Guest post by David Archibald
With respect to the month of minimum, it is very likely that Solar Cycle 24 has started simply because Solar Cycle 23 has run out. Most solar cycles stop producing spots at about nineteen years after solar maximum of the previous cycle. Solar Cycle 23 had its genesis with the magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 22 maximum. As the graph above shows, Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old. Only 9% of the named solar cycles produced spots after this.
The graph also shows the position of Solar Cycle 24 relative to its month of genesis. Solar Cycle 24 is now the second latest of the 24 named solar cycles. January is 105 months after the Solar Cycle 23 maximum. Only Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, is later. This lateness points to Solar Cycle 24 being very weak.
This graph shows the initial ramp ups of six solar cycles that were preceded by a vey low minimum. The ultimate trajectory of Solar Cycle 24 should be apparent by late 2009. If Solar Cycle 24 is going to be as weak as expected, the monthly sunspot number should remain under 10 by the end of 2009.
Already updated, but this was the text was when I first noticed it:
” A new sunspot is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows.”
spaceweather.com
The newest from spaceweather.com:
Yesterday’s sunspot (NOAA 1011) has rapidly faded away. The sunspot’s low latitude suggests it may have been a member of old Solar Cycle 23; the sunspot’s magnetic polarity was unusual and did not clearly identify it as a member of either Cycle 23 or Cycle 24. Credit: SOHO/MDI
So, maybe, Solar Cycle 23 has not yet run out. After 400 years of studying solar activity scientifically, we do not know what happens next. After 100 years or so of oceanography we do not know when the next El Nino event will occur. After 80 years of quantum mechanics, we cannot calculate the excitation spectrum of a simple tri-atomic molecule such as H2O with sufficient accuracy, not even the ground state.
The strange Cycle 23 sunspot number 1011 has faded from view in less than a day. The sunspot number is back to zero.
Congratulations to Anthony and Wattsupwiththat for being voted Best Science Blog. A GREAT choice!
SC5 is my #1 choice, followed by 6 and 7.
As wimpy and wispy as SC24 spots are, coupled with the sparseness of activity at perigee, I can easily see a big letdown after March.
We just spent 2008 getting teased with “just a few more months and we’ll know more” and what did it get us?
Burned. Duped. Egg on face.
No thanks, I’ll go with door #5, as that’s the worst case that meets the criteria of “This is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into”.
Sunspot 11011 wasn’t much better than the one on Sept 11, 2008.
Are we that hungry for spots?
Slim Pickin’s, indeed.
Here’s the USAF/NOAA statement about the most recent sunspot activity:
Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 019 Issued at 2200Z on 19 Jan 2009
IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 18/2100Z
to 19/2100Z: Solar activity remained very low. Ephemeral Region 1011
(S12W25) emerged early in the period and was spotless by days end.
It sported a few penumbraless spots at its peak and old Cycle 23
magnetic polarity. Little else of significance occurred or was
noted.
So it looks like Cycle 23 has not stopped producing spots quite yet.
Nice post, this seems to confirm my results. If you don’t mind, where did you get the individual cycle data?
Solar Cycle 23 had its genesis with the magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 22 maximum
No, this is not how the Sun works. The polar fields are build up as fundamentally a random process. Only 1/1000 of the magnetic flux end up at the poles, corresponding to only a handful of active regions. To generate the next cycle, more flux must first go to the poles, this takes a couple of years. A shear zone [the torsional oscillation] starts to build up shortly after that [now typically two years later] at about latitude 50 degrees. The shear zone is either involved in [or the result of – we are not sure yet which] the generation of the spots just polewards of the zone. The shear zone migrates to the equator a couple of years after reversal. You can see the process here [lower plot]: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html and here
http://www.leif.org/research/Torsional%20Oscillation.pdf and [in a little while when a DoS attack has been defeated] an up-to-date version at http://www.leif.org/research/SolarCycleMinima.ppt
The bottom line of all this is that the cycle is born a few years AFTER polar field reversal and that the time between reversal and birth can vary. So, there is no direct physical reason the line things up at reversal or maximum [these two don’t always coincide either]. Doing so anyway is just numerology.
My take on all this:
(1) Although dedicated scientists, including brilliant contributors to this blog, are trying very hard, no one has proven that they can accurately model solar cycles.
(2) If the right temporal averaging routine is applied to a variety of sun-related factors (eg. solar cycle length, sunspot number, geomagnetic effects of solar wind, proxies of cosmic ray intensities), correlations with global and regional temperature are much stronger than that with CO2 and this is not merely because it is the “noise” on an underlying greenhouse gas forcing trend. The correlation works broadly as well, at any time scale, even if you go back millions of years. We should be trying to figure out why the correlations are fairly consistent. On the basis of solar radiation intensity variations, one would not expect the effect to be strong, a point often raised by the AGW crowd. However, the correlations are reasonably strong and indicate some sort of causation. Does Svensmark have it right? I don’t know, but there is something there. Just because we do not have a mechanism doesn’t mean it is all wrong and greenhouse gases are controlling the trend. Which is more likely… that a factor with poor correlation over the past 500 million years is the control, or that a factor with moderately strong correlation is the control?
(3) Very intelligent people can be delusional. When surrounded by like-minded individuals, people will believe very strange things. As a scientist, I can say that this includes people with Ph.D.’s (I happen to be one of them, and feel that this, in its own right, adds very little to credibility). Hence, I am only mildly surprised that many climate scientists scoff at the idea that the sun is important in climate variability. I don’t think many of them know they are part of the politicization of the AGW debate (which they say is over), but I see it daily. I actually don’t think it’s a conspiracy. Instead, my hypothesis is that, because many of the skeptics are vocal and linked to organizations that don’t exactly have a reputation for environmental friendliness, skepticism becomes unacceptable amongst academics at most institutions. They are operating within the AGW paradigm. I know this sounds ‘Kuhnian’, but it’s true: any skepticism (which is supposed to be a pillar of scientific thought) is treated with an unusually high degree of suspicion and we are lumped in with a variety of world views which we may or may not hold. I like to consider myself as an outlier: an alternative-thinking environmentalist (seriously, not only a partial climate change skeptic, but even an atheist, a conservationist, a vegetarian… the whole nine yards), who feels that the effect of CO2 has been overestimated by the IPCC (incidentally, I accept their theory – I really do – just not the magnitude, and I feel that CO2 is by far the weaker of the two in the temperature-CO2 trend over the ages). I haven’t met another skeptic like me… I digress and admit that much of this is irrelevant, but this is partly my point. The message here is that some of the most intelligent people I have ever met in my life are fervent and vocal defenders of AGW. What needs to be understood, however, is that neither this, nor ‘consensus’ (real or imagined) can be considered as evidence when they are operating within the governing paradigm. We used to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and it fit observations very well, didn’t it ?
(4) With regard to the length of the solar cycle, I understand and largely agree with your analysis, but cycle length, to my knowledge, is not traditionally calculated the way that you have expressed above. Indeed, by traditional measures, I think the cycle length remains below 13 years at present. Clearly, if cycle length is a determinant of the strength of the forthcoming cycle, we would be in for a very weak cycle. The strange thing is that there are exceptions, and my limited understanding is that prediction is more complicated than this. Why is this? I’ll leave this to Svalgaard (who seems to be onto something) and Hathaway (who seems to have a willingness to step down honestly from the bold predictions he is forced to make).
(5) This is my main point. We will soon have a much better idea of the relative strengths of the solar and greenhouse gas controls. Given that we’re coming out of a Grand Maximum into what may turn out to be some sort of period of low activity, we may have a better idea of the relative strength of solar and greenhouse controls on global climate within a decade or so. If a cooling trend occurs, this will give AGW proponents something to think about, especially if this extends through periods without cooling oceanic oscillations such as La Nina. If the reverse is true, and solar cycles fail to be the main climate driver for the first time in a very long time (an argument could be made for this for 1980ish to about 2000 or so), then many of the skeptics on this forum will have something to think about. That’s the beauty of freedom of speech. Information will get out, and debunk any false ‘consensus’ in the long run. But then again, I’m assuming that we actually are heading into a weak cycle and this assumption is based on little more than an empirically-derived hunch.
I predicted 2009 non-SC24 spots some time ago (5 October 2008). The magnetic polarity of this one was slightly unclear, but I read it as SC23 polarity, (if not SC25), based on the NE-SW orientation of the centroids of the black and white areas. This doesn’t match NASAway expectations, and probably couldn’t fade away fast enough to suit them. (Are euphemisms like ‘pseudospot’ or ‘bichromatic plage’ dancing in NASA heads? Nah. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. But what does a robin in January make?)
RE: As the graph above shows, Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old. Only 9% of the named solar cycles produced spots after this.
I’m curious as to what % of the solar cycles that reach 19 years, go longer?
lulo (21:34:23) :
That was a very well reasoned statement. Thank you.
The question I have is: how worried should we be about the future climate?
hmmm … Barycentric Tidal Theory. BTT … ugly acronym.
Everything seems to point in that direction. Could we get a couple programmers actually working on something that might lead to some level of understanding?
Unlike Werner Weber’s initial depressing statement on the level of knowledge we have on the subject we do understand gravity fairly well.
All we need is a bit of help correlating the location of the mass and its movement over time in our solar system. Then we could put the tired statistics to bed and do a little ‘high tide’, ‘low tide’ calculation. From what I’ve read, the sun is in ‘low tide’.
Anyway, like lulu inferred … reality will tell us to look harder at the solar influence over the Earth’s climate.
In the mean time I will run my coal fired power plant I chose to work in knowing I am helping the biosphere by liberating carbon from the Earth’s crust, so efficiently scrubbed from the atmosphere over time. At the same time, I will endeavor to reduce NOx, SOx, lead, mercury and other real pollutants.
“After 400 years of studying solar activity scientifically, we do not know what happens next. After 100 years or so of oceanography we do not know when the next El Nino event will occur. After 80 years of quantum mechanics, we cannot calculate the excitation spectrum of a simple tri-atomic molecule such as H2O with sufficient accuracy, not even the ground state.” – Werner Weber
Thanks Werner that’s the most positive thing I’ve read all week! I hear so many jaded twenty somethings saying all the best science is done, and the science is settled. When nature continues to throw us new questions on a daily basis. I bet we know about 5% of how the universe actually works.
Human beings when it comes to life on this planet, got on the bus last, have no idea how the bus works, and somehow we think we’re driving. As a race we are quite insane, and it makes me laugh.
[snip]
REPLY: Humorous yes, and I appreciate humor, but it really has nothing at all to do with this thread. Try posting on the Obama inauguration thread, which is political. Unfortunately WordPress.com does not provide any method for me to move comments to other threads. – Anthony
The sun delivers to the earth 10**17 Watt or 10**8 Gigawatt of power, the equivalent of 100 Millionen big power stations – the Chinese are presently opening 50 new such 1-Gigawatt coal fired power stations per year.
The sun seems to deliver this power with a 0.1 %, maybe 0.2 % variation over decades, centuries or even much longer. There are no indications of larger variations on a century span.
Strong variations are caused by the sun concerning the galactic cosmic ray spectrum, intensity changes of order 20 % occur during solar cycles. The fingerprints of these variations correlate well with global temperature variations, over the last millenium, over the holocene, over the ice age as a whole – I mean the Bond events and the Dansgaard-Oeschger events (see Fred Singer), not the big variations of the Milankovitch cycles. You may go back even further, see the Veizer Shaviv paper.
However, the power delivered on earth by GCR is 1ppb of the solar power (10**-9), or equivalent to a 100 Megawatt station, 1/10 of one big one.
Now, the GCR’s are very special and may induce a lot of effects, one of them could be controlling cloud formation (Svensmark). This could indeed influence climate on the large scale seen by global warming.
On the other hand, mankind is presently producing power from fossile fuels on the scale of several ppm of the solar power arriving on the earth.
Lulo,
I too am an environmentalist, an environmental professional, a forester, and a steward of the land. Studying and stewarding the environment has been my vocation and avocation for 35 years, all my adult life. I know the weight of responsibility for large tracts of land and to the people who depend on that land for vital resources such as food, fiber, water, wildlife, recreation, public health and safety, and heritage.
I too am disaffected by academics who have never shared such responsibilities and who cling to old paradigms peppered with anomalies. How trite and removed they seem, and decidedly unscientific. The dire reports of boiling seas, the end of Creation, and other alarmist nonsense is an embarrassment, and should be rejected by serious people. The fact that it is not speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of academia today.
I don’t know what SC 24 will be, or if it will affect the climate. But as an agrarian I do know that falling temperatures present hardships, whereas rising temperatures offer bounty and productivity. Warmer is better, based on modern observation of our biosphere as well as study of paleobotany and paleozoology. Fear of warmth is misplaced, illogical, a-historical, and a-scientific, but concern about deepening cold is rational for many reasons.
The alarmism about global warming is a stunning example of human folly. We are no wiser today than we were a thousand or ten thousand years ago. Folly still rules the human condition. In the temples of academia, where rationality should be worshiped, folly is more powerful than ever. That tragedy, the failure of reason after millennia of striving, is perhaps the thing to be feared the most.
Leif Svalgaard (10:29:37) :
I said:
The Hale cycle is 2 Schwabe cycles, and whether it starts at maximum or minimum is beside the the point. Archibald through creative thinking has a found a statistic that is interesting. It might be time for the more creative amongst us.
Svalgaard replied:
The difference between ‘wrong’ and ‘nonsense’ is that the former is just being factual incorrect, the latter is being conceptually incorrect.
So, the currently fading SC23 spot belongs to the ‘Hale’ cycle that started in 1990 at the maximum of cycle 22 according to ‘creative’ thinking. Schwabe and Hale cycles start near minimum according to established nomenclature. Mixing min and max is what is nonsense.
Even if we count from previous maximum, SC22 produced spots 19 years later, SC21 produced spots 20 years later, SC20 produced spots 20 years later, SC19 produced spots 20 years later, etc. Being factually correct beats creative thinking every time. The butterfly diagram http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif is good for this.
I said:
I might wait for Dr. Archibald’s response.
Very timely, thanks Dr. Archibald. BTW this discussion will all be irrelevant very soon, my report is not finished yet but shows incredible correlation going back nearly 6000 years that except for times like the MWP we have had grand minima (of different levels) every 172 years (Jose’s work will need to be revisited) along with grand maxima peaks looking to follow the same 172 year pattern. Basically every decent peak and trough on the 11000 yr C14 and 10Be graph is accounted for by two solar system line ups…..this will change the face of solar science I am thinking.
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:52) :
…, more flux must first go to the poles, …
How can flux “go to the poles”? Flux is energy across a given surface, isn’t it?
lulo (21:34:23) :
As I understand it from Leif Svalgaard, the correlation between the sun and climate is only an empirical one. As long as we don’t understand how the 1% TSI variation can impact the climte I have to agree with him. Empirical correlation is only grounds to do more science, not science on its own.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not possible to refute. OTOH we can argue how elevated levels of CO2 changes the climate.
To those who have tried to follow the Svalgaard thread at CA these arguments will be familiar.
I’m curious : how many of the sun spots of the last year would have been observable using technology available during the Dalton Minimum?
I’m not expecting an answer. Only God knows exactly. But it’s pretty safe to say less than with SOHO.
Jeff Id, go to SIDC for a lot of your solar needs: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/monthssn.dat If you email me via my website, http://www.davidarchibald.info , I will send you my worked up spreadsheet.
Ah, Dr Svalgaard, a couple of old Carrington rotation plots don’t prove anything.
SMSgt Mac, two of the 23 went longer.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Water vapour (0.4% overall but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation is being studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Just read that Livingston reported a gauss of 1969 for spot 1010
Could this be why we’re seeing sunspecks rather then sunspots?
To me it seems most likely the magnetic flux is a tidal effect created by the varying interacting gravityfields in a indeterminable range.
Any spacetime distortion of sufficient magnitude can disrupt the delicate balance of the local solar system at any given distance.
Making the tidal shearing of the gaseous seas a chaotic system seemingly cyclic because our limited lifespan can’t encompass the scale.
You have a better chance predicting the weather 🙂
Dermot Carroll (02:28:58)
Yep, it’s the Cheshire Sun. I’d like Leif’s opinion on the meaning and the possible effect of these phantoms on the climate. I realize that’s a tall order, and that my guess might be as good as his. Mine is cooling, but just why, oh, it’ll come to me soon. Or us.
======================================
I’m not clear on who conducted the study but the sun’s relative motion within the center of the solar system has been recently and now currently moves similar to its motion prior to previous cool (cold) periods. Fact is, it is doing so with greater amplitudes in its movement away from center and then back to center than it did prior to the Maunder Minimum.
Lief can display to us his infinate knowledge of the sun’s thermo and electrodynamics yet ultimately the proof of what the sun is doing is in the spots. I think Archibald is only trying to compare past spot activity and then give us an idea about what might be going on and then based on these events we can know what will ultimately happen. Regardless of how these sunspots form as Lief espouses the truth is that the very simple scientific analysis about what do they indicate as they form (or don’t) is something we can all draw knowledge from.
As much as I have read–there’s a lot to read out there–the prediction by some which suggest a very very long period of low sunspot activity seems to be the most sensable conclusion. I don’t like to say all this because I know what it means for a lot of people but I also believe that it does no good to put ones head into a whole in the ground and pretend everything’s ok.
I’ll close with this. Before any major accident, there are a series of calamitous errors leading up to it, and that at anytime if just one error had been noticed then that accident would have been avoided. In this case humanity has knowledge of an impending natural phenomina yet policymakers and others compound the series of errors which ultimately will lead to the accident. Its simple, its been cold before and its going to do it again and there’s enough information out there that tells us when its going to happen.
MC (02:47:15) :
Fact is, it is doing so with greater amplitudes in its movement away from center and then back to center than it did prior to the Maunder Minimum.
Not sure you are correct MC. Angular momentum can be measured in different spots during grand minimum. Overall this session is a lot weaker than the Maunder, but we are at the middle optimum position right now (SC20 missed out, J+S were too inline) and we wont get more than one hit from this current alignment most likely…most people cant grasp it but expect a very short lived grand minimum.
Geoff Sharp,
That would be good news
How many of the spots we count today would have been unseen 100 yrs ago?
Just have a look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
The last day of SC24 spot 11010 (Jan 13) would not have been seen, and quite possibly the 12th.
Neither would have the spot of Sept 11, 2008.
We have more coverage, so fortunate circumstance is factored out, handing a bit more sightings.
Just to hazard a guess, 10-20% more.
Among the many lessons Leif has tried, Thor-like, to hammer into my brain is the idea that the tidal forces are too insignificant in terms of energy to be effecting any output from the sun. I’m insulated from his powers of reasoning on this subject by visions of van de Graaf generators, with the electricity being diverted by small forces. Why couldn’t the tidal forces engendered by the barycentric motion be effecting the magnetic display at the surface, and thus also effecting, somehow, the accumulation of heat on earth? Particularly if this connection is indirect, through the cosmic ray effect on albedo, rather than directly from changes in TSI, or something else like that?
========================================
nobGS (04:01:51)
Yes, that would be good news. Furthermore, a sharp spike down and then up might make it easier to demonstrate the true solar effect on climate rather than if we indolently cooled and afterward haphazardly warmed. Oh, yes, interesting times.
============================================
Just the fact that SOHO is showing more than would normally be spotted makes the observer try harder. Call it a persistence factor increased by technology if you will.
We are, after all, human.
For amatuer astronomers, aperture fever is a well-known draw. Because we know that more mirror gives more of the universe, we seek it uncontrollably.
A 42 meter scope comes online in few years.
Professionals are not exempt, they led the way through such fever.
MC (04:19:58) :
That would be good news
Agree…altho its important to have this experiment to end this man made warming hype and also learn the power of Sol and how its doesnt have a floor like some suggest. The graphs are saying a small grand minimum, followed by similar time to the early 1900’s but ramping up to a severe grand maximum starting around 2130 and possibly no grand minima after that…very much like the MWP. But we have to keep in mind the Milankovitch cycle…our Jovian friends doing it again.
len (23:26:34) :
Ack.. Phttt.. Btt!
When you combine programmers and n-body problems we chuck integrals (because there’s no mathematical solution to all interesting > 2-body systems) and go straight to modeling the differential equations.
When you do that, there’s no need for barycenters, as those are just a mathematical convenience to reduce a n-body problem (e.g. Earth/Moon/Sun) to a 2-body problem (Earth-Moon/Sun). BTW, not everything about a 2-body system has an algebraic solution. IIRC, given orbital parameters for a satellite orbiting Earth and a time since perigee, it requires an iterative approach to figure out exactly where the satellite is. There’s a simple integral in the way that can’t be solved. Before computers my calculus instructors just sort of ignored those. I like to think education has improved since then, though that may well be a delusion.
Modeling tides might be treated as a n-body problem (with a large n and more forces that just gravity), but given that a barycentre has no mass it causes no tides.
kim (04:42:20) :
Why couldn’t the tidal forces engendered by the barycentric motion be effecting the magnetic display at the surface
Tidal forces are weak but may have some effect on the 11 yr cycle..they are very different to angular momentum, if we look at Jagers paper trying to abolish planetary influence he even recognizes a discernible acceleration change on the Sun from angular momentum and I believe his arguments are very conservative and he doesnt provide the figures involved. This in itself leaves the door open. We can argue the mechanics, but the correlations of 1000’s of years dont lie, as will be revealed soon.
Geoff Sharp
The thing that so concerns me is the fact that we are approaching the time in this interglacial (some 12-14k years) when history gives a clue about what it may do. A mild minimum would be good and so would a grand maximum, but what is there to take from the fact we are on a slow shallow slope to cool. I don’t believe any AGW scientist or believer nor people like me who are concerned about cooling should close the door to good scientific discovery. This is what is so disturbing because if we as a global community continue to wear blinders relative to CO2 induced warming, we trevasse a slippery slope.
Thanks for the informative posts!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not possible to refute.
No one disputes the radiative properties of CO2. What is in dispute is the level, if any, of positive watervapor feedbacks. Without these the climate models fail to account for all observed warming. Thus far there is much evidence that such feedbacks are predominately negative, not positive.
If the models are wrong, then something else is driving climate.
The only thing left is sol.
Should have read “Kim you nailed it!”
Can Leif give us an opinion of the following paper by Mazzarella (which I’ve only just seen referenced (via icecap) or perhaps a link to where he discussed it previously:
http://www.meteo.unina.it/download/solar_forcing.pdf
Here is a postulated causal relationship between solar magnetic activity and length of day, LOD, (ie the earths rotation) and thence to sea surface temperature. Oddly they don’t mention the well-observed relationship between LODD and el niños but we can make that link ourselves, as well as the apparent realtionship between ENSO and the PDO. At last a unified theory – perhaps?
On the subject of solar effects on climate, has anyone seen any followup to this.
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3285
In particular has anything been investigated on the effect of cosmic rays on these “halos”?
len (23:26:34) :
All we need is a bit of help correlating the location of the mass and its movement over time in our solar system.
Maybe this helps?
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
Things like PDO will overpower any and all TSI-related changes. Folks I get what Leif is saying, though it eventually gave me a month long headache studying it. TSI does not change in any appreciable amount to heat or cool our Planet. The variables in our globe right here are WAY, WAY, WAY stronger! You are making the same kind of mistake AGW’s do with CO2. It has an effect but it is so small that a cow’s fart in the wind makes a greater impact, and the salty spray from a single wave outperforms both. I am still seeking information on why the jet stream meanders. Possibly related to oceanic currents? The only other Sun-related thing that remains is possibly cosmic rays, but even that just can’t drive weather patterns like a cold or warm ocean can. And we are only talking about weather patterns here, not climate change. The climate zone you live in will not change unless someone moves your location to a different latitude, longitude, altitude, or moves it closer or further from a large body of water. You might be a bit warmer or colder, but the overall climate where you live will remain stable. Your desert climate will still be there. Your temperate coast range forest climate will still be there. The climate you experience at your equatorial beach front vacation home will still be there. Your frozen Arctic tundra climate will still be there. And if you are a holy man on top of a mountain peak above the treeline somewhere in Tibet, your climate will still be there. The weather pattern will change, as it always does.
What’s now happening with sunspots is what is happening with hurricanes. Neither of which is doing any good for science. Both of which are easily fixed.
With hurricanes ‘tiny tims’ serves to pollute the data, increase the anxiety of the public, and run up insurance rates. Fortunately with sunspot ‘sunspecks’ the public doesn’t know, so it just pollutes the data. Both makes one of the most reliable methods of peering into the future, statistical and empirical methods, that much harder.
Both behaviors appear to be being done for the same government sponsored reason. Maybe a fork in the data, producing two datasets, are in order. One based on traditional observation methods and the other based on the latest technology? Double books anyone …
Understand, 2 of 23 have gone longer, or rounding up=9%. I’ll rephrase the question with more specificity. Assume there is a reliable pattern as we have seen in the past continuing into the future. Given a solar cycle has already lasted 18 years (n-1 years of apriori existence) what is the probability of it lasting n+?.
Not trivializing the 2 of 23 fact here. Just wondering if there is any value to already knowing the cycle has already lasted this long.
lulo (21:34:23) :
“My take on all this:
(5) This is my main point. We will soon have a much better idea of the relative strengths of the solar and greenhouse gas controls. Given that we’re coming out of a Grand Maximum into what may turn out to be some sort of period of low activity, we may have a better idea of the relative strength of solar and greenhouse controls on global climate within a decade or so. If a cooling trend occurs, this will give AGW proponents something to think about, especially if this extends through periods without cooling oceanic oscillations such as La Nina. If the reverse is true, and solar cycles fail to be the main climate driver for the first time in a very long time (an argument could be made for this for 1980ish to about 2000 or so), then many of the skeptics on this forum will have something to think about. That’s the beauty of freedom of speech. Information will get out, and debunk any false ‘consensus’ in the long run. But then again, I’m assuming that we actually are heading into a weak cycle and this assumption is based on little more than an empirically-derived hunch.”
This is an excellent comment. Mother Nature may be providing us with the evidence we need to determine whether CO2 is the forcing mechanism the IPCC believes it is.
On the subject of the sun orbiting around the barycenter, check out this web site.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/index.html
Download the Solar Oribt Simulator 2 and try it out for yourself. I did but to be honest I found it to be a bit confusing, that is I had a hard time figuring out when we would get increased solar activeity and when we would get a quiet period.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (00:37:00) :
Email me at blcjr2 at gmail dot com. I’d like to ask you something about the 172 year cycle.
Basil
“I’m insulated from his powers”
Why not the Lorentz Force, seems like a silver bullet to me.
Finally, I managed to combine two waveforms into a single one.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
The amplitude of Y2 (at max of Y1) and frequency of Y1 are used to calculate new waveform Y.
Cos squared is there to get a closer approximation.
“this will change the face of solar science I am thinking.”
I would opine that a species of dinosaur must die off first to leave room for adaptive radiation of the emerging Brandenburg, Miesch, Thornton and Hu prototypes.
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:52) :
Solar Cycle 23 had its genesis with the magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 22 maximum
No, this is not how the Sun works. The polar fields are build up as fundamentally a random process. Only 1/1000 of the magnetic flux end up at the poles, corresponding to only a handful of active regions. To generate the next cycle, more flux must first go to the poles, this takes a couple of years.
Thanks. Apologies if you’ve answered this elsewhere, but where is the Sun in this process at present? Are we still waiting for a flux buildup at the poles corresponding to Cycle 24?
Jim B Canada (00:00:22) :
I bet we know about 5% of how the universe actually works.
That much?!
John W
I used to make the analogy that if the ascent of Everest could be compared to our knowledge of AGW the stage we are at would be drinking coffeee in a cafe in Katmandhu. After a few more years of experience now I think its only at the stage of sitting in our homes merely thinking about our expedition. As regards the workings of the whole universe- we haven’t even been born.
TonyB
Perhaps it wasn’t a solar 23 spot but an early 25 spot. Very spooky!
lulo (21:34:23) :
My take on all this:
Nice posting. You are not alone.
(3) Very intelligent people can be delusional. When surrounded by like-minded individuals, people will believe very strange things. As a scientist, I can say that this includes people with Ph.D.’s
It has been my observation that the same plasticity of thinking that let’s folks achieve advanced degrees tends to lead to a greater willingness to believe strange things (multidimensional phase space & strange quarks anyone?). It’s the guy with muddy boots & overalls that keeps grounded best. Both are important to a stable sane world.
And yes, people are prone to mass hysteria. One of my favorite books is “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” that catalogues and describes many of our looniest ideas. Pet rocks??!?
I like to consider myself as an outlier: an alternative-thinking environmentalist (seriously, not only a partial climate change skeptic, but even an atheist, a conservationist, a vegetarian… the whole nine yards), who feels that the effect of CO2 has been overestimated by the IPCC
When a drive by troll makes a blanket accusation of conservative republican deniers I get a mixed twinge of resentment and pity. Pity because they clearly are clueless and blinded to truth, resentment because they are trying to pack me into a box that does not fit.
We are all outliers in our own ways. I am more agnostic than atheist (the spouse is the religious fanatic), also a conservationist (if pressed I’ll admit that I’d like to see about 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupants) and a sporadic vegetarian wannabe (we eat vegetarian about 2-3 days per week, but I find fried chicken irresistible …) Oh, and I’m registered Independent, but with a strong libertarian streak – I don’t care what you do as long as you leave me alone. Not exactly a right wingnut, (nor a left wingnut).
Now I’m quite sure there will be some hard core republicans against the AGW movement. What I don’t understand is how ‘the other side’ can be blind to the diversity that is the “AGW is Wrong” crowd. The tie that binds seems to me to be a bit more rigor of thought and an adherence to truth over dogma. That knows no party and no stereotype.
(incidentally, I accept their theory – I really do – just not the magnitude, and I feel that CO2 is by far the weaker of the two in the temperature-CO2 trend over the ages). I haven’t met another skeptic like me…
There are others like you (yet not like you, we are all unique is some ways). Remember that Lomborg is an environmentalist. A strict vegetarian relative is a skeptic. A democrat friend is a skeptic. etc. Somewhere there will be another person with your mix of attributes…
I accept the theory of a GHG, but think they got the wrong one(s) (H2O and O3 look far more important to me), the wrong driver (nature is stronger) and with CO2 impacts blown up to insane levels.
But since skepticism has no dogma, it’s a big tent.
On the topic of cycle 24:
OK, so how do we determine what the hermaphrodite ambiguous magnetic spot means? Is it counted as a 23? Does it mean 23 isn’t dead yet? That we are floundering on the sunspot bottom flopping about? That the solar dynamo is grinding to a halt? That it’s working fine but weak and the spots are there, just under the surface and unseen? Do we have a clue what’s really going on? (i.e. is this ‘normal’ or is it ‘unprecedented’?)
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:52)
Maybe so, but shouldn’t we sacrifice a goat just to be on the safe side?
lulo (21:34:23)
“I think the cycle length remains below 13 years at present”
‘Think’ is not very scientific without some underlying basis for making such a statement. Apparently the true cycle length must be difficult to determine and seems to vary with each reseacher similar to those making predictions for Cycle 24.
David Archibald (01:53:12) :
Ah, Dr Svalgaard, a couple of old Carrington rotation plots don’t prove anything.
Spare me your ‘Ah’s.
To deal with past data, you need to look at old plots [and they are not just a ‘couple’, but all the data obtained the past 30+ years]. Look again at http://www.leif.research/SolarCycleMinima.ppt and learn.
Starting the plot from the previous maximum is not based on physical understanding of the process and just introduces extra variance and noise [your curves jump all over the place]. Starting at the minimum [as defined by the SSN] is somewhat better as this http://www.leif.org/DavidA17.png shows. You also clearly see the ‘ramp up. The still better way is to use the minimum as defined by the ‘crossover’ of old and new cycles as on page 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
To say that the cycle has lasted 19 years is not correct by any measure.
John W. (08:41:38) :
where is the Sun in this process at present? Are we still waiting for a flux buildup at the poles corresponding to Cycle 24?
No, the flux that is there is what the Sun has to work with.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (00:44:06) :
“…, more flux must first go to the poles, …”
How can flux “go to the poles”?
A given active region covers a certain area A. Let the average magnetic field [of either polarity – and ‘field’ should really be ‘magnetic induction’ or ‘magnetic flux density’ but the slightly inaccurate term ‘field’ is commonly used] be B, then the magnetic flux of the region is F = AB. That flux is what disperses over the surface as the region decays and a small portion of that flux goes to the pole because the magnetic field is largely ‘frozen’ to the plasma and moves with it.
Flux is energy across a given surface, isn’t it?
No, you can have a flux of anything that can flow: mass flux, magnetic flux, heat flux, information flux, …
Len wrote
All we need is a bit of help correlating the location of the mass and its movement over time in our solar system. Then we could put the tired statistics to bed
I agree that it is important to find a physical mechanism for sunspot formation.
I was pleased to see this posted. Thanks Carstan.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
I tried it and it is great fun I recommend it, experimental astronomy at your fingertips.
There is the 11 year Uranus orbit which may cause the 11 year sun spot cycle..
I noticed that when Uranus and Saturn are together the Sun’s orbit changes shape quickly. This could shake the Sun and change the way it burns and hence the number of sunspots.
I have seen evidence of sunspot cycles that match Jupiter/Saturn line-ups at
Jupitersdance.com.
It would be good to be able to predict sunspot properties from solar system physics and not only statistically.
The warmists have a lot of statistics but no predictive physical theories
E.M.Smith (09:53:54) :
OK, so how do we determine what the hermaphrodite ambiguous magnetic spot means? Is it counted as a 23? Does it mean 23 isn’t dead yet?
It was clearly SC23. It is not extraordinary that the line connecting the two polarities is tilted off the canonical Joy’s law, some 3% of all spots [at any point in the cycle] have rotated so much that the polarity is ‘backwards’. SC23 is not necessarily dead yet. There may well be more spots left.
That we are floundering on the sunspot bottom flopping about?
The Sun is a messy place.
That the solar dynamo is grinding to a halt? That it’s working fine but weak and the spots are there, just under the surface and unseen?
The dynamo is working fine, it just had less field to work with and the first spots are already here with more to come
Do we have a clue what’s really going on? (i.e. is this ‘normal’ or is it ‘unprecedented’?)
We think we have a basic understanding [some people think they have a perfect understanding and some people are just clueless]. Cycle 23 was in many respects just like cycle 13 and it looks like cycle 24 might come out much like cycle 14 as predicted here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Joachim: I agree with all of your points, and I think my post was consistent with them.
Edcon: Yes, I used the word ‘think’ intentionally and loosely, for that very reason. I am not sure.
len (23:26:34) :
hmmm … Barycentric Tidal Theory. BTT … ugly acronym.
Solar Orbital Theory SOT … It’s that old SOT that’s doing it!
Barycentric Lateral Oscillation Theory BLOT …
Sun Intraorbital Nutation SIN ?
(For Leif 😉
Rotating Inertial Gravity Hosted Theory RIGHT
Barycentric Interorbital Gravity BIG
(For not-Leif 😉
In the mean time I will run my coal fired power plant I chose to work in knowing I am helping the biosphere by liberating carbon from the Earth’s crust, so efficiently scrubbed from the atmosphere over time.
The coal and oil eventually get recycled by plate tectonics anyway. See:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/of96-092/map.htm
Notice that the white spaces between big coal fields are often right where the river runs? Those are erosional features. Yeah, it takes millions of years, but that carbon eventually hits the subduction zone and comes back out a volcano somewhere. Some surface coal gets set on fire. Oil seeps. Nature is the great recycler. The idea that it will be sequestered forever by nature is broken.
Personally, I’d rather use it for something prior to the natural conversion to CO2. Oh, and thanks for keeping my home warm and the light on!
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (05:34:49) :
Tidal forces are weak but may have some effect on the 11 yr cycle..they are very different to angular momentum
I’m pondering the reaction kinetics. As angular momentum and tides move mass about, their ought to be changes of pressure. Increased pressures lead to increased reaction rates, sometimes spectacularly (think cap in a cap gun…) While it’s rampant speculation, that would imply to me that there is a possible modulation of solar behaviour by pressure waves modulating reaction kinetics. Is it enough? Only a lot of math and physics will answer that…
leif
Were the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe measured during its polar passes in 2007–2008 significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes?
TSI does not change in any appreciable amount to heat or cool our Planet.
Like the IPCC, this statement completely ignores indirect (magnetic, UV) effects.
Things like PDO will overpower any and all TSI-related changes.
Not to argue, my dear, but what causes our oceans to heat and cool differentially? Sol. Whether that is through magnetic/cloud effects as proposed by Svensmark, Spencer and who knows else, or some other mechanism, I know not.
But methinks it is definitely the sun in one form or fashion.
twawki (12:41:34) :
Were the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe measured during its polar passes in 2007–2008 significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes?
Here http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Owens.png is the IMF measured by all spacecraft since 1965. Since these spacecraft have different distance from the Sun, the IMF has been ‘adjusted’ to the Earth’s distance [1AU] by assuming that the radial component of the IMF falls off with the square of the distance. This assumption is only approximately correct [because of waves and local variations, kinks, folds, etc that cause some flux to be counted more than once], but generally works reasonably well. The gray curve is IMF measured at Earth. The orange points and curve are the Ulysses data. Because of the effect I just mentioned, the Ulysses data are a bit higher than, but generally match, the gray curve well.
Because the 1994-1995 polar passes was not yet at solar minimum, both the near-Earth and the Ulysses fields were a bit higher than during the 2007-2008 pass.
In our sunspot prediction paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf we concluded:
[13] The solar polar fields are important in supplying most of the heliospheric magnetic flux during solar minimum conditions. With weaker polar fields, the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes.
On the other hand, the polar fields do not supply the entire IMF flux. The relationship between the IMF, the polar fields, and the cycle size is becoming clearer. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Notes%20on%20HMF%20at%20Minima%20and%20Rmax.pdf is some speculation on how these quantities might relate to each other. Cycle 24 will be important in sorting all this out.
Instead of ascribing solar variations by some to its baricenter movement caused by planetary alignments (gravity) why not ( if not already done) investigate the magnetic distortions that must be occurring that might affect solar conditions for different planetary alignments and possibly the sun’s location in the galaxy?
mark wagner (13:13:31) :
“TSI does not change in any appreciable amount to heat or cool our Planet.”
Like the IPCC, this statement completely ignores indirect (magnetic, UV) effects.
Like a boxer that endures the heavy blows from his opponent, but is K.O.ed by the dust mote falling on this head.
Not to argue, my dear, but what causes our oceans to heat and cool differentially? Sol.
No, the if the Earth were flat and not tilted, sol would not heat and cool our oceans differentially, so the round shape and tilt of the Earth are the reasons.
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:27) :
SC23 is not necessarily dead yet. There may well be more spots left.
This is an interesting statement. You seem to have changed your mind about the life of SC23, because on the 16th of Jan in the “Sunspot Lapse Exceeds 95% of Normal” thread you said:
Leif Svalgaard (14:08:47) :
The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24. Imagine that there were no spots at all for the next three years. Cycle 23 is definitely dead.
So have you changed your mind? Is SC23 dead or alive?
Curiously, with all this discussion and search for solar/planetary effects on climate, it is well documented that climate affects the Earth’s planetary motion.
On 18 July 2000, however, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that “the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans.”[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble
Also ’cause’ and ‘effect’ could well be in some kind of synchronous oscillation.
> Dermot Carroll (02:28:58) :
> Just read that Livingston reported a gauss of 1969 for spot
> 1010 Could this be why we’re seeing sunspecks rather then
> sunspots?
Newsflash… March 32nd, 2009… IPCC announces The Grand Unified Theory of AGW, Solar Cycles, and Olympic Financing.
We all know that the earth is currently undergoing massive warming. However, it’s masked by La Nina, so foolish AGW deniers can’t see it for what it is. Similarly, major sunspots are happening as I speak, but the Livingston-Penn effect is masking them, so foolish AGW deniers can’t see them. The IPCC has produced a model that shows the sun currently ramping up to a strong maximum, consisting almost entirely of invisible sunspots.
Our model output has been independantly verified by Dr. James Hansen of NASA. Dr. Hansen has applied a UHI (Umbral Heat Island) adjustment to various plages and other solar features, to compensate for the Livingston-Penn effect. And his adjusted sunspot count is in very close agreement with the IPCC Sunspot Model.
Furthermore, applying financial adjustments by Dr. Hansen, and the IPCC theory of “hidden stuff”, we have come to the conclusion that the 2010 Vancouver Olympics will be a financial success. There will be major economic benefits. However, they will be “hidden benefits”, hidden just like today’s well-masked major global warming. No doubt, the same old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds who called subprime-mortgage-backed derivatives a losing proposition will also call the 2010 Olympics a losing proposition.
I have looked at the Solar effects other than the TSI, and I can find good (1% significance) global ocean-land temp correllations (with a lag) which do not turn up with the TSI…so, I can only believe that the “duist mote” is soemwhat stronger than the “heavy fist”!
I have looked at the Solar effects other than the TSI, and I can find good (1% significance) global ocean-land temp correllations (with a lag) which do not turn up with the TSI…so, I can only believe that the “dust mote” is somewhat stronger than the “heavy fist”! (NB: spelling corrections to original post)
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (14:39:03) :
So have you changed your mind? Is SC23 dead or alive?
It is dead, but can still produce the occasional spot. What I mean is that there will probably not be a flareup as we had in the Spring of 2008, so the cycle has run its course, no more contribution to the polar fields, no more big flares or CMEs. I assume that you could figure that out. My statements were not ‘interesting’ as far as the Sun is concerned. Perhaps we can say it this way: “dead, but refuses to lie down” 🙂
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (14:39:03) :
“The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24. Imagine that there were no spots at all for the next three years. Cycle 23 is definitely dead.
And perhaps your are looking too hard for something ‘interesting’. I said “image there were no spots at all for the next three years”. Then if that would signify a truly dead cycle 23. And THAT was the meaning of that statement.
E.M.Smith (12:20:30) :
I’m pondering the reaction kinetics. As angular momentum and tides move mass about, their ought to be changes of pressure. Increased pressures lead to increased reaction rates, sometimes spectacularly (think cap in a cap gun…) While it’s rampant speculation, that would imply to me that there is a possible modulation of solar behaviour by pressure waves modulating reaction kinetics. Is it enough? Only a lot of math and physics will answer that…
Because we havent got any hard evidence of what is the causation link, planetary influence is treated like pseudo science. I believe that link will come and at present I am not overly concerned about the underlying cause. Once it becomes known that this influence is completely controlling the 11000 yr C14 record and also shows the non existence of the so called solar floor, science will treat it differently and dig a lot further.
I have posted an article showing some of my preliminary work on this massive project to keep people up to date….feel free to ask any questions as the document is not overly intuitive but will improve as I go.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Oh no, it’s global warming!
Right, it’s the coldest here since I remember.
The climate may be Changing, but I don’t think it’s getting warmer.
Jordan.
http://www.theriverjordan.net
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:16:36) :
Because we havent got any hard evidence of what is the causation link, planetary influence is treated like pseudo science.
No, that is not the reason.
The reason is that people advocating planetary influence do not follow the scientific method [or even know what it is – like believing that falsifiability is ‘weird’] and elementary standards of scientific discourse.
Leif Svalgaard (16:52:14) :
No, that is not the reason.
The reason is that people advocating planetary influence do not follow the scientific method [or even know what it is – like believing that falsifiability is ‘weird’] and elementary standards of scientific discourse.
Nonsense.
slightly OT, but related, with a sunspot reference – another indication of the turning tides:
today’s ENN Daily Newsletter from ENN, the Environmental News Network (which usually toes AGW party line) listed this headline (among others):
“What happened to the climate consensus?”
with a link to a column by Paul Schneidereit in our local paper, The Chronicle Herald (one of Canada’s last independent newspapers). This is particularly relevant for our region since Nova Scotia’s Climate Change plan was just tabled (affirming that we must “combat” climate change before it’s too late…).
Here are the links:
http://www.enn.com/makepage/template5.html
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (17:40:18) :
“The reason is that people advocating planetary influence do not follow the scientific method [or even know what it is”
Nonsense.
Illustrates precisely what I mean
Palin goes green and renewable but I have a hard time imagining how Alaska can go for such a large percentage of renewables …
lulo —
Your post is not irrelevant at all. Its a brilliant analysis of what is wrong with the climate debate, and the way those inside of the academic AGW paradigm rationalize their own unscientific intolerance. It is imperative, imo, that those of us who do not consider ourselves as belonging to “the right,” and may well hold traditional liberal values in many regards, begin to detach from the cultish atmospehere than has been created by AGW “scientists” around this issue, even if — God forbid — it means finding common cause with those from a traditionally different political perspective.
In my own primary area of study in the humanities, I have watched similar abberations for two decades now. Many academicians, when it comes to issues of their “professional identity,” might as well still be in Jr. High School. Humility just doesn’t seem to be part of their psychological makeup; Led on by Ego, they enter into the tangled web of Mannian data fudging until nature, if the world is lucky enough, proves them definitively wrong before their theories do further damage. Based on what I have read, and my preference for simplicity and elegance in causal models, I have a hunch Svensmark might have got it right. At any rate, as you so aptly put it,
“Which is more likely… that a factor with poor correlation over the past 500 million years is the control, or that a factor with moderately strong correlation is the control?”
And although I don’t look forward to global cooling — which if it comes in a major way could be at least as bad as some of the more apocalyptic AGW scenarios — I will allow myself a bemused smile when and if some of these pompous experts are brought to feel a little public shame for their gratutiously unscientific mistreatment of skeptics and shortage of self-critical consciousness.
Anyway, thanks for the insightful post. Those of us (like myself) with only limited technical knowledge but some experience with the history of ideas need to have our minds fed also. One tip, from a writing instructor: please post shorter paragraphs. The value of what you wrote was somewhat diminished by the difficulty finding a path throught the those giant paragraphs…..
Thanks again, and congratulations to Anthony for an incredible website, with lwell informed and civil discussion from all comers.
The solar-planetary influence science on earth climate is only in it’s infancy. There is way too little known for anyone to state emphatically that they know what is right and that they know how it all works. There is so so so much still to be learnt. Better to leave the options open and not to have a closed mind on this topic especially, otherwise you are just fooling yourself and need a bit of a reality check. We are all just a tiny tiny tiny speck in the big universe and I’m afraid all our knowledge put together is still a speck. Lets’ not fool ourselves that we know it all and be open to new research and new science that we have not even thought of, and new solar-planetry-magnetic-particle-whatever effects on earth’s climate that we now do not know. One thing is for certain we will all discover and change our way of thinking on many many subjects in the coming years ahead. To think that one knows it all and is a top scientist of renown and a leading brain of any subject, leaves one liable to a big fall in the future. We should all be humble and learn from each other, that is how we go forward, someone else may have answers that we have not thought on the science topic. Some one may have no qualifications but be experienced and well-read and see things that we have not. Let’s work all together and take in all ideas, not discard them without even a though, or because it does not fit our pet theories, that may well turn out to be wrong in the long term. Let’s all be good listeners and be able to be flexible in our thinking. We won’t all agree, but maybe if we listened a bit more, maybe we may learn something we did not know, and maybe an opportunity to discover new exciting science awaits us.
lulo and Mike D. said a mouthful.
Strip away the hype and wrangling, and it’s pretty incredible to sit back (after all, we’re really only along for the ride), at a time when industrious people create such amazing sensors of ice, stars, oceans, and ephemera, and be a spectator of the rythms of nature’s goings on.
Ian Holton (20:33:40) :
The solar-planetary influence science on earth climate is only in it’s infancy.
It is at least 150 years old.
There is way too little known for anyone to state emphatically that they know what is right and that they know how it all works.
I think the shoe is on the other foot. Here is how a planetary enthusiast puts it: “Basically every decent peak and trough on the 11000 yr C14 and 10Be graph is accounted for by two solar system line ups…..this will change the face of solar science”.
Ian Holton (20:33:40) :
Well said Ian, and your thought process is happening, the ground is moving beneath our feet. My latest work indisputably links the planets to solar output for 11000 years.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Leif Svalgaard (15:25:09) :
Perhaps we can say it this way: “dead, but refuses to lie down” 🙂
Like that Hitchcock peace, “The Trouble With Harry” we are having “The Trouble with Cycle 23” ? 😉
Make that “piece” dang it…
The solar-planetary influence science on earth climate is only in it’s infancy. (Ian)
“It is at least 150 years old.” (Lief)
Well, as I said Lief, it is in it’s infancy…150 years old vs millions of years old earth and vs “mankind age” well its a long long time also since Adam & Eve began us all.
150years of this investigation for mankind is “infancy”… And we have so much more to learn & discover about it all…….That is exciting to me anyway!
If we knew it all now (and we most certainly don’t!) how boring would it all be……. But we don’t and there is so much more to learn and discover. The earth, sun, climate, weather, oceans, clouds, gases, nature, interactions of all sorts, etc, etc, etc.
As I said, and I repeat with pride, “we are only in our infancy of learning and discovery”, and the day we decide we know all about it, is the day we lose our excitement and wonder of life on the wonderful planet earth!
Leif Svalgaard (21:05:14) :
I think the shoe is on the other foot. Here is how a planetary enthusiast puts it: “Basically every decent peak and trough on the 11000 yr C14 and 10Be graph is accounted for by two solar system line ups…..this will change the face of solar science”.
If you think I am wrong, show me. The report is not complete but enough data is there to check. I suspect you are defending another agenda and refuse to see the facts. You need to listen to Ian Holton.
To my simple mind it’s more then obvious how the sun’s relative place to the centre of our galaxy can’t a be inflexible orbit.
Also that tidal forces, created as much by the inertia of the solar surface layer as by it’s passage through diverse gravitational fields account for the most part of the variation in all fluxes traversing it’s body.
Accepting that, the movement of the sun through the universe makes it endure all the kinds of forces the universe can throw at it. Occam’s razor applied it seems most likely to assume those forces will cooincide/contradict or cancel each other out at any given point of it’s lifecycle.
Thus varying the shape of it’s fluid mass. Thus varying the flux, thus making solar prediction more like astrology then science.
The ‘cycles’ we observe at present may well be the effect of it’s present relative position, since it’s postion is sure to change these ‘cycles’ are sure to change.
Try waiting a couple of millenia and see what it does then 🙂
Richard Sharpe (19:30:55) :
Palin goes green and renewable but I have a hard time imagining how Alaska can go for such a large percentage of renewables …
Because the population is very small (686,293 per wiki) with many places running on a diesel generator set. Don’t think 1,000 MW nuke scale, think ‘big thing behind a truck’ scale…
Faribanks is “large and inland” by Alaskan standards, but the city is about 35,000 and even if you include the environs it’s only about 82,000. All the other “large” cities (Anchorage at about 360,000, Juneau 30,000) are close to water power of some kind.
We are not talking a whole lot of power here…
Also from the wiki:
Alaska also offers some of the highest hydroelectric power potential in the country from its numerous rivers. Large swaths of the Alaskan coastline offer wind and geothermal energy potential as well.
There also is just a little under one square mile of land for each person, with lots of trees. They have lots of hydroelectric, tidal, & wave locations near most of the people. Oh, and it’s geologically hot place. Lots and lots of geothermal potential. So yes, it can be done.
Just don’t expect to see solar panels popping up. Maybe some extreme cold tolerant wind turbines though… (And maybe a ‘biomass’ powered alternative to coal plants… they do have rather a lot of trees…)
Heck, one good hydro dam would power most of the state with lots left over. A few ‘powerbuoys’ would do it too.
fred (07:01:07) quoted: “Every cloud has an invisible halo. Unseen particles may confuse climate models.”
Sounded very interesting, Fred; but I have not been able to find any other stories. Hope someone can.
What the current ramp up of SC24 looks like and what it should be looking like are 2 different animals if the Situation Was Normal.
It is anything but normal.
This is what we have been waiting for “just a few more months and we’ll know more”:
We know the SC24 ramp is a resounding thud so far.
We know the SC24 spots are anemic on a good day, and nowhere to be found in between.
We know the solar wind has backed off mightily.
We know the upper atmosphere has thinned substantially.
We know the shields went down unexpectedly.
We know the amplitude of the F10.7 has not responded to sickly spots.
We know we can find more spots now than ever before thanks to satellite-aided gnat straining capability
Some of us even suspect that the Sun acts more like an outgassing epoxy ball than a nuclear-magnetic wound dynamo these days.
Somebody here even pointed out 6 months ago the uncanny resemblance of SC23-24 progression to SC4-5, though a child was found to pick up on it at first glance.
If you don’t now know this is not normal, you have sucessfully joined a class of people known as “them that don’t suspect”.
This is the time to be highly observant and pay attention.
Ian Holton (23:51:46) :
I like your style Ian….in my experience here I have certainly learned how bad some sections of science can be, but I guess that is nothing new. What is more important, the search for knowledge is put aside and replaced with the knowledge “they want to see” and wont look at anything outside their agenda. I think I have stumbled on to something big, perhaps that will upset a few who have worked their whole lives going in the opposite direction….but its not going to stop me.
For all truthseekers, just watched Dave Archibald’s short videos found them difficult to fault despite Leif’s running commentrary.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw&feature=channel
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4mYcrd_18
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUdDLTLXGU&feature=channel
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiJyr0TK6E
Robert Bateman (04:46:23) :
I think your more excited than ME about the upcoming grand minima 🙂
It’s like all the hype you hear from woo-peddlers, all the catastrophes which will occur when the planets “line up”. Nothing ever happens. It’s the same with the so-called Mayan 2012 “galactic alignment”. Even, less will happen…
Jeff Alberts (09:04:47) :
Instead of heaping ridicule, trying reading my work and finding fault with it. I could use some constructive criticism from this crowd…my work was born here, it would be a shame to have intelligent people turn their backs on what could be a very big discovery.
“Many academicians, when it comes to issues of their “professional identity,” might as well still be in Jr. High School.”
RE: Academicians who are highly trained scientists. On this subset I have a rather different take:
I find many do not internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise. They are perfectly willing to accept arguments on ‘authority’ uncritically, so much so that their ‘research’ into controversial issues outside their specialty seems on a Jr. High level.
Nobwainer, How many of your critics have achieved an understanding of your work? Don’t let the pre-fight gesturing blow the finished product.
Bar none, this is the most sophisticated blog dialogue I have ever read.
Although this is from 2007, it was daring of the authors to suggest that the periods of heavy rain were not caused by AGW. My bet is this study was not included in the analsysis that concluded that 99% of all studies show that AGW causes everything bad.
“A new study reveals correlations between plentiful sunspots and periods of heavy rain in East Africa. Intense rainfall in the region often leads to flooding and disease outbreaks. The findings shed light on how life on Earth can be affected by changes in the Solar System environment. Understanding the links between the Sun and Earth is also important for astrobiologists trying to define what conditions make a planet habitable.”
“The analysis by a team of U.S. and British researchers shows that unusually heavy rainfalls in East Africa over the past century preceded peak sunspot activity by about one year. Because periods of peak sunspot activity, known as solar maxima, are predictable, so too are the associated heavy rains that precede them, the researchers propose.”
“With the help of these findings, we can now say when especially rainy seasons are likely to occur, several years in advance,” says paleoclimatologist and study leader Curt Stager of Paul Smith’s College in Paul Smiths, New York. Forewarned by such predictions, public health officials could ramp up prevention measures against insect-borne diseases long before epidemics begin, he adds.
The sunspot-rainfall analysis was published on 7 August in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Increasing sunspot numbers indicate a rise in the sun’s energy output. Sunspot abundance peaks on an 11-year cycle. The next solar maximum is expected in 2011-2012. If the newfound pattern holds, rainfall would also peak the year before.
Stager, Ruzmaikin and their colleagues offer several reasons why sunspot peaks may affect rainfall. In a simple scenario, increased solar energy associated with sunspots heats both land and sea, forcing moist air to rise and triggering precipitation.”
Hmmm. Increased sunspots = Increased precipation = Increased temperature. Looks simple to me.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2425
Gary,
Thank you for your courteous response. You write:
“I find many do not internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise. They are perfectly willing to accept arguments on ‘authority’ uncritically, so much so that their ‘research’ into controversial issues outside their specialty seems on a Jr. High level.”
The basic principles of inquiry are invariant, regardless of the subject matter. If you read the Platonic dialogues you will understand the notion that some subjects, like philosophy of knowledge, are to a considerable extent the common domain of informed humanity, not the technical province a particular scientific elite that talks too itself but is unable to persuade the rest of the world of what it accepts axiomatically because it has been so busy studying the trees that it has missed the forest.
These principles have to do with testing across disciplinary boundaries, seeking for correlations, and prefering simple to technically abstruse explanations. I would add to this that a strong correlation which lacks an as yet fully coherent explanatory principle should be preferred, it seems to me, to a weak correlation that has an ostensible explanatory principle that requires all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations in order to retain an aura of credibility.
Here is Svensmarks on video:
He is not difficult to understand. Moreover, his story includes something that requires no specialized knowledge to interpret: when he and his team first produced their findings in 1991, they were unable to publish them. Was that because his team was unable to “internalize their training or practice the principles learned in areas outside their expertise”?
Somehow I doubt it.
To me it seems more likely that their findings were offensive to a scientific establishment that had already prematurely foreclosed the possibility that anything other than increased anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of recorded 20th c. warming.
I’m sorry if that conclusion strikes you as belonging to the Jr. High, but I would venture to suggest to those not already committed to a particular dogmatic perspctive in the debate might very well evaluate it another way.
Certainly, if you look on the Amazon reviews for Svensmark’s book,
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157, you will see that his readers, many very articulate and credible, feel he’s on to something. There are two or three rather poorly articulated critiques — I’m sure from the subtlety of your response here, you could write a much better criticism than any posted to Amazon.
If you haven’t already read the book, why don’t you suspend your faith in the credibility of one group of experts long enough to examine the arguments of another, and see what happens….Ever since High school, I’ve found that to be a useful practice.
Cheers,
Psi
In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
From NASA dated March 2006 and titled “Solar Storm Warning”:
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). ‘The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. …
“Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center (NSSTC)… agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011. … ‘History shows that big sunspot cycles ramp up faster than small ones,’ he says. ‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
edward (16:50:21) :
The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,
Crazy stuff.
I am excited to have a front row seat on something few ever thought we would witness in modern times. There are bound to be twists and turns, the unexpected lies ahead.
We can’t even be sure that there are things going on in this event that didn’t happen in the previous two.
Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity?
Who kept records of the size of the sunpots?
For as early as the Dalton, they counted sunspot groups, not sunspots.
Off Topic question for Carsten Arnholm (or anyone else who can answer it)
I’ve written a simple orbital simulation model in Java, and I’d like to get hold of solar system planetary (and solar) data to initialise it with. What I need (ideally) is x, y, z cartesian coordinates of all planets in km, and vx, vy, vyz velocities in km/s, both for the same date. Any date would do, although data from anytime in the past century would be best. Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
Just a quick comment to the poster who said, “I’d like to see 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupation…”
Sorry, actually right now about 80% of the land area is essentially “non-human occupied.”
Get on Google earth and look around for cities Check out Russia, MUCH of China, MOST of South America and MUCH of Africa. Combine that with Greenland, Antartica, and Australia, and amazing…humans only travel on a FRACTION of the land masses. (Of course the OCEANS if you count ships, and rafts, have maybe about .00001% human coverage. So you can stop whining about “protectionism”, it’s there already. By virture of the SIZE of the Earth.
M from M
Sorry, I meant vx, vy, vz.
And I meant to add that it would be very simple to work out how barycentre moves using this simulation. Although I think some people don’t think they exist. And of course, they don’t really.
Robert Bateman (18:50:37) :
Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity? Bill Livingston
Who kept records of the size of the sunspots?
Staudacher 1749-1805
De La Rue 1850s-1860s
Greenwich 1874-1975
USAF 1976-present
For as early as the Dalton, they counted sunspot groups, not sunspots.
The number of spots per group seems to be rather constant [for constant observer!], namely about 10 on average. The 10 is the reason for the 10 in Wolf’s formula SSN = 10*G+S
idlex (18:51:35) :
Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
idlex (18:51:35) :
Off Topic question for Carsten Arnholm (or anyone else who can answer it)
I’ve written a simple orbital simulation model in Java, and I’d like to get hold of solar system planetary (and solar) data to initialise it with. What I need (ideally) is x, y, z cartesian coordinates of all planets in km, and vx, vy, vyz velocities in km/s, both for the same date. Any date would do, although data from anytime in the past century would be best. Can anyone tell me where I might find such data?
The x,y,z coordinate system you need is ecliptical coordinates. You can obtain such position values (and velocities from the derivatives of the positions) using the freely available AA+ library available at http://www.naughter.com/aa.html
AA+ is a C++ implementation of the book Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, who is also sometimes seen commenting on WUWT.
http://www.willbell.com/MATH/mc1.htm
I have used AA+ in my 2D and 3D simulators. If your application is written in Java, you need to do some mixed language work.
AA+ will calculate the positions of the planets and the sun directly, based on Julian dates. If you want to include other objects like Comets, Asteroids or even imaginary objects, you need to provide orbital elements data for those. Such info is available from places like http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/
Of course you also have the JPL Horizons system
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
But I am not sure if it is easy to integrate with your own simulation model
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (11:15:06) :
]trying reading my work and finding fault with it. I could use some constructive criticism from this crowd…my work was born here, it would be a shame to have intelligent people turn their backs on what could be a very big discovery.
OK, some constructive criticism. My bias is that I would like to believe in the planetary influence but have not yet found sufficient basis. I come with the preconceived notion that moderate correlation is shown, but causality arguments are challenged.
1) I find it very hard to read at all. The faded small font does not work well with old eyes. If you want more folks to read it, make it readable. As it stands, most folks will pass on by. (I just passed my DMV test and don’t normally wear glasses so I don’t think it’s me…)
2) The graph is interesting, if only I knew what it was about. You have a nice long sunspot graph. Nice. Pretty blue, red, and green markings. Wonder what they are supposed to be telling me? Then there is a box with substantially unreadable text in tiny little cubes. (Yes, I’m on the ‘big’ one you get by clicking through). Lines connect this to the sunspot graph. Wonder what it says and what it’s about… Maybe something to do with angular momentum? There are little letters, I think, in the end boxes. Wonder what they stand for?
3) Further down the page you make a correlation between a 172 year cycle and planetary position, but don’t make it clear why this number was chosen other than maybe data modeling? Is it a fixed repeating pattern of the planets or is it a quantity of angular momentum or is it just the frequency of sunspots that you then data model onto ‘close enough’ planet positions? What is the physicality that it is supposed to represent?
4) You “re-jigged Uroskins’ graph” to keep Dalton’s in. What does that mean? There is a bunch of discussion of planet angles: Why does the angle matter?
5) OK, A & B with mass split between the two halves in line. So why is it J-S vs J+S with U+N Always in the same place. Why not N+S+U vs J? Why does the pairing matter? What physical thing changes? What is the mass ratio of the planet sets or the relative contribution to angular momentum or… Why are the other planets ignored? Alignment is interesting but tells me nothing of the physics involved.
6) You talk about dates and better vs worse ‘angles’. Why better or worse? What makes a bad angle better? What is a negative angle vs a positive one?
7) You have an SSB graph. What’s an SSB? Single Side Band?
8) You say the planets ‘changed position’ and that’s why Jose’s 179 becomes your 172. How did they change? Just took a moment for a cigarette and slowed down or what? What made them ‘change position’?
At this point the eye strain is getting to me and I have to stop. I’ll try again in a couple of days and see if I can get through more…
Generally all I’ve seen so far is a more detailed presentation of correlation with a new number 172 and not much ‘why’. OK, maybe something there, or maybe not. Have to slog through the rest and see.
Hopeful, but it does need more readability and a clearer statement of why different things matter. What’s going on. Pretty pictures that line up are nice but don’t provide much explanation.
edward (16:50:21) : In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
On our way? And I didn’t even hear the engine start…
‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
Are we there yet daddy are we there yet???? It’s only one more year, why can’t I see it yet? Are we there yet???
Minnesota Mark (18:52:09) : Just a quick comment to the poster who said, “I’d like to see 1/2 the planet set aside for non-human occupation…”
[…] Sorry, actually right now about 80% of the land area is essentially “non-human occupied.” So you can stop whining about “protectionism”, it’s there already. By virture of the SIZE of the Earth.
Essentially and actually are two very different things. We have about 1/3 of the planet unused by people, not 80%, and most of that is very inhospitable to life. I’d like to add to that some of the nicer bits that we’ve monopolized and set aside some spaces for life to just be. The fact that the Grand Banks are mostly not covered with ships does not mean they are available to animals unimpaired by our actions.
BTW, I did not ‘whine’ at any time and said nothing about ‘protectionism’. I expressed a belief that the human race can live just fine using about 1/2 the planet and leaving the rest relatively intact, pristine, and unexploited. A reasonable goal that we are not near at present.
That we don’t have buildings covering Kansas does not mean it is free for the buffalo. Repeat for most of those ’empty’ places you stated are ‘essentially’ non human ‘occupied’. The fact is that human land use patterns cover about 2/3 of land with ‘use’. To the best of my knowledge, virtually none of the ocean is prohibited to use (a few marine reserves exist. Darned near nothing compared to the size of the planet.) and the ocean is presently fished to the point where most usable stocks are dramatically stressed. There is no ‘safe haven’ from people in the ocean.
So please, don’t put words in my mouth that are not there and don’t claim things that are demonstrably not true.
Yes, the planet is a big place. So big, in fact, that I’m fairly sure that with a modest application of nuclear power, desalinizers, greenhouses and intensive agriculture, aquaculture, and urbanization we could afford to turn about 1/6 of it that we presently exploit (even if not presently ‘occupied’) back to wilderness. And that would clearly make for a better and more interesting planet.
BTW, I’m not some rabid green (which your snark seems to imply) I’m more of a techno-optimist who thinks we could optimize our use a bit with some high end tech and make more of the planet more interesting and a better place for all the other life around us to live in.
And frankly, I’ve driven coast to coast of the U.S.A. a few dozen times at all latitudes and the non-used areas, few that they are, are much more valuable and interesting than the monotony of the used areas. Why you seem offended at the idea that intensified farming and urbanization might let us have more parks, fish nurseries, and maybe even some small herds of bison or elk is rather a mystery.
And no, I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance of it happening. People, as I’m sure you are directly aware, are too intensely greedy and self centered to indulge in such an activity.
E.M.Smith (01:29:40) :
edward (16:50:21) : In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max.
On our way? And I didn’t even hear the engine start…
‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.
Are we there yet daddy are we there yet???? It’s only one more year, why can’t I see it yet? Are we there yet???
Lol…
Leif Svalgaard and Carsten Arnholm. Thank you so much!
But I don’t really want to integrate any other code with mine. Wherever possible, I prefer to reinvent the wheel. If there are 10 bodies in the solar system, all I want are 10 * 6 or 60 numbers. I hope I will find them where you have so kindly directed me.
idlex (19:04:41) :
As the barycenter is the center of gravity, it won’t move (err, change its motion) unless there is an external force on one of the bodies in the simulation.
Or did you mean how the Sun moves relative the barycentre?
Software engineers have the duty to “out-precise” the lawyers.
E.M.Smith (00:55:46) :
Thanks for taking the time to evaluate, I appreciate the feedback.
1) I find it very hard to read at all. The faded small font does not work well with old eyes. If you want more folks to read it, make it readable. As it stands, most folks will pass on by. (I just passed my DMV test and don’t normally wear glasses so I don’t think it’s me…)
The font size and color is controlled by the blog template and is not tweakable…I could change it to another template perhaps. Your the 2nd one to comment on that problem.
2) The graph is interesting, if only I knew what it was about. You have a nice long sunspot graph. Nice. Pretty blue, red, and green markings. Wonder what they are supposed to be telling me? Then there is a box with substantially unreadable text in tiny little cubes. (Yes, I’m on the ‘big’ one you get by clicking through). Lines connect this to the sunspot graph. Wonder what it says and what it’s about… Maybe something to do with angular momentum? There are little letters, I think, in the end boxes. Wonder what they stand for?
Agree its not easy right now…its a work I progress and I am planning to make it bigger, with long graphs its hard, others complain about being too wide. There is a “table definitions” block of text directly under the graph thumbnail on the main article at the top explaining the boxes but agree it needs more work. The article text explains your other questions and provides a link back to my original article fully explaining the base theory. Perhaps you missed that.
3) Further down the page you make a correlation between a 172 year cycle and planetary position, but don’t make it clear why this number was chosen other than maybe data modeling? Is it a fixed repeating pattern of the planets or is it a quantity of angular momentum or is it just the frequency of sunspots that you then data model onto ‘close enough’ planet positions? What is the physicality that it is supposed to represent?
That is fully explained I thought in the article and supporting article but obviously I need to do it better. Every 172 yrs approx N+U come together (conjunction) , for the past 6000 yrs at least this has coincided with grand minima in nearly every case (MWP excluded etc). Grand minima has not occurred outside of the 172 yr cycle, although it can happen early or late. That in itself is a major correlation or a hell of a big fluke. Grand minima comes in different forms and strengths and is very dependant on how J+S are at that time. Every 172 yrs they (J+S) have moved slightly (some deg each) from the last position they occupied 172 years ago. With that position change you get a different timing and strength of angular momentum applied to the Sun, this is not my theory and is acknowledged by most. Its not a random change but a gradual change that is controlled by orbits/gravity etc, a bit like the Milankovitch cycles which are also controlled by the Jovian planets.
4) You “re-jigged Uroskins’ graph” to keep Dalton’s in. What does that mean? There is a bunch of discussion of planet angles: Why does the angle matter?
I talk about raising the bar, the original graph did not have the green line, only the blue which is set way too low excluding Dalton like events. I will make that note in my article, thanks. Angles are crucial and in fact the shape of the C14 graph is a product of the changing J+S angle. In my previous article I have gone to great lengths by explaining with text and diagrams to point out the importance of the Jovian positions. Angular momentum is primarily a product of J+S being the largest 2 planets affecting the Sun. Its strongest when J+S are together and weakest when they are opposing (not taking into account other planets). Every 172 years approx when N+U are in conjunction they can add or take away big chunks of angular momentum, depending on their positions, this is what causes large sunspot cycles directly before grand minima every 172 years as can be see by SC18,19 etc and is clearly seen on the C14 graph over 11000 yrs. Large angular momentum can boost solar performance just before shutting it down to a crawl.
5) OK, A & B with mass split between the two halves in line. So why is it J-S vs J+S with U+N Always in the same place. Why not N+S+U vs J? Why does the pairing matter? What physical thing changes? What is the mass ratio of the planet sets or the relative contribution to angular momentum or… Why are the other planets ignored? Alignment is interesting but tells me nothing of the physics involved.
Mainly explained above, almost all of the angular momentum is “made” by the 4 outer planets. Its a product of the solar system and formed when the solar system formed , The figures behind Carl’s graph (SSB graph, solar system baricenter) showing the movement in angular momentum over time are from NASA and angular momentum although small is a calculable force on the Sun recognized by science.
6) You talk about dates and better vs worse ‘angles’. Why better or worse? What makes a bad angle better? What is a negative angle vs a positive one?
Good point and I am planning to produce diagrams to show how it all works…this work is barely a week old, so I have lots to do. I always thought a direct alignment of N+U+J with S opposing was the most powerful lineup when considering momentum, but through this project I have discovered many things. Going on past grand minima the deepest and longest have had N+U behind J with N+U about 15 deg apart and S opposing is about 30 deg offline (off 180 deg line between J & S) from J. I have a lot more work to do in this area, but its all falling into place exactly as expected, the angles quoted are approx .
8) You say the planets ‘changed position’ and that’s why Jose’s 179 becomes your 172. How did they change? Just took a moment for a cigarette and slowed down or what? What made them ‘change position’
Jose only went back a few hundred years when forming his 178.8 yr theory, I initially went back through time in this project in 179 yr breaks but found over time the alignments did not match up, when looking at it over 6000 yrs it averages out to 172 years (when the 4 planets are in the best position for grand minima) but I suspect because of orbit changes etc as outlined the 172 yr approx period of N+U is what will replace Jose’s theory.
Have a read of my original article http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 and hopefully it might become clearer, but I do thank you for your comments and will make appropriate changes.
“I’m sorry if that conclusion strikes you as belonging to the Jr. High,”
No doubt the fault is mine but my comments were intended as an addendum, not refutation.
“In case you did not notice we are on our way to a wicked Solar Max. ”
A little late to the discussion, are we? Hathaway recently downgraded his prediction. He and Dikpati, however, earn high marks for integrity, sticking to ththeir foxholes when retreat has sounded and their positions are overrun.
‘Who kept records of sunspot umbra intensity? Bill Livingston’
I can and have independently verified by proxy that Bill is correct, through personal observation, experience and officially recorded data. Bill didn’t live in the Maunder or Dalton.
Disconnect.
‘Who kept records of the size of the sunspots?
Staudacher 1749-1805
De La Rue 1850s-1860s
Greenwich 1874-1975
USAF 1976-present’
That will connect us back to the Dalton buy not to the Maunder.
Disconnect.
We can’t even be sure that there are things going on in this event that didn’t happen in the previous two.
Too many assumptions relying on the Dalton being a weaker version of the Maunder.
We don’t know that.
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder
2.) This event is unusual, but we don’t know yet exactly how unusual it really is.
Pay attention. Don’t let modeling and reports get in the way of personal observation in real life.
E.M.Smith (00:55:46) :
How does the graph look now…I think a lot better, thanks again.
you may need to use the picture expand function on your browser, its big.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14nujs.jpg
The vidoes of David Archibald’s lecture were quite interesting.
The logarithmic curve of CO2 warming suggests to me that there is a possibility of CO2 being an atmospheric antifreeze.
If it gets too low, the planet plunges into deep and long Ice Age.
It takes a lot of Solar Activity to warm the oceans to begin releasing enough CO2 antifreeze back into the atmosphere to lift the planet out of deep Ice Age.
Key word is hysteresis.
Food for new thought: Why the 800 year lag of CO2 after warming has begun?
Ric Werme: As the barycenter is the center of gravity, it won’t move (err, change its motion) unless there is an external force on one of the bodies in the simulation.
On reflection, you are quite right. But I did in fact mean its motion relative to the sun, as you suggested.
One of the things I might try is to construct a model sun in the middle of my solar system, to see whether ‘tidal forces’ due to the gravitational attraction of the planets have any interesting effects on the sun.
At the outset, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that there are tides on the sun, just like on the earth, and that the highest tides will occur when the planets all line up together on one side, or maybe are along the same line on both sides of the sun.
I’m not quite sure how I might construct my model ‘sun’, but a spinning spherical bundle of point masses held together somehow might be a start. Or maybe a spinning hollow sphere of masses.
If I found anything interesting happened, I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
Robert Bateman (08:00:09) :
We don’t know that.
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder
We don’t know that either.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (08:32:34) :
How does the graph look now…I think a lot better, thanks again.
Dalton minimum was not in 1831 but in 1811 [based on smoothed sunspot number and 10Be record.]
Ric Werme (05:54:22) :
As the barycenter is the center of gravity, it won’t move (err, change its motion) unless there is an external force on one of the bodies in the simulation.
Software engineers have the duty to “out-precise” the lawyers.
Well to be very acurate, a barycentre in this context is just a gravityhole in space. The position of this or any other gravityhole is only defined by it’s coordinates relative to another. An absolute position can’t exist in space. So obviously it can,will and does move.
As the gravity sources move about the gravitycentre they create moves about. As i understand that’s the whole idea why the sun is influenced by such an event. It makes the sun tumble about around an ever moving point in space which moves and reversely is pushed around by the sun which makes a part of the whole mess making it a chaotic system.
I’m hard put to visualize how one can go about pinpointing this barycentre at any given time. It’s like pinpointing the exact watermolecule which is at the end of a vortex.
idlex (09:16:34) :
I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
When the sunspot cycle was discovered and for almost a century thereafter, the planetary influence theory was the leading theory for the cycle. Here is a good paper on the history of the theory:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Peter vd berg, Great barycenter explanation above this is how I see it too. Thank-you.
idlex (09:16:34) :
I might start to believe that the planets could influence events on the sun, like the sunspot cycle.
Though the famous ‘gravity wave’ has not been proven to exist yet, if one imagines space being pulled and stretched in each and every direction by every mass it contains it’s pretty certain these deformations have effects on the masses passing through.
The simplistic view of the stretched sheet with a bulge where the mass distorts space doesn’t account for all other deformations happening at the same time.
The sun doesn’t neatly sit in a little hole it created, but is pushed/pulled/stretched by the fact that the space it distorts is distorted itself. As we are part of this distortion it’s hard for us to measure/calculate this. We can however observe, for example how our star behaves blightly ignoring most of our preconceptions how it should behave.
To my mind sunspots are one of those manifestations.
********
fred (07:01:07) :
On the subject of solar effects on climate, has anyone seen any followup to this.
Clouds are bigger than they look, according to new measurements by atmospheric scientists in Israel and the United States. They say that clouds are surrounded by a ‘twilight zone’ of diffuse particles, invisible to the naked eye, extending for tens of kilometres around the cloud’s visible portion.
*********
You can see this somewhat on very cold days, like just recently. The visible, white cloud (in this case, standard convective culumlus clouds) is but a small cap on top of a much larger & usually invisible “mound” originating from the ground. All the particles were prb’ly ice all the way to the ground, making it barely visible.
Geoff Sharp
I am not yet convinced by the planetary theory but I certainly have an open mind on the subject and I do believe there is something in it so please continue with your work – we are far from understanding this issue (that said I need to read the paper linked by Leif (09:16:34) yet though).
I have read some of the postings at Landscheidt.auditblogs.com to which you have linked and have to say they have tweaked my interest – I would encourage others to check the site and form their own opinions.
I came across the P.D. Jose (1965) paper as I followed my own learning curve and I still regard it as one of the finest papers I have read on my journey of learning in this area of Global warming/Climate Change.
One of the reasons my interest was stimulated by your posts was I remember in my post graduate career reading a book which suggested there was more to planetary alignment and its affects upon us than the rather incredible suggestions of the astrologers.
After several months of searching I found the book today – “The Cycles of Heaven” by Guy Lyon Playfair and Scott Hill – I apparently purchased it in 1979! The Sunday Telegraph comment that “the questions asked are intriguing: The answers strain credulity much less than one would expect” was probably the reason I bought it.
I recall it being a good read and it suggesting that when you get away from the nonsense there is an underlying science.
I fell off my chair today when I flicked through the early chapters which discuss the work of Jose and Landscheidt!
Look, all I am saying is we should not discount this theory without having fully explored it.
I do not believe in astrological nonsense but anyone who suggests that we are not impacted by the universe around us should read the old book I cited above -you may just be enlightened and then be a little more open minded about Geoff Sharp’s posts.
gary gulrud (07:39:01) :
“I’m sorry if that conclusion strikes you as belonging to the Jr. High,”
“No doubt the fault is mine but my comments were intended as an addendum, not refutation.”
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure. First I took it as an addendum, but then construed another angle and responded accordingly. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I’m used to being attacked when I open my mouth on this subject and am having a hard time adjusting to the depth of knowledge and courteous atmosphere of this discussion…
Although I’m just starting to familiarize myself with the argument, the theory that the planetary alignments are causal forces on sunspots and the sun’s magnetic flux strikes me as being on the right track and maybe even close to a “grand slam” unified theory….Great work, folks. Its a pity the mainstream media doesn’t want to listen…yet. 🙂
Cheers,
psi
I would be curious to see the cooling trends that these articles suggest a slow, small cycle will herald, predicted. Or perhaps 2 small cycles occur, just to understand the time and magnitude of the debate… Hansen put out a chart 10 years ago with A, B and C predictions… I think we’re operating well outside the 95% confidence of any of these predictions, nonetheless he staked out some ground. Ground that may be hard to sell today. Are the group of Solar Scientists and climatologists who look for cooling over the next 30 years unable or unwilling to do prediction models?
Please understand my tone here, it’s not contentious, I am just curious, and would like to see the various schools of thought. “God Willing and the Creek don’t rise”, I’m young enough to track maybe the next 40-50 years or so. I think one of these cooling trends layed out side by side on a graph withsame years of Hansen’s A, B and C charts would attract some eyes, maybe provoke a public debate or discussion.
Loved this article and the various comment contributions – Thanks
BTW – Congrats Anthony on your well deserved win! I used a few computers (got kids!) to vote a couple of times on most of the voting days. Please don’t tell the webblog voting committee or anything 😉
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons is really good. Next I need to use it to start off my solar system simulation, …and maybe find out just how bad a simulation it really is, when the planets end up in the wrong place after an orbit or two.
Thanks again.
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:36) :
When the sunspot cycle was discovered and for almost a century thereafter, the planetary influence theory was the leading theory for the cycle. Here is a good paper on the history of the theory:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
Thanks for the article link. I have red it 2-3 times over last 12 months, one reason why I do not favour gravitational tides and torque theories. However, it was all written before Dr. S. and colleagues discovered heliospheric current, before the Alfven’s current existence was confirmed, before we knew of the full significance of the polar field at minima, before true properties of the heliosphere were fully known and before, as NASA keeps regularly telling us, about all kinds of interaction between planetary magnetospheres and solar originated magnetic fields and currents.
Way forward is the solar fields/currents interaction with planetary magnetospheres feedback. See:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
Read Rise and Fall article http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
found it interesting. Of course the conclusion is wrong. Nobwainer’s theory in full is not covered by any of those astronomers, although they partly point the way and in part some of their theories should not be thrown out. With intelligence we can take the bits and fill in the rest of the picture.
Edward Morgan (15:26:05) :
Read Rise and Fall article […] Of course the conclusion is wrong. Nobwainer’s theory in full is not covered by any of those astronomers
The ‘of course’ is what makes your ideas unscientific. Just like the Mr Loewy [page 11], nowbrainer does not deal ‘candidly with the figures’.
Leif Svalgaard (09:28:02) :
Dalton minimum was not in 1831 but in 1811 [based on smoothed sunspot number and 10Be record.]
Ah, why not go back further as it probably started earlier. You are missing the point and proving once again you have no understanding of my work. Please read it properly before making wrong conclusions. In my article I clearly state:
“I also tracked back independently grand minima events on a 172 avg year basis (Jose was not quite right) recording the angles of the Jovian planets which determines the strength of the grand minima involved (I chose the best N+U+J & S opposed lineup of that period, which is a window that comes along every 172 avg years, and most are the centre part of that period), this suggests we DO have a 172 avg year recurring grand minima event that have different levels of impact depending on their angular momentum at the time. This is a major break though, opponents of the theory have long suggested Usoskin’s graph disproves the planetary influence theory, how wrong they have been.”
1831 is at the centre of the Dalton “opportunity” for grand minimum. Grand minima have different lengths and depths depending on the J/S angle. Weaker minima do not use all of the 3 opportunities that come along every 172 years as was the case, this is also very clearly pointed out several times in my supporting article http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 written Nov 08, which you have told us you have read and understood…I am completely skeptical of that statement of yours as this question shows little understanding. Its not possible to review any work if you have not fully read and understood it.
I am very open to discuss any part of my work with you if you are prepared to look at it seriously and not heap ridicule as per normal. Citing old papers that criticize planetary theory is not valid…this is new work.
PaulHClark (11:30:04) :
Thanks for having an open mind, it takes an open mind to look at things logically sometimes without pre conceived ideas clouding your judgement.
Jose is indeed the biggest contributor in this area and in my opinion deserves the naming rights for the next grand minimum. Others have followed on from his lead which started in 1965 but perhaps missed the vital controlling factor, Neptune & Uranus. On the surface that sounds unbelievable and even I find it amazing planets that far away can have any influence, but I think we are all going to find out they indeed do.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:38:43) :
1831 is at the centre of the Dalton “opportunity” for grand minimum. Grand minima have different lengths and depths depending on the J/S angle. Weaker minima do not use all of the 3 opportunities that come along every 172 years
Explain again, what the three opportunities every 172 years are?
What determines which of the three are used? And how did that play out specifically for the minimum in 1811? Was number 1 or number 2 or number 3 used?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:13) :
“Every 172 yrs approx N+U come together (conjunction) , for the past 6000 yrs at least this has coincided with grand minima in nearly every case (MWP excluded etc). Grand minima has not occurred outside of the 172 yr cycle, although it can happen early or late. That in itself is a major correlation or a hell of a big fluke.”
That’s impressive, a real whale’s fluke of a correlation. I wouldn’t want to get slapped by it.
How would you paraphrase in short version for the layman what the critics of your theory would say about it? You can leave out the mudslinging about astrology or the ad hominem flavor of the week. 🙂 What would the rational critic say?
Thanks.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:13) :
Have a read of my original article http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/58 and hopefully it might become clearer, but I do thank you for your comments and will make appropriate changes.
I’ll take a look.
BTW, I ought to have said this earlier: When ‘reviewing’ someone else’s work the standard behaviour we would use in my workgroup was to adopt a “martian point of view”. To pretend you did not bring to the party too much of a prior understanding and ask instead “How would a random reader react”. So while I appreciate the explanations to me, here, the goal was to get you to see what you ought to add to the text as written…
My summary of that would be:
More definition of abbreviations and terms of art when or before they are first used.
Better matching of graphs with text that explains their meaning in terms that are not yours (i.e. standard physics – momentum, etc.) or an explanation of how your terms work (like 172 years comes from U+N alignment, or: We used alignments as a proxy for the net of angular momentum and find they gave better precision in matching solar cycles.) before the graph is presented (prep the reader).
Follow the ‘tell them what you will tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them’ pattern where possible
Review prior art as a baseline to get the reader up to speed for ‘the new stuff’.
Remember that the reader does not know what you know and must be lead one step at a time to your end point. Don’t jump ahead or use later conclusions in earlier discussions. Don’t depend on them to have read your earlier paper; either cite it with “See here for and explanation of FOO” or incorporate a summary of FOO just before you use it, perhaps in a sidebar.
Ask “How would I explain this to my mother?” Assuming she is not a physics major 😉
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (16:55:36) :
it takes an open mind to look at things logically sometimes without pre conceived ideas clouding your judgment.
No, it takes hard data, correct analysis, and adequate exposition.
Leif Svalgaard (17:05:47) :
Explain again, what the three opportunities every 172 years are?
What determines which of the three are used? And how did that play out specifically for the minimum in 1811? Was number 1 or number 2 or number 3 used?
There are normally 3 opportunities each 172 yrs…not always as it depends on the J/S angle of that period…those opportunities show up clearly when we look at the SSB graph of Carls’s when checking a particular period. Check here for the Dalton. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/ssbscmax2.jpg
Basically during each period/phase each 172 years as N+U begin to close we have a partial line up of N+U+J with S opposing. The angle between N+U is greater so the disturbance to the angular momentum (camels hump in graph) is not as high as the next opportunity but can be strong enough to begin a grand minimum as it did in 1791. 3 complete orbits of J later we return to the optimal centre opportunity. This normally in a strong grand minimum would continue the grand minimum affect on the Sun and then continue on 3 orbits of J again and possibly a 3rd “hit” would occur before returning back to a “normal” conditions as N+U start to oppose each other. This is exactly what happened during the Sporer, Maunder and probably Wolf and explains their length. There are 2 types of “hits” possible during the best angles of J/S, type A and B which we can discuss later.
The Dalton started on the 1st opportunity but failed after that, the second hit was more like SC20, not strong enough to cause continuing grand minimum but strong enough to severely reduce sunspot activity as in SC7 but allowing SC8,9,10 & 11 to recover. SC12 was hit for 1 cycle only as the last opportunity of the 172 yr phase passes through. Up until recently the tipping point or what actually causes the Sun to go into phase catastrophe (or whatever we want to call the grand minima action stopping sunspot activity) has been a mystery. Ian Wilson has just come up with a theory that could explain it. In the past where we have sunspot data, if J+S are at the top or bottom of their stroke (together is top, opposed is bottom) before that sunspot cycle experiences its peak or max we have greatly reduced sunspot activity (less than 80SSN). The previous graph I referred to shows this phenomena inside the yellow circles. We have very little sunspot data to substantiate Ian’s theory but I suspect it may one day be referred to as “Wilson’s Law”
SC20 was the first opportunity of the current phase, the J/S angle was way too straight (almost directly opposite each other) which places the disturbance at the very bottom of the J & S opposition which you can see on Carl’s graph. This usually has minimal effect but slows activity without a full grand minimum taking place. We are now at the optimal position with a pretty good J/S angle so I am expecting full blown grand minima if “Wilson’s Law” holds true, but it will be short lived. The 3rd opportunity looks very weak and our path looks to be heading for another MWP period after that as the transition to neg angles looks to be happening. So we had better make the most of this forthcoming grand minimum.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (08:32:34) :
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14nujs.jpg
Better. I’d add something that says “The red line means: The blue line means: The green line means:”
I can actually read the data now, though have to work at it. May not be the case when not on small laptop… 12″ screen…
Psi (18:21:18) :
How would you paraphrase in short version for the layman what the critics of your theory would say about it? You can leave out the mudslinging about astrology or the ad hominem flavor of the week. 🙂 What would the rational critic say?
The rational critic has to be just that and read all of the theory before jumping to conclusions or considering pre conceived ideas. The biggest area of doubt comes from the lack of solid evidence so faron the actual planetary mechanism acting on the Sun, but we also have very little to go on re the dynamo theory I believe. There is enough data on angular momentum and its effect on the Sun for the theory to be plausible right now, and with the incredibly strong correlations coming out now and with further studies backing up my work (I hope), I am sure science will “try harder” to find that mechanism.
But Svalgaard is right, not before the hard data, correct analysis, and adequate exposition is done.
OOOO! Just learned a new trick. Noticed that my browser presented a micro sized magnifying glass as cursor with your graph. Clicked and zoom! I can read it! Oh Boy!
I agree with Leif. It takes a vigilant mind. An open mind simply lets in a lot of nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (09:22:49) :
‘Robert Bateman (08:00:09) :
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder’
We don’t know that either.
Yes, we do know that. The biggest problem is that the trail has been wound up in
a ball so tight that you can’t find where to start the unravelling.
Right now, all you have to do is watch as it happens.
It is as I have stated many times before: You cannot observe something you can’t be bothered with for lack of a better excuse.
Staring at digitial reports will not get the job done.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:16:07) :
There are normally 3 opportunities each 172 yrs…
So in a given year there are 3 opportunities? A, B, and C?
Do they occur at the same time? or one month apart? or what?
then 171.4 [not 172] years later there are again A, B, and C?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:30:34) :
The biggest area of doubt comes from the lack of solid evidence so faron the actual planetary mechanism acting on the Sun, but we also have very little to go on re the dynamo theory I believe. There is enough data on angular momentum and its effect on the Sun for the theory to be plausible right now, and with the incredibly strong correlations coming out now and with further studies backing up my work (I hope), I am sure science will “try harder” to find that mechanism.
Thank you. I am continuing to read. But your answer is pretty much what I suspected. To me the empirical evidence of correlation, as long as there are permissible explanations that don’t violate known laws, should be sufficient to overrule an obligation to have a thorough understanding of an exact mechanism — at least it should be an impetus for further investigation as you are doing, and for critics to acknowledge that the correlation seems to point in the direction of the possible, or even likely, discovery of a previously misunderstood mechanism. Isn’t that how science differs from deductive logic? — That premises are formulated on the basis of observed phenomenon, even when causes are not known?
E.M.Smith (19:25:58) :
Better. I’d add something that says “The red line means: The blue line means: The green line means:”
I can actually read the data now, though have to work at it. May not be the case when not on small laptop… 12″ screen…
I just updated the text to explain the colored lines, and will include it in the graphic next time I update it. Glad you can view the graph properly now…I could cut it in 2 like Usoskin did but think that it might lose impact. The new layout really shows the regular grand minima occurring on the Neptune/Uranus conjunctions…thanks for the tip.
Robert Bateman (19:39:59) :
There are two things we should know:
1.) Lack of sunspots leads to climate colder’
“We don’t know that either.”
Yes, we do know that. [..] You cannot observe something you can’t be bothered with for lack of a better excuse.
Time to quote Yogi Berra: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”
Leif Svalgaard (19:53:27) :
So in a given year there are 3 opportunities? A, B, and C?
Do they occur at the same time? or one month apart? or what?
then 171.4 [not 172] years later there are again A, B, and C?
As stated in my previous post “Basically during each period/phase each 172 years as N+U begin to close we have a partial line up of N+U+J with S opposing. The angle between N+U is greater so the disturbance to the angular momentum (camels hump in graph) is not as high as the next opportunity but can be strong enough to begin a grand minimum as it did in 1791. 3 complete orbits of J later we return to the optimal centre opportunity. This normally in a strong grand minimum would continue the grand minimum affect on the Sun and then continue on 3 orbits of J again and possibly a 3rd “hit” would occur before returning back to a “normal” conditions as N+U start to oppose each other.”
These opportunities come around on average every 172 yrs. So far I have plotted 34 possible grand minima producing dates over 5676 years. 5676 divided by 33 = 172 as stated in my article.
@nobwainer
Inspection of the chart does show some remarkable correlations. I would point out, though, an issue that I will label the -2298 -573 -75 problem. When I look for places where your alignment numbers show closest alignments, I find a skipped minimum…
You may have some explanation of this in your text (still resting eyes…) but at some point this has to be sorted out. If alignment is best when closer, why are closest alignments a ‘miss’… That is one of the first things I would look for in testing your theory, the limit cases where alignment is ‘best’… If minimum numbers are not ‘best’ that ought to be stated in the graph as a preemptive strike against the ‘common error’ of looking at extremes.
It would also be very interesting to have a line on your graph showing when the retrograde part of the solar orbit happens (the inside small circle of the epitrochoid) after Fairbridge, Charvatova, etc. Either as confirmation, homage, or link to prior art showing advancement of fit of your method over theirs:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/66/11/PDF/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
Similarly, a graph with
http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/625.pdf
curve for comparison also acts as confirmation or advancement over prior art.
While it’s great to have a new grand theory, it is swallowed better by the reader with evidence that ‘you are not alone’ and that either others found very similar things by different means or that you have advanced their work to new precision or coverage. The house stands best with a foundation of other peer reviewed work in references …
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (20:18:36) :
“So in a given year there are 3 opportunities? A, B, and C?
Do they occur at the same time? or one month apart? or what?
then 171.4 [not 172] years later there are again A, B, and C?”
As stated in my previous post
Repeating the goblygook is no explanation.
The 171.4 years is the time between average conjunctions of U and N calculated from their orbital elements.
I’ll try again, maybe what you are saying is this: the three opportunities occur over a period of 6 complete orbits of Jupiter, i.e. every 11.8592*3 = 35.58 years for a total of 71.15, that is a large spread, which can fit almost anything. Why 2*3? What happened to Saturn?
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (20:18:36) :
As stated in my previous post “Basically during each period/phase each 172 years as N+U begin to close we have a partial line up of N+U+J with S opposing.
When N+U line up, it it very rare that J also lines up with N+U [and that furthermore S is opposing]. If you wait long enough such a line up will occur, but since N+U line up every 171.4 years and J and S every 178.8, the two lineups will drift 7.4 years each time relative to each other, so after 11 lineups they will be completely out of phase.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (19:16:07) :
Check here for the Dalton. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/ssbscmax2.jpg
Nice graph. Same issue with labels. What are the colored dots? What do the green arrows mean? What do the gold circles highlight?
I think you have a consistent tendency to make graphs where you know what they say and what the symbols mean, but not say what they are in the graph. That will be an issue… ANYTHING on a graph must have an entry in a table of symbols somewhere. See your local road map for examples…
Leif Svalgaard (20:43:50) :
Repeating the goblygook is no explanation.
But highlighting the important part seemed to do the trick.
I’ll try again, maybe what you are saying is this: the three opportunities occur over a period of 6 complete orbits of Jupiter, i.e. every 11.8592*3 = 35.58 years for a total of 71.15, that is a large spread, which can fit almost anything. Why 2*3? What happened to Saturn?
Was waiting for that comment….but you have it in a nutshell. If you look at the data it is a very regular pattern of 6000 yrs at least, saying it can fit anything is totally wrong. Grand minima are capable of extended periods of at least 71 yrs and ALL occurrences happen within the guidelines I have stated….never outside although there is a slightly different trend during times like the MWP which are rare which I will address in a reply to E.M.Smith.
Saturn is obviously involved and in particular the angle of Saturn in respect to Jupiter as Jupiter moves between Neptune & Uranus.
Leif Svalgaard (20:55:32) :
When N+U line up, it it very rare that J also lines up with N+U [and that furthermore S is opposing]. If you wait long enough such a line up will occur, but since N+U line up every 171.4 years and J and S every 178.8, the two lineups will drift 7.4 years each time relative to each other, so after 11 lineups they will be completely out of phase.
A common misconception is “the planets have to line up exactly”. That is not the case. Infact slightly offset alignments work best as the image on my article suggests.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/bestlineup.jpg
Can I suggest everyone have a look at this solar system viewer…its a simple weblink that allows the user to easily watch the movement of the planets at a particular date, simply plug in a date and then use your mouse on the + or – button. It will answer a lot of questions.
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html
E.M.Smith (20:33:52) :
Inspection of the chart does show some remarkable correlations. I would point out, though, an issue that I will label the -2298 -573 -75 problem. When I look for places where your alignment numbers show closest alignments, I find a skipped minimum…
I have added some more features to the graph and added your suggestions, you might need to refresh the page to see them. -2298 falls right on the bottom of a trough but agree like the others is not a deep minimum. If you look at the angles those cases are extremely weak and the angular movement charts (yet to be published reflect that. There are many different levels of grand minima or even cases like SC20 where it affects the output of the sun but doesnt stop the output of sunspots like a deep grand minimim. This makes the theory stronger in my opinion. The weaker angles are producing weaker grand minima. There is a time during what I call true grand maxima where we get a saw tooth effect in the C14 record and the angular momentum graph.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/sunssbam-1300to-900.jpg
This is an exciting area and is a transition stage like the MWP where the angles bring about a mixture of type A and B conditions. The green arrows are type A and red is B. Its a time of very weak grand minima action but the disturbance spreads out over longer periods as seen in the graph…this further correlation is very exciting.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/12/fig2.jpg
It would also be very interesting to have a line on your graph showing when the retrograde part of the solar orbit happens (the inside small circle of the epitrochoid) after Fairbridge, Charvatova, etc. Either as confirmation, homage, or link to prior art showing advancement of fit of your method over theirs:
The retrograde motion happens every 10 yrs and is ordered in a trefoil pattern outside of grand minima times. During grand minima the retrograde path is more disordered as it is pulled around by N+U. This is happening right now.
While it’s great to have a new grand theory, it is swallowed better by the reader with evidence that ‘you are not alone’ and that either others found very similar things by different means or that you have advanced their work to new precision or coverage. The house stands best with a foundation of other peer reviewed work in references …
I take your point and will preference my article. Previous work laid the foundation but all of it missed the most important part. I stumbled on the Neptune/Uranus factor and kept digging…much more digging to do.
E.M.Smith (20:56:56) :
Nice graph. Same issue with labels. What are the colored dots? What do the green arrows mean? What do the gold circles highlight?
I think you have a consistent tendency to make graphs where you know what they say and what the symbols mean, but not say what they are in the graph. That will be an issue… ANYTHING on a graph must have an entry in a table of symbols somewhere. See your local road map for examples…
I posted that link from another article on the blog about Ian Wilson’s paper…the full article is here explaining all the colours etc.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/90
Yogi Berra parables are not a concern here, observation is.
The decade of the 1790’s got progressively colder, in more than one geographical area. It preceeded SC5. I won’t be the one to say the lung cancer causes smoking.
The decade of 2000-10 is getting progressively colder, in precession of SC24.
Find your smoking gun however you wish, but observe the smoke nonetheless.
Observe, observe, observe.
I haven’t made any statements directed towards your hypothesis, I’ve only responded to Leif’s posts. But, as you know, correlation is not causation. Unless you can provide a mechanism to support your hypothesis… I’d have to go with the solar physicist. He’s the one you need to convince, not me.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:54:04) :
The two lineups will drift 7.4 years each time relative to each other, so after 11 lineups they will be completely out of phase.
A common misconception is “the planets have to line up exactly”. That is not the case. In fact slightly offset alignments work best as the image on my article suggests.
You missed the point completely [or avoided it]: I’ll try again: the lineups will drift out of phase completely. but perhaps ‘completely out of alignment’ works even better than ‘slightly offset alignments’.
I may suggest that 12 complete orbits of Jupiter would work even better than 6, giving you 7 opportunities instead of three, spread over 140 years. Lots to chose from.
Comparing your work with that of others is an integral part of doing science. Note that your 172 period is not found during the period 1-1600 AD years by other researchers:
Reconstruction of Sunspots Time Series from 14C (INTCAL98).
Velasco Herrera, Victor Manuel
37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 13-20 July 2008, in Montréal, Canada., p.3306
The analysis of the sunspots series is a tool to study the solar magnetic field and the solar dynamo. Since there are no direct observational data to study the solar variability over long time scales we need to rely on proxy data such as cosmogenic isotopes. By applying the Wavelet transform spectral analysis to the cosmogenic isotope 14 C, we have done in this work a reconstruction of Sun Spot time series during the period 1-1600 A.D. Data of 14 C was taken from INTCAL98. In contrast with other reconstruction methods, our Morlet Wavelt spectral analysis shows the existence of periodicities of 11years during the studied period which is absent in other works. We obtain also the conventional periodicities of 5.5, 22, 60, 120, 240, etc. This result answers the enigma of whether the present solar cycle exists or not before the Maunder Minima.
Jeff Alberts (04:34:36) :
Unless you can provide a mechanism to support your hypothesis… I’d have to go with the solar physicist. He’s the one you need to convince, not me.
Its called angular momentum, time to get on board Jeff or you will be left behind. I suspect Svalgaard will never be convinced even though he has been unable to find one fault so far, and shows a very weak knowledge in this area. So I will be looking to convince others.
Leif Svalgaard (06:01:08) :
The two lineups will drift 7.4 years each time relative to each other, so after 11 lineups they will be completely out of phase.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (20:18:36) :
So far I have plotted 34 possible grand minima producing dates over 5676 years. 5676 divided by 33 = 172 as stated in my article.
You make the [unfounded] assumption that the radiocarbon dates are correct. In fact, they can be decades or even centuries off:
http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G820.01/WI05%20climate%20history/radiocarbon.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (06:01:08) :
You missed the point completely [or avoided it]: I’ll try again: the lineups will drift out of phase completely. but perhaps ‘completely out of alignment’ works even better than ’slightly offset alignments’.
I may suggest that 12 complete orbits of Jupiter would work even better than 6, giving you 7 opportunities instead of three, spread over 140 years. Lots to chose from.
Quite frankly your point made no sense, do I suspect you have no knowledge at all in this area? Did you use the solar system viewer I referred to yesterday, if so you would have seen your point was non existent. They never drift out of phase, but the S angle varies a lot, this S angle is what is the background curve of the C14 graph. N+U come together every 171.4 yrs, around that time J will be between them, it only has an 11 yr orbit so if its not perfectly inline (very rarely is) it wont be far away (max of 5.5 yrs) and at that point the angle of S is set up….there is nothing more to it, sometimes the best alignment doesnt happen right at the conjunction of N+U, thats the point, and why we have this power curve. Every point on my C14 graph coincides with that alignment. You might notice on my graph I have a table, one of the references is “Pos” with 2 results, N/L and U/L. Let me explain:
N/L is Neptune leading, U/L is Uranus leading, meaning the relative positions of those planets when J is between them and S roughly opposite, and under that the N/U angle (deg difference between N&U). If can never go out of phase, only strengthen and weaken.
Comparing your work with that of others is an integral part of doing science. Note that your 172 period is not found during the period 1-1600 AD years by other researchers:
You have to be joking me.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (07:25:11) :
find one fault so far
Dalton minimum is a glaring fault. The central ‘opportunity’ was 1831, the two other ones 3 J-orbits on either side would be in 1796 and 1866. The actual minimum was in ~1811. What should be explained is:
1) why was the central opportunity not taken
2) why is the minimum off
You could f.ex. plot or post the ‘angles’ and other quantities you consider important year for year from, say, 1750 through 1870, and explain the discrepancies.
Leif Svalgaard (07:45:15) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (20:18:36) :
So far I have plotted 34 possible grand minima producing dates over 5676 years. 5676 divided by 33 = 172 as stated in my article.
You make the [unfounded] assumption that the radiocarbon dates are correct. In fact, they can be decades or even centuries off:
http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G820.01/WI05%20climate%20history/radiocarbon.pdf
Your points are not related. That paper states “Between 0 and 8000 years before the present (B.P.), the error in this curve is often less than 20 years, and—except for a few brief intervals—it is less than 30 years over
the past 11,800 years”
I can certainly live with that, I made the statement that up to -3000 it looked very good. Your grabbing at straws here, as well as making false statements.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (07:56:16) :
N+U come together every 171.4 yrs, around that time J will be between them, it only has an 11 yr orbit so if its not perfectly inline (very rarely is) it wont be far away (max of 5.5 yrs)
12-year orbit is more like it, and when it is 3 years away from perfect alignment the radius vectors make an angle of 90 degrees so J is not at all aligned with U+N. Similar with S.
“around that time J will be between them”, explain what that means, as my weak knowledge in this area leaves me clueless.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (07:56:16) :
“Comparing your work with that of others is an integral part of doing science. Note that your 172 period is not found during the period 1-1600 AD years by other researchers”
You have to be joking me.
Unfortunately not. Their paper states:
“shows the existence of periodicities of 11years during the studied period which is absent in other works. We obtain also the conventional periodicities of 5.5, 22, 60, 120, 240”.
No mention of the 172 years, that should have been dominant.
Jeff,
Unless you can provide a mechanism to support your hypothesis
The mechanism is basic physics.
1. The Sun’s velocity around the barycenter is not constant.
2. When a body moving in an arc accelerates it’s rotation speed decreases. When it decelerates it’s rotation increases.
3. If the body is plasma/liquid/gaseous this will give barotropic instability.
This instability may start deep into the sun, then there will be a delay before it reaches the surface.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/260/5115/1778
http://einstein.atmos.colostate.edu/~mcnoldy/spintank/
http://einstein.atmos.colostate.edu/~mcnoldy/spintank/btrop_instab.mpg
and the varying rotation speed is observed
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
lgl (08:36:03) :
The mechanism is basic physics.
1. The Sun’s velocity around the barycenter is not constant.
2. When a body moving in an arc accelerates it’s rotation speed decreases. When it decelerates it’s rotation increases.
The error is in point 2. Most easily seen [if you don’t know physics] in the case of the Earth. The Earth’s velocity around the Sun changes from 30.3 km/s at perihelion to 29.3 km/s, yet the length of the day does not show an annual variation corresponding to that [there are other seasonal variations having to do with the atmosphere and oceans].
Leif Svalgaard (08:23:13) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (07:56:16) :
“Comparing your work with that of others is an integral part of doing science. Note that your 172 period is not found during the period 1-1600 AD years by other researchers”
You have to be joking me.
Unfortunately not. Their paper states:
“shows the existence of periodicities of 11years during the studied period which is absent in other works. We obtain also the conventional periodicities of 5.5, 22, 60, 120, 240″.
No mention of the 172 years, that should have been dominant.
The reconstructed sunspot number you are using comes from the 14C record. The ‘official’ record is contained in a file called INTCAL98. Google INTCAL98 to get more information and even [the very first entry] an XLS spreadsheet with the data.
Here http://www.leif.org/research/INTCAL98-analysis.pdf I have plotted the data [left panel 9000 years back; right panel 6000 years back] which shows the 14C signal. The large variation is due to the change of the Earth’s magnetic field. The smaller wiggles are thought to be solar modulation [and atmospheric and oceanic changes in the carbon cycle]. The upper two figures show the FFT power spectrum of the lower ones. The vertical black lines show the frequency [0.0058343] corresponding to 171.4 years. As you can see there is no power above the noise at that [or neighboring] frequency, nor at any other frequency. Therefore there is no 171.4 year signal to explain.
Leif
The day is shortest at aphelion
http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=95-99
lgl (12:19:58) :
The day is shortest at aphelion
http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=95-99
Because of the seasonal movement of the atmosphere and not for the reason you think.
Leif Svalgaard (08:00:19) :
Dalton minimum is a glaring fault. The central ‘opportunity’ was 1831, the two other ones 3 J-orbits on either side would be in 1796 and 1866. The actual minimum was in ~1811. What should be explained is:
1) why was the central opportunity not taken
2) why is the minimum off
You could f.ex. plot or post the ‘angles’ and other quantities you consider important year for year from, say, 1750 through 1870, and explain the discrepancies.
I repeat:
There are normally 3 opportunities each 172 yrs…not always as it depends on the J/S angle of that period…those opportunities show up clearly when we look at the SSB graph of Carls’s when checking a particular period. Check here for the Dalton. http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/ssbscmax2.jpg
Basically during each period/phase each 172 years as N+U begin to close we have a partial line up of N+U+J with S opposing. The angle between N+U is greater so the disturbance to the angular momentum (camels hump in graph) is not as high as the next opportunity but can be strong enough to begin a grand minimum as it did in 1791. 3 complete orbits of J later we return to the optimal centre opportunity. This normally in a strong grand minimum would continue the grand minimum affect on the Sun and then continue on 3 orbits of J again and possibly a 3rd “hit” would occur before returning back to a “normal” conditions as N+U start to oppose each other. This is exactly what happened during the Sporer, Maunder and probably Wolf and explains their length. There are 2 types of “hits” possible during the best angles of J/S, type A and B which we can discuss later.
The Dalton started on the 1st opportunity but failed after that, the second hit was more like SC20, not strong enough to cause continuing grand minimum but strong enough to severely reduce sunspot activity as in SC7 but allowing SC8,9,10 & 11 to recover. SC12 was hit for 1 cycle only as the last opportunity of the 172 yr phase passes through. Up until recently the tipping point or what actually causes the Sun to go into phase catastrophe (or whatever we want to call the grand minima action stopping sunspot activity) has been a mystery. Ian Wilson has just come up with a theory that could explain it. In the past where we have sunspot data, if J+S are at the top or bottom of their stroke (together is top, opposed is bottom) before that sunspot cycle experiences its peak or max we have greatly reduced sunspot activity (less than 80SSN). The previous graph I referred to shows this phenomena inside the yellow circles. We have very little sunspot data to substantiate Ian’s theory but I suspect it may one day be referred to as “Wilson’s Law”
SC20 was the first opportunity of the current phase, the J/S angle was way too straight (almost directly opposite each other) which places the disturbance at the very bottom of the J & S opposition which you can see on Carl’s graph. This usually has minimal effect but slows activity without a full grand minimum taking place. We are now at the optimal position with a pretty good J/S angle so I am expecting full blown grand minima if “Wilson’s Law” holds true, but it will be short lived. The 3rd opportunity looks very weak and our path looks to be heading for another MWP period after that as the transition to neg angles looks to be happening. So we had better make the most of this forthcoming grand minimum
Leif Svalgaard (08:13:48) :
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (07:56:16) :
N+U come together every 171.4 yrs, around that time J will be between them, it only has an 11 yr orbit so if its not perfectly inline (very rarely is) it wont be far away (max of 5.5 yrs)
12-year orbit is more like it, and when it is 3 years away from perfect alignment the radius vectors make an angle of 90 degrees so J is not at all aligned with U+N. Similar with S. “around that time J will be between them”, explain what that means, as my weak knowledge in this area leaves me clueless.
This is a pointless exercise, I dont see how you could review any paper or work. Your not being reasonable or sane in your arguments. I have better things to do.
[Please be courteous. ~ mod.]
Yes in addition to the aphelion dip there is the perihelion dip when the oceans cool down, shrinking the earth a little so it speeds up.
lgl (14:08:40) :
Yes in addition to the aphelion dip there is the perihelion dip when the oceans cool down, shrinking the earth a little so it speeds up.
Here http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/EOS_article.pdf is a good article on what determines the rotation rate. Note the complete absence of perihelion/aphelion/earth orbit mention.
Leif Svalgaard (10:02:56) :
reminder: The vertical black lines show the frequency [0.0058343] corresponding to 171.4 years. As you can see there is no power above the noise at that [or neighboring] frequency, nor at any other frequency. Therefore there is no 171.4 year signal to explain.
The first decent SC24 spot I can find that shows up on the 5 GONG stations in action for the day was Sept. 22, 2008. One that is clearly seen without resorting to a SOHO image for a finder map and Exponential jpeg stretching to reveal the spot.
SC24 ramp up then, according to the time period that David Archibald gives, is 12 to 20 months, or late Sept, 2009 to late May, 2010.
I’m expecting 6-12 months of gnat-straining spot antics.
Too bad there isn’t a lottery for this.
Robert Bateman (19:58:40) :
…. according to the time period that David Archibald gives, is 12 to 20 months, or late Sept, 2009 to late May, 2010.
I’m expecting 6-12 months of gnat-straining spot antics.
Too bad there isn’t a lottery for this.
Then arrange one. We have a lottery about the timing of solar min. in our astronomy club, with a fairly expensive eyepiece as the fist price. My bet in April 2008 was Sept 2009, which seemed very far fetched at the time, all other bets were much earlier. Now I think it is quite plausible that I will add to my small stock of eyepieces.
going by what i’ve read here the best what can be done is reconstitute about 10000 years of solar activity.
Forgot the exact age of the sun, but say it’s 4x 10e9 years.
That makes for an observed period of 0.0000025% of the total.
I have a hard time keeping track of my pocketchange but even i can see that’s pretty flimsy to build whatever kind of prognosis/theory on.
Leif,
Of course the fluids are moving but that’s a response not a cause.
peter vd berg (00:24:55) :
I have a hard time keeping track of my pocketchange but even i can see that’s pretty flimsy to build whatever kind of prognosis/theory on.
Based on my experience the past few weeks, I’ll predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow 🙂
lgl (01:06:54) :
Of course the fluids are moving but that’s a response not a cause.
I don’t think you get it. The changing speed in the orbit has no effect on the length of the day. The moving fluids is a response to changing temperatures and a cause of the change in moment of inertia and hence LOD.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (00:23:04) :
My bet in April 2008 was Sept 2009, which seemed very far fetched at the time, all other bets were much earlier. Now I think it is quite plausible that I will add to my small stock of eyepieces.
Looks to me you are a winner.
How’s about those fine fellows at NASA throw in one of those new spin-cast mirror sets said to weigh magnitudes below traditional pyrex.
Imagine that fancy eyepiece set at Nasymth Focus of your 60″ RC Dob at F/6.8
Abell Clusters popping into view on dark nights !!!
Leif,
How many times does Geoff have to tell you there is no 172 yr period, there is a 172 yr average cycle. Like in the sun spot cycle, the average period is 11,1 yr but in the FFT spectrum you don’t find much power at 11,1 yr. You do find power around 10.2 yr and 11.8 yr however, which (unconveniently to you I guess) happens to be very close to the J/S cycle and the Jupiter year.
Leif, could you give Nobwainer e.t.c a break. You might be wrong and you are making things more difficult. They are barely able to get their words out before you launch. It would be a real shame if some innovation is lost due to the attitudes of those who profess to know already. I’m certain you too would not like to work in this atmosphere.
lgl (03:06:41) :
How many times does Geoff have to tell you there is no 172 yr period, there is a 172 yr average cycle.
If the average cycle is synchronized to a strict 171.4 year planetary period there should be a lot of power at that period.
Like in the sun spot cycle, the average period is 11,1 yr but in the FFT spectrum you don’t find much power at 11,1 yr.
Yes, one does. A proper analysis of these peaks and the 14C peaks is here: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-14C.pdf
Read and learn, and acknowledge here publicly that you now know and understand that the dominant power in the SSN series is at 11 yr.
You do find power around 10.2 yr and 11.8 yr however, which (unconveniently to you I guess) happens to be very close to the J/S cycle and the Jupiter year.
As the above analysis shows, these side peaks are due to the about 100 year modulation of the cycle. Please acknowledge that you understand that, so we won’t have those issues again.
Edward Morgan (03:16:01) :
could you give Nobwainer e.t.c a break. […]
due to the attitudes of those who profess to know already.
The shoe is still on the other foot. They profess to ‘change the face of solar physics’, remember.
I’m certain you too would not like to work in this atmosphere.
This is the atmosphere every scientist works in every day, and it is proper that it be so.
Leif Svalgaard (13:45:44) :
A proper analysis of these peaks and the 14C peaks is here: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-14C.pdf
I just looked at your stuff, usefull analysis, nice cycles!
Leif Svalgaard (14:05:16) : 12/10/2008
danieloni
I’ve been reading some stuff from Vukcevic that makes me amazed…
I have looked at his stuff and it amazes me too, but, perhaps not in the same positive way as you. I would, kindly, call it ‘cyclomania’.
I hope it is not contagious. I had a good chuckle, when I came across this. I got ‘Cyclomania’ for years sorting out subcarrier phase on the inferior NTSC systems (PAL was at least one grand cycle ahead).
Gentlemen, we need to keep our sense of humour, otherwise we will not get trough approaching grand minimum.
Good night to all.
I don’t have a horse in the race, so I don’t need to get on board.
How is that even possible? Is he keeping them from finishing their posts??
Thanks Leif, but what is it intended to prove? That it’s the 100 y modulation that creates the 10.04 y and 12.19 y components? That they are not real?
If so then you have this backwards. You need the frequencies on page 8 to produce the signal on page 7, they are all real. (but you will get a 100 y envelope even without the 114 y component I guess)
Jeff, Not everything has a scientific meaning. Try and think a little more poetically. Anyhow this tit for tat stuff is boring.
If you want to look at the recent sunspot activity data and draw your own conclusions a decent site is:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/index.html
Individual graphs of each cycle for 1 to 20 are at: Solar cycles 1-20 http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl1_20.html
And the last three cycles 21, 22, and 23 can be seen at http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html
A thing of interest to note is the monthly average sunspot activity for minima is normally around 10 or more. The last couple of cycles have had minima of 20 or more and now the average is 5 or less and has been for a couple of years. Also the last couple of cycles have had very high peak numbers of sunspots compared to the other 20 cycles. This goes along with the minima of 20 or more.. The minima preceding a cycle seems to give some prediction of how strong the peak sunspot activity will be. If Los Vegas was taking bets on the strength of the next cycle, I would certainly bet on a very weak cycle.
Thanks Anthony for a great site.
lgl (01:09:57) :
Svalgaards frequency report is very weak and fails to recognize that grand minima cycles range greatly in intensity and also the cycles have a window and dont follow exact 171 yr events. This not something that will perform well in this kind of test, although I did notice a reasonable 170.7 yr cycle….go figure.
lgl (01:09:57) :
Thanks Leif, but what is it intended to prove? That it’s the 100 y modulation that creates the 10.04 y and 12.19 y components? That they are not real?
Precisely. When I generated the curve on page 7, I ‘multiplied’ an 11 year curve by a 100-year curve. The program didn’t know anything about 10 and 12 years.
But, we are still waiting for you to state that you have learned and understood that the 11 year peak is where the power is, contrary to your statement “but in the FFT spectrum you don’t find much power at 11.1 yr”. It is important that you get your mind around this so you can drop your misconception and we don’t have to get back to this issue again and again and again and …
It seems that David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, US, is predicting a high peak cycle for cycle 24.
“The bigger the cycle, the shorter the time it takes to get there,” says Hathaway. “A number of us believe it’s going to be a big cycle and hence it will peak earlier.”
“He says tracking the number of sunspots that appear from now until mid-2009 should settle the question of when solar max will occur – the sunspot number ought to rise quickly if it’s an active cycle.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13153
I am not a solar scientist but I have spent 40 years using statistics to extract information from data. I still say it is going to be a low sunspot cycle. Perhaps Congress should wait till September to see what cycle 24 does. Otherwise they may have a lot of apologizing to do as we head into a cold winter in 2009/2010.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:06:19) :
Svalgaards frequency report is very weak and fails to recognize that grand minima cycles range greatly in intensity and also the cycles have a window and dont follow exact 171 yr events. This not something that will perform well in this kind of test
The same is the case for the 11-year cycle and it shows very well in this kind of test. I did not make the report for you but for the general readership.
Leif,
Yes I know you did, and that’s creating a new signal.
Suppose the sun spot cycle looked exactly like your page 7 signal.
You had a very good day and guessed that the signal was the sum of the frequencies of page 8. So you added them and found an exact match with the real signal. Why on earth would you then question your assumption?
You had not found one possible solution, you had found the only possible solution. Changing one of the frequencies just a little bit and the result would not match any longer.
Do we agree you are supposed to add the frequencies on page 8 and not devide one by another to get the result on page 7?
Let’s take one thing at a time and get back to your second point.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:13) :
E.M.Smith (00:55:46) : 1) I find it very hard to read at all. The faded small font
Your the 2nd one to comment on that problem.
This is variable with machine… On the neighbors Oh My God! new Mac laptop the site is very readable (I was giving them a tour 😉
On my large LCD screen with the MicroS…Toshiba it is readable enough. On my old iBook it isn’t…
lgl (10:15:11) :
Do we agree you are supposed to add the frequencies on page 8 and not divide one by another to get the result on page 7?
No, as page 7 did not result from any division.
If we assume there were two REAL signals at 10.2 and 11.8 [I take your values]. I can construct the sum of these two [assuming they were real physical things working together] and the product of these two [assuming that one real physical thing modulated the size of the other real physical thing], and then take the FFTs. The result is here http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-simul-peaks.pdf
As you can see the FFT recovers the two periods nicely, but do not show any 11 year peak [just as you surmised it shouldn’t]. However the real sunspot cycle [and the one I constructed with a 100-year modulation – because in the real world the cycle does have a 100-yr modulation] is not like this. There is a dominant 11-yr peak [because that is the real phenomenon] which is modulated by the 100-yr wave resulting in the side peaks. This is elementary and you should be able to grok that.
Leif,
Why didn’t you try adding 10.2 , 11.8 and 114 instead?
Sorry, it must be somewhere around 70, not 114
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:32) :
[and the one I constructed with a 100-year modulation – because in the real world the cycle does have a 100-yr modulation]
I am a bit out of phase with this discussion, but where this 100-year cycle modulation is originating from?
(do we have a mild case of cyclomania creeping in ?)
Corrinne Novak (08:21:02)
That article is a year old, from January 2008.
Hathaway’s predictions (is the proper word ‘prediction’ when it is updated along the way?) has been changed since then.
I found a decent animation showing the evolution of the predictions
http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/ssn-nasa-predictionsb.gif
vukcevic (15:05:41) :
I am a bit out of phase, with this discussion, but where this 100-year cycle modulation is originating from?
If you have in mind Grand Minima cycles, they occur in pairs, in sequence 2,0,2,0..
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
Ok Leif, last one for tonight. Add 10, 11 and 11.8 Disregard the negativ part (instead of fiddling with the long cycles to add) and you will see a very interesting variation in cycle length.
http://virakkraft.com/10-11-11,8.jpg
lgl (15:45:12) :
Add 10, 11 and 11.8
Of course, if you put in the cycles to begin with, you get them back, but the interesting part is that you get the observed 10 and 12 year peaks in the power spectrum simply by modulating the 11-year cycle [which we know is there]. No need to invoke extra cycles when fewer will do.
vukcevic (15:05:41) :
I am a bit out of phase with this discussion, but where this 100-year cycle modulation is originating from?
Sunspot numbers were low around 1700, 1805, 1902, 2008, roughly 100 years apart. And I only calculated the power spectrum for the past ~300 years.
Leif,
Exactly. Why testing that FFT works, it does, every time.
So you agree then that the 10 and 12 y cycles are real and if you want to build the observed signal from clean sine waves you have to add both of them to the 11 y cycle?
Your modulation is not that interesting. You have used one of many possible methods to produce a signal that looks similar to the observed. Then of course the FFT spectrum will have to look similar too. I believe this modulation has nothing to do with reality. How does it work? How does the Sun manage to multiply two frequencies? How is this modulator constructed? And how can you achieve the observed cycle length variation (mainly from 9.5 to 12.5 or so) by this modulation? All your cycles on page 7 are very close to 11 years.
vukcevic (15:05:41) :
I am a bit out of phase with this discussion, but where this 100-year cycle modulation is originating from?
Leif Svalgaard (23:10:16)
Sunspot numbers were low around 1700, 1805, 1902, 2008, roughly 100 years apart. And I only calculated the power spectrum for the past ~300 years.
The equation I published some five years ago, goes further and identifies all minima during the last 1000 years (with a proviso you change phase every 250 or so years).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
Actual numbers provided by NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200112065794
Vukcevic,
Yes you have the 11.8 and 10 y cycles (doubled) in there so you are on the right track. If you add the 11 y too you will probably get a bigger variation and maybe get rid of the phase errors around 1800 and 1900.
lgl (05:09:41) :
Vukcevic,
….If you add the 11 y too you will probably get a bigger variation….
11.8 and 10 astronometric numbers (as are all the other numbers in my equations). I can’t see where 11 would come from. I believe it is necessary to be solidly based on the existing verifiable data.
Vukcevic,
From the 22 yr solar cycle. According to Leif’s FFT the 11 yr is clearly there.
It is not where I first searched for it, but that’s another story ..
When all said and done I cannot discount planetary influences (nor do I say they are the cause of anything) but I do note that:
Mercury – 46 orbits – 11.079 Yrs
Venus – 18 orbits – 11.074 Yrs
Earth – 11 orbits – 11.000 yrs
Mars – 6 orbits – 11.286 yrs
Then
Saturn – 6 orbits – 176.746 yrs
Jupiter – 15 orbits – 177.933 yrs
and if you take the ‘synodic periods’ of the planet couplings (that is the intervals between planetary conjuctions as seen from earth) of the following:
Jupietr/Saturn – 9 pds – 178.734 yrs
Jupiter/Neptune – 14 pds – 178.923 yrs
Jupiter/Uranus – 13 pds – 179.562 yrs
Saturn/Neptune – 5 pds – 179.385 yrs
Saturn/Uranus – 4 pds – 181.455 yrs
then I would humbly suggest there may be something that might cause us to question why we see solar cycles that fit with 11.1 yrs and 179 yrs (P.D. Jose 1965).
I have always been fascinated by the number phi and its relation to the world/universe around us and I am now coming to the view that one day when our brightest astrophysicists have worked all this out they will find that the above correlations are quite important in relation to solar cycles and the impact they have on the earth’s climate.
lgl (08:03:40) :
Vukcevic,
From the 22 yr solar cycle. According to Leif’s FFT the 11 yr is clearly there.
It is not where I first searched for it, but that’s another story ..
Yes, we know it is there, but question is why is it there? 11.86 and 19.6 are outside factors, so they can be considered to be part of the driving system, 11 is a consequence, cause and consequence have to be on the opposite sides of any proper equation.
Guiding principle here has to be: ‘the nature is adverse to a coincidence; it is ruled by a cause and the consequence’.
lgl (00:19:47) :
So you agree then that the 10 and 12 y cycles are real
What is real are the side peaks generated by the 100-yr modulation. The only ‘real’ cycle in the neighborhood of 11 years is the 11-yr ‘cycle’, even with its varying length and shifty phase, because it is not a ‘cycle’ in the strict meaning of that word.
Your modulation is not that interesting […] I believe this modulation has nothing to do with reality.
The modulation is an observed fact over the past 300 years. It even has a name: the Gleissberg cycle [varying between 75 and 125 years].
How does it work? How does the Sun manage to multiply two frequencies?
There are people out there believing that there are Grand Minima and Maxima, and that the solar cycle is modulated by a 172 yr, or 179, or 166, or such some, ‘process’, so there seems to be general agreement that the Sun can manage amplitude modulation. In fact, I don’t know any reasonable and knowledgeable person that questions that.
How is this modulator constructed?
In my test case the amplitude of the 11-yr cycle was set to follow a 100-yr period [you know, to be small in ~1700, ~1800, ~1900, ~2000] because that is what the data shows.
And how can you achieve the observed cycle length variation (mainly from 9.5 to 12.5 or so) by this modulation?
The modulation does not control the cycle length to vary. And BTW, if you add the 10 and 12 yr waves, the length becomes smaller when the amplitude of the result is small, contrary to observed behavior, further evidence that the Sun does not add those cycles.
All your cycles on page 7 are very close to 11 years.
Makes no difference. A varying length just broadens the peak and make the side peaks harder to see, as is observed [page 4, compare page 8]
But you still did not acknowledge that there is a lot of [most, in fact] power at 11 years rather than at 10.2 and 11.8 [with not much at 11] as you claimed. I think we all would take no response as a positive acknowledgment.
vukcevic (02:07:57) :
with a proviso you change phase every 250 or so years.
You formula has two COS functions. Which one or both has the phase change? And where do you add [subtract?] the phase?
Here is your formula:
SSN=100*ABS(COS(6.2832/4+6.2832*(t-1941)/(2*11.862))+COS(6.2832*(t-1941)/19.859))
modify it with the phase change added. I would assume that you change ‘t’ by 90 degrees, but how do you translate 90 degrees into time since that depends on the period [12 yrs or 20 yrs]?
Leif Svalgaard (10:00:42) :
Do you have a good (is there a definitive?) explanation of the Gleissberg cycle – it seems to be interpreted in numerous ways?
Have you written specifically on the Gleissberg cycle?
Is the Gleissberg cycle remotely relevant to solar/earth climate changes in all your learning?
As ever greatly appreciate any thoughts/learnings you can give.
PaulHClark (12:07:47) :
Do you have a good (is there a definitive?) explanation of the Gleissberg cycle – it seems to be interpreted in numerous ways?
I think there is no physical cycle. All the way back to Rudolf Wolf himself in the 1870s it has occurred to people that there was a rough 75-125 year cycle in the size of the 11-yr cycle. This was studied in particular by Gleissberg in the middle of the 20th century and a length of some 90 years was suggested. With half a century more data, the ‘cycle’ looks more like ~100 years. Dynamo models can ‘explain’ this long cycle [or to be more correct, one can find parameters that can accommodate the cycle], but the true cause is unknown.
Have you written specifically on the Gleissberg cycle?
No, apart from mentioning it briefly as it is also seen in the interplanetary magnetic field:
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV-Index%20JGR-version.pdf
section 6, paragraph [20]
Is the Gleissberg cycle remotely relevant to solar/earth climate changes in all your learning?
I don’t think so, but many people fool themselves into believing otherwise 🙂 as in: It’s the Sun, Stupid!
vukcevic (09:57:23) :
Guiding principle here has to be: ‘the nature is adverse to a coincidence; it is ruled by a cause and the consequence’.
But humans are easily fooled by coincidences into believing weird things. There is actually evolutionary survival value in this: it is better to believe wrongly most of the time that the shadows in the grass is a tiger and take evasive action than to dismiss it as ‘mere coincidence’ and be eaten the one rare time it is not.
Leif,
I was hoping you could understand this so you will not shoot from your hip every time these real 10 and 11.8 y components will be mentioned in the future, but I realize that is mission impossible.
You are wrong on every point. What you are proposing, like you said, is amplitude modulation, where the 11 y is the carrier frq and the 100 y is the modulating frq, the ‘voice’. In AM the carrier frq does not change when modulated, contrary to observed behavior where there are peaks around 10 y and 11.8 y
The Gleissberg cycle in not an observed fact of AM, it is an observed fact of the envelope created by adding the 10, 11, 11.8 (and others) components.
Your claim that you get the wrong result when adding the components of ‘the real thing’ opposed to your flawed method just speaks for itself.
We just have to agree to disagree and move on to your next point.
At the time I didn’t have a real FFT of the signal so I took a look at this:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html Table 3, and guessed it would tell something similar to FFT. I know it’s quick and dirty and I apologize if I have misled people, but I still find it strange that there is a dip at 11 y. Maybe if we had data back to say 1500 there would be a peak also at 11.
Paul,
Yes it’s amazing. Could it be the 22 y solar cycle over time forcing the inner planets into this 11 y sync. When their orbit times are whole years the Sun will give them an extra push at the same position in their orbit every time.
vukcevic (02:07:57) :
………….with a proviso you change phase every 250 or so years.
Leif Svalgaard (10:38:00) :
……………modify it with the phase change added. I would assume that you change ‘t’ by 90 degrees, but how do you translate 90 degrees into time since that depends on the period [12 yrs or 20 yrs]?
Are you taking some of my ideas seriously ( ? ! ), or just suspecting that I am trying to send-up the solar establishment?
No sir, it would not work the way you suggested by changing the time factor, as you rightly realise the magnitude of the angle is a function of frequency. Why I do this: explanation is the one you thought was an absolute nonsense, so we may discus it at some other time.
This is an oscillating back-forward change of 90 degree.
If you suspect my numbers here are the critical Excel entries.
If you start with A2=1000, A3=A2+1, then copy and past along A column .
Start with year 2000 (you could start with 2060)
Year 2000=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A1001-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A1061-1941)/23.724))
Then going backwards change at the critical points
Year 1810=100*ABS(SIN(2*PI()*(A810-1941)/19.859)+SIN(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A810-1941)/23.724))
Year 1560=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A561-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A561-1941)/23.724))
Year 1300 =100*ABS(SIN(2*PI()*(A312-1941)/19.859)+SIN(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A312-1941)/23.724))
Year 1160=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A61-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A61-1941)/23.724))
And hey presto: You got Grand Minima as per NASA’s numbers. That must be worth at least a bit of help on my project.
L.S.
….but humans are easily fooled by coincidences into believing weird things.
You are misinterpreting my ideas again! I invented that motto to protect my ideas from being declared “just a coincidence” as Dr. H. put it. What I am saying is there are no coincidences, only causes and appropriate consequences. In the grass were I grew up, there are no tigers, but there are poisonous snakes, and when I here or see grass move, I can assure you, I take evasive action.
I do not believe in “just a coincidence”, there is a cause to everything.
If either cause or consequence assumption is wrong, that is an illusion, if cause and consequence are linked together correctly, that is science.
Corrections for typing errors in the entry:
vukcevic (14:41:37)
should be:
then copy and paste, (A811-1941) twice , (A301-1941) twice
Another gem from my cyclopaedia of cyclographs (or is it cyclograms):
I hope one day that solar scientists, in the interest of accuracy, will stop talking about 11 year long cycles. That is for press releases and general public. As learned Dr.S. has shown in many of his pages, each cycle last longer, it is cycle overlaps that are causing confusion.
Guess that should have been; when they make a number of full orbits in sync with the solar max the Sun will…
lgl (14:06:29) :
mission impossible
Yes, indeed, it has become clear that the learning curve is too steep for you, so I’ll you be.
Leif,
There are more flaws.
With AM the sidebands will be symmetrical around the carrier. The FFT of the observed shows they’re not, 10 y much higher than 11.77 y. And you cant fix it by adding more frqs to the modulation. It only makes things worse, adding more frqs symetrically around the carrier.
Paul,
… or sticking to my belief. The inner planets and Jupiter will line up pretty well every 11 years… So there we have all three big players:
10 J/S
11 Me/V/E/Ma/J
11.8 J
lgl (16:53:15) :
There are more flaws.
With AM the sidebands will be symmetrical around the carrier. The FFT of the observed shows they’re not, 10 y much higher than 11.77 y. And you cant fix it by adding more frqs to the modulation. It only makes things worse, adding more frqs symetrically around the carrier.
I recalculated the FFT using monthly data for 1700.042 to 2008.625 with the highest resolution the data allows and find the following frequencies and periods:
0.08392334 11.91563634 left band
0.09155273 10.92266719 main peak
0.09918213 10.08246143 right band
The exact midpoint of the two side bands [add frequencies, divide by 2] is at
0.091552735 10.92266659
which is indistinguishable from the observed middle peak above.
Of course, all the many decimals are not really significant, but as far as the data goes, the side bands are symmetrical.
lgl (16:53:15) :
There are more flaws.
With AM the sidebands will be symmetrical around the carrier. The FFT of the observed shows they’re not, 10 y much higher than 11.77 y.
The asymmetry in height is due to the cycles being asymmetric themselves and also that shorter cycles generally are larger than longer cycles adding power to the low-frequency ‘wing’ of the peak. All this can be demonstrated by playing around with simulated cycles of various shapes and properties. Scientists have long ago [incl. myself] explored all of that. You are welcome to fiddle with it yourself to be convinced.
high-frequency ‘wing’ of the peak, of course.
vukcevic (14:41:37) :
Are you taking some of my ideas seriously ( ? ! ),
Not necessarily [most ideas including my own turn out to be junk in the end], but I always look at the data and let them speak. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Vuc-SAM.pdf is some of my analysis of your graphs, and of Carl’s Angular momentum data set.
Leif,
Yes there are two ways. The scientist’s way, fiddling with dusins of complicated functions and tweaking and tuning until you get close, like the climate modellers are working, and there are the nature’s way, simply adding the different frequencies together.
The first is the one you are forced to follow until you understand what is really going on.
But if you insist, there is a planetaty modulator. 4 Saturn orbits is 118 y, 10 Jupiter orbits is 119 y, so they line up well every 118 years.
Leif Svalgaard (21:37:33) :
to
lgl (16:53:15) :
……….All this can be demonstrated by playing around with simulated cycles of various shapes and properties. Scientists have long ago [incl. myself] explored all of that.
I assume, that means that my equations are new to the scientists who ”have long ago explored all of that”, otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered with it. If nothing else, that it is a small but notable achievement in itself. After all, even if it is all “junk”, in these days of “re-cycling” even some of the higher quality junk could be reused.
lgl (00:40:00) :
But if you insist, there is a planetary modulator………….
I would be surprised indeed, if Dr.S. is seriously suggesting there is any kind of planetary modulation, or do we have a conversion on the road to Damascus ? !
There is no way you can get a regular beat out of angular momentum. Not even close. It doesn’t follow a strict on then off again pattern. It varies as the planets orbits do, in relation to one another.
The only background “beat” is the conjunction of N+U and varies on the strength of the alignments of J+S. There are periods thousands of years ago that differ very much from recent times. When the conditions are right, the angular momentum disturbance can be dominate, widening the window on solar influence substantially.
I will have a new graph showing that very soon.
Vukcevic,
No no, Leif never suggested any kind of planetary modulation, heaven forbid, but he is insisting on a kind of modulator and I suggested the planets.
vukcevic (04:38:16) :
I assume, that means that my equations are new to the scientists who ”have long ago explored all of that”, otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered with it.
I bother with many things. wrong or right, but that sort of equations are not new, here is Rudolf Wolf’s [from 1859]:
SSN(t) = 50.31 + 3.73 * [1.68 sin (586.26° t) + 1.00 sin (360° t) + 12.53 sin (30.35° t) + 1.12 sin (12.22° t)]
and very many others can be found.
email sent to me from Vuk:
—-
Dr.S.
Thanks for the graphics. I do not really believe that spectral analysis will get us anywhere closer, although interesting. If the system is driven by gravitation alone (tides, momentum, etc.) whole thing would run as clockwork. I think the current/magnetic field feedback is the area where the answer lies. Jupiter magnetosphere is huge, currents and fields are at 360 degrees, and in addition, if the heliosphere on the forward side is ‘effective’ to only about 80 AU, it would be logical to expect that at 20AU & 10AU and possibly 5AU, would introduce effect of asymmetry. In this context, it appears to me that precise dates of conjunctions are most likely irrelevant.
—-
The idea of clockwork is alluring. Many scientists have been attracted to it. E.g.
Bracewell, R. N., Stanford University
(R. G. Giovanelli Commemorative Colloquium, Tucson, AZ, Jan. 17, 18, 1985) Australian Journal of Physics (ISSN 0004-9506), vol. 38, 1985, p. 1009-1025.
Abstract
The 1700-to-present sunspot number series R(t) is presently noted to be representable by an expression involving the angular frequency corresponding to a 22-year period, the instantaneous envelope amplitude, the instantaneous phase of a complex and time-varying analytic function, an undulation of low amplitude and period lasting for about 30 of the 22-year cycles, and a nonlinear operator whose primary effect is the introduction of a small amount of third harmonic with a period of about 7 years. The third harmonic is an expected consequence of minor nonlinearity in the dependence of the arbitrarily defined sunspot number series on the physical cause of sunspots. A complex envelope is discerned whose intrinsic behavior may be studied to reveal statistics bearing on the origin of the solar cycle. The results imply a deep monochromatic oscillator whose influence is propagated to the observable surface via a time-varying medium.
or:
The phase variations of the solar cycle
Dicke, R. H., Princeton University
Solar Physics (ISSN 0038-0938), vol. 115, no. 1, 1988, p. 171-181.
Abstract
It has previously been shown that the statistics of the phase fluctuation of the sunspot cycle are compatible with the assumption that the solar magnetic field is generated deep in the Sun by a frequency stable oscillator and that the observed substantial phase fluctuation in the sunspot cycle is due to variation in the time required for the magnetic field to move to the solar surface (Dicke, 1978, 1979). It was shown that the observed phase shifts are strongly correlated with the amplitude of the solar cycle. It is shown here that of two empirical models for the transport of magnetic flux to the surface, the best fit to the data is obtained with a model for which the magnetic flux is carried to the surface by convection with the convection velocity proportional to a function of the solar cycle amplitude. The best fit of this model to the data is obtained for a 12-yr transit time. The period obtained for the solar cycle is T = 22.219±0.032 yr. It is shown that the great solar anomaly of 1760 – 1800 is most likely real and not due to poor data.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988SoPh..115..171D
Dicke’s formula reads:
SSN(t) =A(t) {C0 + C1 cos (2pi v(t-1889) + psi(W(t,s,tau – W) + S1 sin[…] + C3 cos (3*[…]) + S3 sin (3*[…])}
Never mind the details, but you can perhaps recognize the general idea.
—–
Nothing has come of those various proposals.
What’s the other way? Entrails and incantations? What are “dusins”?
Leif Svalgaard (07:50:12) :
to
vukcevic (04:38:16) :
… The idea of clockwork is alluring. Many scientists have been attracted to it. E.g…. Never mind the details, but you can perhaps recognize the general idea.
But the devil is in the detail, it is the final result that counts.
I barely new sunspots existed when I devised my formula (2003); it was the sight of the SSN diagram in my daughters homework. To be usually immodest: my formula is new, simple and elegant, easy to understand, logical and based on real numbers, and most of all, gives best correlation to sunspot cycle for the last 200 years (in either sense). An amateurs achievement to be proud off, I keep telling myself.
Rudolf Wolf’s work was good effort considering he did not have many cycles to work on, but again he stopped too short, should have ignored minnows and gone for the big cheese. (abbreviating vukcevic to Vuk = Wolf, nice, but to early!).
For the other two quoted works not much to learn there, they are guessing what the numbers should be, my numbers were known long before times of Newton and Copernicus, I only put them together in a way that is new and meaningful.
Bracewell describes what formula might be, did he actually produce one ?
Dicke, R. H: It is a guess work again. Too many parameters, and do we do not what they are? Take the Greek alphabet sup, mix with a bit of trigonometry, and you can simulate anything you desire.
Only worthwhile thing in there is:
It is shown that the great solar anomaly of 1760 – 1800 is most likely real and not due to poor data.
I agree with that; there is a good reason why should be a phase change not only at 1800, but every 250 years. I did not extrapolate my formula back beyond 1600, until 2-3 weeks ago, when I put the link on WUWT within hours (4.Jan 2009, Igl was the first to comment). I believe those who see out 2030-40s will have to do change phase again soon after. After looking closely at WSO data (thanks again, I see they have more recent numbers on their website, I’ll keep updating), I am now convinced I know why should be a phase change, and more importantly, it confirms one of my earlier ‘odd’ assumptions.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
Jeff,
ups! Norwegian words don’t work here. Dusin=Dozen
Nature’s way is usually the easy way out. In this case that the planets create a lot of sine waves and the sum of them is reflected in the sun spot curve.
On the other hand, modulation is a fascinating idea. Wonder if it will be a AM if Jupiter is a component of both the 11 y carrier and a much longer cycle.
Then that would also be an easy way out.
Hop I got it all in inglesch this time 🙂
Heh, no worries, my grandfather was Norwegian. 😉
Still, you’re still doing things the “scientist’s way” by even learning that there are sine waves in the first place. Nature doesn’t display them for all to see, they have to be discovered, scientifically.
lgl (10:28:00) :
the planets create a lot of sine waves and the sum of them is reflected in the sun spot curve.
Is this consistent with ~snip~’s ideas? If so, how?
Leif Svalgaard (10:50:16) :
lgl (10:28:00) :
the planets create a lot of sine waves and the sum of them is reflected in the sun spot curve.
Is this consistent with ~snip~’s ideas? If so, how?
I guess our moderator didn’t like how nobwainer referred to himself 🙂 but you should get the idea anyway.
Dr. Svalgaard
I’ve tried to read Dicke’s article again, most of his maths is beyond me to properly understand, let alone assimilate. I do not intend to discuss his formula, but reading his chapter “The Great Solar Anomaly” once more, to make sure I did understand what he is talking about. I am not sure if his convection model is in a conflict with currently favoured ‘conveyor belt’, but I am certain that phase change took place, perhaps gradually over period of 2-3 cycles (SC4 being main culprit), rather than what I did introducing an ‘abrupt’ change for calculating expediency.
As I said in my previous post, the phase change for 1810 I introduced in the original article (2003). Dicke’s article (putting aside my other assumptions) directly justifies phase change for this period, rather than “The connection with the planets now seems gone for the expediency of fitting NASA better” as you put it.
For back extrapolation I was prompted by Robert Bateman’s post I think was on the same or previous day, I thought it looked good, then I searched for NASA’s data, they concurred.
As you can see again, my cyclogram of Grand Minima is not, again as in the case of the original formula, the result of some in depth knowledge of the solar processes. The formula just works.
Further support
for justifiable phase change at 1800
Lost sunspot cycle in the beginning of Dalton minimum: New evidence
and consequences
I. G. Usoskin,1 K. Mursula,2 and G. A. Kovaltsov3
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 24, 2183, doi:10.1029/2002GL015640, 2002
Authors even suggest new numbering (quick access)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/usoskin.doc
SC3’ min1784.3- max1788.4
SC4’ min1793.1 – max1795
Or for the article
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/Usoskinetal2002_GRL.pdf
The phase change has its justification in the actual anomalies of sunspot activities during the period in question. The assessment that it was introduced for ‘ the expediency of fitting NASA better” doesn’t stand, since it was in original article published in 2004.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
long before any of my recent charts were constructed.
vukcevic (14:53:17) :
Further support for justifiable phase change at 1800
Lost sunspot cycle in the beginning of Dalton minimum: New evidence and consequences
I. G. Usoskin,1 K. Mursula,2 and G. A. Kovaltsov3
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 24, 2183, doi:10.1029/2002GL015640, 2002
This is an old paper, long discredited. Three strong arguments against it:
1) cosmic rays do not show it
2) daily variation of declination does not show it.
3) digitization of Staudacher’s observations does not show it.
I have earlier [several times] given links and references.
As you said:
Dicke, R. H: It is a guess work again
Your main problem is that ‘phase change’ introduces two short, small cycles to replace one long, small cycle. BTW, plot for us the two curves [one with the phase shift and one without] for 1750-1850. When I do it, I get a maximum in 1810, the year when no spots at all were observed. I could have gotten your formulae wrong [after the various corrections].
vukcevic (14:53:17) :
FThe assessment that it was introduced for ‘ the expediency of fitting NASA better” doesn’t stand, since it was in original article published in 2004.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
long before any of my recent charts were constructed.
Don’t kid yourself, NASA did not make those numbers just now, Wolf did in the 19th century. The link doesn’t seem to work for me.
1800 sunspot cycle phase change
It appears to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding here, either accidental or deliberate, but I am not surrendering.
Your comment
Don’t kid yourself, NASA did not make those numbers just now, Wolf did in the 19th century.
does not make any sense to me, in the context of what I wrote.
I am not questioning either NASA’s data or Wolf’s discoveries. I was not particularly aware of either when I devised the equation, to me only matters that they confirm my results regardless of chronology.
There are three authoritive articles on the phase amplitude anomaly around 1800.
The phase variations of the solar cycle
Dicke, R. H., Princeton University
Solar Physics (ISSN 0038-0938), vol. 115, no. 1, 1988, p. 171-181
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988SoPh..115..171D
Period and phase of the 88-year solar cycle and the maunder minimum: evidence for a chaotic sun
J. Feynman and S. B. Gabriel 1989
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, U.S.A.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x176761610l512x3/fulltext.pdf
Lost sunspot cycle in the beginning of Dalton minimum: New evidence and consequences
I. G. Usoskin,1 K. Mursula,2 and G. A. Kovaltsov3
Geophysical research letters, vol. 29, no. 24, 2183, doi:10.1029/2002GL015640, 2002
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/Usoskinetal2002_GRL.pdf
Two waveforms of the equation (with the phase change around 1800), both show coincidental minimum at 1800, so you could have plotted equations wrongly.
For time being I shall concentrate on 1800s, if it is accepted that there is a phase anomaly there, than the extrapolations can be considered.
For detailed assessment of plotting of equations and the phase change, see following link:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/1800phase.pdf
The link doesn’t seem to work for me.
Try one of these:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
vukcevic (03:39:54) :
I am not surrendering.
Keep it up Vukcevic….I was wondering, how would your equation stack up over longer periods? We should be able to compare it with the 11000 yr C14 graph.
Additional note for Dr. Svalgaard
For extrapolation from 1000 to 2100 actually there is no need to make phase change (every 250 yrs) , when I think about it only moves wayform sideways for half a cycle, which for the time scale considered is nearly irrelevant.
Just plot:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A1-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A1-1941)/23.724))
vukcevic (03:39:54) :
There are three authoritive articles on the phase amplitude anomaly around 1800.
Appeal to authority [BTW, I’m also a ‘prominent solar physicist’ 🙂 http://www.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/ste-www1/pub/ste-nl/Newsletter40clr.pdf , page 4] does not change the fact that there was no lost cycle at that time as I have pointed out several times.
Apart from the indirect evidence [ http://www.leif.org/research/Gilpin.png ] the sunspot record also shows no lost cycle:
Digitization of Sunspot Drawings by Staudacher in 1749 – 1796,
Solar Physics, Volume 247, Number 2 / February, 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11207-007-9113-4, Pages 399-410
Abstract Original drawings by J.C. Staudacher made in the period of 1749 – 1796 were digitized. The drawings provide information about the size of the sunspots and are therefore useful for analyses sensitive to sunspot area rather than Wolf numbers. The total sunspot area as a function of time is shown for the observing period. The sunspot areas measured do not support the proposition of a weak, “lost” cycle between cycles 4 and 5. We also evaluate the usefulness of the drawings for the determination of sunspot positions for future studies.
—-
Two waveforms of the equation (with the phase change around 1800), both show coincidental minimum at 1800, so you could have plotted equations wrongly.
No error. You changed the phase change from 1810 to 1800, which changed the calculated maximum from 1810 to 1809. But, it should be obvious from your own Figure [ http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/1800phase.pdf ] that you have no fit at all to the actual sunspot data between 1790 and 1813 [apart from the misfit in size of the maxima from 1750 to 1800]. At least, your earlier curve with the 1810-shift got the phase [and size] of cycle 5 correct. I think you should drop back to your original 1810 change and not trying to shoehorn your cycles to fit the [old, discredited, and speculative {Dicke is just guessing… as you said before you discovered that there was ‘support’ in his paper}] papers you dug up.
It is not a question of surrendering, it is simply about getting the science right.
Feynman argues for a strong 88-year modulation of the cycle [her paper was written prior to the strong cycle 22, which effectively demolished the 88-year cycle, already suffering from a strong cycle 21]. This is at variance with your very clear ~120-year modulation. You can’t have it both ways. BTW, two 88-year cycles is 176 years [as she also points out]. She argues that there was a phase change of 35 years of the 88-year cycle upon emerging from the Maunder minimum. Nothing at all like what you are wishing for. You cannot just take every paper you find with the words ‘phase change’ in them as support for your ideas.
vukcevic (03:39:54) :
“that there was no lost cycle at that time as I have pointed out several times.
Arlt [who digitized the Staudacher drawings] has a very nice discussion here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.2233v1.pdf
In particular, the butterfly diagram on page 10 is very telling. This is good stuff. No sign of a cycle 4′ with a maximum in 1795. One persistent problem is the difficulty of getting people to stop quoting old obsolete papers [the internet and Google is partly to blame :-)] and to ignore later data that shows otherwise. A typical example [apart from you] is the climate modelers use of the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI reconstruction [because it fits their ideas better – thus in their view ‘validating’ the data].
Leif Svalgaard (08:55:28) :
I think you should drop back to your original 1810 change and not trying to shoehorn your cycles to fit the old, discredited, and speculative….
Small phase difference between this and previous chart is factor 2pi/3 (old chart) or 2pi/4 (pi/2) which produces better fit (recently suggested anonymously to me from a US scientific establishment). I used old factor since it is in my original article (2004).
I do not know who is discredited and who is not, I just look at their credentials. If J. Feynman suggests there is a phase change in the 84 year cycle, which she on number of occasions states, is derived from 11 and 22 year cycle, so it would be physically impossible for 88 to change phase and 22 or 11 do not.
Ok, lets put that one aside for time being.
What about the
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
where this argument started.
For extrapolation from 1000 to 2100 actually there is no need to make phase change (every 250 yrs) , when I think about it, only moves waveform sideways for half a cycle, which for the time scale considered is nearly irrelevant.
Just plot:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A1-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A1-1941)/23.724))
for 1000-2050 (no phase changes). I hope you will process it through your system, I would be interested to see what you come up with.
I can assure you, I may be ignorant of many things, may make mistake in assessment or calculation, my knowledge is very limited (slow learner), etc. that all I am happy to accept, but I do not shoehorn, mislead or deceive.
vukcevic (10:00:55) :
I do not know who is discredited and who is not, I just look at their credentials.
Look at the data instead.
If J. Feynman suggests there is a phase change in the 88 year cycle, which she on number of occasions states, is derived from 11 and 22 year cycle, so it would be physically impossible for 88 to change phase and 22 or 11 do not.
When you deal with wild ideas, nothing seems to be physically impossible. The phase change she is talking about is 35 years.
What about the http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif
where this argument started.
For extrapolation from 1000 to 2100 actually there is no need to make phase change (every 250 yrs)
Then why do you argue that there should be one?
but I do not shoehorn, mislead or deceive.
self-deception. We all fall into that trap from time to time. that is why peer-review is so important [even with all its flaws] to protect one from oneself.
vukcevic (10:00:55) :
For extrapolation from 1000 to 2100 actually there is no need to make phase change (every 250 yrs) , when I think about it, only moves waveform sideways for half a cycle, which for the time scale considered is nearly irrelevant.
Just plot:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(A1-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A1-1941)/23.724))
for 1000-2050 (no phase changes). I hope you will process it through your system, I would be interested to see what you come up with.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Curve-vs-Rz-1700-2010.png
shows that the fit is very poor before ~1820 [especially around 1790-1813] so it seems a regression to fall back to the curve without phase shifts. A formal colleration plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Curve-vs-Rz-1700-2010-correl.png
shows no correlation between your curve and the data.
Leif Svalgaard (11:05:14) :
formal colleration plot
spelling was unintentional 🙂
Anthony,
This (the exchange above) is why your site deserves to win the weblog award – there is nowhere else on the web that I could learn so much
Jeff,
Thank you. Leif will call what I’m doing anything but science.
Vukcevic,
Just to repeat myself. The FFT shows a 11 y component, so if you don’t include one either directly or through a function like modulation you will never succeed.
You may dislike it, but a FFT spectrum does not lie (neither does Leif I believe) so it is there.
Leif,
Is this consistent with ~snip~’s ideas? If so, how?
I don’t think so. I think my ideas are plain good’ol gravity, not momentum.
I don’t see any ‘arm’ that can transfer the momentum to the Sun.
I assume the Sun’s acceleration we have discussed earlier is pure gravity.
(11*100)+10+22 is quite interesting. With correct amplitudes you will see variation in cycle length and the weak cycles shorter than the strong cycles, like you pointed out. Then of course you have to add some longer cycles to get it complete.
lgl (13:29:49) :
With correct amplitudes you will see variation in cycle length and the weak cycles shorter than the strong cycles,
Available observational data generally suggest the opposite: weaker longer.
Leif Svalgaard (11:07:43) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:05:14) :
formal colleration plot
spelling was unintentional 🙂
Thanks for the note.
The waveform is meant to track phase (periodicity) not the amplitude (I think I did mention before). If you insists on calculating correlation than, since there is a conflict prior to 1800, it should be done from 1812 giving a reasonable correlation of 0.654628 and for a meaningful scatter plot the nominal amplitude factor of 67, 100 is for non-smoothed monthly number with much higher individual peaks.
That should at least have some value even in your book.
Leif
Sorry I misread you last time. Thank you for arguing for my first proposal, simply adding them all. http://virakkraft.com/10-11-11,8.jpg There is no general rule in this like you said last time. Several of the periods show weaker longer, and there’s not a rule in the observed either. It just depends where on the timeline we are. The exact pattern repeats every 10*11*11.8=1300 years (if not including the longer cycles) and we only have a much shorter record.
vukcevic (14:39:56) :
The waveform is meant to track phase (periodicity) not the amplitude (I think I did mention before).
If so, then it would seem necessary to include the phase shifts so that the phases would track the real sunspot cycle phase.
it should be done from 1812 giving a reasonable correlation of 0.654628
And if you do it from 1964 the correlation jumps to 0.8.
When calculating [and assessing significance of] correlation coefficients one has to be careful taking into account autocorrelation or [the older term] ‘conservation’ to get the correct number of freedoms. A solar cycle only has about 20 degrees of freedom, so correlation with a smooth curve must be done on that number of data points [or to be a bit cautious, on yearly non-smoothed values].
Anyway, it only makes sense to look at a formula that at least reasonably well mimics what is actually observed, so we shall continue with your ‘best’ formula with phase changes in 1160, 1300, 1560, 1810, and 2060 (? it is not clear when to use 240, 250 or 260 years, maybe 1310 is better than 1300, in which case it is always 250 years). One can also play with your constant ‘100’ [which is arbitrary, of course, just chosen to yield numbers in the neighborhood of the sunspot numbers]. I have decided to use 50 instead of a 100 to ‘improve’ the visual impact [all tricks of the trade] in my work with your stuff.
The result is
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Curve-vs-Rz-1700-2010.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Curve-vs-Rz-1700-2010-correl.png
We further make the reasonable assumption that at a phase change [e.g. in 1810] the sunspot number is ill-defined so we are allowed to ignore the fact that your mini-cycle peaking in 1810 doesn’t fit and simply can be summarily ignored.
I’ll report on my investigation of this series.
Leif Svalgaard (20:20:52) :
to
vukcevic (14:39:56) :
And if you do it from 1964 the correlation jumps to 0.8.
Thanks for the effort. I have done something similar before, breaking whole thing into blocks. With changed free parameters, everything except two basic frequencies, then 1910.5 – 2008.5 gives correlation = 0.8636 or 1922.5 – 2008.5 correlation = 0.8784. For this period there is a strong phase lock with average cycle length well below 11yr.
I have called this “optimum synchronisation period” which produced current ‘grand maximum’.
For scatter plots with the altered parameters’ values see:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/syncblock.doc
I have done similar exercise for block 1824-1900 but it was far less successful, and abandon whole idea. I think this may be what you call “shoehorning”, so is it proper science?
Changing the amplitude ratio for 2 Cos functions (in above case 1:0.63, raises levels at 1800 and 1910, but introduces extra cycle at each point. On positive side there is no need for phase change at 1810. Either way no good. [Does Excel calculate R and Rsq., and gradient function y=f(x)]
I shall take your advice and see what happens.
Thanks again.
There is no point wasting time looking for regular patterns, as I have said, it depends on variables, and if its variable its not regular. Take a good look at the Sun over 11000 yrs and its painfully obvious…when the conditions are right the Sun sleeps long and hard, but when times are easy we can have many centuries without major slowdown. You are attacking the problem from the wrong end.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14results3.jpg
Leif, the only problem I have with your posts is that it’s often difficult to tell where the quoted portion ends and your response begins 😉 Maybe use blockquote instead of italics?
Jeff Alberts (07:17:02) :
Leif, the only problem I have with your posts is that it’s often difficult to tell where the quoted portion ends and your response begins 😉 Maybe use blockquote instead of italics?
‘blockquote’ is a long and tedious word to type compared to ‘i’
Leif Svalgaard (08:19:39) :
‘blockquote’ is a long and tedious word to type [twice!] compared to ‘i’. And I even screwed it up…
Just want to point out one more time, FFT works.
http://virakkraft.com/SunspotFFT.jpg (there are of course more cycles)
lgl (10:08:19) :
FFT works.
Indeed, but your curves do not line up, regardless.
lgl (10:08:19) :
Just want to point out one more time, FFT works.
http://virakkraft.com/SunspotFFT.jpg (there are of course more cycles)
Thanks Igl. I tried your numbers and got very similar result, with slightly different phase shift since I used 11.86 and 19.86; what are 10 and 11 supposed to represent. I am trying to simulate SSN phase and if possible amplitude by using only the known quantities.
It also suffers from a phase shift (1900-1930).
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/Igl.gif
I have similar problem but at 1810. I suppose this could be (as Dr.S. said) ‘shoehorned’ into 1800, but I am still dubious of introducing 10 an 11 yr components.
Thanks anyway, I’ll keep it in intray, for possible future consideration.
Leif
Did you miss the last sentence? They are not supposed to line up when not all of the cycles are included, and I have not used exact amplitudes. But this is sufficient to assume we are entering a new grand minimum, if not the coming decades behaves totally different from the last 300 years.
lgl (11:45:15) :
Did you miss the last sentence? They are not supposed to line up when not all of the cycles are included, and I have not used exact amplitudes.
If I take all the peaks in the FFT spectrum and use the amplitudes and phases for each, I get something that is very different from the SSN, because the Cosine waves go as negative as they go positive. If one tries to circumvent that by taking the Absolute values (as Vuk) or by squaring the values, the curve now varies twice as fast [5.5 years between max], so one has to use periods [as Vuk] that are twice as long [20, 22, 23.6]. You used the other trick of the book by only plotting the positive part of the sum.
So, the Sun does not add up the Cosine waves. What does it add up?
But this is sufficient to assume we are entering a new grand minimum, if not the coming decades behaves totally different from the last 300 years.
As my little grandson Peter remarked when he saw http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
And, the coming decades will behave different from the last 300 years in the details [I don’t know if one can use ‘totally’ here – what does that mean? That the values match up hour for hour, minute for minute?]
Leif Svalgaard (12:07:15) :
If I take all the peaks in the FFT spectrum and use the amplitudes and phases for each, I get something that is very different from the SSN
Except the DC-component and all the dozens of little peaks below the noise level, of course.
Leif
So, the Sun does not add up the Cosine waves. What does it add up?
Who has ever counted a negative number of sunspots.
Or inverse of the operation you used to get from page 1 to 3 perhaps.
That the values match up hour for hour, minute for minute?]
More like 20 years average with my coarse values.
If I take all the peaks in the FFT spectrum and use the amplitudes and phases for each, I get something that is very different from the SSN
Then something is not done right. If you take the strongest peaks you get the envelope and that’s all you need to determine grand minima.
lgl (13:26:40) :
“So, the Sun does not add up the Cosine waves. What does it add up?
Who has ever counted a negative number of sunspots.
Or inverse of the operation you used to get from page 1 to 3 perhaps.
Explain, makes no sense as it stands. SSN = SUM (wave1,wave2,wave3) or what?
If you take the strongest peaks you get the envelope and that’s all you need to determine grand minima.
If the individual cycles don’t compare, there is no reason the Grand Minima would be right: GIGO.
Do I see a cycle 24 speck? Wonder if they will count this tiny tim but not the cycle 23 tiny tim.
Pamela Gray (17:26:22) :
Do I see a cycle 24 speck? Wonder if they will count this tiny tim but not the cycle 23 tiny tim.
They [NOAA] didn’t count the SC23 speck [didn’t live long enough]. Keep an eye on the SC24 speck.
Pamela Gray (17:26:22) :
Do I see a cycle 24 speck?
They saw it in Brussels:
http://sidc.oma.be/images/last_ORBdrawing.jpg
Leif Svalgaard (20:20:52) :
to
vukcevic (14:39:56) :
And if you do it from 1964 the correlation jumps to 0.8
Have added RSQ calculations to Annual and monthly analyses.
Annual: 1910-2008 RSQ = 0.75, 1922-2008 RSQ = 0.77, 1824-1900 RSQ = 0.60
Monthly 1812-2008 RSQ = 0.55
I think these are good numbers considering nature of the two events compared.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/syncblock.doc
Dr. Svalgaard
In your article related to polar fields, you commented:
The annual modulation is probably caused by a bunching
up of flux due to the meridional circulation and may be a
proxy of the strength of the circulation.
Is there anywhere else more on this subject ?
Thanks.
vukcevic (04:59:20) :
bunching up of flux due to the meridional circulation and may be a proxy of the strength of the circulation. Is there anywhere else more on this subject ?
Lots more. Here is a good starting point:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1992ApJ…392..310W&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
and
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/580/2/1188/56248.web.pdf?request-id=f4e53d62-d1e3-48dc-aa91-c730bef7a37c
or
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0005/1999GL010759/1999GL010759.pdf
from which I quote:
To understand these results, we note that the presence of a strong poleward flow, by concentrating the flux in the polar caps, prevents the opposite-polarity elds in the two hemispheres from dif using across the equator and canceling each other. As demonstrated analytically by Sheeley et al. [1989], an equilibrium state is reached in which the poleward convection of flux balances its equatorward dif usion, and there is effectively no further decay of the axisymmetric fi eld. Once established, the polar fields and their open flux can only be removed by switching of the flow (as in our second simulation) or by erupting active regions with reversed axisymmetric dipole moments (as occurred during the rising phase of cycle 23).
one more:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1989SoPh..119..323S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
You’ll get information overload soon.
Leif Svalgaard (09:46:21) :
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-…………
You’ll get information overload soon.
Thanks for the info. No danger of that, to overload it has to be absorbed first, my cerebral capacity is getting more limited by the day. I am only looking for a very specific information. (since Google Scholar didn’t come up with it).
Leif
What if the Sun can go ‘quieter’ than 0 sun spot count. Negative number of sun spots is non sense so the negative portions of the waves don’t count.
If you do the strongest peaks right you will get close to reproducing the right envelope, like I have showed, simply because there is not enough power left to alter it significantly. I didn’t make any attempt of doing it right, using appr. values and didn’t bother with phase at all.
If you have the tools, why don’t you do a high resolution FFT and then an inverse FFT extending it a few decades into the future.
The fact that there are clear peaks in the FFT proves that there are cyclic components in the solar activity, and the most likely developement is that these will look nearly the same in the near future.
vukcevic (12:05:40) :
I am only looking for a very specific information. (since Google Scholar didn’t come up with it).
Today I was going trough your files with references to polar field. I have failed to find quote I put up on WUWT:
“The annual modulation is probably caused by a bunching
up of flux due to the meridional circulation and may be a
proxy of the strength of the circulation.”
But I came accros elaborate analysis in
Polar Fields and Nobeyama 17 GHz Radio Flux.pdf (work in progress)
which I must have missed before :
“About three years before the minimum the polar fields show a
strong annual modulation (by a factor of two) lasting until the
next reversal. This is due to the field being concentrated near
the pole combined with the annual “tipping” of a pole to and
fro by the 7 degree tilt of the sun’s rotational axis. In March
we see the South polar region best and in September we see
the North polar region.”
This is what I was searching for. This surely must have been considered before ? (analoguos to IHV yearly modulation).
Am I correct that theory for bunching up of flux due to the meridional circulation has been abondoned in favour of the optimum visilibility factor?
I would appreciate your comment, privately or on WUWT, whichever you prefer.
There are several issues with this:
1) What the magnetograph measures [using the Zeeman effect] is the line-of-sight component of the magnetic field [more correctly: the magnetic flux, B, through the aperture of the instrument], in short: the projection [B * cos(angle)] of the field lines onto a line connecting the observer and the place on the sun he is looking at.
2) Imagine that the Sun’s axis did not its 7 degree tilt towards the ecliptic plane where the terrestrial observer sits, and that the polar fields were radial, then a field line would go out from the pole and an angle of 90d with the line-of-sight and not be observable at all [cos 90d = 0]. Tipping the sun just a little bit [e.g. 7d] would create a projected field of B*cos(7d), so as we watch the Sun through a year where the tipping varies from -7 to +7d, we should see a yearly variation of the observed field from the field line sticking out right at the pole. We can’t observe that field though: what we observe is the total projected flux from all the field lines over the whole of the polar cap [because the spatial resolution of the Stanford Magnetograph – WSO – is such that the polar cap down to latitude 55d just fits in the aperture – not a coincidence, BTW]. If the polar field was uniform over the polar cap, there would not be any yearly variation because as the pole tips towards or away from us another field line takes its place. We do observe a yearly variation [by a factor of two]. This means that the polar fields are not uniform over the polar cap but are strongly concentrated near the very pole.
3) so what concentrates the field? it is thought that the meridional circulation does that by sweeping flux from lower latitudes polewards.
So, both effects are there. None has been abandoned for the other. But, I’m not clear as to what your problem here is.
lgl (02:14:47) :
Negative number of sun spots is non sense so the negative portions of the waves don’t count.
Are you saying to removing the negative parts before you add the waves or only from the final sum? Vuk, any comments on that?
Leif Svalgaard (09:29:56) :
vukcevic (12:05:40) :
then a field line would go out from the pole and an angle of 90d with the line-of-sight and not be observable at all [cos 90d = 0]. Tipping the sun just a little bit [e.g. 7d] would create a projected field of B*cos(7d)
should be cos(90-7d), of course.
lgl (02:14:47) :
If you have the tools, why don’t you do a high resolution FFT and then an inverse FFT extending it a few decades into the future.
The fact that there are clear peaks in the FFT proves that there are cyclic components in the solar activity, and the most likely developement is that these will look nearly the same in the near future.
Well, this plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/R%20and%20FFT%20positive%20only.png
shows ‘observed’ sunspot numbers R since 1700 [red] and reconstructed from the seven strongest peaks [with amplitude more than 5 sunspot count] of a high precision FFT using the correct phases [black]. The light blue curves show the individual ‘waves’. All negative values have been set to zero. Since the sum [black] was generally above 30, while R [red] dips to zero, 30 was subtracted from the sum. Some people would say that the red and the back match quite well [although there are problems – e.g. 1775-1795, and small cycles being very short]. Anyway, the black extends to 2050, thus predicting the next few cycles.
Of course, all this machinery is totally unnecessary. In calculating FFT you take a set of values [from 1700 through 2008], and assume that that block of values repeats indefinitely both before and after the block. If you then use the calculated values, it will be no surprise [if you did it right] that the ‘predicted’ values also repeat indefinitely on both sides, so 2009-2050 will be exactly like 1700-1741, as my little grandson remarked when looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
Leif Svalgaard (09:29:56)
I’m not clear as to what your problem here is.
No problem there, I am familiar with the aspects of the annual change of the Earth’s helio-latitude angle. I just wandered what happen to the quote, if it wasn’t for WUWT, I was fearing that Dr. Alzheimer is about to pay a visit.
Vuk, any comments on that?
I blame my daughter’s homework for all this. At first sight looked like a modulated signal with a diode, but since there were no gaps, I decided has to be a generator with a bridge rectifier and a variable load (without the smoothing capacitor). To find what is going on the generator’s side it is necessary to look at waveform before the bridge, which has a period twice the ‘apparent’ one, and as I discovered later this was the Hale cycle. Actually, I’ve never bothered to consider half periods. This explains my phase change comments, for a half cycle as 90 and not 180 degrees. It is becoming apparent to me, that this is of no help to you.
vukcevic (12:03:14) :
I just wondered what happen to the quote, if it wasn’t for WUWT, I was fearing that Dr. Alzheimer is about to pay a visit.
The effect is due to the combined causes: 1) bunching up, and 2) tipping by 7d. Take anyone away and there is no annual modulation.
Leif,
so 2009-2050 will be exactly like 1700-1741
Only if all the waves have a whole number of cycles in 308 years.
Which waves did you use?
lgl (13:55:22) :
so 2009-2050 will be exactly like 1700-1741
Only if all the waves have a whole number of cycles in 308 years.
Which waves did you use?
FFT guaranties that they will be. But here are the numbers anyway, for peaks of decending amplitudes:
308/period 28.00 31.00 3.00 26.00 6.00 38.00 35.00
period 11 9.935 102.667 11.846 51.333 8.1052 8.800
phase (rad) 2.913 -0.464 -2.681 2.884 -2.2435 -1.914 -0.587
amplitude 65.52 47.76 33.84 32.88 25.92 18.24 15.60
[the amplitudes have been multiplied by 2.4 to compensate for the removal of negative values and the subtraction of 30]
lgl (13:55:22) :
so 2009-2050 will be exactly like 1700-1741
Only if all the waves have a whole number of cycles in 308 years.
FFT guaranties that they will be.
Had we had this discussion 6 years ago, I would only have had 302 years of data and the periods would have been:
10.07 yr 30 cycles in 302 years
11.18 yr 27 cycles
12.08 yr 25 cycles, and it would still have been a perfect repetition.
So the very close [to Jupiter’s period: 11.86] 11.85 yr period I got using 308 years is totally spurious, as was expected, of course.
Ain’t numerology wonderful?
Leif Svalgaard (17:31:51) :
“FFT guaranties that they will be.
for 308 years, the periods are so tantalizing [for people with such a bent]:
period 9.94 vs. time between Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions or oppositions: 9.94 yr
period 11.85 vs. Jupiter’s orbital period 11.86
Both periods are used by Vukcevic [multiplied by 2]. However, these periods only come that close for FFT for 1700-2008. Select another interval and the periods are different [as they must make a whole number of turns within the interval].
Leif,
So 308 years is long enough to get it accurate, shorter periods are not 🙂
But still, don’t you agree a new grand minimum now is very likely.
Leif,
It seems you are mostly getting mid centuries (or 60s) too high and end centuries too low, not sure about early centuries. Is there a 60 years component you have not included?
lgl (23:51:25) :
So 308 years is long enough to get it accurate, shorter periods are not
No, because a few years from now [with an even longer interval] the periods won’t fit any more.
But still, don’t you agree a new grand minimum now is very likely.
No, not necessarily:
1) just extrapolating the FFT is not science
2) Even if we get a ‘repeat’ of the Dalton, I don’t consider the Dalton to be a Grand Minimum.
lgl (05:50:38) :
It seems you are mostly getting mid centuries (or 60s) too high and end centuries too low, not sure about early centuries. Is there a 60 years component you have not included?
FFT gave me a 51 yr period:
308/period 28.00 31.00 3.00 26.00 6.00 38.00 35.00
period 11 9.935 102.667 11.846 51.333 8.1052 8.800
There is no other peaks in that neighborhood that is large enough to make a difference. And, don’t forget that all this is just numerology.
“Welcome to the next ice age!
Leif,
When I split into 1700-1907, 1800-2007 (and 1700-2007) I find the 10 and 11 very stable, but your modulation signal is all over, 65, 85, 128. Is there something wrong with my FFT tool? Using yearly avg.
lgl (13:13:26) :
When I split into 1700-1907, 1800-2007 (and 1700-2007) I find the 10 and 11 very stable, but your modulation signal is all over, 65, 85, 128. Is there something wrong with my FFT tool? Using yearly avg.
FFT or power spectra in general can be tricky, because we are trying to fit real data into strict cycles it most of the time doesn’t have. There are two ways of calculating FFT:
1) best fit, where the data is repeated indefinitely on both sides, and
2) zero fill after the data up to a power of two [this is the fastest method and is often preferred – although I prefer the first method].
In both methods the periods you find with most power are the ones that fit exactly a whole number of turns inside the data window. Let me illustrate that by the 1700-1907 data.
1) 10.947 yr, fits exactly 19 times into 208 years
8.32 yr, fits exactly 25 times into 208 years
2) 11.1304 yr, fits exactly 23 times into 256 years [the next higher power of two up from 208]
10.240 yr, fits exactly 25 times into 256 years
8.5333 yr, fits exactly 30 times into 256 years
What is happening is that different cycles have different lengths from 8 to 13 years [or so]. The true power spectrum should therefore have many closely spaced peaks between these two limits. Because the waves that just fit are deemed [by FFT] to be ‘better’ than the ones that don’t make a whole number of turns, those peaks will have more power and stand out, perhaps misleading you into believing that there are only a small number of ‘true’ peaks [e.g. 2 or 3]. The precise periods [and even number] of peaks depend on the data interval taken. Using a different interval, e.g. 1700-1902, will give you a different set of peaks. None of this is physically significant, of course. And all of this is most noticeable for the longer periods that only make a very small number of turns.
Leif,
It’s not misleading. “those peaks will have more power and stand out” because there really are more cycles of lengths close to those peaks.
You have a strong belief in coincidences, I don’t.
lgl (11:47:31) :
It’s not misleading. “those peaks will have more power and stand out” because there really are more cycles of lengths close to those peaks.
You have a strong belief in coincidences, I don’t.
I see a coincidence for what it is when I see it, apparently you don’t. The peaks stand out because the waves make a whole number of turns within the data window [number of years analyzed]. Change the window and you get different peaks. There is, of course, no doubt that there is real power in the band from 8 to13 years, that’s called the Schwabe cycle.
One way of dealing with the problem of window size is to vary the window and compute FFTs for each, then average these together. A result is here http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png where I calculated for 308, 307, 306, …, 288 years, deleting one year at a time , alternating from the beginning and the end.
And now for the coincidences:
The triple peak near 11 years has these sub-peaks:
9.935 yr, fits exactly 31 times in 308 years
11.000 yr, fits exactly 28 times in 308 years, and
11.846 yr, fits exactly 26 times in 308 years
There are 2nd harmonics at precisely half these periods, and significant power at 8.324 yr, which fits exactly 37 times in 308 years.
The peak at 102.6667 years fits exactly 3 times in 308 years.
And has a 2nd harmonic at precisely half that [fitting 6 times].
The lesson is that FFT is voodoo if over-interpreted. The SSN series is too short to attach much significance to the minor peaks.
Leif
9.935 yr, fits exactly 31 times in 308 years
11.000 yr, fits exactly 28 times in 308 years, and
11.846 yr, fits exactly 26 times in 308 years
Why not
10.267 yr, fits exactly 30 times in 308 years
11.000 yr, fits exactly 28 times in 308 years, and
12.320 yr, fits exactly 25 times in 308 years
Because 10.267 and 12.320 yr are not ‘preferred’ cycle lengths of course, 9.935 and 11.846 yr are closer to the, for some reason, preferred length the last 300 yrs.
You think it’s a coincidence, I don’t, no voodoo.
Dr. Svalgaard,
I have been searching for N-S excess (asymmetry) SSN data prior to 1995, but without success (re: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/MaunderN-S-excess.gif ) .
Any ideas?
lgl (08:37:33) :
Because 10.267 and 12.320 yr are not ‘preferred’ cycle lengths of course, 9.935 and 11.846 yr are closer to the, for some reason, preferred length the last 300 yrs.
You think it’s a coincidence, I don’t, no voodoo.
There are two ways of dealing with this:
1) divide the data into two halves and see what periods you get
2) append to the data a little bit more and see what you get.
We do 1) first. Here http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-two-halves.png is the FFT. The two purple curves are for the two halves. Between freq 0.03 and 0.2 they agree pretty well. Outside the noise takes over. The green curve is the average power spectrum. The main peak is at 11.000 years [fits 14 times]. The side-peaks are at 8.5556 [fits 18 times] and 15.4000 [fits 10 times] years for both halves, so the Sun has forgotten its ‘preferred peaks’.
2) My prediction of the next cycle is Rmax = 75 in 2013. Usign that I can construct SSNs for the years until then. These will be close to the truth if I’m right. If I’m wrong we can try another Rmax [perhaps 40]. We now have 314 years of data in the window. Here http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-1700-2013.png is the FFT. The main peak is at 10.4667 years [fits 30 times in 314 years]. The two side peaks are at 12.07692 years [fits 26 times] and at 8.486486 years [fits 37 times]. Every single peak to the right of 12 years [up to 31 years] fits a whole number of turns [26, 24, 21, 19, 17, 15, 13, 11]. Similarly with most of the peaks to the left. In general most of the peaks will be at whole turns. In the end, it is the magnitude and the reproducibility of the peak [does it show up in subsets or supersets of the data] that determine if the peak is real.
Now, you are, of course, free to believe as you seem to do that your preferred peaks only show up for a data window of 308 years. Perhaps you’ll find it significant that 308 years is just twice the ‘Jose Period’ of 179 years or some such coincidence.
iillnoopps
vukcevic (12:07:41) :
I have been searching for N-S excess (asymmetry) SSN data prior to 1995, but without success
There is no ‘official’ data sets on this. The best you can do is to take the Greenwich sunspot area data [e.g. at http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml ] and calculate a Group sunspot number from that back to 1874 or so. There is sporadic data for the 1860s and the 1790s that can be used too, but it will be a large amount of work.
Leif, I think if you could try to upsample the FFT. While this will not increase information content, it will make it visually easier to find the exact position of the peaks.
BTW: How many points are using? And what kind of window?
To clarify: You could try to upsample the resulting FFT-spectrum.
I think you might know this, yet I say it anyway:
And if you can’t increase the number of FFT-points to get a better resolution at the low frequencies (long period): Downsample the time-signal. (make sure a proper low-pass filter is used!)
Dr. S.
Thanks for the link. They also provide files containing the monthly averages of the daily sunspot areas ( in units of millionths of a hemisphere) for the full sun, the northern hemisphere, and the southern hemisphere. I think as a measure, these values are probably more meaningful than actual SSN.
TonyS (14:54:32) :
BTW: How many points are using? And what kind of window?
one point per year for a total of 308 years. The window is the whole 308 years.
To clarify: You could try to upsample the resulting FFT-spectrum. And if you can’t increase the number of FFT-points to get a better resolution at the low frequencies (long period): Downsample the time-signal. (make sure a proper low-pass filter is used!)
Upsampling [either by interpolation or – btter – by using actual data, since we do have monthly data, i.e. 12 times as much as the yearly data points I was using] does not make much difference as the sunspot number series has a high autocorrelation [a sunspot cycle only contains about 20 independent points], and downsampling can’t really help on periods of a hundred years if the total time span is only three periods. People have played with this for decades with no real success [in the sense of finding stable periods].
Ok, you have 308 points in the time-domain and compute a FFT to get 308 points in the spectral-domain. Now I understand (I think).
You use a rectangular window. Usually you need to apply a different window (Hann, Hamming, etc.) to create different shapes of the created peaks in the FFT. Try using the Hamming or Gauss window, it should create finer peaks (weaker side lobes). Windowing will lose information, of course…
I fear that the shortness and resolution of the signal will be a problem, I am used to much longer signals. So forget my remarks about downsampling. 🙂
==========
Still, what you should try: Take the 308 point FFT-spectrum and do upsample it:
1. Pad in zeros, for example in a rate 3 to 1 (e.g. take 1 2 3 4, and create 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0)
2. Now you have 1232 points. Filter them with a 1/4f low-pass filter. You may need to append zeros before and after, which you can cut away later.
(Maybe your math-software has some upsampling-package that does these steps)
Now you have 1232 points smoothed. It has the same information content as the 308 points, but you can localize the peaks better. You can of course try other upsampling ratios (1to8 or 1to16)…
TonyS (05:13:34) :
Now you have 1232 points smoothed. It has the same information content as the 308 points, but you can localize the peaks better. You can of course try other upsampling ratios (1to8 or 1to16)…
Since I do have monthly data 1749-2008, I don’t need to do upsampling. To minimize leakage, I go from 1755 to 2008 where both values are close to zero, so no artificial jump. I also do the smoothed SSN [blue curve] so have to stop at end of 2007. Here http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-Monthly-1755-2007.png
is the FFT [raw data: pink curve]. I is hard to get a better resolution because of the high autocorrelation and also because the solar really isn’t periodic so there is power in quite a band around 11 years.
There is only so much we can extract from the sunspot record [it is simply not long enough] and people have been trying an trying for decades. Not much has come of that, except that there seems to be an approximate 11-yr period with an 80-110 yr modulation.
it is simply not long enough
I guess we have to wait another couple hundred years… 🙂
This kind of “mystery” is what makes science so fascinating – it would be quite dull if everything was already “settled”.
And I see that I too make the mistake of thinking “if we only have enough data and look hard enough at it, we can solve all the mysteries”.
I recall reading an article that stated that a prolonged solar minimum would result in a steep ramp up to an extreme solar max. Nasa’s prediction in the last year for a strong cycle 24 would agree with that assessment.
Further, the Mayan civilization had not one, but two predictive dates for our present time – December 23, 2011 and December 23, 2012 – these dates match the projected max for cycle 24.
We are not in Dalton’s minimum anymore.
Matt Maddox
Astrosymm.com
Leif,
Is table 3 here true or not?
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
lgl (10:48:45) :
Is table 3 here true or not?
It is typical for the pseudo-scientific approach: uses cherry picking, uses a non-standard [the ‘lone genius’ syndrome] technique, is teleological [picking what fits]. I’ll say it is junk. Is junk true or not? junk is just junk.
Leif,
Ok, then this must be junk too: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsunspotnumber.html
1/3 of the cycles after 1750 between 10 and 10.6 years.
lgl (14:44:09) :
then this must be junk too: […]
1/3 of the cycles after 1750 between 10 and 10.6 years.
If you say so.
Leif Svalgaard (19:14:07) :
lgl (14:44:09) :
“then this must be junk too: […]”
If you say so.
On of the typical pseudo-science signs is the reliance on measures that have little physical meaning. The cycle length from minimum to minimum is such a quantity. A cycle begins a year or two before the ‘minimum’ and extends a year or two after the ‘minimum’. If the two cycles on either side of a ‘minimum’ are of different sizes, the ‘minimum’ will shift towards the weaker cycle making it determination even less meaningful. If the assumption is that some external agent is ‘making spots’, then a more meaningful measure of the length of the cycle is from maximum to maximum. Here are the maxima and lengths determined from the smoothed sunspot number:
1750.292 11.167 [= 1761.459 – 1750.292]
1761.459 8.252
1769.711 8.665
1778.376 9.753
1788.129 16.996
1805.125 11.250
1816.375 13.500
1829.875 7.332
1837.207 10.919
1848.126 12.000
1860.126 10.500
1870.626 13.353
1883.979 10.066
1894.045 12.077
1906.122 11.502
1917.624 10.663
1928.287 9.000
1937.287 10.083
1947.37 10.834
1958.204 10.669
1968.873 11.083
1979.956 9.583
1989.539 10.748
2000.287 12.713
2013.000
For cycle 24 I have simply guessed that maximum will be in 2013 [considering the slow start of SC24]. You can play around yourself with other guesses.
A histogram of cycle lengths so determined is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Histogram%20Solar%20Cycle%20Lengths%201749-2013.png
The bin size was 1/2 year and the points are plotted at the bin center. A larger bin does not provide enough time resolution and a smaller bin makes the count too small to be significant. The error on a count is about the square root of its value.
The mean value of the length is 10.95 years with a standard error of the mean of 0.40 year. The median value is 10.79 years. The pink curve is a 3-point running average.
Leif
“It is typical for the pseudo-scientific approach: uses cherry picking”
lgl (05:07:11) :
“It is typical for the pseudo-scientific approach: uses cherry picking”
You got it! By golly, you got it!