in the solar wind densities, while leaving the wind speeds largely unchanged. We also demonstrate that a decrease in the strengths of the largest active regions during grand minima will reduce the amplitude of the Sun’s equatorial dipole relative to the axial component, causing the IMF strength to peak near sunspot minimum rather than near sunspot maximum, a result that is consistent with the phase shift observed in the 10Be record during the Maunder Minimum. Finally, we discuss the origin of the 5 yr periodicity sometimes present in the cosmogenic isotope data during low and medium amplitude cycles

  18. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Questions for a solar scientist: does the sun’s magnetic flip change TSI any?
    Not per se. But as the ‘fip’ happens at maximum, from now on TSI will decrease slightly [by some 0l.1% for another ~six years]
    Do TSI measurements integrate all solar outputs including flares, CMEs, filament eruptions, coronal hole emissions and subsequent electron & proton (solar wind) increases and lump them into this sole parameter?
    All the things you mention have a total energy that is absolutely minuscule compared to TSI, so whether they are included or not is hardly measurable. In principle, everything is included: one measures TSI by letting raw sunlight fall on an absorbing surface and measuring how much it heats up [actually, the real measurement is how much we have to heat (by a well-calibrated electric current) that surface to keep its temperature constant - but that amounts to the same thing].

    Is TSI an averaged number like SSN or 5-year running temperature averages? If so, what period of time over which TSI is averaged/smoothed?
    TSI is measured every few minutes and usually a 6-hour or a 1-day average is reported [no smoothing].

    Carla says:
    December 30, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    found some newer articles that may make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up…
    WEAKEST SOLAR WIND OF THE SPACE AGE AND THE CURRENT “MINI” SOLAR MAXIMUM

    Not at all. The solar wind [as predicted] is just down to what it was 108 years ago. Our data goes back to the 1830s and the Sun has been before where it is now.

  19. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    December 30, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    ——-
    Your missed the two articles after the first one..
    Good night

  20. Carla says:

    Just one more,
    …”””The observed UT variation of AKR frequency means that the acceleration altitude changes periodically with planetary rotation. The observations indicate that the diurnal wobble of the tilted geomagnetic field in the solar wind flow alters the magnetosphere-ionosphere (M-I) coupling state in the polar magnetosphere, giving rise to periodic variation of auroral particle acceleration altitude. “””…

    Universal time control of AKR: Earth is a spin-modulated variable radio source
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50180/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
    Akira Morioka1, Yoshizumi Miyoshi2, Satoshi Kurita1, Yasumasa Kasaba3,
    Vassilis Angelopoulos4, Hiroaki Misawa1, Hirotsugu Kojima5, James P. McFadden6
    19 MAR 2013
    [1] Auroral kilometric radiation (AKR) is known to be transient emissions generated by rapidly accelerated electrons together with sudden auroral activation in the polar magnetosphere. In contrast, the characteristics and relationship with the auroral acceleration of rather continuous AKR emissions are not well understood. We examine the emission using long-term data and report that the continuous AKR emission frequency changes with universal time (UT) as the Earth rotates, indicating that the Earth is a spin-modulated variable radio source. The observed UT variation of AKR frequency means that the acceleration altitude changes periodically with planetary rotation. The observations indicate that the diurnal wobble of the tilted geomagnetic field in the solar wind flow alters the magnetosphere-ionosphere (M-I) coupling state in the polar magnetosphere, giving rise to periodic variation of auroral particle acceleration altitude. These observations of planetary radio wave properties provide insight into the physics of planetary particle acceleration.

  21. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    December 30, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    Your missed the two articles after the first one..
    Neither one is particularly earth-shaking [nor unknown to me].

  22. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    December 30, 2013 at 6:34 pm
    The observed UT variation of AKR frequency …
    The UT variation of auroral and geomagnetic activity was discovered long ago and has been investigated intensively, in particular by me: http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf

  23. Tobias Smit says:

    That’s what my stomach felt like after a copious Christmas dinner with a great red wine and the family, interesting video I just wish I could slow it down, 5 days after the dinner it still makes me a bit “ill”. So a Happy and a great New Year to all of you.. (also spend a few minutes watching Suzuki’s interview on A(ussie)BC. now that really made me smile), (SUN NEWS Canada).

  24. Bob Weber says:

    Solar Enthusiasts Unite! This stuff is very interesting!

    Carla thank you for those iopscience links – added them to my electric weather and solar favorites folders. Thanks Dr. Svalgaard for those answers. I’m still in learning mode, and I might be there for a while, giving me something to do during our long winter here in N. Michigan.

    I was thinking maybe the 6-hour to 1-day TSI average may miss short-term peaks that occur during earth-directed solar flares. Are you aware of anamolous TSI readings during flaring events?

    After asking the first set of questions earlier, I found out TSI means “all wavelengths of light that fall on a 1 sq. meter area outside the Earth’s atmosphere”, and from the same source, “This radiant solar energy is known to influence the earth’s weather and climate, although the exact relationships between solar irradiance and long-term climatological changes, such as global warming, are not well understood.” Also, “Total means that the solar flux has been integrated over all wavelengths to include the contributions from ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation.”

    That raises another question: are seperate measurements made for ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation? Also, perhaps TSI at ground level would vary considerably depending on cloud cover. Is that measured anywhere? Also, wouldn’t TSI vary considerably depending on location at either ground level or at the top of the atmosphere (equator vs 45th parallel vs poles)? Is TSI measured at various places globally and then averaged for those periods?

    So for me, TSI means photons of light. Did anyone notice two days ago how incredibly bright the sun was? Coincidently most of the continental US experienced quite a warm-up for that day. Some days it seems like sunlight is much more intense than usual. I’m trying to fact check that.

    If TSI is strictly defined as “light” (photons), then irregular solar proton and electron (particle) emissions are probably doing things that are not picked up in TSI measurements, and even if “particle power” is not as cumulatively powerful as the light itself, particle electric and magnetic interaction with the magnetosphere may well be that “not well understood” aspect of weather and climate. This is a contention of mine and others that I am trying to parse out. What do you think?

    In addition to reading the papers cited above, I see I’m going to have absorb Dr. Svalgaard’s research page list too… oh boy…

  25. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 30, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    I was thinking maybe the 6-hour to 1-day TSI average may miss short-term peaks that occur during earth-directed solar flares. Are you aware of anomalous TSI readings during flaring events?
    Only the very largest flares add a little bit to TSI. Only one or two flares have ever been seen adding directly to TSI. http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/nuggets/?page=article&article_id=10

    That raises another question: are separate measurements made for ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation?
    Yes, but those are not added up to get TSI. TSI is measured ‘whole’.

    Also, perhaps TSI at ground level would vary considerably depending on cloud cover. Is that measured anywhere? Also, wouldn’t TSI vary considerably depending on location at either ground level or at the top of the atmosphere (equator vs 45th parallel vs poles)? Is TSI measured at various places globally and then averaged for those periods?
    More less ‘no’ to all.

    If TSI is strictly defined as “light” (photons), then irregular solar proton and electron (particle) emissions are probably doing things that are not picked up in TSI measurements
    These non-photon emissions are FAR less energetic and carry almost no energy compared to TSI itself. And the definition is not ‘strict’. TSI measures everything that falls upon the instrument, no matter what it is: photons, particles, magnetic fields, etc.

    particle electric and magnetic interaction with the magnetosphere may well be that “not well understood” aspect of weather and climate. This is a contention of mine and others that I am trying to parse out. What do you think?
    I think there is no strong case for any significant interaction.

  26. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 30, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    I was thinking maybe the 6-hour to 1-day TSI average may miss short-term peaks that occur during earth-directed solar flares. Are you aware of anomalous TSI readings during flaring events?
    From this link http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/At_last,_the_EUV_Spectrum “New “Sun-as-a-star” observations of solar visible and EUV emission have revolutionized our understanding of the energetics of solar flares. Figure 1 of an earlier Nugget shows the breakthrough observations (from the SORCE satellite) of the flare SOL2003-10-28, a GOES X17.2 “superflare.” Viewing the Sun as a star (i.e., measuring the total solar irradiance or solar constant), the SORCE radiometer found a trifling 0.03% increase for this huge flare. “

  27. Mario Lento says:

    Leif writes: “the SORCE radiometer found a trifling 0.03% increase for this huge flare. ”

    I’m curious if theer is an guestimate of how many solar flares are missed. If they miss 3 such flares in a year, that would be equal to the approximate % change from solar min to max. Not insignificant, I think.

  28. Galane says:

    Forget percentages, what is the actual number of the variance in watts of solar energy output that Earth intercepts? 0.03% is a rather large number when the number of the quantity being measured is in the billions, trillions or larger. Last I looked it up, the total solar output was in yottawatts but the total amount of that which Earth catches is a *relatively* tiny divot.

    Think of it this way, 0.03% of the average middle-class American income is a few bucks, but 0.03% of Al Gore’s income… The warmistas want people to think that small changes in solar output are like small changes in Average Joe’s income, which is why they never ever mention the actual numbers.

  29. Mario Lento says:

    Galene: No, let’s not forget about it. 0.03% is what it is. It provides the proportion needed to comprehend the scale of the affect of any energy missed or over sampled. The sampling methodology probably does not miss anything as it may over sample solar flares and under sample non flare irradiance as often as the converse. Statistically, my bet is that it’s a wash.

    By your thinking, 1000 pounds of meat is a lot. But if that 1000 pounds it’s insignificant towards ending hunger in a small country where they need to consume 1000,000 pounds per day to keep from being hungry.

  30. vukcevic says:

    TSI average may miss short-term peaks that occur during earth-directed solar flares. Are you aware of anomalous TSI readings during flaring events?

    It is interesting to note that the Ap index’s maximum daily values, reflecting the impact of the geomagnetic storms (related to solar flares & CMEs) , have a clearly pronounced 365 day component
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ApMax.htm
    According to the Ap index definition perhaps it shouldn’t be so prominent, the origin of the other two components are less obvious, but the sum coincides with another known Earth’s orbital property.

  31. lsvalgaard says:

    Mario Lento says:
    December 30, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    I’m curious if theer is an guestimate of how many solar flares are missed. If they miss 3 such flares in a year, that would be equal to the approximate % change from solar min to max.
    This was the biggest flare in the space age, and no flares are missed. Furthermore the trifling increase only lasted a few minutes.

  32. Mario Lento says:

    Thank you Leif: I posted earlier that I’d be pretty confident that not much of anything was lost in the sampling. Again, thank you for educating me.

  33. dan says:

    Leif, TSI still does not seem like a comprehensive representation of that which it is attempting to describe. If IR flux is low and UV high being the “same” TSI as a higher IR flux and lower UV flux, it would seem such a description lacks rigor and predictive capability.

  34. geran says:

    “…one measures TSI by letting raw sunlight fall on an absorbing surface and measuring how much it heats up [actually, the real measurement is how much we have to heat (by a well-calibrated electric current) that surface to keep its temperature constant”
    >>>>
    GREAT info!

    !) TOA is sometimes considered to be about 200 miles above Earth’s surface. Are the satellites measuring TSI that low, or is there some “calibration” of satellite data?
    2) For purposes of TSI measurement, what is the altitude of TOA considered?
    3) Does the satellite average include all the orbital measurements, including when it is “shadowed” by the Earth, or does it only record “snapshots” when it is directly “in-line” between Earth and Sun?

    TIA

  35. tadchem says:

    As much as I am loathe to extrapolate and talk about ‘trends’ in empirical data, it seems to me that the evolution of the peak amplitude (as seen in Dr. Svalgaard’s chart) of the solar magnetic field deserves scrutiny.

  36. lsvalgaard says:

    dan says:
    December 31, 2013 at 6:51 am
    Leif, TSI still does not seem like a comprehensive representation of that which it is attempting to describe. If IR flux is low and UV high being the “same” TSI as a higher IR flux and lower UV flux, it would seem such a description lacks rigor and predictive capability.
    What is important is how much TSI can heat the Earth. As TSI is deduced by directly measuring how much it heats the instrument it would seem that TSI is a rigorously determined quantity.

  37. lsvalgaard says:

    geran says:
    December 31, 2013 at 7:37 am
    !) TOA is sometimes considered to be about 200 miles above Earth’s surface. Are the satellites measuring TSI that low, or is there some “calibration” of satellite data?
    The satellites are higher, one is at 645 km another one at 1,500,000 km. The measurements are calibrated three ways: 1) adjusted for changing distance to the Sun, 2) adjusted for sensor degradation [by having multiple sensors with different exposure times], 3) by comparison with radiation standards in the laboratory.
    2) For purposes of TSI measurement, what is the altitude of TOA considered?
    The TOA is a concept not used nor relevant for TSI measurements as the satellites simply are high enough above the atmosphere.
    3) Does the satellite average include all the orbital measurements, including when it is “shadowed” by the Earth, or does it only record “snapshots” when it is directly “in-line” between Earth and Sun?
    No data is taken when in shadow [some satellites are never shadowed] otherwise all observations are included.

  38. geran says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    December 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
    >>>>>

    Cool! That helps my understanding immensely. Thanks again.

  39. Lief , so the northern hemisphere of the sun ‘flipped’ a while back , has the southern hemisphere ‘flipped’ yet…also, is it possible for one of the hemisphere’s to ‘slip’ into a neutral phase ? I would like to thank you for sharing with us your immense knowledge of the sun and it’s workings.

  40. lsvalgaard says:

    Dominic Manginell says:
    December 31, 2013 at 10:57 am
    Lief , so the northern hemisphere of the sun ‘flipped’ a while back , has the southern hemisphere ‘flipped’ yet…also, is it possible for one of the hemisphere’s to ‘slip’ into a neutral phase ? I would like to thank you for sharing with us your immense knowledge of the sun and it’s workings.
    I dislike the dumbing down that NASA et al. are doing with the ‘flipping’ business. The reversal of the poles is a slow, drawn out process that can take a year or more with at time multiple reversals of the Reversal. To add to the problem, the poles ‘hide’ behind the limb of the Sun because of a 7 degree tilt of the sun’s axis. We see the South pole best in March [and not at all in September]. If the Southpole looks reversed in three month I would say that the poles have finally reversed.

  41. Sparks says:

    Leif,

    I have written a wire frame modeling program in order to simulate the reversal of the poles, and I am able to model this process very precisely by manipulating the animation xyz variables to control the rotation, time and oscillation of a wire frame sphere.
    I think it is possible to get an exact formula for the timing of future solar cycles with this model as simulations of past cycles lead into future cycles. The program itself is very basic looking as all the work is done in the coding.

    This is the program.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/wiremodel.jpeg

    And this (I hope) will give a better idea of the model.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/swapwire.png

    BTW Have happy new year..

  42. RS says:

    That’s a pretty scary graph.
    Time to buy snow shoe manufacturer futures.

  43. Bob Weber says:

    I’ve been wondering today what those electrons are doing. Since NASA didn’t really say, I suppose they have the “choice” to go inwards, outwards, or just hang around in the photosphere and corona. Do they always do the same thing all the time? As NASA said:

    “… The field lines swarm with activity: The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive. Additional gray lines represent areas of local magnetic variation.”

    What are the measurable difference(s) in electron speed, flow direction, density, and energy parameters between the magenta negative and positive green “field lines”.

    I timestretched this video twice by 4X ea (to 1:44 & 6:54 min) in 1080 HD. Both are useful. If anyone asks to see both versions, I’ll happily upload them to my channel. You can easily see the same features with your video player by moving the player time index slider fast or slow with your device pointer (mouse).

    The first thing I noticed watching this video was how the overall magnetic field direction angle rocked and rolled all over the place as time went on, except during solar minimum, when the imagery appeared “stable” with a “balanced” magnetic dipoles, as, for example, during the several hundred day spotless period that defined the last minimum. Also the number of magnetic poles changed frequently from dipole to quadrapole, to a crazed multipole configuration and back again.

    It would be beyond fabulous if NASA could make the same visualization with DAILY frames, where we could really see what all the Earth-facing active regions were doing, and going one step further, include the other side of the sun in a different video with both sides “side-by-side”. Then the next step is obviously a realtime image viewable online, clearly followed by a live 3D hologram for your smartphone/TV.

    One thing I noticed years ago was how it appears that the sunspot areas tend to pull the plasma away from coronal hole areas. The lack of plasma cover over the coronal hole probably facilitates the higher speed particle streams regularly seen from coronal holes (no interference?)

    Finally, from memory, I noticed a strong correspondence between the “crazed multipole configuration” periods, and some of the more outstanding solar activity periods that also corresponded to times on earth when we had some rather memorable extreme weather events. I have records, so it won’t be hard to corroborate, just time-consuming.

    Happy New Year all.

  44. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    December 31, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive.
    The NASA PR-people got this wrong. There are not any more electrons in a ‘negative region’. The statement is complete nonsense.

  45. Bob Weber says:

    No wonder… you’d think they’d try a little harder to better explain what we’re seeing. There’s always next year.

  46. Bob Weber says:

    BTW, the Oct/Nov 2003 flares, especially the X17, with subsequent observable effects was my wake-up call to solar activity. Right then. That’s a story for another day.

    Food for thought: here’s a comment from Piers’ blog today that echoes what I’ve said here myself:

    On 31 Dec 2013, Rohan (subscriber), London wrote:

    hmmm… well from what I can see on spaceweather, the solar activity is being a bit tardy with its escalation so Piers forecast may come a bit late. Nonetheless, it has been noticeably colder here where I live for the past couple of days, not mild at all. Also I have noticed (again past 2 or 3 days) that the sun has been most unbearably bright, even brighter than on a clear hot summers day! I believe in Piers methods and even if by a couple of days, his forecast will happen. Keep the faith

  47. Brian H says:

    Bob;
    Surely Sun brightness has to do with atmospheric clarity, possibly with decreased scattering of blue wavelengths, rather than any perceptible solar variation.

  48. Mario Lento says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    December 31, 2013 at 7:04 pm
    Bob Weber says:
    December 31, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive.
    The NASA PR-people got this wrong. There are not any more electrons in a ‘negative region’. The statement is complete nonsense.
    +++++++++++
    Thank you for pointing this out. I glossed over it originally, and sort of scratched my head. It’s good to know for sure that the sun is not a big hot battery tumbling anode over cathode.

  49. Bob Weber says:

    Brian H – thanks for that. I see that Piers mentioned the same in so many words to Rohan’s observation. Maybe the right question is “do any solar activity increases contribute in any way to atmospheric clarity, and the subjectively perceived solar intensity (brightness) at ground level?”

    From the “solar constant” page by the often-bashed but still useful wikipedia :

    “Solar irradiance[edit]

    The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth’s varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year the solar constant varies much less than the solar irradiance measured at the top of the atmosphere. This is because the solar constant is measured at a fixed distance of 1 AU while the solar irradiance will be affected by the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit.

    The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth’s surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location’s latitude, and the time of day.

    Apparent magnitude[edit]

    The solar constant includes all wavelengths of solar electromagnetic radiation, not just the visible light (see Electromagnetic spectrum). It is positively correlated with the apparent magnitude of the Sun which is −26.8. The solar constant and the magnitude of the Sun are two methods of describing the apparent brightness of the Sun, though the magnitude is based on the Sun’s visual output only.

    The Sun’s total radiation[edit]

    The angular diameter of the Earth as seen from the Sun is approximately 1/11,700 radians (about 18 arc-seconds), meaning the solid angle of the Earth as seen from the Sun is approximately 1/175,000,000 of a steradian. Thus the Sun emits about 2.2 billion times the amount of radiation that is caught by Earth, in other words about 3.86×1026 watts.[7]

    Past variations in solar irradiance[edit]

    Space-based observations of solar irradiance started in 1978. These measurements show that the solar constant is not constant. It varies with the 11-year sunspot solar cycle. When going further back in time, one has to rely on irradiance reconstructions, using sunspots for the past 400 years or cosmogenic radionuclides for going back 10,000 years. Such reconstructions show that solar irradiance varies with distinct periodicities. These cycles are: 11 years (Schwabe), 88 years (Gleisberg cycle), 208 years (DeVries cycle) and 1,000 years (Eddy cycle)…”

  50. vukcevic says:

    SIDC sunspot number for December 2013 is a bit higher than expected at 90.3
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
    second highest of the SC24 (96.7 for Nov 2011). It is possible that SC24 hasn’t peaked yet.

  51. Bob Weber says:

    MA Vukcevic, your formula(s) and graphs are cool, especially the one where you demonstrated the 365 day Ap “wave”. I can see you’ve been a chart man for a long time. You remind of my university days when I and others would draw creative “charts” on a cardboard box in the apartment bathroom expressing our engineering analysis of such things as the correlation between a slacker roomie’s length of stay on the couch vs number of days the sink filled with dirty dishes, and more absurdities.

    Seriously, we both know charts, graphs, and correlations don’t make anything happen themselves. All the temperature trend and other charts in the world won’t prove the warmists’ point, especially if they use those charts to model reality in ways that don’t produce consistently observable results that follow the laws of nature. Things cause things to happen, not trends or probabilities. The standard model for quantum physics, cosmology, and now climate have many difficulties in spite of the standard bearers’ strong “belief” in them; and our doubts in those models have been self-created by the model builders’ lack of workable, testable mechanical linkages – cause and effect relationships- that have predictive power.

    I hope Dr. Svalgaard turns out to be right about the second peak; that would be a feather in his cap. And if he’s wrong, oh well, haven’t we all been wrong before sometime. I won’t hold it against him, nor not visit his research page, nor tell him I was “had” by him, nor call him part of a cult, even if I disagree with him or don’t understand what he says or means, or if someone else reveals a previously elusive truth he missed. We’re all trying to better understand. That’s why we’re here.

  52. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 1, 2014 at 8:38 am
    Two good reads:
    http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/inventions-and-deceptions-total-solar-irradiance/
    Not good at all. The very premise is wrong. We also measure TSI 1,500,000 km above the Earth [at the L1 point] and the variations measured there there agree with those at 645 km.

  53. Bob Weber says:

    Hmmm. Well, I’ll reread it and think it over. It’s gotta be tough getting beat up by people from Michigan. My condolences to you and all Stanford football fans over your loss to Michigan State (brother’s alma mater) in the Rose Bowl.

  54. Malagabay says:

    lsvalgaard says: January 1, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    Not good at all. The very premise is wrong. We also measure TSI 1,500,000 km above the Earth [at the L1 point] and the variations measured there there agree with those at 645 km.

    Bob Weber says: January 1, 2014 at 9:10 pm
    Hmmm.

    tallbloke says: November 22, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Tim Cullen: SOHO was parked out in a halo orbit near L1, about 1.5m km from Earth.

    Didn’t that mission team do any spectrographic analysis of the Sun?

    tallbloke says: November 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Ohhh, interesting…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory#Public_availability_of_images

    Public availability of images
    “Observations from some of the instruments can be formatted as images, most of which are also readily available on the internet for either public or research use (see the official website). Others such as spectra and measurements of particles in the solar wind do not lend themselves so readily to this.”

    Really??

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/tim-cullen-the-problem-with-tsi-total-solar-irradiance/

    Hmmm.

  55. lsvalgaard says:

    Malagabay says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:09 am
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/tim-cullen-the-problem-with-tsi-total-solar-irradiance/
    Regardless, this is still nonsense as TSI is also measured 1,500,000 km above the Earth’s atmosphere and the measurements agree with those measured at 645 km. The other problem with the link is the assumption that the Sun should have a blackbody spectrum. It simply does not.

  56. Malagabay says:

    lsvalgaard says: January 2, 2014 at 8:15 am
    Regardless, this is still nonsense as TSI is also measured 1,500,000 km above the Earth’s atmosphere and the measurements agree with those measured at 645 km.

    Surprising given the X-Rays generated in the geocorona by the solar wind.

    Chandra’s observations have also solved a decade-long mystery about X-rays detected by ROSAT (a now-defunct X-ray telescope that flew during the 1990s) that were thought to be coming from the dark portion of the Moon.

    “Our results strongly indicate that the so-called dark Moon X-rays do not come from the dark side of the Moon,” said Brad Wargelin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    Instead, Chandra shows that the X-rays from the dark Moon can be explained by radiation from Earth’s geocorona (extended outer atmosphere) through which orbiting spacecraft move.

    These geocoronal X-rays are caused by collisions of heavy ions of carbon, oxygen and neon in the solar wind with hydrogen atoms located tens of thousands of miles above the surface of Earth. During the collisions, the solar ions capture electrons from hydrogen atoms. The solar ions then kick out X-rays as the captured electrons drop to lower energy states.

    “This idea has been kicking around among a small circle of believers for several years supported by theory and a few pieces of evidence,” said Wargelin. “These new results should really clinch it.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/lunar_prospecting_prt.htm

    The other problem with the link is the assumption that the Sun should have a blackbody spectrum. It simply does not.

    The links indicate:
    1) The published Solar spectrum is not a blackbody spectrum [agreed].
    2) The Solar spectrum varies over time.
    3) The Solar spectrum is transformed within the geocorona and atmosphere.

  57. vukcevic says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 1, 2014 at 4:19 pm
    I can see you’ve been a chart man for a long time.

    In my previous incarnation as an engineer analysing various electronic signals I have learned that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’ (as some journalist said many decades ago) specially if words are not written in an impeccable (overhere queen’s / king’s) English.
    Most of cycles have a secondary peak, possibly associated with asynchronicity of activity in the two hemispheres, drifting trough with a much longer period. Even if two or more peaks do not materialise, I will not ask Dr. S. to ‘apologise’.
    http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfmms.php

  58. Sparks says:

    vukcevic,

    Leif has a paper on his site discussing the synchronicity of activity forming a double peak in the SSN record, it’s just another coincidence that planetary orbital periodicity of basic polarities match up. ;)

  59. Bob Weber says:

    “Most of cycles have a secondary peak, possibly associated with asynchronicity of activity in the two hemispheres, drifting trough with a much longer period.” SC24 bears this out IMHO.

  60. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    December 30, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Bob Weber says:
    December 30, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    That raises another question: are separate measurements made for ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation?
    Yes, but those are not added up to get TSI. TSI is measured ‘whole’.

    If TSI is strictly defined as “light” (photons), then irregular solar proton and electron (particle) emissions are probably doing things that are not picked up in TSI measurements
    These non-photon emissions are FAR less energetic and carry almost no energy compared to TSI itself. And the definition is not ‘strict’. TSI measures everything that falls upon the instrument, no matter what it is: photons, particles, magnetic fields, etc.

    particle electric and magnetic interaction with the magnetosphere may well be that “not well understood” aspect of weather and climate. This is a contention of mine and others that I am trying to parse out. What do you think?
    I think there is no strong case for any significant interaction.
    —————————
    So.. then solar TSI .. could be .. fluctuating more than we know .. because when solar TSI goes down .. then none solar particles increase (interplanetary, interstellar) .. being ionized and whatever by the same solar power source .. falling on to the detectors .. telling us no change in solar TSI ..

  61. Carla says:

    The raising or puffing up of the atmosphere (rising air) isn’t occurring like it had been. Large solar flares ie like the Carrington event or similar are said to raise the atmosphere to sometimes unbelievable proportions
    Just saying..

  62. lsvalgaard says:

    Malagabay says:
    January 2, 2014 at 10:32 am
    3) The Solar spectrum is transformed within the geocorona and atmosphere.
    But that has no influence on TSI measured more than a million km above the geocorona and atmosphere.

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    So.. then solar TSI .. could be .. fluctuating more than we know
    We know the fluctuations because we directly measure them.

  63. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    because when solar TSI goes down .. then none solar particles increase (interplanetary, interstellar) .. being ionized and whatever by the same solar power source .. falling on to the detectors .. telling us no change in solar TSI ..
    More nonsense. The reason there is no change in TSI is that these other contributions are unmeasurably small.

  64. Lief says Dec. 30, 2013 at 5:46pm “OUR data goes back to the 1830′s and the sun has been before where it is now.”….All activity(sunspots) are in the southern hemisphere , absolutely nothing happening in the north…Has this been observed since the 1830′s ? Is this the reason for lower sunspot counts , because the hemisphere’s are out of sync ? Will the southern hemisphere ‘shut down’ as the northern one has and SC24 be over with within the next year or so ? Will sunspots ‘disappear’ as they did during the last minimum and this minimum be even longer ? Can these ‘events’ influence SC25 ? Thank you , LIEF , in advance for helping me and others try to understand just what the hell is going on with our sun!!

  65. Bob Weber says:

    Before anything else is said, is it possible that the impact of electrons and protons in the solar wind on TSI instruments DO NOT warm the heat-absorbing material like the photons do?

  66. lsvalgaard says:

    Dominic Manginell says:
    January 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm
    Has this been observed since the 1830′s ?
    such asymmetry is quite normal. Cycle 14 is a good example as cycle 24 will soon be]. See Figure 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

    Is this the reason for lower sunspot counts , because the hemisphere’s are out of sync ?
    No.
    Will the southern hemisphere ‘shut down’ as the northern one has and SC24 be over with within the next year or so ?
    No.
    Will sunspots ‘disappear’ as they did during the last minimum and this minimum be even longer
    Not for a while at least.

    ? Can these ‘events’ influence SC25 ?
    The polar fields that will soon begin to build up again will determine the size of SC25.

    Thank you , LIEF , in advance for helping me and others try to understand just what the hell is going on with our sun!!
    The sun is behaving quite normally, in the sense that we have seen it all before.

  67. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    Before anything else is said, is it possible that the impact of electrons and protons in the solar wind on TSI instruments DO NOT warm the heat-absorbing material like the photons do?
    Particles carry kinetic energy and will deposit that energy on anything they hit. Clap your hands furiously and note that they get warmer.
    Now, the solar wind wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.

  68. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    because when solar TSI goes down .. then none solar particles increase (interplanetary, interstellar) .. being ionized and whatever by the same solar power source .. falling on to the detectors .. telling us no change in solar TSI ..
    More nonsense. The reason there is no change in TSI is that these other contributions are unmeasurably small.
    ——–

    Charge exchange processes, are too, extremely plentiful.

    And way out there to the Voyagers locations, there ‘were’ so many charges being exchanged we couldn’t see out for the brightness of it all…

  69. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm
    Charge exchange processes, are too, extremely plentiful.
    And totally irrelevant, energetically.

  70. Carla says:

    May just be, that we are now getting a better Interstellar view of some density enhancements, that may be nearby..the view looking out might just be a little clearer now.. Better check out the interstellar cloud watchers, paging MR Seth Redfield lol

  71. Keith Minto says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    So.. then solar TSI .. could be .. fluctuating more than we know
    We know the fluctuations because we directly measure them.

    The TSI recording device is a heat sensor, what if the irradiance striking the sensor does not change the reading but is still present, and is being swamped by the other wavelengths ?
    i.e. is a heat sensor appropriate as a recording device in that location ?

  72. Mario Lento says:

    Keith Minto says:
    January 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    So.. then solar TSI .. could be .. fluctuating more than we know
    We know the fluctuations because we directly measure them.

    The TSI recording device is a heat sensor, what if the irradiance striking the sensor does not change the reading but is still present, and is being swamped by the other wavelengths ?
    i.e. is a heat sensor appropriate as a recording device in that location ?
    ++++++++++
    I do not think the TSI is measured with a heat sensor. See here:
    http://www.jpss.noaa.gov/tsis.html

    We used a small PV solar panel (something like 2 square inches) to measure TSI in a solar heating application. I guess that measurement is good enough to know how the sun is shining. We scaled the voltage reading from the little PV “sensor” to approximate TSI, so we could compare the effectiveness of the solar hot water to extract the solar energy. The heat energy generated was measured as a delta-t * mass flow of the circulating coolant into and out of the heat exchanger. We used 2 wire 1000 ohm RTD’s to measure temperature.

  73. lsvalgaard says:

    Keith Minto says:
    January 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    and is being swamped by the other wavelengths ?
    The TSI instruments measure the Total Energy Output at ALL wavelengths at the same time.

  74. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    May just be, that we are now getting a better Interstellar view of some density enhancements, that may be nearby.
    And totally irrelevant for the situation at present and in several thousand years to come.

  75. Carla says:

    Keith Minto says:

    January 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    ——–
    Sorry don’t know..
    What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs and we are being told based on these TSI observations that TSI doesn’t vary much???

  76. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs
    No, you don’t know that, as it is not true. There is a subtlety hidden in the plural ‘solar outputs‘. If the sun has several outputs. Output A being 1000, output B being 20, output C being 0.001 [for a total of 1020.001] there might be a 40% reduction in output C to 0.0006 for a total of 1020.0006. Is that what you ‘know’? If so, then the total has not varied much indeed.

  77. lsvalgaard says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:30 pm
    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs>/i>
    No, you don’t know that, as it is not true. There is a subtlety hidden in the plural ‘solar outputs‘. Let the sun has several outputs: Output A being 1000, output B being 20, output C being 0.001 [for a total of 1020.001] there might have been a 40% reduction in output C to 0.0006 for a total of 1020.0006. Is that what you ‘know’? If so, then the total has not varied much indeed.

  78. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 2, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs
    No, you don’t know that, as it is not true. …
    ____________________________________________________________________
    WUWT recently had an article that used the 40% reduction thingy..
    And you might want to re- read the following if you want to get picky about it..

    WEAKEST SOLAR WIND OF THE SPACE AGE AND THE CURRENT “MINI” SOLAR MAXIMUM
    D. J. McComas et al. 2013 ApJ
    The last solar minimum, which extended into 2009, was especially deep and prolonged. Since then, sunspot activity has gone through a very small peak while the heliospheric current sheet achieved large tilt angles similar to prior solar maxima. The solar wind fluid properties and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) have declined through the prolonged solar minimum and continued to be low through the current mini solar maximum. Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%). These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. The combination of lower magnetic flux emergence from the Sun (carried out in the solar wind as the IMF) and associated low power in the solar wind points to the causal relationship between them. Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/779/1/2

    and I still think the Voyager 1 got shrunk out of the heliosphere. Because a 40% reduction might just mean that the heliosphere bubble is considerably smaller now than it had been..
    Good night

  79. Keith Minto says:

    Mario Lento,

    re TSI monitoring, see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_07.php and

    Self-calibrating irradiance sensors are thermal detectors that compare the heating effects of solar irradiance and electrical heating on a cavity detector

    from http://www.acrim.com/

  80. Carla says:

    Just in case you missed it
    temperature (~40%)

  81. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:36 pm
    WUWT recently had an article that used the 40% reduction thingy..
    And you might want to re- read the following if you want to get picky about it..

    They were referring to the solar wind, not the solar output. The solar wind carries less than one millionth of the solar output. I wonder how you can be brazenly ignorant [willful?], but most of your comments are of such a nature: conflating tiny variations with world-shaking events. Very sad.

  82. Janice Moore says:

    Carla? You appear to be asserting either that the Sun’s temperature output is 40% less (in which case we would all be dead from cold) which is ridiculous or
    you are mistaken in a manner far beneath what your demonstrated (from past posts) intelligence level could possibly allow absent some mental distress.

    That is, I hope you return to clarify what you actually meant to say, for at this point you appear to be very troubled.

    Hoping all is well,

    Janice

    ****************************************
    Just a little note to my dear allies in the battle for truth in science:

    I am so grateful to Dr. Svalgaard for his enduring efforts to educate, here, that I must speak out on his behalf. He is regularly misunderstood and, then, based on that misunderstanding, wrongfully castigated.

    I think that several many WUWT commenters (generally, not limiting this observation to this thread alone) conflate Dr. Svalgaard’s refusal to make a positive assertion as to what precisely drives climate change with his positive assertions made simply to correct errors about solar facts. That is, his:

    A. backing up his position with rock-solid physics and data that the Sun maintains earth’s homeostasis (and is, thus, the reason we are all alive!) within very small variations and that it likely does not drive climate shifts

    while at the same time saying

    B. little or nothing about what DOES drive climate shifts (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period)

    does NOT equal his saying that human CO2 drives climate.

    Further, while this was a rare occasion, he has said, I remember this distinctly, that other forces than human CO2 are much more likely to drive climate, for example ocean variations such as El Nino events.

    I made this same mistake about Dr. Svalgaard for awhile. If you read his comments carefully and read enough of them you, too, will realize that what I am saying above is true.

    Remember, “whoever is not against you is for you.”

    Please do not feel that I am singling any of you out (other than poor Carla above); MANY people make this mistake about Dr. Svalgaard. And, of course, he does not need me to defend him. I just naturally come to the defense of anyone whom I see being treated unfairly as he is week in, week out. It’s in my blood! say, that reminds me…..

    … (only a very crude analogy): my heart = the Sun, only maintaining my body temp. within a small range, it did NOT drive this post I am typing now. It was my muscles that drove my fingers. My heart is just beating away, sometimes a little more powerfully, sometimes less. Just — like — the — Sun.

    We must not try to build an anti-AGW edifice on the sand of Sun-as-climate-driver. First of all, we don’t need to! The burden of proof is on the AGW speculators. Second, such a position will only stand temporarily — in the end (for, one day, it will again be warm even though the Sun is “kalte”) our argument-of-sand will only leave us less able to stand for truth against the l1es of the Cult of Climatology. Focus on the oceans! (See Bob Tisdale’s books)

    And thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, your grateful student, Janice.

  83. Mario Lento says:

    Janice:
    The burden of proof is on the AGW speculators…
    +++++++++++
    You’re absolutely correct – except, not everyone in the jury thinks rationally.

  84. Janice Moore says:

    Thanks, Mario, yeah, you are SO right. And that is why, no matter how good they think their case is, when a client asks, “So, what are my chances of winning?” a wise attorney always responds: “Fifty-fifty.”

    Nice to hear from you and also grateful to know that my post was read!

    I didn’t read many comments on this thread, I saw one you wrote, though, that showed that you guys really know what you are doing at that ol’ office. Keep up the good work!

  85. Mario Lento says:

    Keith Minto says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:38 pm
    Mario Lento,

    re TSI monitoring, see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_07.php and
    Self-calibrating irradiance sensors are thermal detectors that compare the heating effects of solar irradiance and electrical heating on a cavity detector
    from http://www.acrim.com/
    ++++++++
    Keith, your right, and my opinion was wrong. I’m glad I said, “I don’t think”… rather than “You’re wrong” since I did not know for sure. I thought that since TSI measures all wavelengths all the same time that it would require other instruments to find the breakdown of frequencies.

    So it is the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) that does this measurement (but, no I never heard of that until today). It did not make sense to me that heating an element could accurately discern all of the frequencies of radiation that come from the sun. Anyway, the SIM uses photo diodes and prisms to measure the frequencies, and is not a direct measure of heat.

    That all said, it does seem apparent that the total TSI is measured by the voltage required to bring the heated cavity back to the reference temperature. But it alone does not seem capable of knowing what frequencies heated it. I did not read enough, but I am unclear about whether the TSI alone completely quantifies the complete energy of the sun.

  86. Janice Moore says:

    “I’m glad I said, “I don’t think”… . ” (Mario Lento)

    Of course. You are a genuine scientist-engineer. A climastrologist, on the other hand, would have said, “we voted on it and a consensus of us says the answer is 92.”

  87. Mario Lento says:

    Thank you dear Janice :)

  88. lsvalgaard says:

    Mario Lento says:
    January 2, 2014 at 9:48 pm
    but I am unclear about whether the TSI alone completely quantifies the complete energy of the sun.
    It does. Or to be more precise: TSI quantifies the capacity of the Sun to heat something: the instrument and the Earth.

  89. Mario Lento says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2014 at 10:09 pm
    Mario Lento says:
    January 2, 2014 at 9:48 pm
    but I am unclear about whether the TSI alone completely quantifies the complete energy of the sun.
    It does. Or to be more precise: TSI quantifies the capacity of the Sun to heat something: the instrument and the Earth.
    ++++++++++
    It does make sense technically Leif. And that is all that matters. If the energy does not heat something, then it will not directly contribute to heat on the earth. It’s amazing, that these devices can be sensitive enough to be heated by such a wide range of frequencies. The technology was only generally explained, and not specific enough (at least for me to digest). More technical information would be nice, but I got lazy. It might be there, but I did not find it.
    Thank you for your patience.

  90. Mario Lento says:

    Janice Moore says:
    January 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm
    “I’m glad I said, “I don’t think”… . ” (Mario Lento)

    Of course. You are a genuine scientist-engineer. A climastrologist, on the other hand, would have said, “we voted on it and a consensus of us says the answer is 92.”
    ++++++++
    No the consensus is either, 97%, 90% (AR4) or 95% (AR5) and the 95% is within a confidence interval that more than 1/2 is caused by CO2 input by man. Whereas 90% was the confidence interval that MOST was caused by man’s CO2 :) /sarc off :)

  91. Janice Moore says:

    OoooOOOOOOOooooh, so THAT is what the answer is. Thank you VERY MUCH, Mario Lento. (smile)

    And, re: above, prego, de niente.

  92. Keith Minto says:

    Mario, I occasionally bring up this topic only to be sent back to my kennel by Leif. I guess it is time to accept that any radiance decay to heat is readable, and that is that.

    Leif did reply to my question in July last year, this is my question, and his reply.

    Q. is this heat monitor a true indication of the sun’s output.?

    Yes, the sensor is open to space [and the Sun] so whatever energy is coming from the Sun enters the sensor, is absorbed, and heats the sensor. To measure the heat, the sensor is kept at a constant temperature [about 30 deg C] by an electric current in a wire wound around the sensor. The amount of current necessary to keep the sensor at its constant
    temperature is measured. The sensor is calibrated in the laboratory so that we know what current corresponds to what Wattage. There are four identical sensors. All sensors degrade with time in the harsh space environment. The degradation is carefully monitored [and corrected for] by exposing the sensors [with shutters] to the sun for different lengths of time [longer time = ,more degradation].

  93. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 2, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:36 pm
    WUWT recently had an article that used the 40% reduction thingy..
    And you might want to re- read the following if you want to get picky about it..
    They were referring to the solar wind, not the solar output. The solar wind carries less than one millionth of the solar output. I wonder how you can be brazenly ignorant [willful?], but most of your comments are of such a nature: conflating tiny variations with world-shaking events. Very sad.
    ——————————————————————
    Read again Dr. S., this is no small matter and a lot of time and effort by a gazillion people trying to figure out why the following solar parameters are so much weaker this cycle.
    Or is McComas et al just a bunch of quacks that should be ignored is how you make sound.
    late good day

    …”””Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%). These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s”””…

  94. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 3, 2014 at 6:24 am
    Read again Dr. S., this is no small matter and a lot of time and effort by a gazillion people trying to figure out why the following solar parameters are so much weaker this cycle.
    Those ‘solar parameters’ have nothing to do with the solar output of energy. And this cycle is nothing special, there have been cycles like that before, e.g. cycle 14.

    Or is McComas et al just a bunch of quacks that should be ignored is how you make sound.
    The fault is not with McComas but with you, believing that the solar output has been 40% lower and then wondering why TSI has been almost constant. This is a common fault you have: to be unable to put things in perspective, and being unable to learn when corrected.

  95. Mario Lento says:

    Keith Minto says:
    January 2, 2014 at 11:00 pm

    Mario, I occasionally bring up this topic only to be sent back to my kennel by Leif. I guess it is time to accept that any radiance decay to heat is readable, and that is that.

    Leif did reply to my question in July last year, this is my question, and his reply.

    Q. is this heat monitor a true indication of the sun’s output.?

    Yes, the sensor is open to space [and the Sun] so whatever energy is coming from the Sun enters the sensor, is absorbed, and heats the sensor. To measure the heat, the sensor is kept at a constant temperature [about 30 deg C] by an electric current in a wire wound around the sensor. The amount of current necessary to keep the sensor at its constant
    temperature is measured. The sensor is calibrated in the laboratory so that we know what current corresponds to what Wattage. There are four identical sensors. All sensors degrade with time in the harsh space environment. The degradation is carefully monitored [and corrected for] by exposing the sensors [with shutters] to the sun for different lengths of time [longer time = ,more degradation].
    +++++++
    Keith: That’s a very nice description and makes sense. Given that the temperature of the sensor is held constant, the sensors are probably very well calibrated. It’s more difficult to calibrate them over a range of temperature, I think.

  96. Mario Lento says:

    Janice: De Nada :)

  97. Mario Lento says:

    Carla: The ave. sunspot count is something like 40% lower than some previous cycles. No one is suggesting anywhere in science that the solar output 40% lower. The theory/hypothesis? is that higher sun spot counts tend to correlate with slightly increased TSI…

    Many of us argue that there are secondary effects on the planet due to this small fluctuation in the sun’s output. Some include some frequencies (wavelengths) of energy changing much more than others, with these effects not being so trivial. There are the cosmic rays deflected due to the delta in our magnetic field due to the changes in the sun interaction with our magnetosphere. There are a number of ideas being tossed around.

    Though, I am not convinced either way that we know with certainty what the climate will do I do tend to “feel” in my gut that it’s going to get a little cooler rather than a little warmer over the long term – with some ups and downs to keep things interesting. But as I’ve said before, my opinion and 25 cents still won’t buy you a cup of coffee.

  98. Bob Weber says:

    Following up on my question: “… is it possible that the impact of electrons and protons in the solar wind on TSI instruments DO NOT warm the heat-absorbing material like the photons do?”

    Regarding Dr. Svalgaard’s answer:

    “Particles carry kinetic energy and will deposit that energy on anything they hit. Clap your hands furiously and note that they get warmer. Now, the solar wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.”

    It looks like the answer to my question is “no”, the solar wind ‘warming’ is virtually unmeasurable at the TSI satellite(s). It would “appear” to the instrument that the overall relative base and transient particle warming is exceedingly small as compared to steadier radiation warming at the instrument.

    Not surprising considering the effective TSI measurement area is so small as to miss the vast amount of charged particles within reach of Earth’s magnetosphere when the particles are Earth directed. I think something is missing here in this analysis, something that explains why most of established science feels justified in saying that the apparently constant solar irradiance doesn’t account for weather or climate changes, notwithstanding issues with TSI satellite readings.

    For the sake of this discussion, light “fills” space continuously (uniformly at all wavelengths?) while particle flows are considered to be “discrete” with non-uniform densities and speeds.

    Photons enter Earth’s tropic’s thick atmosphere directly in a line-of-sight fashion straight from the sun at the speed of light, as electromagnetic radiation isn’t guided electrically and magnetically into the polar regions as are the electrically charged solar particles. The tropics have a much greater surface area to receive the warming photons than do the polar regions, which is why the tropics are warm and the poles are ice-covered.

    Unlike photons, the solar wind protons and electrons that are deflected by the magnetosphere into the poles CONCENTRATE their kinetic energy cumulatively from nearly the entire elliptical magnetosphere into the thinner upper atmosphere at the poles, a much smaller area than the equator.

    What happens to all the solar wind kinetic energy that gets concentrated into the poles? Can a thin cold polar atmosphere withstand transient impulses of charged particles without moving around, and if they move at all, where can the cold air go? Downward and southward.

    What happens to the photon-warmed thicker wet tropical air? Where can it go? Upward and northward.

    What happens when cold air meets warm wet air? Weather.

    Where does extreme weather come from? Blobs of downwelled IR from co2? Is there any evidence at all anywhere that demonstrates how localized variable and MEASURABLE atmospheric co2 concentration differentials directly cause short-term large enough temperature differentials to move air and water with such power to alledgedly cause extreme weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, snowmageddons, heavy rain, and ice and hail storms? If you are a true believer, show me that evidence. Prove it to ME.

    This isn’t even the whole picture, because we can’t ignore the influence of the moon on the atmosphere. If anyone thinks the moon that has enough tidal influence on the oceans cannot drag the atmosphere northward or southward during ascending or declining phases, or that it doesn’t interfere with the solar wind charged particle interaction with the magnetosphere with those motions and positions such during as the full and new moon, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The bridge I’m offering is not figurative, but one of understanding.

  99. Bob Weber says:

    I was speaking from the perspective of being in the Northern Hemisphere. The principle applies to the Southern Hemisphere as well. At the equater, on the north side the warm moves northward, and on the south side it moves southward, both upwards. At the south pole the cold air can only move northward and downward. That explains some of the visual symmetry we often see with weather patterns on both hemispheres.

  100. Mario Lento says:

    I look at that the atmosphere and magnetosphere act as a complex continuously changing filter, so that energy at different frequencies passes through to energize various matter. When the sun’s radiation frequencies change, it has to have some effect on Earth’s Albedo.

    Somewhat conversely; if the Earth’s Albedo never changed, then I would rest easy thinking that measuring the slightly changing TSI (without concern to the mix of frequencies) in space, scales well with what Earth experiences.

  101. Janice Moore says:

    Lo siento, Senor Lento. LOL, I thought your name was de Italiano, no Espanol. Gracias para el correccion (sp?).

  102. Mario Lento says:

    Janice: You thought correctly the first time. You see, I am an anomaly. Long story… and way off topic. My family’s heritage is 100% Italian, mostly from Sicily. That said, I chose to learn Spanish in high school (instead of the other offering French). I was raised in the Boston area and out of the two languages, I saw French as useless, and Spanish as the up and coming one to know. I took a few semesters in college (for my humanities requirement) and then taught it as a temporary full time sub for a high school in between finishing my EE and Management undergrad degrees.

  103. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 3, 2014 at 9:35 am
    Not surprising considering the effective TSI measurement area is so small as to miss the vast amount of charged particles within reach of Earth’s magnetosphere when the particles are Earth directed.
    No, these particles do strike the measurement area. The proton density of the solar wind is 5 per cc, rising to 100 during a geomagnetic storm. Since the solar wind moves at 400 km/sec [or more] the volume entering the TSI measurement cavity [area 0.5 cm^2] every second is 400,000 * 0.5 = 200,000 cc containing 1,000,000 protons, plenty for measuring. It is sad that you cannot yourself have seen that as you had the data, but such is perhaps the blindness stemming from what you wish to believe.

    What happens to all the solar wind kinetic energy that gets concentrated into the poles?
    The total power impinging on the globe is minute, typically 10 to 100 GigaWatt. Compare that to 175,000,000 GigaWatt that we get from TSI.

    This isn’t even the whole picture, because we can’t ignore the influence of the moon on the atmosphere.
    Right, we get 0.0136 W/m2 of solar radiation reflected off the Moon [1/100,000 of TSI]…and not to forget the 0.00001 W/m2 generated by lunar tides.

    The bridge I’m offering is not figurative, but one of understanding.
    Having the right perspective helps that understanding.

  104. Mario Lento says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
    +++++++++
    Fantastic information and perspective doctor Svalgaard.

  105. lsvalgaard says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
    No, these particles do strike the measurement area. The proton density of the solar wind is 5 per cc, rising to 100 during a geomagnetic storm. Since the solar wind moves at 400 km/sec [or more] the volume entering the TSI measurement cavity [area 0.5 cm^2] every second is 400,000 * 0.5 = 200,000 cc containing 1,000,000 protons, plenty for measuring.
    Haste is waste. The correct calculation is 400,000,00 cm * 0.5 cm^2 = 20,000,000 cm^3, so 100 million protons striking the device every second. Plenty.

  106. Mario Lento says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    ++++++++++
    Proof that we are not the only ones corrected by the doctor…

  107. Bob Weber says:

    Dr. thanx. I’m talking about UPTICKs not background solar wind periods in relationship to weather.

    I thought I said “… is so small as to miss the vast amount of charged particles within reach of Earth’s magnetosphere when the particles are Earth directed”, which I figured someone with your brains would understand to mean exactly what was meant: that the TSI measurement volume (a singular sample) or calculation does not cover the entire volume (length, breadth, depth) of the magnetosphere, because that little measurement box doesn’t see out to the vast edges of specific earth-directed proton and electrons flows that are generated from flare-generated CMEs, filament eruptions, high-speed coronal hole flows, nor do any satellites have the ability to measure the density everywhere. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear enough for you.

    Therefore, unless you know better, it appears that the TSI calculation can’t calculate the whole quantity, volume, or power of particle flow, of which a not insignificant portion is channeled into the poles during UPTICKS (vs average background). Are there other satellites and methods for polar measures?

    Do you know for sure that sudden stratospheric warmings are not caused by particle inflows from these UPTICKs? What do you suppose is the effect of 10-100 Gigawatts of power coming into thin cold polar atmospheres? Is that power an estimate or is it measured? Is that power insignificant except for auroras?

    You said: “It is sad that you cannot yourself have seen that as you had the data, but such is perhaps the blindness stemming from what you wish to believe.”

    That was uncalled for; I’ve monitored proton density and speed daily for years and witnessed what happens here after these UPTICKs. I’m not talking about average conditions whatsoever.

    You said: “Now, the solar wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.” OK, so all those millions of protons that you calculated for me basically cause, as you said, ‘warming that is unmeasurable’. That was my first point, and it’s nice we finally agree on something.

    You are going to very surprised what I’ve found out about photons, protons, and electrons, and geomagnetic activity, the weather, and what it does to people. Since I’m sure you don’t have a clue at what I mean, I’ll give you something to think about while you getting ready to put me down again.

    Hurricane Katrina (8/23/05 to 8/29/05): M2, M5 flares 8/22; M2 8/23; M4 8/25; M1 8/28; protons go up 8/22, Kp=9 on 8/24/05. Need more?

    Japan Tsunami (3/11/11): 10 M flares 3/7-3/9; X3 3/9; protons elevate 3/8-3/11; Kp climbs to 7.

    Moore, OK Tornado (5/20/13): 4 X-flares 5/13-5/15; M2 5/17; protons elevate; Kp=6.

    That’s all for now. The list of examples is so long, so revealing; why didn’t you find this out?

    One more thing Leif, I care about people staying alive and well. So does Piers Corbyn. His forecast for the end of the year 2013 included every single extreme weather activity we’ve seen in all the right places all of December, setting up for record-setting cold temperatures now in January. Cold is a killer. Extreme weather is a killer. If one person’s life is saved due to people having a practical knowledge of electric and magnetic weather effects caused by UPTICKs in earth-directed solar activity (flare events), then putting up with your disbelief will have been worth it. You ought to think about this until you see my video.

    Repeat after me: it’s photons, protons, and electrons that power extreme weather, not CO2.

  108. Janice Moore says:

    Dr. Svalgaard — Mr. Weber tells you what you “ought to” do. I think you “ought to” ignore him. He will NEVER get it. Amazing. Even after my simple explanation above his of how your comments do not equal believing CO2 drives the earth’s climate. Yeah, it is NONE of my business, but, I hope you won’t dignify his prideful nonsense with a response.

    *******************
    Mario, thank you, you Sicilian — Spanish speaking — Boston-Californian anomaly, you, for the clarification. Grazie and gracias and ….. merci (heh, heh). lol, given some of the pseudo-science comments above (not meaning yours or Dr. Svalgaard’s), what would NOT be on topic?
    #(:))

  109. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    I’m talking about UPTICKs not background solar wind periods in relationship to weather.
    During UPTICKS even more protons are there to be measured improving the data.

    that the TSI measurement volume (a singular sample) or calculation does not cover the entire volume (length, breadth, depth) of the magnetosphere, because that little measurement box doesn’t see out to the vast edges of specific earth-directed proton and electrons flows that are generated from flare-generated CMEs, filament eruptions, high-speed coronal hole flows, nor do any satellites have the ability to measure the density everywhere. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear enough for you.
    The solar wind structures are so vast that the spatial variation over the magnetosphere is small. This means that the sampling done by the TSI instrument is very representative. Just like the sampling done by a single satellite. By your assumption, the satellite measurements, that you have followed for years, would not be any good either, as they only sample a singular point in the vast magnetosphere.

    Therefore, unless you know better, it appears that the TSI calculation can’t calculate the whole quantity, volume, or power of particle flow, of which a not insignificant portion is channeled into the poles during UPTICKS (vs average background). Are there other satellites and methods for polar measures?
    By your argument no measurement would do as it would not cover the whole. But we do have measurements of the power input to the whole of the polar regions http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/
    furthermore the whole Earth is our instrument and we have global indices for the power input
    http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf

    Do you know for sure that sudden stratospheric warmings are not caused by particle inflows from these UPTICKs?
    Stratospheric warmings are observed to be caused by upward traveling waves from the troposphere.

    What do you suppose is the effect of 10-100 Gigawatts of power coming into thin cold polar atmospheres? Is that power an estimate or is it measured? Is that power insignificant except for auroras?
    It is measured: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/ and is completely insignificant for the weather [a million times smaller than the solar photon radiation]

    That was uncalled for; I’ve monitored proton density and speed daily for years and witnessed what happens here after these UPTICKs. I’m not talking about average conditions whatsoever.
    By your argument the satellites making the measurements that you watch are no better than those measuring TSI: they do not measure the ‘whole’.

    You said: “Now, the solar wind is so tenuous that the warming is unmeasurable.” OK, so all those millions of protons that you calculated for me basically cause, as you said, ‘warming that is unmeasurable’. That was my first point, and it’s nice we finally agree on something.
    If the warming is unmeasurable by the satellite it is, obviously, also unmeasurable by the Earth. So, we agree on that.

    You are going to very surprised what I’ve found out about photons, protons, and electrons, and geomagnetic activity, the weather, and what it does to people. Since I’m sure you don’t have a clue at what I mean, I’ll give you something to think about while you getting ready to put me down again.
    In 1976 I was the U.S. Envoy to the Soviet Union on possible solar effects on weather and climate http://www.leif.org/EOS/USSR-US-1976.pdf [section IV(B)8 page 427 and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/261546a0-Olson-SSSR.pdf
    While there I visited a lunatic asylum where the director claimed that the level of agitation of the inmates had a dramatic UPTICK every time an interplanetary sector boundary overtook the Earth. The director offered us his data on this so we could fill in data gaps in the satellite coverage. Nothing actually came of this, but at least some people thought that interplanetary conditions did things to people. Perhaps you have similar observations.

    why didn’t you find this out?
    Because it is totally spurious.

    it’s photons that power weather, not CO2.

  110. lsvalgaard says:

    Janice Moore says:
    January 3, 2014 at 6:39 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard — Mr. Weber tells you what you “ought to” do. I think you “ought to” ignore him. He will NEVER get it. Amazing.
    Most of our ‘usual suspects’ will never get it either, but it is my wont to at least try. Other readers may [and do] get something positive out of the exchanges and THAT has value.

  111. Janice Moore says:

    Dr. Svalgaard says… (6:58pm, today)

    Yes, you are correct. And that undaunted dedication is why I am correct to call you a truth-in-science Hero. And I just might say that yet again someday.
    #(:))

    btw, I hope your granddaughter’s first year at college is going well. If she was disappointed in her first quarter grades, I hope that she will take a little comfort from the fact that her experience is the norm (most college freshmen feel overwhelmed; it just takes a bit of time to get one’s bearings) and that most students’ grades improve significantly as time passes.

  112. Janice Moore says:

    Well, Dr. Svalgaard, I just read your thoughtful response to Mr. Weber (6:53pm today). I’m glad you made it, for I learned a few things! Thank you (even though it was not directed at me).

    Re: 1976 USSR “lunatic” asylums… there, no doubt, you would have found some of the Soviet Union’s finest (and perfectly sane) minds, too. Examples of such people (not necessarily in prison in 1976) Natan Sharansky… Elena Bonner and Andre Sakharov … Alexander Solzhenitsyn and on and on… . What a horrible place.

    I hope you are going to write an autobiography — you have many unique insights and eyewitness observations and stories to tell! If you need a volunteer ghost writer assistant just ask A-th-y for my e mail address. Oh don’t laugh so loudly — I am actually a pretty good writer in the eyes of some (no, not just my mother, lol).

  113. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 3, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    Japan Tsunami (3/11/11): 10 M flares 3/7-3/9; X3 3/9; protons elevate 3/8-3/11; Kp climbs to 7.
    Is an example of the spurious coincidence. The implications seems to be that the geomagnetic storm [Kp 7] caused or triggered the earthquake that caused the tsunami. One way to verify such claims is the use the start of the storm [a so-called 'sudden storm commencement' - an SSC] as a ‘key-time’ and count how many earthquakes occur on the day where there is an SSC, and on the day before, the day after, after after that, etc. Thousands of SSCs are known so the statistics is very good: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png
    As you can see there are not more strong earthquakes on or near the day of SSCs than on any other day. This is the kind of analysis you ought to do before making any claims.

  114. Mac the Knife says:

    Well! This was an interesting video… but a much more interesting discussion that followed in the extended exchange of comments. Thank you Bob Weber, Mario Lento, Carla, Janice Moore, Keith Minto, Malagabay, geran, and especially Dr. Svalgaard. I have a much better understanding of how (and where!) TSI is measured…. and why Dr. Svalgaard maintains it is a true measure of the suns ability to heat a ‘sensor’ or the earth.

    Thank you all, for your combined contributions to this ones small efforts at solar enlightenment!
    MtK

  115. Mac the Knife says:

    Well! That was an interesting video…. but a much more interesting series of dialogs in the extended comments! Thank you Keith Minto, Mario Lento, Bob Weber, Dominic Manginell, Vucevik, Carla, Janice Moore, Malagabay, geran, and especially Dr. Svalgaard! I have a much better understanding of how (and where!) TSI is measured…. and why Dr. Svalgaard maintains that it is an honest measure of the suns ability to heat a sensor suite… or the earth.

    Thank You All, for helping this ones slow journey along the path to solar enlightenment!
    MtK

  116. Mario Lento says:

    Janice:
    Socialist rant, phonetically transliterated in English characters per my memory.

    Hineh ma tov uma na’im
    Shevet achim gam yachad.

    How nice it is to live together in a Kibbutz.

    Or literal translation
    - How good and pleasant it is
    For brothers & sisters to sit together

    I can sing and play this on my guitar, but I am not a socialist. Though I do volunteer and donate to people who appreciate. And willingly pay taxes so I do not go to jail.

  117. Bob Weber says:

    Dr. Svalgaard, those are among the many implications of electric weather.

    Did you not think the Russians had good reason to talk about their observations of people under their close watch? Do you not realize this human reaction has been observed throughout history worldwide? I observed someone I know turn from a decent man into a monster in the days following the X17 flare of Oct 2003 (Kp=9). Thereafter I made a habit of paying particular attention to reactions in others and myself following proton events and during the full moon, when the atmosphere is filled with positive ions. This phenonenom has been very well documented worldwide. Positive atmospheric ions make me sleepy and cranky!

    On satellites. let’s all keep in mind that small sample sizes extrapolated into full-blown ideas are what has gotten climate scientists in trouble. I really am not quibbling about technical satellite mesurements per se, but the interpretation of large events gone virtually unseen by most.

    As for the SSCs you mentioned, what I realized is that it takes days for the protons to build-up in the magnetosphere, and days for that energy to discharge into the earth biosphere, through many channels. That is why this has been so elusive, I think. The protons and electrons accumulated in the magnetosphere from solar flare events have to go somewhere in seeking equilibrium with their environment. I think some events bypass the poles altogether, and look like they could be direct discharges from near-space to the earth.

    I am not alone here in understanding the outside forcing of weather and climate.

    See http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130804%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20101.PDF

    See http://f3.tiera.ru/2/P_Physics/PGp_Geophysics/Sidorenkov%20N.S.%20The%20Interaction%20Between%20Earth's%20Rotation%20and%20Geophysical%20Processes%20(Wiley,%202009)(ISBN%203527408754)(O)(319s)_PGp_.pdf by Nikolay S. Sidorenkov

    If that link fails, try

    http://www.turkoplus.net/e-book/146623-the-interaction-between-earths-rotation-and-geophysical-processes.html

    The Weather Channel this morning is talking about an artic vortex being responsible for these record shattering bone chilling killer cold waves, just like Piers Corbyn predicted a month ago.

    Dr. Svalgaard, what is your expert opinion as to what energy is powering that artic vortex?

    What am I supposed to “get” anyway? Enlighten me if you’re so smart. Are you afraid of looking at evidence? My video depicts satellite-produced evidence for electric weather. You “ought” to see it first before flying off the handle with your dismissive attitude.

    Need another clue?

    Hurricane Sandy (10/22-10/31 2012): M5 10/20; M1 10/21; M4 10/22; X 10/23….

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

    Have a nice day there in peaceful sunny temperate California. Don’t let that electric weather get you guys down now.

  118. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:30 pm
    Carla says:
    January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    What I do know is that there has been a 40% reduction in solar outputs>/i>
    No, you don’t know that, as it is not true. There is a subtlety hidden in the plural ‘solar outputs‘. Let the sun has several outputs: Output A being 1000, output B being 20, output C being 0.001 [for a total of 1020.001] there might have been a 40% reduction in output C to 0.0006 for a total of 1020.0006. Is that what you ‘know’? If so, then the total has not varied much indeed.
    ——————
    Now that I see what ‘you’, are describing as “outputs,” I have a question.
    If output C is as small as you say, why then does it have such a huge effect on Earth’s AP progression.
    Just eyeballing the observed AP progression from 2000-2013 it appears to be 50% lower. This is a direct result of your output C 0.001? Now last cycle 23 the sun was already in declining phase. So, if we compared AP for cycle 22 to 24?

    The heliotail region Earth is orbiting through seems a bit denser than usual this year.

    Yeah, yeah Janice I am a faithful follower of brother John Leif Svalgaard.
    Just a take off the lyrics of “Uneasy Rider,” Charlie Daniels Band
    Funny little song.

  119. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 4, 2014 at 5:27 am
    Do you not realize this human reaction has been observed throughout history worldwide?
    No, as sector boundaries have not been observed ‘throughout history’

    during the full moon, when the atmosphere is filled with positive ions.
    The full moon does not fill the atmosphere with positive ions.

    On satellites. let’s all keep in mind that small sample sizes extrapolated into full-blown ideas are what has gotten climate scientists in trouble.
    This has nothing to do with the superb measurements by satellites. If those measurements are no good, then your conclusions from ‘watching them’ are no good either.

    As for the SSCs you mentioned, what I realized is that it takes days for the protons to build-up in the magnetosphere
    No, it does not. The injection into the magnetosphere is prompt [minutes, hours]. It takes days for the magnetosphere to relax to normal. That is why my superposed analysis extended until three months after the SSC

    I am not alone here in understanding the outside forcing of weather and climate.
    That others are wrong does not make you right.

    Dr. Svalgaard, what is your expert opinion as to what energy is powering that artic vortex?
    The question is somewhat ‘woolly’. The polar vortex is always there. It has quite a day-to-day variability caused by weather systems or large-scale waves that move upwards from the surface into the stratosphere. These waves are forced by large mountain areas combined with the sea-land temperature contrast especially during winter.

    What am I supposed to “get” anyway?
    You are supposed to “get” that there is a scientific method and that you [and Piers and the EU-cult] are not following it.

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 10:05 am
    If output C is as small as you say, why then does it have such a huge effect on Earth’s AP progression.
    Because the Ap-index is designed specifically to pick up those small variations, by detecting minute variations of the Earth’s magnetic field [Ap = 25 - at the peak of SC23 - is 1/1000 of the Earth's magnetic field]. Compared to the energy in the solar output the Ap variation is not ‘Huge’, but tiny. Here is your problem, Carla: that you ignore explanations if how things work.

  120. Carla says:

    Will the lower AP, affect surface generated monopole magnetic fields, a reduction of those fields? Will Earth be leaning towards, a more dipole magnetic field, are we already seeing this effect with slow down of magnetic north pole to a more longitudinal drift? Does this then affect where and how access through the magnetic field is penetrated during solar induced events? Which would affect locations of the particle precipitation from solar induced events.

  121. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 11:15 am
    Will the lower AP, affect surface generated monopole magnetic fields, a reduction of those fields?
    The Ap events are transient and external and will not change the Earth’s field.

    Will Earth be leaning towards, a more dipole magnetic field, are we already seeing this effect with slow down of magnetic north pole to a more longitudinal drift?
    Apart from the irrelevant Ap transients, the Earth’s field, generated deep in the core, is actually slowly getting less dipolar [the dipole moment is decreasing].

    Does this then affect where and how access through the magnetic field is penetrated during solar induced events?
    A weaker magnetic field [it has decreased 10% the past 150 years] will allow a bit easier access for solar and cosmic ray particles.

    Which would affect locations of the particle precipitation from solar induced events.
    And expand the auroral zone a little bit, generally making geomagnetic activity at mid-latitude felt a bit more strongly. These changes are very slow and will take hundreds [if not thousands] of years to play out to any significant degree.

  122. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mac the Knight in Shining Armor,

    I am pleased but shaking my head. Well, if my simple comments helped you, that’s great. Thank you for your generously telling me so. Re: some of the comments on this thread in general (including some of mine), LOL! Poor Dr. Svalgaard probably thinks he is back at that asylum, heh, heh.

    Still smiling over your sweet Irish blarney on New Year’s Eve #(;)),

    Janice
    *************************************************

    Oh, Mario,

    I hope I did not offend you by my sloppy use of the English language above. Your eloquent and very witty comment at 11:14pm, yesterday, made an excellent point, but…. it also left me in a little bit of doubt as to whether my calling you “Sicilian — Spanish speaking…” was offensive to you. Please, please, forgive me if I offended you. Written communication is so prone to misunderstandings… .

    Your WUWT pal,

    Janice

  123. Mario Lento says:

    Oh, Mario,

    I hope I did not offend you by my sloppy use of the English language above. Your eloquent and very witty comment at 11:14pm, yesterday, made an excellent point, but…. it also left me in a little bit of doubt as to whether my calling you “Sicilian — Spanish speaking…” was offensive to you.
    ++++++++++
    Hi Janice: No no… yo’re not offensive to me in the least dear Janice. But I read what I wrote again and can see what you mean. (regarding I’m not a socialist)… You wrote on in three of the Romance languages – and I decided to spew off some absolute nonsense in some tangential language. I used to sing that song a lot at Jewish Camp, and while at the JCC while I was a counselor and teacher from my late teens through college. Anyway – I never realized, until I got older, that the song celebrates the communistic lifestyle perhaps akin to “it takes a village”. So I did not want anyone here who recognized that sweet little song to think I was promoting some ideals.

    You’re not offensive, just very strong and sensitive. You’re sensitivity lets me know that I should be vigilant when writing, so as to be careful of others’ feelings too.

    :)

  124. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 4, 2014 at 11:48 am
    _______________
    Just tripped on this looking for something else..
    From my reading, I thought that LOD (Length of Day) rose and fell over the solar cycle during rise and fall of sunspot cycle. But after seeing figure S3 (below) it looks more like it is inversely correlated with the rise and fall of the heliocurrent sheet?
    thoughts..

    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

    Page 21 Figure S3 1960-2011 LOD (ms)
    Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
    in length-of-day
    R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
    http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf

    Someone has to do my laundry today..

  125. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm
    Just tripped on this looking for something else..
    As the authors say: “This [the variation] argues against an origin from solar processes”.

  126. Carla says:

    Changes in Earth rotation rates
    Changes LOD
    Changes atmospheric circulation patterns N., S., Equator.

    And what we might see occurring in current weather patterns in the Eastern Hemisphere part of the phase shift from the above changes.

  127. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm
    Just tripped on this looking for something else..
    As the authors say: “This [the variation] argues against an origin from solar processes”.
    ————-

    Maybe so.. but the article does not mention the heliocurrent sheet specifically either.

  128. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm
    Maybe so.. but the article does not mention the heliocurrent sheet specifically either.
    Why should it? The HCS has nothing to do with the LOD either.

  129. Carla says:

    Humor me and have a look..
    Just a little visual comparison looking for an inverse correlation between LOD and heliocurrent sheet angle.

    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

    Page 21 Figure S3 1960-2011 LOD (ms)
    Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
    in length-of-day
    R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
    http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf

  130. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    Humor me and have a look..
    I did. The LOD has nothing to do with the LOD. The authors are quite correct in their Characterisation.

  131. lsvalgaard says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 4, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    Humor me and have a look..
    I did. The HCS has nothing to do with the LOD. The authors are quite correct in their Characterisation.

  132. Janice Moore says:

    Mario, thank you. Glad to know that all is well.

  133. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Does anybody find this convincing:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012239/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012239.pdf
    I do not.

    I haven’t read it yet, I’ll let You know!

  134. Sparks says:

    Leif,
    Not convincing at all. The five month lag of each yearly period over two separate solar maximums seem to me to be seasonal or even lunar. It’s an interesting idea tho.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012239/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012239.pdf

  135. Sparks says:

    Leif,
    How about this one!! lol

    Dogs preferred to excrete with the body being aligned along the North-south axis under calm MF conditions. This directional behavior was abolished under Unstable MF. The best predictor of the behavioral switch was the rate of change in declination, i.e., polar orientation of the MF.

    http://www.frontiersinzoology.com//content/10/1/80/abstract

  136. lsvalgaard says:

    A nice interactive tool to see the Sun’s magnetic field structure:
    http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/webgl_tool/solar_viewer/?date=20140106
    Rotate the sun with the mouse!

  137. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 6:47 am

    A nice interactive tool to see the Sun’s magnetic field structure:
    http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/webgl_tool/solar_viewer/?date=20140106
    Rotate the sun with the mouse!

    Very nice. I’ve wrote a similar program in opengl, except for the magnetic lines.

    Tip: If it doesn’t work Enable webgl for Firefox.
    http://www.infewbytes.com/?p=144

  138. Bob Weber says:

    Thank you for taking your first steps. My time is short, so I will just repeat what I said elsewhere today from here http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/the-state-of-climate-science/#more-15249

    “Keep up the good work Tallbloke!

    The CO2 warmists are clearly insane. They’ve tried repeatedly to get us to “submit to their authority” without providing clear evidence, or cogent cause-effect relationships, or any sign of having a “theory” that has been reduced to a practical science that can produce verifiable predictions. They don’t follow the scientific method. They expect us to believe them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They have been at that for more than two decades and still can’t produce anything of value.

    What is the very definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. They’d be taken seriously if they could come up with verifiable results. They can’t, and they never will, because their “science” is faulty, based on the wrong premises. They are INSANE.

    The rest of the freedom-loving humanity don’t have to listen to them or follow their dictates any more. The sun is showing them who’s boss right now, today:

    From my post this morning at http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=616&c=5

    “Electric space weather: “FLARES LIKELY TODAY: Giant sunspot AR1944 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for potent Earth-directed eruptions.” – http://www.spaceweather.com/ “A minor S1 level radiation storm remains in progress following an increase in Earth directed proton levels. Unfortunately for us sky watchers, the bright coronal mass ejection (CME) it generated is likely directed away from our planet.” SSN=225, SFI=218 – http://www.solarham.net/ ["FORTUNATELY" would have been a better choice of words considering...] Further, the largest and quickest spikes I have ever seen in ACE LE Electrons (a double spike) and ACE HE Protons – http://solarimg.org/artis/ – AR1944, when it rolls into position and if it fires off a flare towards us, look for atmospheric brightening, a delayed warm blast from the tropics, an another planetary wave induced SSW, and the polar vortex to deliver another wave of bone-chilling killer cold – all Electric/Magnetic Weather Effects.” ”

    Dr. Svalgaard, your challenge is accepted. I am writing a science paper. You may not realize it now, but I’ve gone through all the stages of the scientific method starting with observations. So has Piers Corbyn. If I have to go to the Electric Universe people and straighten them out myself, I will.

    ALL interested parties may look for yourself at Piers’ last three months forecasts at his archives page here for verification of the excellence he has finally achieved today after decades of following the scientific method: http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact46

    Here’s a quiz for all the marbles: what is the significance of the number 282? Clue: it happened once.

  139. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:40 am
    AR1944, when it rolls into position and if it fires off a flare towards us
    I don’t think AR1944 will be flaring a lot…
    It is in the wrong position with respect to the large-scale magnetic flux, e.g.http://www.leif.org/research/Hale-Flares.pdf

  140. Sparks says:

    Leif,
    Is it possible for the large outer planets to behave like polarity gates that can interfere with the solar dynamo?

  141. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:19 am
    Is it possible for the large outer planets to behave like polarity gates that can interfere with the solar dynamo?
    Apart from my having no idea what a ‘polarity gate’ is, I don’t think the planets have any effect.
    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
    Some people do, but people believe all kinds of things, e.g. CO2 causing CAWG :-)

  142. lsvalgaard says:

    Bob Weber says:
    January 6, 2014 at 9:40 am
    Dr. Svalgaard, your challenge is accepted. I am writing a science paper.
    It was not a challenge, just a friendly reminder about the established way to gain credibility.

  143. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 10:23 am

    “Apart from my having no idea what a ‘polarity gate’ is, I don’t think the planets have any effect.”

    What I mean by a ‘polarity gate’ is, where a magnetic moment occurs between two (or more) basic polarities, but on a planetary scale. a point of basic repulsion or attraction.

    I have noticed one planet in particular that mimics the solar dynamo and during the times when the gate is interrupted, the solar dynamo and this planet both go out of sync for a period of time until they slowly and gradually become synchronized again.

    It cant be angular momentum.

  144. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:07 am
    What I mean by a ‘polarity gate’ is, where a magnetic moment occurs between two (or more) basic polarities, but on a planetary scale. a point of basic repulsion or attraction.
    Because the solar wind supersonic, no magnetic or electric fields can travel upstream to influence the Sun.

  145. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:14 am

    “Because the solar wind supersonic, no magnetic or electric fields can travel upstream to influence the Sun.”

    No magnetic or electric fields need to travel upstream to influence the Sun, as the gate itself is the source of influence between two (or more) basic polarities/bodies.

  146. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:25 am
    No magnetic or electric fields need to travel upstream to influence the Sun, as the gate itself is the source of influence between two (or more) basic polarities/bodies.
    Nonsense.

  147. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:27 am

    “Nonsense.”

    I’ll put it to you another way.
    A repulsive force (+) does not need to travel upstream to influence the source of another repulsive force (+).

  148. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:35 am
    A repulsive force (+) does not need to travel upstream to influence the source of another repulsive force (+).
    That would be true if there were a vacuum between the two sources, but the solar wind is an electrically conducting medium that does not allow penetration of magnetic or electric fields.

  149. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 11:43 am

    “That would be true if there were a vacuum between the two sources, but the solar wind is an electrically conducting medium that does not allow penetration of magnetic or electric fields.”

    It allows for a ‘polarity gate’ on a planetary scale, as there is no penetration of magnetic or electric fields occurring between the two sources. A small repulsive force (+) can move a larger repulsive force (+) with or without a vacuum.

  150. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    It allows for a ‘polarity gate’ on a planetary scale, as there is no penetration of magnetic or electric fields occurring between the two sources. A small repulsive force (+) can move a larger repulsive force (+) with or without a vacuum.
    You are not learning anything. Willful ignorance is a bad thing. Two sources can interact if there is a field between them [gravitational field, magnetic field, what have you]. Any influence of one upon the other source is mediated by the field between them. Any change of conditions at one source has to travel as a wave in the field between them to the other source. For a magnetic field in a plasma the travel speed is called the Alfven speed. The solar wind is moving away from the Sun many times faster than the Alfven speed, so a magnetic influence cannot travel upstream.

  151. lsvalgaard says:

    email from Todd Hoeksema [WSO]
    Hi folks,
    We can now confirm that the south pole of the Sun as measured by WSO has reversed polarity.
    We’ve just updated the analysis for the last month or so as Earth approached the solar equator from the north.
    The latest table polar field measurements is at http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
    The latest plot of the south pole observations is at http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif

  152. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 4, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    Carla says:
    January 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    Humor me and have a look..
    I did. The HCS has nothing to do with the LOD. The authors are quite correct in their Characterisation.
    —————————
    Thank you Dr. S.
    I didn’t read the article myself, not what I was cherry picking for that day.
    From my reading of a different article, I thought that LOD (Length of Day) rose and fell over the solar cycle during rise and fall of sunspot cycle. (59 browser windowns open)
    I knew that that article did not make a solar connection for length of day. But browsed the images anyway. And that is when I thought I was seeing a connection to the HCS. But you say no. The geomagnetic jerks seem to correspond to HCS jerks during its rise and fall. But hey.
    Their explanation (from the article)

    “””What could give rise to such an effect? Occurring simultaneously with geomagnetic jerks,
    the LOD jumps, like the oscillation, most likely originate from the core.”””

    When all else fails invoke the core, yeah sure ok..

    Now Vuks may find the graphs interesting and useful.
    And William Astley might find it useful as well … 4 geomagnetic jerks from 1999 to 2007. That’s what the vertical dashed lines were in the graphs..

    Page 21 Figure S3 1960-2011 LOD (ms)
    Characterisation and implications of intradecadal variations
    in length-of-day
    R. Holme1 & O. de Viron2
    http://www.liv.ac.uk/~holme/nature_sub.pdf

    HCS Helio Current Sheet in time
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

    But thank you anyway, Dr. Svalgaard.

  153. Carla says:

    And where did Mr. Weber put all those marbles.
    Were we supposed to read Pier’s forecast to get the 282 thingy?

  154. Carla says:

    How many bumps (waves) are there currently in the HCS?
    Read somewhere (lol) ususally two major and up to 8 in varying size. Some of the smaller Earth only skims while it orbits.

  155. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Does anybody find this convincing:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012239/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012239.pdf
    I do not.
    —————–
    Didn’t read this either, but first ‘question mark’ is, location, location, location.

  156. Carla says:

    Patients from Georgia and Greece and Cosmic Ray data from..

    “”””Daily pressure corrected data of the CRI were obtained from Moscow Neutron Monitor Station””””

    Carla says:

    January 6, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    lsvalgaard says:

    January 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Does anybody find this convincing:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/409/1/012239/pdf/1742-6596_409_1_012239.pdf
    I do not.
    —————–
    Didn’t read this either, but first ‘question mark’ is, location, location, location.

  157. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    January 6, 2014 at 5:20 pm
    But hey. Their explanation (from the article)
    “””What could give rise to such an effect? Occurring simultaneously with geomagnetic jerks,
    the LOD jumps, like the oscillation, most likely originate from the core.”””
    When all else fails invoke the core, yeah sure ok..

    since the geomagnetic field and its variation originate deep in the core, that would be the natural place to look for the cause of the jerks.

  158. Bob Weber says:

    Ok Carla, don’t worry, the marbles are not missing…. 282: you could, but you don’t have to, if you know how to look…. doh, I said too much – later

  159. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    …Two sources can interact if there is a field between them [gravitational field, magnetic field, what have you]. Any influence of one upon the other source is mediated by the field between them. Any change of conditions at one source has to travel as a wave in the field between them to the other source. For a magnetic field in a plasma the travel speed is called the Alfven speed. The solar wind is moving away from the Sun many times faster than the Alfven speed, so a magnetic influence cannot travel upstream.

    I understand what you have been saying, the discussion about basic polarities is not born out of ‘Willful ignorance’, I’ll point out that the interaction of north/south polarities are undetectable until a third medium reacts with and highlights the position and/or movement of the polarities, such as the suns convection zone and sunspot activity, or the polar orientation of the planet Uranus.

    Polarities are generated within a planetary body or a star and magnetic fields are generated by the interaction between polarities (Opposite poles attract but similar poles repel each other).

    I’m Not claiming the planets are the cause of the solar cycle, I am pointing out a basic mechanism which can interrupt the timing of the solar dynamo, under the force of the sun itself. This mechanism has the ability to produce prolonged solar minimums, lasting centuries.

  160. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 9, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    the polar orientation of the planet Uranus.
    What happens on Uranus cannot [and does not] influence the Sun for the reasons I have explained. It seems to me that you willfully ignore that.

  161. Sparks says:

    Leif,
    I actually haven’t ignored what you have said.

  162. lsvalgaard says:

    Sparks says:
    January 9, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    I actually haven’t ignored what you have said.
    Then why do still maintain that Uranus does unholy things to the Sun?

  163. Sparks says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    January 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    “Then why do still maintain that Uranus does unholy things to the Sun?”

    giggles!

  164. Sparks says:

    Leif,
    In all seriousness, there is an unresolved issue between the astronomical observations and the solar observations, ‘the timing’ is incredible.

Comments are closed.