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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Edward Morgan (08:12:05) :
What’s that psychic reckon to the weather anyway?
Well, last time I passed her window there was a sign: “Closed today due to unforeseen circumstances”, so perhaps science is the better way to go…
Stan (05:52:48) :
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.
You go underground?
I was impressed while visiting Finland more than twenty years ago to visit a complete underground conference/museum center.
If you have nuclear energy, you can do it.
In Kappadocia, in Turkey now, at a 2000 meter plateau, there are underground villages going seven stories down, part of the tourist interest now.
Humans are good at adapting.
I read this blog with interest, in particular Leif Svalgaard’s demolition of nobwainer’s (Geoff Sharp) theories, also noticed brief exchange between Bateman and vukcevic. I’ve looked at vukcevic’s subcycle theory, not too convinced, but it does appear there is something new in there, since I have not come across similar analysis before. I am certain it should be worth of Leif’s comment.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (22:03:52) :
Leif Svalgaard (20:59:50) :
I think the effect that is measured is the solar orbital angular momentum and the threshold is when it becomes zero to negative (i.e. when the sun is in the retrograde part of the orbit on the inner loop of the epitrochoid. ) See the citations below for why I’ve come to think this.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 clearly shows how the alignments were strongest between 1200 and 1800 and are now beginning to weaken.
You might want to look at:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Also
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/66/11/PDF/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
and http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/625.pdf
The first of these is an homage to Rhodes Fairbridge by Richard Mackey, but in the process provides some nice citations and explanations of the relevant work he influenced. I’ll paste a couple of bits in below.
The second is a nice exposition on the solar orbit and why that might cause or be correlated with solar cycles. I. Charvatova pulls together the planetary positions, the solar orbit, and solar cycle data to show correlations.
The last one is my favorite, though in some ways the simplest (maybe that’s why 😉 in that the author, I.W.G. Wilson shows that many of the solar periods map to sidebands of more basic physical cycles of orbits. It ties up some of the loose ends like Jupiter orbit not exactly matching sunspot cycles.
Oh, and this is an interesting page too in that it shows solar oblateness does change with activity:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm
Oct. 2, 2008: Scientists using NASA’s RHESSI spacecraft have measured the roundness of the sun with unprecedented precision, and they find that it is not a perfect sphere. During years of high solar activity the sun develops a thin “cantaloupe skin” that significantly increases its apparent oblateness. Their results appear the Oct. 2nd edition of Science Express.
It speaks to some of the ‘what happens’ part of the activity cycle. How solar oblateness might be changing with output (though they leave open the issue of causality – giving a few ‘hand waves’ at magnetic processes).
Geoff, fair warning though, every time you put planetary position and solar cycle in the same sentence Leif has his oblateness change and his activity goes up! 😉
To quote from a paper by Richard Mackey about Rhodes Fairbridge:
Blizard (1987) presented evidence that the precessional effects on the sun of the planets depends on the degree of oblateness of the sun and on the angle of inclination of the plane of a planet’s orbit in relation to the sun. Since the sun is a fluid, the precessional effect may induce a fluid flow toward the equator of the sun from both hemispheres. The flow of plasma on the sun directly effects solar activity.
and
Burroughs (2003) reported that the sun’s barycentric motion affects its oblateness, diameter and spin rate.
and
In several papers, Rhodes Fairbridge (for example, Fairbridge 1984, 1997 and Fairbridge and Sanders 1987) describe how the turning power of the planets is strengthened or weakened by resonant effects between the planets, the sun, and the sun’s rotation about it’s axis. He further described how resonance between the orbits of the planets amplified the planets’ variable torque applied to the sun.
I can’t speak to the veracity of any of these papers, being but a lowly amature, but they look like reviewed papers in real science publications. That they all tend to point in the same direction (the sun did it, and maybe the planets helped) is interesting.
3 more spotless days and 2008 is the second highest number of spotless days since 1900.
Lucy Skywalker (15:24:12) :
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.
Leif has a professional reputation to uphold. (Something I wish more scientists understood…) He can not for the slightest moment relax the hard requirement that what HE knows is pure, proven, reviewed, and consistent. That is the nature of being a professional scientist.
Speculation and theorizing must be kept clearly labeled as that or he will be attacked in the blood sport of academic publishing.
Better to leave the rampant speculation to amatures like us 8-}
Rhys Jaggar (06:56:27) :
For all you folks shivering in US right now, data from NCDC says west side of country was radically HOTTER in November that average. Now you’re getting a cold blast.
At inflections (in many things, including stock markets) you get a ‘battle ground’ between the old tend and the incipient trend. This tends to show as larger than normal swings or ranges. What I see happening is just the inflection battleground between the old, warm, trend and the new, cold, trend.
(Reasoning by analogy, I know …)
Stan (05:52:48) :
“E.M.Smith (04:57:18) :
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.
Well, I was only addressing the issue of from whence the power would come after oil, but… If I were you, I’d move to Brazil when the glacier approaches, or maybe India…
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.
Spot on! The positive feedback loop that is economic advancement depends on our using energy. Lots of it. And the more we use and the faster we use it the further and faster we advance. THAT then leads to discovery of ever more energy and ways to use it, which perpetuates the cycle of virtue.
It is that feedback loop that the “AGW back to the stone age” herd does not understand. As soon as we stop advancing, we start dying.
[Obligatory defensive statement: I am all for efficiency improvements. They don’t change this statement. It’s all the energy in NH3 synthesis and plastics synthesis and aluminum refining and… that lets us each have more stuff to eat and enjoy and lets more of us do research to discover even more ways to live better.]
To Alan the Brit:
Well I have to say that living in the good ol ‘US of A, just north of Houston used to have its compensations, compared to the south west of the UK (despite the miles of oil refineries and the uneventful beaches on the coast).
However, these last few weeks have changed my mind. I always used to be able to answer the question ‘Why on earth did you settle in Houston TX, when you come from Somerset where the cider apples do grow?’ with a flippant ‘Well at least the sun shines with some predictability!’
Not today though. It’s grey and just a little above freezing… again. And there was that little spot of bother with the snow last week. I even had a snow ball fight with my sons. I mean to say we are on the same latitude as Morocco, we should be sub tropical. What is the world coming to?
Radun (09:32:15) :
I read this blog with interest, in particular Leif Svalgaard’s demolition of nobwainer’s (Geoff Sharp) theories
If your going to make a statement like that, perhaps you could give me some examples of such “demolition”.
Tip: Emotional comments are not equal to rational debate.
E.M.Smith (10:29:13) :
Thanks for your input, i have read the first 3 citations you refer previously. They are working in similar areas but perhaps not looking at Neptune/Uranus as a major player in the Suns Grand Minima cycles.
The NASA link is interesting, in particular 2 comments.
“That may sound like a very small angle, but it is in fact significant,” says Alexei Pevtsov, RHESSI Program Scientist at NASA Headquarters. Tiny departures from perfect roundness can, for example, affect the sun’s gravitational pull on Mercury and skew tests of Einstein’s theory of relativity that depend on careful measurements of the inner planet’s orbit”
“These results have far ranging implications for solar physics and theories of gravity,” comments solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “They indicate that the core of the sun cannot be rotating much more rapidly than the surface, and that the sun’s oblateness is too small to change the orbit of Mercury outside the bounds of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.”
Maybe the rigid structure of the past can be pried open.
Love the back and forth. As good (boring?) as Wimbledon.
One place to look for physical evidence of cooling, warming etc is (surprise!) the farming news. Those guys have to live with the results of planting choices until harvest, and perhaps a useful exercise is to look at things like grape harvests (very susceptible to cold snaps), news about plantings, etc.
Because, unlike politicians and weather ‘forecasters’ (let’s not even mention the IPCC…), plants don’t lie, cherry pick, obfuscate or – well – act like humans. they just grow. Or not. Or badly.
I do find it interesting that there is a lot of anecdotes about ‘cool start to…’ or ‘harvests were down because of variable weather…’ and so on.
This is just how one would expect the first stages of an overall cooling to be reported. Of course, there’s no mention of any effect on our rather tightly coupled, just-in-time structures. Yet.
Nope, didn’t miss it. But you did say “any” prediction, not a series of always correct predictions. 😉
Jeff Alberts (20:04:16) :
Nope, didn’t miss it. But you did say “any” prediction, not a series of always correct predictions. 😉
You are permitted to assume that I would not make an obviously silly statement [“any …”] and that the series was meant, where each prediction builds on data from the previous cycle.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:35:52) :
The NASA link is interesting, in particular 2 comments.
[…] Tiny departures from perfect roundness can, for example, affect the sun’s gravitational pull on Mercury and skew tests of Einstein’s theory of relativity that depend on careful measurements of the inner planet’s orbit”
“These results have far ranging implications for solar physics and theories of gravity,” comments solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “They indicate that the core of the sun cannot be rotating much more rapidly than the surface, and that the sun’s oblateness is too small to change the orbit of Mercury outside the bounds of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.”
What all this means is that the internal structure of the Sun is precisely what standard solar theory [without internal circulations caused by external ‘forces’] posits it should be. I work closely with one of the authors [Hugh Hudson] and know fully all the details of the work. You can’t go there to find support for your ideas, ’cause there ain’t any support to be had there.
Maybe the rigid structure of the past can be pried open.
is nonsense.
E.M.Smith (10:50:55) :
Leif has a professional reputation to uphold. (Something I wish more scientists understood…) He can not for the slightest moment relax the hard requirement that what HE knows is pure, proven, reviewed, and consistent. That is the nature of being a professional scientist.
It is not. Many professional scientists spend their time tearing down what is ‘pure, proven, reviewed, and consistent’. It is every scientist’s dream to prove Einstein wrong. Most of my recent work has been directed to demolishing standard ‘knowledge’, e.g. showing that the geomagnetic activity series are wrong, that the sun’s magnetic field did not double the last hundred years, that the modern sunspot numbers are too high, that TSI did not vary as much as thought, that the Sun is not a primary driver of climate change, etc, etc.
E.M.Smith (10:29:13) :
I have come to respect your perspicacity on the AGW subject and your expertise on a lot of stuff.
Geoff, fair warning though, every time you put planetary position and solar cycle in the same sentence Leif has his oblateness change and his activity goes up! 😉
Before this happens, or maybe concurrently since it takes some time to get the posts moderated, I would like to discuss my POV on this planets/barycenter etc business. It has started to also get my goat.
Firstly, I am a retired experimental particle physicist and have no stake in solar theories at all. As a particle physicist with string theories in tow, I am quite willing to consider hypotheses of many more dimensions and many more forces: we have introduced dark matter in the soup after all :). Speculation is allowed, but in my books there should be a physics model behind these.
Secondly, as an experimentalist I honor data and measurements.
So lets talk of coordinate systems and physics ( forget general relativity).
We are allowed to transform all equations by Galilean transformations into anything that catches our fancy.
Lets take the geocentric coordinate system that dominated the science of the times for a thousand years, and the language of astrology till now. We have the sun running around the earth once a day, and walking the ecliptic on the night sphere, and the planets doing little circle dances on their epicycles merrily getting retrograde and what not. Lots of angular momenta there, no? What about the barycenter, squiggling around the ecliptic and the sun on the night sphere?
What does it all mean in this coordinate system?
It means that we would have to use extremely complicated equations to get any physics input into this, though it is there. All these motions etc that we observe in this system are calculable, but we would be nuts to try to do so, because gravity is much more simply expressed in the heliocentric system. There is no meaning to talk of angular momenta of the planets in this coordinate system.
What I try to mean with the above is that coordinate systems are in the head of the designer but physical forces are unique, measurable and dictate their inherent coordinate system by the ease of calculation.
Also consider that the only action at a distance for a planetary system that has been proven experimentally is by the force of gravity. Of course there is radiation and ejection of matter and collisions with out of solar system objects but lets ignore them for this argument. I am also not talking of electric universe and non general relativity scenaria, and iron suns that are science fiction at the moment. I am talking of measurements we have now.
This means that the only visible/measurable effects on planets and the sun are tides, and resultant changes in rotation/trajectory due to the exchange of angular momenta and energy. Tides on earth are strong. They are of the order of 30 cm but in the liquid oceans due to the morphology of the bottom can become multiples of that. Tides on the sun, induced by the planets, are of the order of 2mm as we have been informed by Leif.
This is about the effect of the planets, whether you look in a coordinate system with the sun as the center, or a coordinate system with the barycenter as the center, or the earth as the center. It is the effect of the known forces. The barycenter is a virtual mathematical spot that has no gravitational forces since it has 0 mass itself. The earth is a spot that has some gravity but the calculations would become horrendous if you tried to find the equations of motion with it as a center. Motions around it cannot induce anything more in the sun than the induced motion of the sun when a dancer does a pirouette and we consider her the center of coordinates ;). Similarly for the barycenter.
The motion of the barycenter can be considered as a proxy for all the planets in some calculations if convenient, it is correlated to the tides of the sun, but does not induce them , it is the mass of the planets that does so.
The barycenter of the moon earth system runs below the surface of the earth in time with the moon, and is correlated to the tides, but certainly does induce them. Otherwise the earth would be kneaded like dough every 24 hours or so.
And my favorite: Walk down the street with somebody your height and weight, one on each side. Your combined barycenter will be in the middle of the street. A car goes through your barycenter. Do you feel anything? Why not? It is the forces and not the geometrical point that is important.
P.S. to my above
I am not impressed with correlations between two sinusoidal like curves with many wiggles. Some correlation will always be found. In such cases only hard nailed physics models can have any meaning, and the correlations will then not be proof, but will allow the model to stand because they would not contradict it. In this “sun motion” business there is no physics model. I can think of many physics “science fiction” models that would give a much stronger role to the motion of the planets than simple Newtonian gravity allows, but it would be just that: science fiction, unless the extra forces needed would be demonstrated in the lab. Still the barycenter motion would be just a distracting change of coordinate systems.
Such waffle…lets cut thru the rhetoric and face the facts. EVERY time over the past nearly 1000 years when Neptune and Uranus come together we have had Grand Minima. It takes around 179 yrs for this to occur. We are there now…I dont think anyone can dispute that?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:04:26) :
when Neptune and Uranus come together we have had Grand Minima. It takes around 179 yrs for this to occur. We are there now…I dont think anyone can dispute that?
I’ll dispute that. The Dalton Minimum [if there was one deep enough to be called a Grand Minimum] was perhaps in 1812, so the Grand Minimum of the 1990s [1812+179 = 1991] is already past.
Leif Svalgaard said:
But Leif, you are forgetting how slippery the slope is. The minimum was in the pipeline.
Richard Sharpe (09:06:14) :
But Leif, you are forgetting how slippery the slope is.
With slippery concepts, slippery theory, slippery data, and slippery facts, I guess we can all slide downhill into that slippery morass where there is no escape.
OOPs,
In my anna v (22:27:58) : waffle, in the paragraph before last a “not” is missing :
“The barycenter of the moon earth system runs below the surface of the earth in time with the moon, and is correlated to the tides, but certainly does not induce them. Otherwise the earth would be kneaded like dough every 24 hours or so.”
Leif Svalgaard (20:50:45) :
It is not. Many professional scientists spend their time tearing down what is ‘pure, proven, reviewed, and consistent’.
Leif, I never said your mind was closed. I said that you keep what is known, reviewed, etc. clearly in that category and what is speculation, new theory, etc. in another clear category. No? And that you can’t just go running off to endorse some new theory as ‘known’ until you’ve got some good reason to do so. No?
You are absolutely correct that good and exciting science is based on the tearing down of things that are wrong in what is ‘known’, but I would assert that you don’t do that willy nilly… My assertion is only that you leave it in the ‘known’ bucket until your theory is strong enough and proven enough to publish.
Somehow I think we are in violent agreement… sigh.
anna v (22:27:58) :
I have come to respect your perspicacity on the AGW subject and your expertise on a lot of stuff.
Why, thank you! [blush]
Before this happens, or maybe concurrently since it takes some time to get the posts moderated, I would like to discuss my POV on this planets/barycenter etc business. It has started to also get my goat.
I agree with everything in your post. FWIW I think there is a coordinates problem in the whole solar motion discussion and that the use of barycenter has become loaded with expectations that are not deserved (by both pro and anti ‘sides’). I fully understand that the only things with real effects are real bodies in the solar system, but that doesn’t change the utility of the barycenter concept (i.e. a solar system mass centered frame of reference).
My “position” on it is rather tame. I think there might be something interesting there, or maybe not, so why not explore it?
I’ve read some papers on the correlation between planet position and solar state and earth impacts (mostly weather). There are many of them and I’ve put links to some of them in posts on this site. They appear to be peer reviewed and published in reputable sources (but not being a professional scientist I can’t really discern that well enough since I don’t know all the players. I have to depend on others to cast stones at their reputations…)
The papers look, to me, to show a fairly well proven correlation and that leads to a suspicion on my part that there might be something causal going on. What that causality might be is something that I find an amusing question. IMHO, any attribution of causality is in the rampant speculation ‘bucket’ of ideas (where good science seeds are planted, along with many many weeds…) I like to explore the rampant speculations about causality since something interesting might be found there (and don’t like it when folks want to spray the whole seed patch with roundup, killing good with bad.)
The notion that everything is in free fall so no effect can happen is, IMHO, too simplistic (and the NASA announcement about oblateness seems to show that). That the tide on the sun is too small to influence anything is an assumption that seems to need some analysis (the height is small, but given the density and the gravity field I’d expect motion and forces to be significant). There is a great deal going on that is not understood and to ignore a strong correlation and not investigate it in favor of the accepted dogma seems a bit dogmatic. Absence of proof is not poof of absence.
On the other side, the notion that during it’s retrograde orbital motion the sun may travel back though parts of the solar mag field that were somehow left behind looks to me like hand waving (but I don’t know enough about solar mag fields to toss rocks at it.) I also find the notion that the planet position is all that matters without any physical model to be laughable. Astrology is, IMHO, trash. (That does not mean I hold his belief in astrology against Landscheidt. Newton was an alchemist and Einstein believed in an invisible man in the sky with a fixation on head hair counting… The science done is all that matters, not what fantasy they hold in their off hours.) Then there is the whole issue of magnetic & particle effects that leaves me a bit befuddled. Don’t know if it’s tin foil hat brigade or not.
I guess that’s just a long winded way of saying I like it when folks get to speculate freely about the mysteries of our physical world and don’t like it when folks pee on the speculators rather than just saying “that’s interesting, but I think you missed [foo]”. (FWIW, I find it equally annoying when someone from the tin hat brigade says absolutely stupid things that can trivially be disproved and doesn’t take guidance to the proof.)
And I suppose that is just a long way of saying “Play nice with each other and be polite. Help each other learn.”
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:35:52) :
Thanks for your input, i have read the first 3 citations you refer previously. They are working in similar areas but perhaps not looking at Neptune/Uranus as a major player in the Suns Grand Minima cycles.
If I understand the papers I cited correctly they are saying it’s the total effect of all the angular momenta, so the contributions of Neptune / Uranus vs others to solar effects ought to be in direct proportion to their contribution to momentum. I don’t know what that contribution is vs. Jupiter, Saturn, et. al. but it ought to be easily calculated (though I’m too lazy at the moment to do it… kids home from college, christmas preps and all…)
Jupiter is larger but is closer to the sun, and IIRC the further away and faster bodies have more effect on angular momentum. My suspicion is that all the planetary position observations are just a simple way to see the angular momentum changes, so I’ve just gone with the papers that look at A.M. directly and figured “why look at individual planets when you have the total impact of all the planets and it’s all that matters anyway?”
This is all complicated by the resonances that develop in orbits over time. Something I’ve not got a good handle on, BTW. but could cause misleading conclusions since things will have related periods that can be confounders.
Leif Svalgaard (08:08:50) :
I’ll dispute that. The Dalton Minimum [if there was one deep enough to be called a Grand Minimum] was perhaps in 1812, so the Grand Minimum of the 1990s [1812+179 = 1991] is already past.
Poor attempt Leif, trying to steer away from reality again. Neptune and Uranus were together during the Dalton (and the Maunder, Sporer, Wolf) and were not together between those minima. You cant ignore that and have to at least concede its a coincidence at minimum.
Look at the graph again http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2007/05/sunssbam1620to2180.gif and look at 1790, thats where the disturbance begins leading into the Dalton, 179 years later the same line up but weaker causes SC20 (1970) to be a very poor and long performer. Then another lineup in 1830 during the Dalton, add 179 years and you have what we are experiencing today.
You need to read my report again because your not taking it in, basically when Neptune and Uranus come together there is 3 alignment chances, Partial/Optimum/Partial with the partials varying in strength which precisely explains the lengths of the preceeding minima (Wolf 2 alignments, Sporer 3, Maunder 3 and Dalton 2)and perhaps only 1 alignment in Grand Minimum this time around.