The Sun today
Solar cycle 24 still getting a slow and very delayed start. This is the third one of these (that I know of) this past year.
From SIDC (Solar Influences Data analysis Center) in Belgium: http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/
:Issued: 2008 Dec 14 1156 UTC :Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/quieta #--------------------------------------------------------------------# # From the SIDC (RWC-Belgium): "ALL QUIET" ALERT # #--------------------------------------------------------------------# START OF ALL QUIET ALERT ....................... The SIDC - RWC Belgium expects quiet Space Weather conditions for the next 48 hours or until further notice. This implies that: * the solar X-ray output is expected to remain below C-class level, * the K_p index is expected to remain below 5, * the high-energy proton fluxes are expected to remain below the event threshold. #--------------------------------------------------------------------# # Solar Influences Data analysis Center - RWC Belgium # # Royal Observatory of Belgium # # Fax : 32 (0) 2 373 0 224 # # Tel.: 32 (0) 2 373 0 491 # # # # For more information, see http://www.sidc.be. Please do not reply # # directly to this message, but send comments and suggestions to # # 'sidctech@oma.be'. If you are unable to use that address, use # # 'rvdlinden@spd.aas.org' instead. # # To unsubscribe, visit http://sidc.be/registration/unsub.php # #--------------------------------------------------------------------# (h/t to sunspotter)
There are two satellites out in Solar Orbit at 1 AU. Stereo A and Stereo B.
Or, Stereo Ahead and Stereo Behind.
They are in orbit about the Sun, and in Earth’s path around the Sun.
They are 44.738 and 42.353 degrees leading and trailing the Earth in it’s orbital path.. One sees the Solar Activity that has rotated out of view, and the other one sees the Solar Activity that is about to rotate into view.
So far, we have not yet located the Planet Vulcan. Sorry about that.
oh I love this blog! and miss it the days I cannot get there!
Leif I love your presence here, and I hugely respect your expertise in solar matters, like Alan the Brit, but I fear you use your expertise to prop up your opinions in areas you do not understand. To me, the fact that Piers Corbyn has apparently got a significant number of forecasts right is not a reason to dismiss him because you don’t know his method. It’s a reason to try and find out what method he might be using – and to look around for any clues to shed light on his apparent success.
There are a growing number of pieces of research I’m discovering that do show statistically significant links between solar cycles and earth weather. And when one considers that as was pointed out recently here, the oceans carry 1000 times as much heat storage capacity as does the atmosphere, then one realizes that the highest statistical correlation has to be between oceans and measured temp rather than sun and measured temp, even though ocean heat has surely got to go back to the sun (apart from vulcanism and a tiny human contribution).
I’ve started a thread on our forum to try to collect such material together. Single items might be doubtful – but when the evidence accumulates, and stands at least a preliminary examination regarding quality of science, it is harder to dismiss it all.
Robert Bateman (13:26:22) :
Just when you get confident that the Earth is insignificant and puny, up pops something like this that blows the doors off.
And some like Hung(NASA) and Jean-Pierre Desmoulins have shown that the Earth, in and out of conjunction with Jupiter and Venus line up extremely accurately with all of the sunspot cycles for the last 300 years….normally 2 cycles with slightly diff cycle times will eventually go out of sync as those who thought Jupiter alone was the cause of sunspot cycles discovered. But add Earth and Venus and it sync’s perfectly.
Check Desmoulins graph with sunspot peaks added here
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/11/sun_fig5.gif
I’m having a strong feeling of deja vue here, just remembering the “quiet sun” post(s) from late 2007 when I started to visit this blog. A year on – still quiet… Very soon we’ll hear that starter motor sound effect again. :o)
Edward Morgan (12:40:15) :
we are all making sense. What’s wrong with that. Follow the thread.
You are not making all that much sense. At times, the thread sounds like a bunch of ‘yes-men’, comforting each other.
Alan the Brit (11:01:04) :
However, although Piers Corbyn may not be telling us “what it is”, he is getting it pretty tight! I he was that bad, he’d have gone out of business by now.
Down the street where I used to live is a fortune-teller and psychic who has been in business [also makes tarot and palm readings]. She has a sign in her window: “been in business since 1973” and is still at it.
Lucy Skywalker (15:24:12) :
I fear you use your expertise to prop up your opinions in areas you do not understand.
I do not have an ‘opinion’, just like I don’t have an opinion as to whether the Earth is round. This is not a matter of opinion, but of demonstrability and physics.
To me, the fact that Piers Corbyn has apparently got a significant number of forecasts right is not a reason to dismiss him because you don’t know his method.
I have not seen an analysis of his ‘result’ and skill measure, and anecdotal evidence is not enough. As I understand it this forecast are for the UK and as much as I believe that the Brits consider UK the center of the Universe [I once saw a BBC weather TV emission with the title: ‘The Continent is cut off due to fog’], sunspot or universal electric currents or planets or the like must have applicability to other regions [e.g. Bangladesh] as well, but I have not seen analyses either of how well he does there.
It’s a reason to try and find out what method he might be using – and to look around for any clues to shed light on his apparent success.
No, if he won’t tell, his claims must remain non-science. In the end, it boils down to an independent analysis of his skill and all I have seen are some anecdotes, many of which don’t even seem to be extraordinary. E.g. we may be in for general cooling [PDO phase and all that] from which many things follow [white Xmas, floods, etc]. So without skill-analysis and explanation of method, I cannot take this seriously. But, then I also do not consult with my neigborhood psychic, although supposedly her track record is outstanding and she is still in business after all these years.
Lucy Skywalker (15:24:12) :
I fear you use your expertise to prop up your opinions in areas you do not understand.
And everybody here are within areas that they understand, right? Solar physics touch on very many areas that are important to climate as well: radiative transfer, atmospheric circulation, internal oscillations, atmospheric waves, energy considerations, etc, etc.
I was once chastisized for opposing the ‘planetary influence, theories on the grounds that I did not have any expertise in astrology.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:51:36) :
But add Earth and Venus and it sync’s perfectly.
Check Desmoulins graph
This does not look like a perfect match, e.g. near the end it is getting out of sync again, with the sunspots leading the planets. The trick of inversing every other cycle is a well known device to generate a correlation where the is almost none.
And it is easy to pick a number of planets to line up. But you have to justify why the other planets shouldn’t be included [Mercury and Saturn, perhaps]. The simple answer is that it then doesn’t work anymore.
Leif Svalgaard (07:11:06) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (01:19:36) :
Basically what caused the deep minima of the past is waning, but still strong enough to throw a cycle or 2 into chaos.
Worthless pseudo-science.
Interesting comment Leif, but hardly scientific. I and others have a reasonable theory in this area that can and will be tested very soon, but suspect if we do indeed experience a grand mimimum starting at SC24, you will continue arguing against it until you become part of your own pseudo-science arena.
Predicting a solar cycle based on the last cycle is of little use really, and theorizing solar cycle modulation is a random event, flies in the face of past solar cycle modulation patterns. You have possibly shown there is a floor to solar output but somehow cant acknowledge the downstream cooling effects of staying on that floor for extended periods and conversely how our atmosphere and oceans are effected by multiple high modulation short cycles…in fact from what I have read, you only leave AGW as the remaining factor for any warming.
If SC24 fails to start a grand minimum then my part of the planetary influence theory is certainly shot….but looking good at the moment 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (19:21:30) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:51:36) :
But add Earth and Venus and it sync’s perfectly.
Check Desmoulins graph
This does not look like a perfect match, e.g. near the end it is getting out of sync again, with the sunspots leading the planets. The trick of inversing every other cycle is a well known device to generate a correlation where the is almost none.
And it is easy to pick a number of planets to line up. But you have to justify why the other planets shouldn’t be included [Mercury and Saturn, perhaps]. The simple answer is that it then doesn’t work anymore.
Yes its out of sync now as it was around 1790 but it returns which is the important factor. Hung and Desmoulins are very aware of that fact and I theorize its because of the other planets (Jovian) that havent been included in their work. If you read their work along with mine it will all become clear to you.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
I have a chart posted that lines up the exact sysygies of Jupiter/Venus/Earth against the Desmoulins peaks, so the work has been done. Mercury is taken into account but has a very minor influence.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/JEVsysygies.jpg
All I can see is that both the Medieval Maximum and the Dalton Minimum got stuck straight over the top of the same repeating pattern.
So if I follow the sequence, one is Maximum next one is a Minimum,
then I should expect the current one to be Not the Oort as the preceeding one is the Oort.
This one (SC24/25) is not the Minimum.
Oh, I think this layman will just stick to pattern matching from previous sequences.
I got SC4/5 matching up with SC23/24.
Every month that goes by with spotlessness now whacks off the top of SC24.
And I won’t bother to say why, because I haven’t the foggiest idea.
Robert Bateman (20:34:21) :
I am assuming you are talking about the first article on my blog…the 2nd article is the one i have been referring to.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:34:25) :
“Basically what caused the deep minima of the past is waning, but still strong enough to throw a cycle or 2 into chaos.”
Worthless pseudo-science.
Interesting comment Leif, but hardly scientific.
For ‘your’ statement to be scientific you must have a ‘measure’ of the effect [that is waning] and a relationship or threshold above which it is still strong enough to “throw a cycle or 2 into chaos”. If you do not, then the whole thing is just hand waving.
I and others have a reasonable theory in this area that can and will be tested very soon, but suspect if we do indeed experience a grand mimimum starting at SC24, you will continue arguing against it until you become part of your own pseudo-science arena.
Perhaps you forget that I have predicted that solar cycle 24 will be the weakest in a 100 years [ http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ].
Predicting a solar cycle based on the last cycle is of little use really
Any prediction that is correct is of great use.
and theorizing solar cycle modulation is a random event, flies in the face of past solar cycle modulation patterns.
Standard statistical techniques show that the solar cycle modulation is random in the sense that there are no patterns, so doesn’t fly in the face of anything except cyclomania.
you only leave AGW as the remaining factor for any warming
Aha, there is your real problem. Readers of this blog will know that this is false. It is just the other way around: AGW proponents require a solar cause for all variation before ~1970. They get very upset when I argue that there isn’t any.
If SC24 fails to start a grand minimum then my part of the planetary influence theory is certainly shot….but looking good at the moment 🙂
As long as you have not defined what a Grand Minimum is you are safe. Does the max. sunspot number need to fall below, say, 50 to make it a GM, or below 11?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:54:04) :
If you read their work along with mine it will all become clear to you.
It is clear to me that this is indeed pseudo-science at its finest.
I have a chart posted that lines up the exact sysygies of Jupiter/Venus/Earth against the Desmoulins peaks:
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/JEVsysygies.jpg
So, what do the numbers signify?
Leif: I am able to find daily sunspot data back to 1818 (SIDC).
Some of it is very sparse (1818 on through 1820’s), with missing days.
Below that, I can only find monthy averages. I have come across references that say that the data was taken daily before 1818, but that it is lost, and the only thing that survives is subsequent studies/reports that reference the original data, thereby preserving the monthly average.
I would like to see any daily data from Solar cycles 4 & 5.
Any idea where I might find it?
Leif Svalgaard (20:59:50) :
For ‘your’ statement to be scientific you must have a ‘measure’ of the effect [that is waning] and a relationship or threshold above which it is still strong enough to “throw a cycle or 2 into chaos”. If you do not, then the whole thing is just hand waving.
A lot of your questions suggest you havent read my or other peoples work i refer to in this area, please do me the courtesy of doing so as I always read yours. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 clearly shows how the alignments were strongest between 1200 and 1800 and are now beginning to weaken. Further research could possibly quantify to what extent that weakening is but the ssb graph clearly shows it. I am adding to this research on a regular basis.
So, what do the numbers signify?
Once again its better to read the detail, but as stated in the article “The table is a plot of J+E+V alignments with each date corresponding with the green peaks on Desmoulins graph. The odd cycle numbers are J+V with E apposing and even is J+E+V aligned.”
Not really. If you make 20 predictions and one is “correct”, it’s obvious that you’re just guessing, and caught up with chance. If you can demonstrate why your prediction is correct, then you’re closer to having something useful. But in the case of climate, you won’t know of you’re correct for the right reasons or by pure chance, since we don’t know all there is to know.
Robert Bateman (21:37:59) :
I would like to see any daily data from Solar cycles 4 & 5.
Any idea where I might find it?
Of course 🙂
Hoyt and Schatten in constructing their group sunspot number compiled as table of all observations by all observers for every day back to 1610. The values given are the number of GROUPs per day. To get sunspot number multiply by 12. You can find the data here http://www.leif.org/research/rawgssn.txt
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (22:03:52) :
A lot of your questions suggest you havent read my or other peoples work i refer to in this area, please do me the courtesy of doing so as I always read yours. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 clearly shows how the alignments were strongest between 1200 and 1800 and are now beginning to weaken. Further research could possibly quantify to what extent that weakening is but the ssb graph clearly shows it. I am adding to this research on a regular basis.
I have indeed looked at many of your papers and also noted that the ‘weakening’ is not quantified and that you therefore have no basis [other than hand waving and belief] to state that “it is still strong enough to throw a cycle or 2 into chaos”. To state that, you must have the things quantified and also have a number arrived at in some meaningful way that marks what is strong enough to throw a cycle [or is it two? this should be quantified too] into chaos [and what is the definition or measure of chaos?]. And have found nothing even remotely approaching these requirements for making the statement you made, which makes it unscientific. Perhaps I didn’t look hard enough?
So, what do the numbers signify?
“The table is a plot of J+E+V alignments with each date corresponding with the green peaks on Desmoulins graph. The odd cycle numbers are J+V with E apposing and even is J+E+V aligned.”
By alignments you must mean that the Sun is also on the line. So you are listing S+J+E+V alignments. You see, a problem with your papers is that many things are stated too vaguely or just implicitly understood by the faithful.
And what is the rationale for making the difference between even and odd cycles? And why not J+E with V apposing? Unless there is a physical reason to do this it is pseudo-science.
I see many green lines on the graph. Presumably you mean the envelope of all these peaks. The peaks should be at solar maximum, or minimum, or halfway, or what is the relation to the cycle? And why are the years 1600-1700 not on the graph? If the method is so good at finding Grand Minima, it should certainly work during the Maunder Minimum.
Jeff Alberts (22:39:54) :
“Any prediction that is correct is of great use.”
Not really. If you make 20 predictions and one is “correct”, it’s obvious that you’re just guessing, and caught up with chance. If you can demonstrate why your prediction is correct,
I guess you missed the crucial statement:
“Predicting a solar cycle based on the last cycle is of little use really”
So if I make 20 predictions each based on the last cycle and they are correct, that is the great value. To be clear: based on cycle 1 I predict cycle 2 correctly, based on cycle 2 I predict cycle 3 correctly, based on cycle 3 I predict cycle 4 correctly, based on cycle 4 I predict cycle 5 correctly, based on cycle 5 I predict cycle 6 correctly, based on cycle 6 I predict cycle 7 correctly, based on cycle 7 I predict cycle 8 correctly, etc. Would you still say that I was guessing? Furthermore the predictions are based on sound physics and not just a statistical correlation.
Lief Svalgaard 🙂
Just to say that not all we Brits believe we are at the centre of the universe, just those who think we still have an empire & can influence an ever changing world! We gave our empire back a long time ago now, although we should never have lost those lands in & around Bordeaux with all that lovely wine, damn the French & that 100 years war I say!
Perhaps Corbyn is using historic sunspot activity to predict weather events even if vague generalisms are used, such as cooling, or warming, or windy! Herschel used sunspot activity to predict the price of corn & won bets on it, more sunspots = lower corn prices, fewer sunspots = higher corn prices, of course the sun has absolutely no effect on our climate whatsoever, apart from heat & light of course that goes without saying!
PS it’s jolly cold this morning in UK, thick fog in south-west with an equally thick frost to boot, not seen the likes for years, this must be getting to be one of the coldest starts to winter for a long time! Odds on a white Christmas going down all the time! Perhaps I’d better put the tennis rackets & a couple of bungy cords in the back of the car – just in case.
Leif Svalgaard (23:17:30) :
and also noted that the ‘weakening’ is not quantified and that you therefore have no basis [other than hand waving and belief] to state that “it is still strong enough to throw a cycle or 2 into chaos”.
There are 2 graphs showing the strength of the alignments…the numbers are behind the graph and could be retrieved but i think the graph shows this adequately. What you are looking for is the disturbance from the normal pattern or “camels hump” as i have crudely described it, and the shape of that hump shows the strength. If you look at 1790 and 1970 you can see the difference and why one lineup started a grand minimum and the other didnt, but certainly effected the cycle.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2007/05/sunssbam1620to2180.gif
Now if you look at this next graph you can see this trend over 3000 yrs, pay close attention to the shapes. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/11/995-2985ssb.jpg The Oort minimum moves to another timeframe as the alignments move over time which can easily be seen using a solar system viewer and by viewing this graph. It also explains the long period of no grand minima resulting in the MWP. The alignment gets weaker when S begins to line up poorly with the apposing alignment of J+N+U as it does right thru the MWP. There is much more work to do, so giving you a number and predicting exactly what will happen in the next few cycles is hard, but if we follow previous patterns it seems that once we start a grand minimum it doesnt matter how the alignments fit for the next cycle…the sun still behaves chaotically (meaning in grand minima mode).
By alignments you must mean that the Sun is also on the line. So you are listing S+J+E+V alignments. You see, a problem with your papers is that many things are stated too vaguely or just implicitly understood by the faithful.
And what is the rationale for making the difference between even and odd cycles? And why not J+E with V apposing? Unless there is a physical reason to do this it is pseudo-science.
I see many green lines on the graph. Presumably you mean the envelope of all these peaks. The peaks should be at solar maximum, or minimum, or halfway, or what is the relation to the cycle? And why are the years 1600-1700 not on the graph? If the method is so good at finding Grand Minima, it should certainly work during the Maunder Minimum.
Yes I mean with the Sun included in the alignment (I show a solar system view of that near the end of my report (wouldnt call it a paper).
The even/odd scenario seems to follow the GO rule, the suggested harmonic rhythm would favor a stronger modulation when all 4 are in alignment . Agreed you could plot Venus as the apposer or Mercury or Mars and perhaps many have done that in the past…but the J+E+V sysygy is the one that syncs perfectly with sunspot cycles and the question has to be asked why. If this sysygy was not a driver you would expect it to go out of sync after 300 yrs, but perhaps it does and requires further work? The weakness in the argument at present is how this sysygy effects the Sun, and is open to several theories, but to me its a beginning of an understanding which is more than “science” has to offer long term right now.
Most of Desmoulins peaks line up with sunspot cycle maximums except at times around grand minima…this in itself is of interest as discussed before but in the past the slight out of phasing has realigned without losing a cycle. It would be great to see his work extended back further along with Carl’s SSB graph. I have the JPL data back to 3000 yrs BC for Carl’s SSB graph and intend to plot it when I get time.
Jeff Alberts 🙂
Too true, rather like certain medicine practice being in the words of “Number Watch”, voodoo with Latin!
As a Chartered Engineer, I can if necessary, tweek my structural analysis programme to suit me! For instance if I have to generally take a certain safety factor for a design, I might get PASS PASS FAIL PASS in the output, & if think that factor is OTT in the particular circumstances, I can go into it, change the parameter, & get PASS PASS PASS PASS all the way to the end, I can take an “engineering judgement” on it! So computer models can be likewise tweeked & tuned to produce anything the operator wants to show. It’s something that worries many of us in the profession that “engineering judgement” is being taken out of the equation in favour of the print out which has to be “right”! Absolutely!
Apologies if this has been posted…
Our newly discovered Plasma Blanket:
http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Discover+Cloak+of+Plasma+Around+Earth/article13688.htm
And my favorite comment:
Anthropogenic Plasma Cloak Depletion (APCD) should concern us all.
JimB
“E.M.Smith (04:57:18) :
“”dennis ward (23:49:33) :
And what happens if we squander all the fossil fuels and THEN an ice age occurs ? “”
We will use nuclear power. ”
Err – what happens when your nuclear power station is swept away by 400 feet or so of ice? Maybe not a problem in the USA, but it might be in lil ole Britain.
Not something I particularly worry about, just wondering though.
Incidentally, I don’t consider using fossil fuels to advance the human race as “squandering”. On the contrary, it is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. I hope, soon, that we’ll come to realise this and start making more use of our coal reserves – particularly here in the UK where we have around a thousand years supply (though not all of it is easily accessible). Most of all, I hope we start to make use of coal to liquid technology to eliminate our dependence on foreign gas and oil.
Leif, What’s that psychic reckon to the weather anyway?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:10:23) :
The even/odd scenario seems to follow the GO rule, the suggested harmonic rhythm would favor a stronger modulation when all 4 are in alignment
If you cannot see the arbitrariness and ad hoc cherry picking involved in all of this there is little hope that I can induce some reason. There is precious little science in this, and it is my hope that readers can see this for themselves. If not, we have descended into what Carl Sagan called the ‘Demon Hunted World’.