Now well over 30 days without a cycle 24 sunspot

The last time we saw would could have been a cycle 24 sunspot, was on January 20th, 2009, but it was an oddball, and not clearly part of cycle 23 or 24. Spaceweather.com wrote that day:

A new sunspot [1011] 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.

The last time we had a true cycle 24 spot was on January 10th thru the 13th, with sunspot 1010, which had both the correct polarity and a high latitude characteristic of a cycle 24 spot. But since then no other cycle 24 spots have emerged.

soho-mdi-022209

It has been slow going for cycle 24.

We did have a single cycle 23 spot in February as you can see from the SWPC sunspots data, but it has been dead quiet on all other solar activity indices:

:Product: Daily Solar Data            DSD.txt

:Issued: 0225 UT 22 Feb 2009

#

#  Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center

#  Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov

#

#                Last 30 Days Daily Solar Data

#

#                         Sunspot       Stanford GOES10

#           Radio  SESC     Area          Solar  X-Ray  ------ Flares ------

#           Flux  Sunspot  10E-6   New     Mean  Bkgd    X-Ray      Optical

#  Date     10.7cm Number  Hemis. Regions Field  Flux   C  M  X  S  1  2  3

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2009 01 23   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 24   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 25   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 26   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 27   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 28   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 29   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 30   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 01 31   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 01   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 02   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 03   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 04   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 05   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 06   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 07   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 08   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 09   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 10   68      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 11   70     11       10      1    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 12   70     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 13   70     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 14   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 15   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 16   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 17   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 18   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 19   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 20   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

2009 02 21   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
Advertisements

221 thoughts on “Now well over 30 days without a cycle 24 sunspot

  1. That was an SC23 spot on Jan 20th started off with the correct polarity, but then it twisted strangely…. as if fighting an opposing magnetic current (of SC24?).
    Some have even postulated that it was an SC25 spot, which I suppose is possible. What is there about this minimum that has been normal after 2.75 years?
    After that twist, it’s SC23 all the way.
    So, I count the last SC24 spot as 40 days ago.
    And, just to make matters worse, we can now count blank Magnetogram days.

  2. I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.

  3. Is carbon dioxide a major component of observed global warming? Thanks to the Sun’s behaviour, we are going to have our answer in a few years. If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles. If it does not, well, then the skeptical lot can eat humble pie. Either way, we’re better off, given that CO2 is plant food.

  4. When was Cycle 24 originally projected to begin?
    Wasn’t supposed to have started way back in Oct. 2006?
    Could someone bring me up to speed on this?

  5. This is to be expected…no modern science has witnessed what is happening now, it happens every 172 years, but this time we can see it all.
    The disturbance has the potential to dramatically change how the Sun usually operates.
    This is the beginning….
    Recently Dr. Howe of NOAO sent me her latest paper along with an amazing graphic. It shows all the different speeds of solar rotation across its surface over 2 cycles. It now becomes obvious that SC23 is weaker and longer than previous cycles….this is what happens when the Solar system gangs up every 172 years.
    See Dr. Howe’s graphic here:
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/

  6. Earth pole change …….. Sun pole change?
    Extreme, long cycle…… or short cycles ?
    Dr. Lief having fun with our new patterns? LOL

  7. John A (01:15:35) :

    I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.

    It’s almost a pity that the PDO flip has occurred in this timeframe. It’s becoming clear that CO2 has much less to do with climate than was popularly thought, but now we’re facing uncertainties between solar oscillations and oceanic oscillations.
    The way things are going the AMO may go negative the same year that sunspots fade from view.
    I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.

    • Why do solar drivers and ocean current drivers have to be in conflict? The way I see it the sun heats the oceans and the oceanic currents push that heat into the atmosphere. Hence they work in tandem.
      I think a good analogy would be the sun as the water heater (determining the quantity and temperature of the hot water) and the oceans as the faucet (mixing the hot and cold water sources together and determining the total output), the total heat energy coming out of the faucet corresponds to the total heat energy pushed in to the atmosphere.

  8. This is an interesting discussion… but a bit out of my field! I would love to know, very succinctly, what the context or potential significance of this is, if someone would be interested to give a bit of background for a layperson. (Maybe a reference to a helpful doc or two.) I teach, and would be interested to have my students learn to follow things like this that are not in their immediate vision, but that demonstate something of the fascinating dimensions of scientific understanding.

  9. Geoff Sharp (03:07:46)
    The paper you link to on your web site is Frank Hill’s, not Rachael Howe’s. Now it was interesting reading, but I think I’d like to take a look at Howe’s.
    Basil

  10. John A wrote: “I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.”
    Don’t forget the factor of soot (mostly from Asia) darkening the Arctic Ice. This increases heat absorption to melt ice, with more exposed dark ocean surface causing even more heat absorption, and so on. Calculations have shown it is likely affecting temperatures in the northern part of the Northern hemisphere.
    So my top 3 causes of real and perceived warming: (1) Data “correction factors” (land, ocean, atmospheric) that tend to lower older temperature values and raise newer, (2) Soot in the Arctic, and (3) Sunspots. CO2 is not a significant factor by any rational physical assessment.

  11. Basil (06:05:40) :
    Geoff Sharp (03:07:46)
    The paper you link to on your web site is Frank Hill’s, not Rachael Howe’s. Now it was interesting reading, but I think I’d like to take a look at Howe’s.

    Thanks Basil, my mistake….should be good now.

  12. Ric Werme (06:01:59) :
    I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.
    What I would like to know is what drives the oceanic oscillations ?
    Perhaps the sun?

  13. lulo (01:38:02) :
    “Is carbon dioxide a major component of observed global warming? Thanks to the Sun’s behaviour, we are going to have our answer in a few years. If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles. If it does not, well, then the skeptical lot can eat humble pie. Either way, we’re better off, given that CO2 is plant food”.
    Lulo,
    If you take the trouble of reading a few of the earlier postings here you would have known that:
    1. CO2 is not a climate driver
    2. The Goralces represent a propaganda machine which has nothing to do with science. 35 claims of an “Inconvinient Truth have been debunked.
    3. The oceans, PDO, AMO, ENSO are well identified and understood climate drivers.
    And they have switched into a negative phase causing temperatures to fall.
    This means that the “Skeptical lot” here won’t have to eat any pie at all. No matter what the sun does, we are in a cold cycle already and the sun can only contribute to this process.
    But this is subject to investigation
    We have theories and observations from the past but no scientific confirmation.
    It looks to me that you’re the one eating the pie.

    • Actually, I would place myself more in the skeptical camp. I think the solar-climate link is well-established and works on all time scales. I also feel that the role of CO2 in the CO2 temperature relationship has been overstated (it’s mainly temperature leading, as Anthony has pointed out over and over). I also suspect that we will have some cooling in response to the current extended solar minimum. Amongst my colleagues, however, I would be in the minority on this view.
      I think we are going to learn a lot more about the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing effect in the coming years as a result of the Sun’s sudden change in behaviour. We have been in a Grand Maximum during a large proportion of the CO2 rise. Hence, we have had warming during rising CO2 and a solar maximum. We all know that the sun’s energy varies slightly, and that there are cloudiness effects and heliospheric effects of solar variations that can affect climate – and we also know that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. It may well be that they both affect climate (and this could be true even if temperature leads CO2 – the temperature effect is stronger and, hence, dominates the interrelationship.)
      So, no I am not eating humble pie. I am well aware of all the issues you raise, I agree that the Inconvenient Truth was a pseudoscientific propaganda tool, and I agree that the oceans and Sun are climate drivers. I think you should add land use change to that as well. However, I do not think it is fair to make the blanket statement that CO2 is not a climate driver. It does absorb longwave radiation but not solar radiation. This has to have some positive effect on climate; the question is how significant this is. I have personally reached the conclusion that the effect is likely quite small compared to that of the Sun and other climate drivers – both natural and anthropogenic.

    • I’ve been reading this very excellent blog now for several months but am new as a commenter. Thank you to Anthony and to all who contribute as I find it enlightening and educational. My question for Ron, or anyone for that matter, is what temperature data can one rely on for an accurate picture of temperature trends particulary in light of Anthony’s weather station review project? The discussion on solar cycles is very interesting and as one post indicated, these are very interesting times as the transistion from SC 23 to SC 24 is occurring and the hyperbole increases over global warming. How can one successfully assert what the recent temperature trends are one way or the other when it seems there are issues with the data?
      Thanks.

    • did you check the date on that page? It was 6 March 2006. nearly two YEARS ago.
      Is this the same Hathaway he keeps insisting the sun isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary? (he does keep lowering his projections for SC24)

      • Did you check out the link at the end to very next article?
        Solar Storm Warning
        From Hathaway:
        “Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and 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.'”
        This thinking might explain why he has seemed reluctant at times to embrace a “snoozy” solar max.

  14. The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System has a relevant paper at the URL
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MmSAI..76.1042S
    entitled Cave air temperature response to climate and solar and geomagnetic activity.
    The paper, by P. Stoeva and A. Stoev, compares a 36 year history of temperatures in Uhlovitsa Cave (Bulgaria) with sunspot number. The correlation is excellent, perhaps to the point of being a bit spooky. Temperature correlation with Apmax is less good, and there is almost no correlation with temperature outside the cave.
    I’m puzzled by the paper, but thought it might be worth mentioning.

  15. John A (01:15:35) :
    “I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide”.
    John A,
    There is no such a “clear test”.
    CO2 is not a climate driver and it is NOT responsible for “Global Warming”.
    We know that our oceans are responsible for a cycle approx. 30 year warm/cold cycle and that we are now in a cold cycle (see PDO, AMO, ENSO) and earlier postings here at WUWT.
    The sun is observed and studied now.
    We know from past cold periods like the Maunder Minimum and the more recent Dalton Minimum coincided with low activity in sun spots.
    There are theories about possible processes involved but there is no final scientific proof.
    Maybe you should first get some basics about weather and climate theory basics.
    Than you could start reading the earlier postings here at this website.
    I know it is difficult.
    People have been brainwashed with BS (Bad Science) about Global Warming, melting Poles and drowning Polar Bears.
    This unfortunately is a “hoax”.

  16. What drives the oceanic oscillations?
    I think it is the heat from volcanic magma escaping through seams in the ocean floor, like the Marianas trench. The heat builds up and gathers at low level ocean depths and then is released periodically, – Il Nino. The displaced warm oscillation is then followed and replaced by a cold ocean flow, – la Nina.

  17. The real problem is that the policy in makers in Washington are desperate to enact stong environmental legislation and have been making even more outlandish statements about the environment to whip people up in order to cram their legislation through before the truth is known about the drivers of the climate.
    They do not want to wait to see which wins, CO2 or the sun. They probably fear that CO2 isnt the driver but they dont want to give up the power the control of CO2 gives them. I think there is a parallel here with J.R.R. Tolkein’s books “Lord of the Rings”. The ring had an alluring power, it was the ring of power. One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them. I think the ring of power is CO2. C…O…2, with the O being this modern day ring, When you control CO2 you control everything living on earth.
    Fortunately the sun is cooperating and even the press is now talking about sun spots. There needs to be a strong an compelling counter argument to the theory of CO2 global warming. Just saying it must be ‘natural forces’ is not enough. We need a counter argument, and the sun is weighing in on the matter. The cooling seems to have already begun but the CO2 alarmists have had success just brushing this off, saying it is weather and not climate. Some even agree that it may cool the next 20 years, but this will give us more time to prepare for the coming warming when the cooling is over. Another argument is “how can we take the risk that it could get warmer, so we need to control CO2 just in case it does drive climate”. They dont realize that cooling is more dangerous to man than warming. In any event, very strong environmental legislation that controls CO2 will soon be introduced in Washington, despite the economic problems we now face.

  18. “What drives the oceanic oscillations?
    I think it is the heat from volcanic magma escaping through seams in the ocean floor, like the Marianas trench”
    Leo, the trenches are cold spots, where the ocean floor is being subducted.
    The warm spots are the spreading centers, the mid oceanic rifts.
    Do you know of any research into geothermal flux as aportion of the thermal budget of the oceans? I don’t but I sure it exists. Offhand, I have no doubt it changes, but would bet the changes are slow.

  19. According to my AGW model, the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is masking all sunspots from our view point. In fact the sun has not changed, never changed and will never change… exactly like our models predicted. 😀

  20. Leo Danze:
    Aha interesting theory there…. perhaps it is a mixture of magma and solar forcings… but then again… what drives the convection currents in the mantle?
    I think that you can keep going back to look for drivers and I agree with the notion that ocean currents have a more direct effect on climate than the sun but the root influence of all the phenomena discussed is the sun!
    Think of it as a domino effect, when something happens to the sun, the effect gets carried through the processes to the final product of temp. Question is how much of this effect is amplified and how much reaches that far with enough effect to be noticed by people…

  21. Divers that go deep know that deeper is colder. Periodically, an increase in trade winds blow away the Sun warmed surface water in the Pacific and reveals the cold water below as it mixes from wind driven wave actions. This might be the case in some oscillations. Other oscillations in other oceans may happen due to melt season dumping of ice cold freshwater that sinks, thus causing a conveyor belt action. The two might work together periodically, causing colder summers that result in ice buildup over time (fresh and salt water ice from snow as well as water bodies), then when the trade winds die down, the huge amount of ice melts rapidly causing a change in conveyor belt actions. I always go back to the windshield wiper oscillation on the school bus. If two different oceanic oscillation causes occasionally and periodically work in sync, the result could be a somewhat regular long up and long down trend in global temperatures.

  22. John A –
    “I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.”
    I was thinking the same thing but I’m too much of an agnostic to use the capital “N” word. On the other hand maybe it’s Providence but I’m not sure if that’s capital “P” Providence or small “p” providence.

  23. Anthrodoc (06:02:33) :
    I teach, and would be interested to have my students learn to follow things like this that are not in their immediate vision, but that demonstate something of the fascinating dimensions of scientific understanding.
    Though the sunspot cycle is an interesting subject to be introduced to students, its connection with climate is not without a lot of controversy that would be confusing to students.
    Leif, our resident sun guru, has informed us that the energy from the sun has varied very little from the little ice age to now, or from sunspot maximum to minimum, not enough to explain any warming.
    There are other students of the sun cycles, ( Archibald for example who posts here too) who empirically correlate cold periods with low sunspot activity. There is not much theory behind their method, and the theories that exist, as for example the effect of galactic cosmic rays, has to be proven yet.
    So although it is an interesting question, it would be rather confusing.
    As far as I am concerned, I think that on a first level the ocean currents and the atmospheric winds are responsible for the climate changes we see. By inducing changes in albedo ( the percentage of sunlight reflected) due to changes in cloud cover. Large effects in the available energy can appear.
    Of course on a deeper level, the currents and winds are due to the steady energy provided by the sun, as it impacts periodically on the oceans and atmosphere ( 7% seasonal variation, let alone 100% between night and day ).
    These studies are in their infancy, and again not suited for students, imo.

    • Wow. Let’s not get our little ones all upset with hard problems.
      How about saying something like “there are multiple drivers to global temperature. What could we do to correlate (or establish non-correlation) to the local variable. (Yes, Robert, the local variable is the earth’s temperature. Very good!) Yes, Wendy, we could look at the temperature trends on other planets in our solar system.”
      And yes, we can. Any good students here know what the recent findings show?

    • Anna V,
      I also teach meteorology classes. The way I handle things like this is to give them all the information. Most students (or at least the ones we are hoping will continue in our field) can understand these types of nuances.
      In the sections on climate in my courses, I begin with an exhibition of climate through the ages. The MIlankovitch theory is relevant, as well as correlations between solar cycles, temperature and CO2. The debate as to the causes and effects isn’t really all that complex here and introducing them to these things actually helps generate a dynamic classroom.
      I see your point that the solar-climate link is fairly light on theoretical certainty (is it a sunspot effect, an effect of tiny changes in radiation intensity, some sort of cosmic ray effect as the size of the heliosphere changes etc, etc.). However, the fact remains that the correlation of temperature with these measures of solar activity is quite strong. Then there is the famous uncertainty of cause vs. effect when we deal with the CO2-temperature correlation over the past million years (even the folks at Realclimate are starting to admit that CO2 is mainly a response in this relationship). Go back beyond that time scale (when CO2 concentrations were more saturating – ie., higher) and the CO2-temperature correlation actually disappears completely.
      So, show them the past climate changes. Show them the ‘controversial’ link with solar activity. Show them the theories. Then, when considering future climates and recent climate change, also present AGW theory. This is what I do. The students find it very balanced, with some finding the AGW theory quite convincing (after all, CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas, albeit an extremely weak one), but others taking on a more skeptical perspective. The beauty is that they all get interested and want to become scientists – and you can do it without toeing the party line.
      Stop worrying about your peers and your career. I did. I put my students notes online and publicly and my notes include Svensmarks’s theory, oceanic circulation effects, sun orbital effects and dust variations right alongside the IPCC charts. I give *all* of these a critical assessment. When dealing with issues such as sea ice, I teach them *both* what’s going on in the northern and southern hemisphere. I also teach them about the non-greenhouse effects of humans on climate (a la Pielke). Have I been criticised for doing all this, rather than just giving them a Goracular spiel? A little bit, yes… but I can hold my head up high with the knowledge that I am expressing myself freely in the original spirit of the university experience. My students actually talk in class as a result!

  24. “What I would like to know is what drives the oceanic oscillations ?
    Perhaps the sun?”
    A little complex. The fact that they’re oscillations is what drives them, to a certain extent. These various cycles are coupled harmonic oscillators. I’m pretty sure this was mentioned.
    Now the thing about an oscillator s, given the right circumstances a very small amount of energy can be kept inside the system for a very, very long time. The classic example is a weight on a spring. It only takes a small amount of energy to get it going and once it’s going it will continue to move of its own accord. That same weight can be induced to start moving through a purely random event.
    Here’s where things get a little bit interesting, at least as far as this layman is concerned. Lets say you have a few weights on springs attached to each other with more springs and bouncing up and down. Pretty soon they’ll “couple”, or start to move at some harmonic of each other’s motion. The interesting thing is that introducing an outside force to this system will only have a temporary effect. Grab one of the weights and add extra energy to it and it will bounce around wildly for a moment or two, but the other weighted springs that are attached to it will absorb and redistribute the energy across the entire system, restoring it to some form of harmonic balance.
    like so.
    I’m not a physicist, so my understanding of these things is certainly open to question, but the results are what matters in this instance I think. Given that all you need to get your various ocean currents moving is a pressure difference, I’m of the understanding that these various climate systems will appear all by themselves and drive themselves, reacting only to differences in energy distribution across the whole system.

  25. Lulo: “If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles”….WRONG: They already have an answer to this: “Climate Change” .”Human made CO2 originates both warm and cold climates”.
    In WUWT we already have three “found-not missing-links” for Sun-Climate relation: Svensmark´s cloud forming, LOD variations, Archibald´s barycentric movements.

  26. Greylar (07:22:34) :
    It is official! The “Solar Minimum Has Arrived”
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/06mar_solarminimum.html
    G

    Ain’t that a bucket of ice water!!
    It should now read: It’s official, the gas tank of the Sun has hit E, and for the last 3 years it’s been chuffing and popping on fumes.
    Like a golf ball that lands on the green, continues hopping & bouncing towards the cup, then it rolls back down the green into the rough or worse.

  27. Ray (08:03:31) :
    According to my AGW model, the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is masking all sunspots from our view point. In fact the sun has not changed, never changed and will never change… exactly like our models predicted. 😀

    It’s called SOHO, and it picks up those microspots in outer space. Far from the maddening atmosphere. It really is that bad, and worse. And, what is really worse for the endangered species AGW, the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere the past couple of year has remained flat. Your sun isn’t being occluded by Earth’s atmosphere or anything in it, but it might be occluded by something in the Galactic Plane we are passing through.
    For 2 millenia, man believed, religion taught, that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System. It had to be.
    Then, we thought that we had to be at the center of the Milky Way.
    Then, we thought that the Milky Way had to be at the center of the Universe.
    Now, we still get these neanderthal throwbacks that want to return to the comfy world that existed in oblivion that seems so much like the good old days, and they call their puppy AGW.
    What scares them is that we don’t control the physical universe.
    And we never will. The Earth is dwarfed by the tiniest sunspeck.

    • My comment was sarcasm but maybe there is something in your response. We know that our solar system passes through “clouds” of dust in space every now and then. In fact, sometime in the future our solar system is expected to go through an area so dirty that it might do great harm to our planets. But back to this hypothesis, could it be possible that cosmic dust zones might have contributed to the cooling of our solar system by diffracting irradiation from the sun?

      • I believe that any such disturbance would be detectable through a significant drop in TSI. No such drop has been detected.

  28. If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles.
    There already is. See Graylar’s post.
    The human race is not going to believe that Global Warming causes both killer heat waves and killer cold snaps. And they don’t. They know when they are being flim-flammed by storytelling made up on the fly.

  29. It looks like it has become inevitable.
    No matter what the subject of the post is, it all ends up being haunted by good old CO2, with or without eggs.
    People are obsessed with CO2 and it bears proof that 20 years of brainwashing the public with AGW BS is indeed effective.

  30. Geoff,
    Well stated. At the highest public policy level there is no room for untested and unproved science that disputes AGW. We have no Goracle comparable to the AGW folk. We are in for a wild ride. Politics is not the place to sort out scientific questions.
    My fear is that we will have to wait for new, overwhelming physical evidence. And the burden of proof will be extremely high. Perhaps it will arise from solar physics, perhaps from oceanography, perhaps from other astronomical sciences. But it hasn’t arrived yet.

  31. Pamela Gray (08:33:34) :
    “Periodically, an increase in trade winds blow away the Sun warmed surface water in the Pacific and reveals the cold water below as it mixes from wind driven wave actions.”
    I think discovered that effect on one of our Cabo trips a few years back.
    The ocean water was too cold for swimming comfortably and snorkeling was brutal.
    A local told me that happens occasionally. That the warm water is wiped away by ocean weather and currents.
    It was a strange thing. Beautiful, warm, sunny tropical weather and cold water. Brrrrr!

  32. Ron de Haan (07:33:02) :
    I think John A and Lulo have a point. Gore and his minions have not yet admitted they are wrong. Their ability to deceive, distort and dodge keeps their reputation afloat in the public eye.
    A big La Nina won’t make them admit anything either. A weak solar cycle that leads to decades of cooling will. If the recovery from the little ice age just continues at the same pace, they will continue to be hailed as heroes.
    Now they won’t.

  33. R = 1.61 FD – (0.0733 FD)** 2 + (0.0240 FD)**3
    It takes a 10.7cm flux of 78 to consistently generate sunspots of the count of 10 that is currently assigned to sunpecks.
    Just a little tidbit to throw out there (chum the waters of the cold PDO) for a landmark.
    Who needs a landmark?
    We aren’t where they said we would be in late Feb. 2009.
    We weren’t where they said we would be in late Feb. 2008.
    We weren’t where they said we would be in late Feb 2007.
    Kick the can down the road. Stay the course, a horse, of course, a talking horse. Say hello to Mr. Ed.
    Enjoy the 3rd day of blank Magnetogram.
    Enjoy the 40th day since the last SC24 spot.
    Be thankful that their prediction of frying and inundated coastlines ain’t happening.
    Something else is.

  34. Hmmm so if magnetic fields are the main factor in climate perhaps we should install a giant Q-bracelet magnetic healing bracelet around the Earth. It works for humans, doesn’t it?

  35. And now I might know why there is a lag in time of the observed and adjusted 10.7 cm flux as regards to the baseline. The background should be highest at perihelion and lowest at appehelion. But the compensation at Penticon is November to February for mountains that get in the way:
    “Three flux determinations are made each day. Between March and October measurements are made at 1700, 2000 (local noon) and 2300UT. However, the combination of location in a mountain valley and a relatively high latitude make it impossible to maintain these times during the rest of the year. Consequently, from November through February, the flux determination times are changed to 1800, 2000 and 2200, so that the Sun is high enough above the horizon for a good measurement to be made.”
    When the observatory switches from 1800 hrs to 1700 hrs on March 1st, we should see a drop in our near background readings of F10.7. Observing an hour earlier in the morning when the moisture content of the atmosphere is highest. Observing an hour later in the afternoon the moisture content of the atmosphere is likely not to vary as much.
    This is all your fault, Anthony, you teach me to dig away at the sources of our data.

  36. Archonix wrote:
    The interesting thing is that introducing an outside force to this system will only have a temporary effect.
    This is true if the outside force is constant or otherwise out of sync with the oscillator. If the outside force is itself an oscillator with a frequency close to the frequency of the system, the amplification can be huge. “Tacoma Narrows” is a classic example.
    The relevance to climate is that we have climate oscillators with frequencies that are close to the frequencies of sunspot cycles.

  37. “I thought he was being ironic :)”
    Pierre asked to be brought up to speed on when 24 should have started. Greylar beat my search handily. Good show.
    I thought the first NASA spew started July 31, 2006 with a speck of appropriate orientation that lasted some hours.
    The emcee was our Hathaway, the first forecast I remember was his for Dec. 2006. An ‘official’ forecast of Jan. 2007 was the earliest I remember.

  38. Ric Werme (06:01:59) :
    On PDO vs. solar drivers, why not both?
    Let’s see if I can articulate some musings on this.
    1) Ignore, for now, the long secular trend in temperature since the mid 19th Century. There is still clear evidence of oscillations in climate on decadal and bidecadal time scales. (I’ll return to multidecadal later.) Where do these oscillations come from?
    2) There are only two possible exogenous sources for such persistent natural climate variability on these time scales: the solar cycle, and the lunar nodal cycle. There is a voluminous literature arguing for one or the other, or for some combination of the two.
    3) I do not think Leif’s objections against a role for solar are strong here. We’re not talking about the rate of change in temperature so much as changes in the rate of change. These changes are well within the realm of attribution to solar. To demonstrate, here are a couple of illustrations of the kinds of changes I’m talking about:
    http://s5.tinypic.com/t69jip.jpg
    http://s5.tinypic.com/3584ccz.jpg
    Shown are roughly decadal oscillations in mean temperatures for selected regions of the US (part of a larger study I’m working on). Note that the scale for the left axis is in degrees centigrade (C), so that these oscillations are of an order of magnitude of ±0.02°C. In this thread
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/finally-a-sunspot-but-it-is-a-cycle-23-spot/
    Leif says that variations in TSI can only account for 0.072K change in temperature “which is not worth writing home about.” I disagree. Here we see evidence of roughly decadal oscillations in mean temperature changes on just this order of magnitude.
    4) Then, in addition to, or on top of, these decadal and bidecadal variations, we have longer scale, multidecadal ocean oscillations such as the PDO and variations in NAO.
    5) Then factor multidecadal cycles in atmospheric trends (zonal versus meridional). In these last two, I think we do have factors accounting for much of the long term, multidecadal, trends in temperature.
    6) And yet, out of the “noise” of all this natural climate variability we’re supposed to be able to divine a signal clearly attributable to a rising trend in a trace greenhouse gas?

    • “We’re not talking about the rate of change in temperature so much as changes in the rate of change.”
      Interesting. When thinking about a differential equation for “global temp”(which I quickly leave off with a headache), clearly the first term, change in TSI, is uninteresting. Terms presenting the integral of TSI are mind-bending.

    • And the biggest doozy is that 3 years later the guy is still playing with the same failed model. Add obsession to humor/irony. He still doesn’t get it:
      His model went one way and the Sun went the opposite way, leaving him in his own dust.

  39. Lief, can you provide pointers to papers estimating the amount of energy being dumped into the Earth by the Sun due to the Solar wind and due to the magnetic flux changes.
    I noticed an article last year that mentioned the surprisingly large amounts of energy involvde in the magentic tubular conenctions with the Sun adn Earth breaking and cracking. But I haven’t read the paper.

  40. Robert Bateman (12:11:05) :
    Enjoy the 3rd day of blank Magnetogram.
    Enjoy the 40th day since the last SC24 spot.
    Be thankful that their prediction of frying and inundated coastlines ain’t happening.
    Something else is.

    Thanks Robert, I find your posts here and at SC24 inspiring and thought provoking. There is something new happening as we are watching.

  41. A big La Nina won’t make them admit anything either. A weak solar cycle that leads to decades of cooling will.
    No. It won’t.
    Absent the truth, people believe what they are told. As long as those in positions of power or influence – who have ulterior motives – keep claiming “global warming,” people will believe them. As a nation/world, we have become scientifically illiterate and intellectually lazy.

  42. You are welcome, Carsten.
    It’s been a real battle trying to hold back my growing cynicism.
    Sometimes I don’t do so well.
    I have one foot in real life and the other in layman’s science.

  43. Will they chuck thier AGW model when a year without a summer happens?
    How about rapidly advancing glaciers that clean whole towns in the Swiss Alps off?
    Lake Superior freezing over solid?
    All that has happened before, and we have seen how they think that is normal.
    I believe you are right, Mark, they won’t admit anything.
    I do believe that people in general are fast becoming skeptical. I can hear it in their voices when I talk to them.
    Will it be enough to turn the tide?

  44. Rick Werme: You wrote, “The way things are going the AMO may go negative the same year that sunspots fade from view.”
    The AMO appears to have reached its peak in 2004/2005. Sometime in that timeframe. It’ll take about 10 to 11 years for the AMO to reach negative numbers again if it continues to follow a roughly 60-year cycle.
    You also wrote, “I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.”
    If the PDO is in fact a residual of ENSO, or, better phrased, if the PDO is in fact “dependent on ENSO on all timescales” (refer to Newman et al link that follows), I’d be leaning toward ENSO as the primary driver. Keep in mind that the PDO is not a measure of SST anomalies; it is a statistically manufactured index calculated from SST anomalies.
    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
    Regards

  45. Jerry Lee Davis (07:30:27) : The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System has a relevant paper at the URL
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MmSAI..76.1042S
    entitled Cave air temperature response to climate and solar and geomagnetic activity.
    The paper, by P. Stoeva and A. Stoev, compares a 36 year history of temperatures in Uhlovitsa Cave (Bulgaria) with sunspot number. The correlation is excellent, perhaps to the point of being a bit spooky. […]

    If these Bulgarian results are serious (and I wonder a bit about the shape of their sunspot numbers around 2000), then Jenkins et al. 2008 may provide a an explanation (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1).
    The paper is entitled “Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance”. The essence is, that the nuclear decay rate on earth varies yearly by about 0.1%. The authors suggest:

    “If nucleotides such as 32Si, 36Cl and 226Ra respond to changes in the solar neutrino flux due to time-dependence of 1/R^2, then they can also respond to changes in intrinsic solar activity which are known to occur over timescales both longer and shorter than a year.”

    However, also in the highly significant German PTB timeseries, there is phase shift of about 90° with respect to perigee/apogee, suggesting the observed effect is not exactly, or not only a function of distance, but maybe velocity or even direction.
    Cooper, who recently examined the Cassini spacecraft’s RTG power decay rate (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4248) excluded a dependency of the exponential decay law on Cassini’s distance to sun, at least to an efffect 350 times smaller than stated by Jenkins et al.
    So the PTB and the much less precise results from BNL may still reflect a banality, a seasonal effects. But just if not: Given that about 50% of geothermic energy is provided by nuclear decay, I would like to know how to estimate the thermal effect of a 0.1% amplitude modulation of the nuclear decay rate on a Bulgarian cave (the thermal effect could be larger, as the radioactive series reactions have to be considered). Finally, because mining is being done since so long time, there must be plenty of geophysical data, waiting to corrobate or dispute the Bulgarian findings,

  46. Robert Wood (15:38:42) :
    can you provide pointers to papers estimating the amount of energy being dumped into the Earth by the Sun due to the Solar wind and due to the magnetic flux changes.
    This is a straightforward engineering-type calculation. It goes like this:
    The electromotive force E = W x Bn, supplied by the solar wind to the magnetospheric dynamo is of the order E = W Bn, where W is the solar wind speed. The normal component Bn of the magnetic field connecting the magnetospheric tail and the interplanetary magnetic field can be estimated by assuming that the magnetic flux Mp from the polar cap is connected to the interplanetary field along the surface AT of the tail. With a polar cap radius rp and a polar cap field Bp, we get Mp = pi rp^2 Bp. Taking the length of the tail as St, we have AT = pi RT ST, where RT is the radius of the tail. Hence
    Bn = Mp/AT = rp^2 Bp / (RT ST)
    with rp = 15 degrees = 1.7 x 10^6 m, BP = 55,000 nT = 0.55 x 10)-4_ Wb/m2, RT = 20 RE = 1.3 x 10^8 m, and ST = 500 RE = 3.2 x 10^9 m, we get Bn = 3.7 x 1-(-10) Wb/m2 = 0.37 nT. One Earth radius RE is 6.38 x 10^6 m. Taking the solar wind speed as W = 420 km/s = 4.2 x 10^5 m/s , we find E = 1.6 x 10)-4) V/m. [V=volt].
    The total potential difference across the tail then becomes P = E pi RT = 6.4 x 10^4 V = 64 kV, and the electric field in the polar cap ionosphere is Ei = P/(2 rp) = 20 x 10^(-3) V/m = 20 mV/m.
    We can also write P = W Bn pi RT = W Mp pi RT / AT = W Mp/ST.
    The field steength in the near earth tail [before too much flux has leaked out] can be estimated to be
    BT = Mp/(1/2 pi RT^2) = 2 Bp (rp^2/RT^2) = 19 x 10^(-9) Wb/m2 = 19 nT.
    The typical quiet-time convection velocity over the polar cap can be obtained from vc = E x B/B^2 as vc = Ei / Bp = 360 m/s.
    The time to convect the foor-points of the tail field lines across the polar cap is now tc = 2 rp / vc = 9250 s = 2.6 hours.
    In that time the interplanetary end of the field line moves W tc which then is also an estimate of the length of the tail: ST = W tc = W 2 rp Bp / Ei = 3.8 x 10^9 m = 600 RE.
    For a line current [auroral electrojet) at height h over the ground to give a magnetic disturbance [called a ‘substorm’] effect of BA = 1000 nT = 10^(-6) Wb/m2 the current strength must be of order iA = 2 pi h BA / μ0 [ μ0 is the magnetic constant defined as 4pi x 10-7 H·m-1]. Taking h = 110 km = 1.1 x 10^5 m, we get iA = 550,000 ampere. If NT is the current density of the tail current estimated by treating each half of the tail as a solenoid: NT = BT/μ0, we find that the extent of the tail current disruption is of order of kd = iA/ NT = 3.7 x 10^7 m = 6 RE.
    Assuming that the energy in this part of the tail was stored as magnetic energy, we get for this Ud = BT^2/2μ0 x volume = BT^2 / 2μ0 * pi RT^2 * kd /2 = BT pi RT^2 iA / 4. But we have also Ud = 1/2 L iA^2 where L is the inductance of the circuit, which then is L = μ0 BT/BA * RT/4h = 890 henry.
    The resistance, R, in the circuit is essentially that of the ionosphere: R = P/iA = 0.12 ohm, so the time constant of the circuit can be estimated as t = L/R = 7.4 x 10^3 s = 2 hours.
    This shows that the magnetotail certainly contains enough energy to drive a substorm lasting, say, 1 hour. The energy dissipated in the ionosphere alone by the substorm current i then of order e = iA * P = 3.5 x 10^10 W [watt]. Taking into account also the current in the southern hemisphere we get a total rate at which work is being done of the order of 10^11 W. If the substorm lasts for one hour, the total amount of energy dissipated in the currents is then about 3 x 1014 J [joule]. The additional energy deposited in the auroral substorm by the precipitating electrons can be estimated from the auroral luminescence or from direct measurement by polar orbiting satellites is about 2 x 10^14 J. Therefore the total substorm energy dissipation amounts to about 5 x 10^14 J, corresponding to an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 on the Richter Scale.
    We can estimate the total magnetotail current jT by setting the average magnetic field in the tail to BT/2. We do this becasue the field decreases down the tail as more and more field lines are conected to the solar wind and leak out of the tail. Hence, the average current density: avgNT = 1/2 NT = BT/2μ0, so that jT = j northern + j souther = 2 ST/avgNT = ST BT/ μ0 = 5 x 10^7 ampere. The total amount of energy drawn from the solar wind by the current jT over a potential difference P is then PS = jT P = 3 x 10^12 W. The enrgy deposited in a 1-hour substorm corresponds to about 2 minutes of solar wind input. We see that substorms are not major collapses of the magnetosphere, but rather minor internal adjustments to changing external conditions.
    The kinetic energy of the solar wind falling on the magnetosphere is essentially K = pi RT^2 W * (1/2 n mp W^2) where mp = 1.67 x 10(-27) kg is the proton mass and n = 5 protons / cm^3 = 5 x 10^6 /m3 is the number density. We find K = 1.6 x 10^13 W, which is 5 times the energy expended in the magnetotail. So, from energy considerations, the solar wind thus seems fully capable to drive the magnetospheric dynamo and maintaining the magnetosphere.
    ——-
    One an play with different input parameters and see what difference it makes. That the energy involved is substantial [although minuscule compared to direct solar irradiance] is due the the fact that the electric forces are 10^40 times as strong as the gravitational forces. We get a lot of joules out of those impacting BigMacs w/Fries. Of course, per square meter it ain’t so much.

  47. Archonix (09:11:36) :
    Now the thing about an oscillator s, given the right circumstances a very small amount of energy can be kept inside the system for a very, very long time. The classic example is a weight on a spring. It only takes a small amount of energy to get it going and once it’s going it will continue to move of its own accord. That same weight can be induced to start moving through a purely random event.
    Thanks for the demonstration link.
    I have been arguing in low key, against Leif’s assumption that the sun changes are too small to have an effect on climate, suggesting that the seasonal changes of the sun energy on the earth, the beat, are not small. The seasonal is of the order of 7% and the day/night of 100 percent, and it is a metronome beat. ).1% change in the energy of the beat sounds like what you are describing above.
    Except that I would put my money on chaotic type of models, a la Tsonis et al, since there are so many other equations entering the problem ( hydrodynamics, heat transfer, radiation, etc etc)

  48. anna v (22:20:08) :
    I have been arguing in low key, against Leif’s assumption that the sun changes are too small to have an effect on climate, suggesting that the seasonal changes of the sun energy on the earth, the beat, are not small.
    They are indeed large:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
    that shows the seasonal changes [better to say, the annual changes – seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere].
    Shown are twelve curves, one for each year in the last solar cycle. They all show the 7% annual change [unchanged from year to year]. The little wiggles on the curve are solar activity-related changes in TSI. As you can see, they are completely swamped by the annual change.

    • Sure, who can say not.
      What I am saying is that maybe the beat of the seasonal changes on the oceans which must be what is setting up the PDOs ENSOs and what not acronyms, might be modulated way out of the energy inputed by the longer beat of change in the sun insolation, even if it is so tiny, as happens with the oscillation example.
      as Dishman (13:49:14) : says unusual amplifications may result.:
      “The interesting thing is that introducing an outside force to this system will only have a temporary effect.”
      This is true if the outside force is constant or otherwise out of sync with the oscillator. If the outside force is itself an oscillator with a frequency close to the frequency of the system, the amplification can be huge. “Tacoma Narrows” is a classic example.

      I am just putting this factor on the table, though as I said, my money is on chaotic based models.

      • Is there any particular reason that chaos can’t overlie an amplified beat? In other words, might you be right with both bets, anna?
        =========================================

  49. Very striking quote from within the referenced article:
    “Also noted is the much longer length of cycle 23 (96- ?) compared to cycle 22 (86-96). So here we see two direct links to the highly possible effect from Angular Momentum created by the Gas Giants, increased rotation rate and the stretching of the cycle length as the Sun takes its abnormal path every 172 years.”

  50. A question then, if I may address Lief directly:
    The sun is a plasma spherical generator (non-solid, rapidly rotating around it’s center-of-gravity with no bearings to steady it and no fixed “bars” to contain its magnetic lines of flux- compared to the huge rigidly connected generators I work inside daily!
    Further wisting the sun’s net field position is the fact that its poles spin many days faster than the equator. Even with no Jovian influence, the ney flux would be “complex” to say the least, but at least would be “chaotically steady.”
    But this uncoupled plasma generator IS rotating about a constantly offset Jupiter-Sun center of gravity (CG) that precesses around the sun just under the sun’s surface. This CG offset “pushes” through the 35 day rotating surface generator flux lines and the 28 day polar flux line at the same speed as the rotation of Jupiter (obviously) – or about 12 years.
    By themselves, this CG offset would create some pertubations – but they would be constant since the driver speed didn’t change from year to year. (Jupiter’s orbit doesn’t change over any reasonable obsservation frame.)
    But when you add Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Earth and Venus to that mix, the net CG DOES change in relative position slowly through the years. So, the “generator” does see a constantly changing CG in its outer surface currents as sun rotates about its pole.
    Now, there is nothing to indicate any reason that fusion rates anywhere in this rotating plasma ball would change because of any change in gravity (or center of gravity really) holding the plasma sphere together. But – that plasma spere WILL get deformed by the constantly moving CG through its outer surface, and the generator will change its magnetic and light fields as the generator “wobbles.”
    Lief has maintained very firmly that there is no tidal influence on the sun because of the earth, venus, mars, jupiter or saturn. This because he is treating the tidal attraction as if (in my opinion) he is treating both attractie boides as two independent solid masses of weight Mass-sun and mass-earth.
    But solid balls of inflexile mass are NOT what the earh (and sun) are: The moon and sun create very visible and measureable tidal effects on the earth because the earth has a very “‘flexible” coating of water (the ocean) that IS deflected easily by the sun and moon as each rotates. And even – a little bit – this water is moved by Jupiter.
    So, his comparison of how little the “sun” is moved by the earth is incorrect -this calculation assumes both are solids. It is much more important to know how much the flexible, roiling, moving average SURFACE of the sun (where these magnetic flux and electric currents are flowing through a roating plasma ball) that has bulged up and rotated around as the earth orbits each year. There is a separate “bulge” under Mercury, under Venus, under Mars (very small!), none for the asteroids – they are a uniform pull around their orbit, another bulge uder Jupiter, another under Saurn, etc.
    So, what is the effect on solar wind, sunspots, TSI, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays as these bulges cut through different flux fields under the sun’s surface each 12 permanent Jovian “cycle”?
    Does the sun have chaotically stable “bands” of horizontal flux “clouds” and rotating “storms” like Jupiter because these flux lines are predictably and uniformly being wraped by different amplitude bulges – each traveling through the same generatot flux line at different times and at different speeds through the solar year??

    • Lief has maintained very firmly that there is no tidal influence on the sun because of the earth, venus, mars, jupiter or saturn. This because he is treating the tidal attraction as if (in my opinion) he is treating both attractie boides as two independent solid masses of weight Mass-sun and mass-earth.

      I don’t believe Leif maintains that there is “no tidal influence” but that the tidal influence is so small as to be insignificant (on the order of 1-2mm distortion).

  51. Robert A Cook PE (23:39:50) :
    You are not addressing your questions to me, but I want to ask you whether you know that the earth-moon barycenter is cruising through the mantle of the earth daily
    from wikipedia:
    The Earth-Moon barycenter (EMB), is the barycenter, or center of mass, of the Earth-Moon system of celestial bodies. It is the point about which the Earth and Earth’s Moon orbit (as they travel around the sun).[1]
    The location of the EMB is on the line connecting the centres of the Earth and Moon, approximately 1710 km below the surface of the Earth.

    The only effect there is is the synchronous move with the bulge of the tides. There are no gravity effects as it sweeps through mantle simply because the barycenter is only a convenient calculation point that carries absolutely no gravity forces. The gravitational forces are the ones emanating from the moon and earth and cause the bulge of the tides twice a day.
    Similarly the barycenter of the solar system is a convenient point for some calculations but the only gravity effect that the motion of the planets can have is the tidal effect, because gravitational bodies carry the forces and not points in space. Tidal effects , as Leif has taught us, are tiny.

  52. anna v, you say:

    Similarly the barycenter of the solar system is a convenient point for some calculations but the only gravity effect that the motion of the planets can have is the tidal effect, because gravitational bodies carry the forces and not points in space. Tidal effects , as Leif has taught us, are tiny.

    One of the oddities of the solar system is that at times, the barycenter is outside the surface of the sun. As you say, the barycenter is convenient for calculations. One of these is calculating the total momentum of the solar system.
    Total momentum of the system, of course, stays constant. This is the sum of the angular momentum of each of the objects around its own axis, plus the angular momentum of each solar bodies around the barycenter.
    While the total is constant, the amount of momentum is constantly shifting between the planets and the sun. It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter.
    And this, of course, leads to the flow of the solar magnetic generator speeding up or slowing down, with whatever solar flux effects that might bring. I think this has a large effect on the spherical plasma generator … but hey, what do I know?

    • Think of the sun as a rotating solar generator – with no bearings to restrain it, and with flexible coils being flailed and randomly thrown about it is distorted and “wobbled” around the barycenter by the planets.
      Sometimes in synch, sometimes widely out of synch with the surface currents, the “wobble” will change in different “beats” because the planets are constantly changing phase.
      I think that is one failure point for those who try to create “perfect” sunspot “frequencies” and “perfect” sunspot cycles over time by plotting a single “best fit” curve.
      The true frequency of the sun IS changing – it only approximately fits a 11.3 year cycle, but I think a close match of ACTUAL sunspot counts vs planet positions would NOT create a “constant” 11.2 11.3 11.4 or any other cycle frequency.

  53. Mr Cook
    I find your analysis of dynamics in the solar surface layers interesting and helpful for understanding processes that could be governing solar oscillations.
    Combined with Mr. Sharp’s work related to the differential speeds
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/
    and Mr. Vukcevic’s formula (my apology for misspelling your name in my previous post) for polar fields synchronisation
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
    would present a new approach, taking the mystery out of the problem.
    Miss Anna V has provided a useful link,

    which may demonstrate how peaks of gravity and magnetic fields (at times of the planets’ line up) could provide necessarys ynchronisation pulses. It is known that the planets’ orbits are in near synchronism (Titius–Bode law).

  54. Yes, the earth-moon barycenter passes through the (solid) surface of the earth daily – Well, technically, once per moon’s rotation – not quite every 24 hours 8<) – but that passage (like the effect of the tides on a land’s mass and the ocean’s mass) differs strongly between the sun and the earth.
    (I grant also that the earth’s land does move up and down slightly with the effect of the tide, but that daily movement can be separated easily from the side-to-side relative movement of a fault line over times measured in years, or the vertical movement of a subduction zone measured over centuries.)
    In the roiling twisting “light weight” plasma of the sun, tidal effects will move mass – particularly when that “mass” is ENTIRELY moving itself: EVERY charged particle is affected independently constantly by outside forces that change with time.
    As the slides of the sun’s currents show, the masses of independently charged moving ions inside the sun are NOT anything that can be compared to the earth’s crust, but rather to a “herd” of oppositely charged magnetic jellyfish trapped inside a coral lagoon being whippedd around in a tornado during a hurricane while a tidal wave goes by. You can only describe them in general terms of average flows. Sometimes. Maybe.
    But, unlike the earth, each individual ion is affected simultaneously by:
    Gravity = always towards the average center of the sun. Center of the system CG also.
    Ionic repulsion from its area neighbors = away from every neighbor. Slightly fewer neighbors away from the sun – so there will be more net force “out” than “in”.
    Collisions with immediately adjacent neighbors exchanging momentum. (Not nuclear reactions from source fusion – that happens further in.)
    Magnetic currents “looping” at right angles with electric currents on very long passes through the sun’s surface, out and back. (Similar shapes to the visible solar flares.)
    Short range magnetic currents when local areas “boil” or float up to the surface.
    So since every particle is individually and independently moved by every force, comparing earth’s crust (as a solid) to the individual ions in the sun isn’t entirely correct.

  55. and added to that is the shift of the momentum is the total sum of the gravitational tides generated by our galaxy itself. The vast masses tumbling alongside our solar system cannot but ripple the very space our solar system occupies. Making the whole system a completely linear chaotic system. As these masses curve our space, they curve our observation along with it making it hard to measure. If you measure out a straight line with a curved ruler your measurement will show it to be straight, similarly if you calculate using mathematics based on our perception of reality you have no way of knowing if it corresponds to the actual facts.
    The sun bulges,flexes and rotations by influences ways which at present can’t be calculated using our mathematics which are seriously handicapped by our limited lifespan. But they do influence the sun’s behavior nonetheless.
    After the fact of observing the discrepancies we try to fit in these in our mathematic model. And no doubt succeed (using the curved ruler analogy) but if it corresponds to the reality we can only know after a couple billion years.

  56. Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
    I think this has a large effect on the spherical plasma generator … but hey, what do I know?
    I think you know quite a lot more than most…especially those who still think its all about tides.

  57. Does this mean that the uptick in sunspots back in Aug/Sept of last year was more of a dead cat bounce, than the real start of cycle 24?

  58. Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
    While the total is constant, the amount of momentum is constantly shifting between the planets and the sun. It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter.
    It is sad that the ‘best science blog’ has descended into this nonsense and that EVERY discussion of solar activity eventually ends up at this point. What makes you think that “It is also constantly shifting between angular momentum about the sun’s axis, and angular momentum about the barycenter”? This is the fatal flaw in the ‘argument’.
    If you have two bodies orbiting their common barycenter, their orbital angular momenta shifts in concert to maintain the constant sum, but the rotational angular momentum does not. One can see this by direct calculation as the forces are always along the line connecting the two centers and have no transverse components, but that may be too much for this illiterate crowd, so perhaps a gedanken experiment might work instead [although I somehow doubt that anything reasoning will have any effect]. Imagine two identical bodies that are not rotating in orbit around their common barycenter. Now add mass to one of them [e.g. by symmetric infall of dust] or remove mass from the other [e.g. by symmetric evaporation a la the solar wind]. That would move the barycenter closer to the heavier of the two and shift orbital angular momentum between them [so the argument goes], but would not cause them all the sudden to begin rotating [and here the science illiterate would ask “why not” and the answer would be, because there is no force transverse to the line connecting the two bodies – this he may or may not understand]. Assume that our science illiterate maintains that a fraction, say 10%, of the orbital momentum nevertheless is ‘shifted’ into rotational angular momentum to change the rotation of both bodies [because why only of one?], consider the effect that would have if the bodies had a different size: if a body were to be very small, the shift of orbital angular momentum to it would cause it to rotate very fast, faster, the smaller the body was. For a small enough body [and there are lots of small bodies out there], exceeding the speed of light. The illiterate’s argument would now go on with “but there are not just two bodies in the solar system” and it is these additional bodies that cause all this havoc [and to boot, these are not SOLID]. He would not understand that the above considerations would apply to each of the bodies separately, so would not be able to see the absurdity of the situation. As I said, none of this will have any relevance for the faithful [judged from the many previous discussions] so I’ll let it rest here.

    • The correlations are seductive, Leif. It’s not stupidity, it’s temporary insanity.
      =================================================

    • Leif Svalgaard (06:31:24) :
      It is sad that the ‘best science blog’ has descended into this nonsense…

      Not just this subject but in virtually every subject covered lately there has been a high percentage of what can politely be called unsubstantiated nonsense. The quality has declined and the site seems to be the (hopefully) temporary home of the tin foil hat brigade amongst others.

  59. Dr. Svalgaard might think it’s “Sad”, but is he trying to create a diversion because his Achilles heal is being exposed?…..can he tell us what the solar polar field strength was likely to be at the end of SC19?

  60. Willis Eschenbach (02:09:21) :
    hmm
    to start with, you say sometimes momentum when you mean angular momentum.
    Angular momenta need an axis of reference.
    The angular momenta that exist in the solar system are:
    1) the angular momentum of each body around itself
    2)the angular momentum of each body circling around the sun
    3) the angular momentum of the moons circling around themselves
    4) the angular momentum of the moons circling around their planet
    5) the angular momentum of the moons circling the sun
    and for good measure, the angular momentum of the whole system circling the galaxy, where the barycenter has a meaning as being the point where the effective mass of the total solar system is and therefore its effective angular momentum with respect to the galaxy. That is the only time where the barycenter can have a momentum or an angular momentum. As a point in space, it has mass zero, therefore neither momentum nor angular momentum.
    Its only meaning is to be a “point” representative of the total solar system. ( momentum =mass times velocity, angular momentum= momentum cross product with the direction vector about the rotation axis).
    Now we come to the crux of the problem : each individual angular momentum is conserved unless and until an exchanged force acts on it. The only force of any magnitude in power acting on the solar system is gravity. Gravity generated tides, they affect the angular momentum, of the earth, the moon the planets the sun .
    The tides on the earth in the mantle are of the order of 40CM. The reason we get meter and maybe 6 meter tides in the sea is because of ocean bottom effects on tidal waves from conservation of energy and momentum. I have not checked the effect of the tides on the atmosphere, a gas, (btw plasma is a gaslike thing in density,) but I would have noticed if they were large.
    Tides in the sun are of the order of 2mm. Even if we give a factor of 100 amplification because of differences in density etc we still are at a miniscule scale compared to the action on the sun.
    You can always define an arbitrary axis and calculate angular momenta. So?
    The barycenter has 0 angular momentum because it has 0 momentum because it has 0 mass. To define an angular momentum for the sun you have to pick an axis and stick to it. You cannot say ” the barycenter is moving angularly and therefore the angular momentum of the sun with respect to the barycenter is changing. It is your definition of the particular angular momentum that is changing . The sun could not care less.
    Take an ice dancer spinning. If I sit next to her and define her angular momentum with axis myself, and I start skating around, will the dancer be affected by the changes in her angular momentum with respect to myself? Why not? because there has been no exchange of forces between us. There is no exchange of forces between the barycenter of the solar system and the sun.
    There could be a meaning if one defined a barycenter of all the moons and planets and gave an effective mass circling the sun. Then there is momentum and there is mass, but again the only effect will be effective tidal forces from that mass. In fact I am pretty sure that is how the 2mm tides were calculated.

  61. Robert A Cook PE (02:45:40) :
    The earth moon barycenter is continuously moving in the mantle approximately 1700km underneath the bulge of the tides. Not once in a while, continuously.
    The mantle tides are approximately 40cms in height. They were measured in CERN by the changes on the beam line with the tides.
    So since every particle is individually and independently moved by every force, comparing earth’s crust (as a solid) to the individual ions in the sun isn’t entirely correct.
    As I said above, the earths atmosphere is a gas, the stratosphere has ions. I have not heard of the tides affecting the auroras, or the stratosphere, and the moon is much closer to the earth than the planets to the sun.
    A while a go a proposed a science fiction model: it is the dark mass, 90% of the mass of the universe, that is the instigator of all these correlations.
    It could also be a synchronization effect through the millenia of the existence of the solar system ( as with the metronome linked above). In that case the correlations might have predictive power.

  62. Robert A Cook PE (23:39:50) :
    The sun is a plasma spherical generator (non-solid, rapidly rotating around it’s center-of-gravity with no bearings to steady it and no fixed “bars” to contain its magnetic lines of flux- compared to the huge rigidly connected generators I work inside daily!
    Rotation is around an axis, not a point.
    Further wisting the sun’s net field position is the fact that its poles spin many days faster than the equator. Even with no Jovian influence, the ney flux would be “complex” to say the least, but at least would be “chaotically steady.”
    No, the polar regions rotate slower than the equator.
    But this uncoupled plasma generator IS rotating about a constantly offset Jupiter-Sun center of gravity (CG) that precesses around the sun just under the sun’s surface. This CG offset “pushes” through the 35 day rotating surface generator flux lines and the 28 day polar flux line at the same speed as the rotation of Jupiter (obviously) – or about 12 years.
    Again, you cannot rotate around a point, you need an axis. You are confusing orbital movement [which is around a point] and rotation [around an axis]. The Sun is NOT rotating around the CG.
    By themselves, this CG offset would create some pertubations – but they would be constant since the driver speed didn’t change from year to year. (Jupiter’s orbit doesn’t change over any reasonable obsservation frame.)
    No, orbital movement does not create any perturbations.
    But when you add Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Earth and Venus to that mix, the net CG DOES change in relative position slowly through the years. So, the “generator” does see a constantly changing CG in its outer surface currents as sun rotates about its pole.
    The orbital movements cannot be felt by the Sun
    Now, there is nothing to indicate any reason that fusion rates anywhere in this rotating plasma ball would change because of any change in gravity (or center of gravity really) holding the plasma sphere together. But – that plasma spere WILL get deformed by the constantly moving CG through its outer surface, and the generator will change its magnetic and light fields as the generator “wobbles.”
    As above, the orbital movement cannot be felt. That is why, for instance, the International Space Station can be used as a laboratory for studying phenomena not perturb by any forces.
    Leif has maintained very firmly that there is no tidal influence on the sun because of the earth, venus, mars, jupiter or saturn. This because he is treating the tidal attraction as if (in my opinion) he is treating both attractie boides as two independent solid masses of weight Mass-sun and mass-earth.
    But solid balls of inflexile mass are NOT what the earh (and sun) are: The moon and sun create very visible and measureable tidal effects on the earth because the earth has a very “‘flexible” coating of water (the ocean) that IS deflected easily by the sun and moon as each rotates. And even – a little bit – this water is moved by Jupiter.

    My treatment of the tides does not assume solid bodies. On the contrary it is assumed that the bodies are fluid [so they can form a bulge]. I calculate the bulge on the Sun due to Jupiter to be less than half a millimeter high.
    So, his comparison of how little the “sun” is moved by the earth is incorrect -this calculation assumes both are solids. It is much more important to know how much the flexible, roiling, moving average SURFACE of the sun (where these magnetic flux and electric currents are flowing through a roating plasma ball) that has bulged up and rotated around as the earth orbits each year. There is a separate “bulge” under Mercury, under Venus, under Mars (very small!), none for the asteroids – they are a uniform pull around their orbit, another bulge uder Jupiter, another under Saurn, etc.
    See above, and yes, there are such bulges, and they are all less [most of them MUCH less] than half a millimeter heigh].
    So, what is the effect on solar wind, sunspots, TSI, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays as these bulges cut through different flux fields under the sun’s surface each 12 permanent Jovian “cycle”?
    Half a millimeter has no effect compared to the constant roiling of the Sun with Texas-sized chunk rising and falling at random hundreds of miles in a few minutes.
    Does the sun have chaotically stable “bands” of horizontal flux “clouds” and rotating “storms” like Jupiter because these flux lines are predictably and uniformly being wraped by different amplitude bulges – each traveling through the same generatot flux line at different times and at different speeds through the solar year??
    because the bulges are so small, it does not.

  63. Geoff Sharp (06:49:50) :
    can he tell us what the solar polar field strength was likely to be at the end of SC19?
    Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.

  64. anna v (06:53:48) :
    You can carry on as much as you like….but at the end of the day we have real angular momentum figures calculated from JPL. They, along with the 11000 years of 14C solar proxy records show us the Sun slows down every 172 Years. This just happens to correspond with the major angular momentum disturbance created by Neptune & Uranus, which changes the regular path of the Sun at the same time. Doppler records also show us a significant change in solar rotation and cycle duration during these times.
    This is not something you can turn your back on.

  65. Leif Svalgaard (07:19:35) :
    Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.
    SC19 is before satellite measuring equipment, can you tell us how this measurement is achieved and how SC19 rates amongst others. Also at what point in the cycle do you measure the pole strength for your predictions?

  66. anna v (06:53:48) :
    In fact I am pretty sure that is how the 2mm tides were calculated.
    Here is how:
    Let
    M = mass of central body
    m = mass of tide producing body
    G = gravitational constant = 6.672E-11
    R = radius of central body
    a = distance of tide producing body
    then the tidal force is the difference between the gravitational force between the center and the surface:
    t = G m (1/(a-R)^2-1/a^2)
    the acceleration of gravity is
    g = G M/R^2
    and thus the tidal height:
    h = R * t/g/2
    or with good approximation [because R is much smaller than a]
    h = R * (m/M) (R/a)^3
    inserting values for the Earth and the Moon, one gets h = 0.37 m. For the Sun and Jupiter: h = 0.00046 m, for Venus h = 0.00046 m, for Saturn 0.000023 m, for Uranus h = 0.00000043 m, for Neptune h = 0.00000013 m, for all planets in concert h = 0.00138 m.

  67. Geoff Sharp (07:24:35) :
    You can carry on as much as you like….but at the end of the day we have real angular momentum figures calculated from JPL.
    that is orbital angular momentum, which has no influence on the Sun’s rotational angular momentum.
    Doppler records also show us a significant change in solar rotation and cycle duration during these times.
    What Doppler records [every 172 years] would that be? Reliable Doppler data only goes back to 1976.
    Here is the Angular Momentum plot for the past 1000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum.png
    [on the right]. On the left is the power spectrum. The various peaks corresponds to conjunctions of planets. The biggest one at 19.9 years of Jupiter and Saturn. There is no solar cycle [11-year] peak, and the Uranus+Neptune peak at 171 years is only 1/60th of the J+S peak at 19.9 years. The minima in 1990.3, 1811.4 (178.9 years apart), and 1632.6 (178.8 yrs) do not stand out as particularly important compared to the other minima. Some people want to associate those minima with grand minima [e.g. Dalton in 1811], but to call the very active year 1990 a grand minimum is a gross gloss-over.

    • “but to call the very active year 1990 a grand minimum is a gross gloss-over.”
      I think a more ingenuous characterization would be to say the cyclomaniacs believe the Jose cycle perturbs the Hale cycle–which you are, of course, ready and able to deride.

  68. Geoff Sharp (07:39:17) :
    SC19 is before satellite measuring equipment, can you tell us how this measurement is achieved and how SC19 rates amongst others. Also at what point in the cycle do you measure the pole strength for your predictions?
    The solar polar field is not measured from satellites, but from solar observatories on the ground [of which I co-built one]; And I’m sure you really do not want to know how it is done [if I’m wrong, you can see how here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf ] . You did ask for ‘at the end of SC19’. That would be 1965. The polar fields at solar minimum is what determine the strength of the coming cycle, more at http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH51A-1593.pdf

  69. anna v (07:13:21) :
    I have not heard of the tides affecting the auroras, or the stratosphere, and the moon is much closer to the earth than the planets to the sun.
    The ionosphere does move slightly because of tides from the Moon and the Sun. That movement of a conductor across the Earth’s magnetic field induces a current, the magnetic effect of which can be measured [very small effect, but was measured 150 years ago] on the ground.

  70. Has anyone thought that maybe the planet orbits and composition is due to the sun. This meaning that when the solar system was formed the sun came first and then the planets, not the other way around. One reason that we have rocky planets near the sun and gaseous far from the sun is during the beginning the sun was extremely active and the flares and CMEs where of much greater magnitude than today. The early activity pushed the gas to the outer part of the solar system leaving only the rocky parts in the inner solar system. So maybe the planets movement is because of the solar cycle and the the reason. That is why the planetary movement goes out of phase and is not a good predictor of solar activity. Its like comparing PDO to the solar cycle, both are decadal in nature and may simply be in phase at this moment. But we need many more PDO oscillations to see if they are related. In short how can the planets be the control if they came last.

  71. Jim Arndt (10:11:28) :
    One reason that we have rocky planets near the sun and gaseous far from the sun is during the beginning the sun was extremely active and the flares and CMEs where of much greater magnitude than today.
    It is because it is hotter closer to the Sun and a planet cannot hold on to its hydrogen gas. But in any event, the gas planets have rocky cores as well. Then and now, solar activity has a minuscule impact compared to the regular heat and light [TSI] from the Sun.

    • Leif,
      Isn’t it true that the early sun had strong CME, Flare and solar wind and this would push the lighter material to the outer solar system. This may have also helped planet formation. Yes they do have rocky cores but Saturn would also float on the ocean.

      • The early Sun did have a much stronger solar wind, but that does not push enough on the lighter material to make a difference. The solar wind travels to the Jupiter in 20 days [or shorter back then with a higher speed]. There was a strong magnetic coupling between the solar wind and that helped brake the Sun’s rotation. The main difference between the planets is much simpler due to the temperature as a function of distance from the Sun.
        If anything, the outer planets may have moved closer to Sun as they lose angular momentum due to drag within the dusty disc that surrounds a young star.

  72. Leif,
    Then why is it that the solar wind is said to have stripped Mars of its atmosphere since it lost its magnetic shield? The gas gas had to go somewhere either back to the sun or out to the outer area.

  73. Leif Svalgaard (08:19:45) :
    What Doppler records [every 172 years] would that be? Reliable Doppler data only goes back to 1976.
    Indeed, but if we did have Doppler records back for 1000’s of years I suspect this discussion would be meaningless as they would show what they are showing right now, faster equatorial rotation speed and longer than usual solar cycle lengths CENTERED every 172 years.
    But I’m quite sure that your intention was not to learn about the polar fields, but to cast doubt on the whole thing instead.
    My intention is to determine if solar pole strength is a driver of the next cycle or merely an artifact of the previous cycle. In the paper you referred, I cannot see any reference to SC19 and cannot determine how SC19’s solar pole strength may have compared with other cycles since then. You have given me a figure from somewhere (170 microTesla) that is higher than today, but that does not give me an overall indication of how SC19 pole strength might have compared with SC20,21,22,23. Your recent prediction for SC24 was done sometime before the SC23 minimum which still may not be here. Measurements taken before cycle minimum would greatly aid the prediction process?
    What we need is an extension of the current WSO solar strength graph back to the start of SC19 which is probably not possible?

    • There may be some confusion when you say cycle 19. Cycle 19 peaked in 1958. The polar fields that created cycle 19 would have been visible in 1952-1954 [and they were and were measured to be about 300 uT = unsigned difference between the two poles]. Cycle 20 peaked in 1969. The polar fields that created cycle 20 would have been visible in 1963-1965 [and they were and were measured to be about 150-170 uT, but with some uncertainty – just below the noise level].
      The various cycles are compared on page 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
      Your recent prediction for SC24 was done sometime before the SC23 minimum which still may not be here. Measurements taken before cycle minimum would greatly aid the prediction process?
      The observations show that the average polar field over the three years prior to minimum is a good predictor. The polar fields do not change much during those years anyway. Minimum between cycles 23 and 24 was passed in the fall of 2008 [F10.7 and cosmic rays both show that], so the polar fields from then and back three years is the number to work with. They predict Rmax = 71. The uncertainty is unknown, but I estimate it to be small [perhaps +/-10].

      • My intention is to determine if solar pole strength is a driver of the next cycle or merely an artifact of the previous cycle.
        That has long been established: the pole strength correlate with [and is the physical basis for] the NEXT cycle.

    • Indeed, but if we did have Doppler records back for 1000’s of years I suspect
      Remember you tried to snow people by saying that “Doppler records show …”. This is quite different from “I suspect this or that…”

      • Wasn’t try to “snow” anyone, but was assuming most people would know Doppler images of the Sun are a recent scientific development, certainly not available during past grand minima.

  74. Leif Svalgaard (18:52:48) :
    The polar fields that created cycle 20 would have been visible in 1963-1965 [and they were and were measured to be about 150-170 uT, but with some uncertainty – just below the noise level].
    This is the weakness, even though SC19 was at record high SSN with initial strong polar strength, there was no way of predicting a weak SC20 using your precursor method unless we wait until just before the cycle begins. A high amplitude cycle still doesn’t deliver a high polar strength just before the next cycle. The method is no doubt very useful but perhaps limited in time frame. I might need to rephrase my article, the polar strength is probably not a late product of the previous cycle, but more under the control of the cycle that is about to start.
    Of course if we look at the angular momentum for that period, SC20 is right on the first disturbance of 3 that are centered every 172 years…making it easy to predict a slowdown, decades before the event.

  75. Leif Svalgaard (18:54:45) :
    That has long been established: the pole strength correlate with [and is the physical basis for] the NEXT cycle.
    Which means if we experience a grand minimum during SC24 this long established theory will be trashed along with many others currently thought to be correct.

  76. Geoff Sharp (00:08:26) :
    I might need to rephrase my article, the polar strength is probably not a late product of the previous cycle, but more under the control of the cycle that is about to start.
    Why is it that simple statements get misunderstand all the time. The polar fields are not under control of the next cycle, it is the other way around: they cause [or control] the next cycle.
    Of course if we look at the angular momentum for that period, SC20 is right on the first disturbance of 3 that are centered every 172 years…making it easy to predict a slowdown, decades before the event.
    this is the purest of nonsense.

  77. Two different approaches:
    Geoff sticks to the data…while Dr. Svalgaard peppers his responses with “against the man” statements like “you tried to snow people” and “the science illiterate on here”.
    Dr. Svalgaard….for all of your brilliance, you weaken your argument when you resort to ad hominems.
    I would appreciate a little more respect shown, as I, as a quote-unquote “science illiterate”, am equally fascinated with the sun and with some of the brightest minds on the planet trying to decipher what is going on.
    Please keep it above the belt, thanks, and keep up the good work!

    • Science is hard and cruel. There is no respect for the man and there shouldn’t be. If the ideas or theories are nonsense, they are just that and should be exposed as such. If arguments are based on untruths [like “Doppler records also shows … every 172 years”] they should be exposed as such. We have gone over the planetary influences pseudo-science so many times, that a detailed repeat of that is hardly necessary. I’m not apologetic about exposing this for what it is. On the contrary, I have at great length invested my time in setting this straight. Geoff does not follow the data. If the data did show what he claims, the case would be clear and there would be no debate. I do not oppose his ideas, I show that they are not physically viable [but he does not understand that – so that argument carries no weight with him], but hopefully others would. Since there is no shifting between orbital and rotational angular momentum [because of an absence of a couple between them], it does not make sense [that is, it is non-sense] to debate the consequences of such shifting.

      • There you go again. Nothing like “real time data” to prove my point. You did not address my request which was to please refrain from ad hominems.
        A scientist as brilliant as yourself surely has the ability to distinguish between addressing what you believe to be faulty data, and downright personal jabs.
        When you confuse the two, you water down YOUR credibility.
        Res ipsa loquiter.
        And now….to lighten things up…here is a little limerick (obnoxious though it may be)…to be read to the meter of Humpty Dumpty.
        MIS-ter Sun
        Had lots of spots.
        MIS-ter Sun
        Lost all his spots.
        And all the kings Hansens and all of Gore’s men
        Froze in a deep deep DEEP MIN-i-mim.

  78. SaveTheSharks (08:40:55) :
    There you go again. Nothing like “real time data” to prove my point. You did not address my request which was to please refrain from ad hominems.
    It is certainly not an ad-hom to point out that somebody’s idea or theory is nonsense. You must make a distinction between the idea and the man.

  79. I have two questions in relation to the Sun’s magnetic (polar) field:
    Mr. Vukcevic you start your chart sometime at beginning of 1967. My question is: is this because you did not have any date before 1967, or maybe because your formula does not fit the data?
    Mr. Svalgaard, I have searched internet for data for time before 1967, the first reference I find is second half 1966. Your reply to Mr. Sharp was:
    “Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.”
    My estimate for minimum was late 1964, early 1965. Since values you quote are very precise, but first reference I could fid is some year and half later , I wonder could you be so kind to provide some of the missing gap, if it is available to you. I would like to plot them against the formula by Mr. Vukcevic, since I do not wish to back a “loosing horse”.
    Thank you.

  80. Radun (13:04:50) :
    Mr. Svalgaard, I have searched internet for data for time before 1967, the first reference I find is second half 1966.
    The exact year is not so important as the polar fields don’t change much for about three year before and at minimum, see: Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
    We have measurements of the polar fields back to 1952, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024%20(Observations).pdf
    The early measurements are uncertain, especially in 1963-1965, where all we know is that the polar fields were below the noise level of the magnetograph, i.e. below 100 uT. From page 12 of the above paper, we can extrapolated back from 1967 assuming that the polar fields scale similarly. From my discussions with A. Severny in the 1970s about his measurements in 1965 he indicated that although the fields were at the noise level, sometimes he could see them, meaning that they were not much below the noise level [noise level estimated at 100 nT].
    The polar fields have an influence [weak, but there] on the magnitude of the interplanetary magnetic field. From the observed values of the IMF we can estimate the polar fields to be around 170 uT [for difference between north and south – 85 uT]. All this is quite uncertain, but one thing is sure, the polar fields were weak.
    Similarly it is certain that the polar fields were very strong in 1954.
    There is not much one can do to dig up data that isn’t there.

    • Leif:
      I see we have another cycle 24 sunspeck showing up today, finally.
      My question is about the ambiguous one a couple of weeks back. How well defined is the solar equator in terms of the magnetic fields? Could a spot be slightly south of the optical equator, and yet be north of the magnetic equator? Or vice-versa?
      Thanks

      • Yes, and spots move around a bit, too. But that close to the equator it could not have been a SC24 spot [or at least very unlikely]. 3% of all spots have ‘wrong’ polarity for the cycle, because of movements of the spots or rotations or the like.

  81. Leif Svalgaard (12:25:19)
    “It is certainly not an ad-hom to point out that somebody’s idea or theory is nonsense. You must make a distinction between the idea and the man.”
    Well at least we can agree in principle to your last sentence. Its just that some of your statements within this blog have been to the contrary.
    As for calling another respected individual’s research “nonsense”…
    Until there is no scientific shadow of a doubt whatsoever that your positions are correct, and you can prove them firsthand (and I don’t think you nor anyone else has the technology to get that close to the sun to demonstrate), then you have no real business calling another scientist’s research “nonsense.”
    You can disagree with the theory.
    Or even say that it is not true.
    Or I suppose it’s a free world and you can be insulting all you like with your tone, citing that “science can be cruel.”
    But you weaken your platform by so doing. Sound advice.
    The scientific method is primarily inductive, and not deductive, and you of all people, know that.
    Back to the subject at hand….
    How ’bout that sunspeck today?

  82. Leif Svalgaard (08:24:36) :
    I do not oppose his ideas, I show that they are not physically viable [but he does not understand that – so that argument carries no weight with him], but hopefully others would. Since there is no shifting between orbital and rotational angular momentum
    De Jager’s paper that you have referred previously, calculates the impact of angular momentum on the Sun using Joses’ numbers, and shows us there IS a measurable effect, however small.
    http://www.leif.org/research/jagerversteegh-20063.pdf
    I am not a mathematician, but would like to check some of his numbers. I note he uses an “average” figure from Jose’s tables and I am not sure if he is using all the planets, as he only mentions Jupiter.
    The “science is not settled” on this matter and we cannot profess to understand all aspects of this area of science.

  83. SaveTheSharks (14:57:06) :
    Well at least we can agree in principle to your last sentence. Its just that some of your statements within this blog have been to the contrary.
    I don’t recall any [except pointing out that some people here are were nasty – they know who they are and even think they should be]. Remind me of one.
    As for calling another respected individual’s research “nonsense”…
    If it violates physical laws, yes. Examples: ‘The Sun is in free fall and feels no forces, so positing that it does is nonsense. The magnetic field from Jupiter influences the Sun at the speed of light across a highly conducting plasma. The reason for the polarity change of sunspots from one cycle to the next is that Saturn is on the other side of the Sun than Jupiter, etc’
    “science can be cruel.”
    Cruel because it often dismisses one’s ‘labor of love’.
    But you weaken your platform by so doing.
    So be it; this is not a popularity contest. I have to go with what I see right.
    The scientific method is primarily inductive, and not deductive, and you of all people, know that.
    Induction guided by reason and existing knowledge.
    Back to the subject at hand….
    How ’bout that sunspeck today?

    A nice SC24 spot showing that things are moving as they should. Other indicators [TSI, F10.7, cosmic rays, IMF] are all showing increasing trends, so the minimum is past and we are likely on the slow climb to a small cycle.
    Geoff Sharp (15:36:20) :
    De Jager’s paper that you have referred previously, calculates the impact of angular momentum on the Sun using Joses’ numbers, and shows us there IS a measurable effect, however small.
    De Jager correctly talks about the orbital acceleration of the Sun around the barycenter [BTW don’t confuse ‘measurable’ with ‘existence’, De Jager’s point is that it is too small to have any effect hat can be measured]. He does not confuse that with the rotational angular momentum. With reference to the above reply to the savethesharks, this is an example of violation of physical law that makes it nonsense. The Sun does not rotate faster or slower because of the orbital acceleration, and was this faster/slower rotation that was supposed to drive/modulate the cycle. And De Jager’s estimate of average is just that not all minima go to the same ‘depth’ on the graph. Perhaps, he should have said ‘typical’ rather than ‘average’. Dealing with Jupiter alone [the biggest planets] or throwing in the others does not make much difference [a factor of 2 or 3 compared to the ~1000 the force falls short].
    The ‘science’ is not settled on this matter
    We do not know for sure what works, but we have a good idea of what will not work.
    we cannot profess to understand all aspects of this area of science.
    perhaps this is also my biggest problem with your work, that you are too sure about it. Talking about that we ‘should face reality’, ‘wake up to the facts’, ‘follow the data’, ‘forecasting decades in advance’, ‘solar physics will not be the same’, ‘you can say all you want, but at the end of the day…’, etc.

  84. SC19 is an interesting area of research. A whole lot of solar activity enough to push beyond 200SSN, but then followed sharply by SC20 with an output half of the previous cycle. The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
    Angular Momentum Theory certainly has an explanation, what does the rest of science have to offer?

  85. Geoff Sharp (19:45:07) :
    The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
    Angular Momentum Theory certainly has an explanation, what does the rest of science have to offer?

    First of all, a low cycle 20 [i.e. also a low pole strength] was one of Dikpati et al.’s strong points: Figure 2 of: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
    The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations on the large total flux during 18 and 19, so science can offer a successful explanation.
    Second, let me take the opportunity to ask you to present the explanation in its entirety right here and now. This does not mean referring to a slew of articles, papers, notes, and postings. Just in simple words explain or outline the mechanism and the physics behind it, what drives what and how and by how much, to the extent it is known or guessed.

  86. Leif:
    Thanks for the confirmation. My real point was that there sould not have been any question that it was a SC. 23 spot due to the equatorial location and in spite of the indicated or confusing polarity. Whoever wrote the Spaceweather report was so bent on ending SC. 23 that the report was unnecessarily biased. Here it is again:
    “A new sunspot [1011] 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. ”
    I argue against “suggests” and “yet”, in spite of polarity confusion. It was either SC. 23 or a figment of the SOHO system’s pixels. What else could it have been?

  87. Geoff Sharp (19:45:07) :
    SC19 is an interesting area of research. […] The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
    The key to this puzzle according to the polar-field-precursor theory [not Dikpati’s] is the realization that the polar fields represent a very small part of the total magnetic flux generated in a cycle, something of the order of 1/1000th. There are about 3000 active regions in a cycle, or perhaps a little less, because active regions are given a new number when they re-appear after half a rotation [if they do], so some are counted twice or more. but let’s go with 3000. The magnetic field in the polar regions corresponds to about 5 of these. It is very easy by chance to get a small number, the 5 could by chance have been 3, or 4, or 6, so chance is a perfectly viable explanation. Now, granted that we don’t really have 5 specific regions going to the pole, it is a bit more complicated than that: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/bigfield.jpg
    This plot shows the evolution of the magnetic field with time [blue being one polarity, and red the other]. You can clearly see that the polar fields are formed from a small number of ‘injections’ of opposite color into the existing polar fields, canceling them out and building reversed polar fields. Look at the ~5 ‘tongues’ of blue drifting into the red and replacing it in the lower right-hand part of the Figure [forming the polar fields of cycle 23-24].

  88. lulo (10:30:17) :
    You must be talking of a course, not of a lecture?
    Your outline sounds good to me, as long as you do not bias them .
    Don’t they ask you for your truth?

  89. Well if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black!!!
    Leif Svalgaard (20:50:08)
    “perhaps this is also my biggest problem with your work, that you are too sure about it. Talking about that we ’should face reality’, ‘wake up to the facts’, ‘follow the data’, ‘forecasting decades in advance’, ’solar physics will not be the same’, ‘you can say all you want, but at the end of the day…’, etc.”

  90. Leif Svalgaard (20:02:53) :
    First of all, a low cycle 20 [i.e. also a low pole strength] was one of Dikpati et al.’s strong points: Figure 2 of: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
    I am a bit surprised you would reference Dikpati. Fig 2 looks to be a model manipulation to emulate the past, which then goes on to predict SC24 50% higher than SC23. Its plainly not credible.
    The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations
    I couldnt see anything on that in Dikpati’s paper, perhaps you could explain that in simple terms.
    Jiang-Choudhuri paper says” Although
    we do not have any direct observational data on the
    nature of the meridional circulation in the lower half of the
    convection zone”
    Plus they also throw in some random process as a controlling factor in the polar strength. Its not good enough substituting a random process for one that is not understood, which is similar to your five “tongues” approach.
    Its very clear that there is lots of guesswork is going on here, and it shows in the sunspot predictions. So is that it, science can only say its a random process that ultimately decides the polar strength?
    If so, I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.

  91. Not an “against the man” at all, Leif! LOL
    On the contrary. Just a mere observation.
    (The psychologist in me would say that you are projecting some frustration).
    You said….about the other party : “perhaps the biggest problem with your work (in reference to Geoff) is that you are too sure about it.
    Seems to be…like I said…to be the proverbial pot….calling the proverbial kettle…the proverbial color.
    You are a scientist, Leif….and a preeminent scientist at that.
    Yet even YOU are not immune to the unknown.
    There is one thing that can be disproved a lot quicker than theories of relationships of rotational or orbital angular momentum to the sun:
    What is that easily disprovable entity??
    Earthbound ILLOGIC.
    Not an ad hominem at all, man.
    Just be a little more relaxed in your tone, and you will garner more respect.
    Anyway…back to SC 24. What about them sunspots!

  92. On being too sure :
    Human beings’ existence depends on being too sure about a number of basic stuff.
    For example I make a definitive statement that I exist.
    Also that the keyboard exists.
    That the people I am talking with on this blog exist.
    a small part of etc. etc.
    One could argue that these are beliefs, and that maybe I am a figment of your imagination, or you are a figment of mine, but this is no longer the game of chess we are setup to play. It is off the board floating around, so I stick to the above sureties.
    This is level one of sureties.
    Now there are sureties that come from long time observations of data correlations:
    The sun will rise tomorow.
    What goes up will come down.
    Spring follows winter. etc etc.
    That is level two.
    Level three is the scientific one:
    These correlations have led to what we now call science, which is based on observations as above but has developed sureties that rest on mathematics and theories in general.
    One surety for scientists is conservation laws and the beautiful way of getting equations that describe level two from varying Action.
    Another is the laws of thermodynamics.
    Another is special relativity.
    Another is quantum mechanics.
    etc. etc.
    a forth level is research open, on all the previous levels.
    Now when somebody comes and skips level three, sureties of science, and goes to level 4, there is an obvious dissonance with scientifically trained people.
    I had an uncle who died sure that the next contraption with fly wheels and bicycle wheels would give him a perpetual motion machine. After I got my degree in physics he called me to come and discuss it with me. It was impossible to make him understand conservation laws.
    That is the problem with people who jump level three and go from level two to level four with new and contradicting-level-three sureties when they are discussing with scientists.
    I cannot discuss coherently with someone who does not understand conservation of angular momentum and how it works. I admire Leif’s patience.
    It is quite possible, it has happened in the past, that what level three based scientists rejected as impossible, has come to expand level three understanding and thus enriching science. Small steps are not very rare, it is large revolutionary steps in understanding that take time to sink in. The crux is that the people that make these breakthroughs are well grounded in level three science and basic sureties.

  93. SaveTheSharks (22:41:36) :
    (The psychologist in me would say that you are projecting some frustration).
    If that were the case would I have responded to hundreds of posts on this?
    Just be a little more relaxed in your tone, and you will garner more respect.
    I’m not fishing for respect.

  94. Geoff Sharp (22:15:40) :
    I am a bit surprised you would reference Dikpati. Fig 2 looks to be a model manipulation to emulate the past, which then goes on to predict SC24 50% higher than SC23. Its plainly not credible.
    The way Fig.2 is made is to compute starting with cycle 12-14 what the next cycle [15] should be and plot that one, then from 13-15 compute the next cycle [16] and plot that one, and so on. Each red cycle after 14 is thus a prediction [not an emulation]. Cycle 20 was predicted correctly from 17-19 [most of the effect comes from 18 and 19]. This is very credible. We’ll see below why it fails for 24.
    “The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations”
    I couldnt see anything on that in Dikpati’s paper, perhaps you could explain that in simple terms.

    The details and the equation are given as a reference to an earlier paper. A simplified description can be found here: http://gong.nso.edu/science/meetings/lohco/lohco_3/Wednesday/dikpati/dikpati_helio06.ppt
    The math may be beyond most people, but the physics is rather simple: magnetic fields are carried along with the plasma flow and are twisted and stretched; a changing magnetic field induces electric current that in turn produce more magnetic fields that react back on the flow and the field. The effect of this can be calculated by solving numerically a set of differential equations [which are just fancy words for a simple scheme of changing one thing a tiny bit and seeing how that pushes another thing (including the first thing) around, then repeating]. The result is a number that gives the new magnetic flux and this number is calibrated to match the sunspot number using the first few cycles [which are then predicted but used for calibration].
    Jiang-Choudhuri paper says” Although we do not have any direct observational data on the nature of the meridional circulation in the lower half of the convection zone”
    The point is that we don’t need it so much because of conservation of mass: we know that what circulates along the surface must be matched by a similar circulation at depth; its speed governed by the density. If the density down there is ten times that near the surface, the flow will be ten times slower.
    Plus they also throw in some random process as a controlling factor in the polar strength. Its not good enough substituting a random process for one that is not understood, which is similar to your five “tongues” approach.
    the five tongues are observational facts and the random walk of the magnetic field is directly observed and has been studied for years. ‘Random’ is a very fitting description. And scientists just don’t ‘throw in this or that’. Everything is carefully weighed and fitted into what we know.
    science can only say its a random process that ultimately decides the polar strength?
    This is what we directly observe.
    If so, I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.
    Is this your description of your theory that will ‘change the face of solar physics’?

  95. Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp?
    If you can not….then….
    You can not readily define these “levels” of which you speak….especially the ones involving “quantum mechanics” (that probably belong on level “five”).
    Regardless, to get back to basics…if you look at the thread….I was addressing the “against the man” comments here by Leif.
    No one of thoughtful intelligence and heart cares to be referred to as the “Science Illiterate” as he calls them.
    That was the original point of contention.
    Logic should rule the day. And your admiration of the patience of whoever or whatever…is all non-relevant.
    Why? Because neither you nor any other solar scientist can really admit they know what is going on.
    Time will tell.
    Back to the subject at hand….
    How ’bout that sunspeck?

  96. Leif Svalgaard (23:36:09) :
    We’ll see below why it fails for 24.
    Forgot about that little detail. There are several reasons for failure, one is an assumption of too low a diffusion coefficient. What this means [as described by Jiang] is simply how easy or hard it is for magnetic fields to sink into the Sun. Dikpati’s assumption leads to too slow a circulation. We can get a measure of how long time the field is on its way [and being amplified] from the observed correlation between the polar fields and the size of the next cycle. This correlation is good, telling us that the time is of the order of 5 years, not 20 years as in Dikpati’s scheme. Another is an out-of-date value for the speed of the meridional circulation. They did not update their model with data after ca. 2000.

  97. and a small correction: “using the first few cycles [which are then NOT predicted but used for calibration]”.
    Contrast the level of detail in the last few of my posts with your description of your ‘theory’: “I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.”

  98. SaveTheSharks (23:43:26) :
    Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp?
    There is such a thing as ‘not even wrong’ [google it]
    No one of thoughtful intelligence and heart cares to be referred to as the “Science Illiterate” as he calls them.
    There are lots of people of thoughtful intelligence and with a caring heart that are simply illiterate, and even more that are science illiterate. As an example of the latter, take the 46% [or some such number] of Americans that believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
    Why? Because neither you nor any other solar scientist can really admit they know what is going on.
    Easy, I’ll admit that I know what is going on.
    How ’bout that sunspeck?
    What specifically do you want to know?

  99. Leif Svalgaard (23:36:09) :
    Is this your description of your theory that will ‘change the face of solar physics’?
    Actually got a laugh on that one, but time will tell.
    So nothing much has changed…we have a random number generator determining the next cycle. Its not a strong case, and I suspect even you know that it wouldnt take much to overturn that theory, its just a matter of time before that happens. How can you look at the 11000 yr solar proxy records and attribute the output to random number?, there is a curve or wave going on which defies randomness. You dont have to be Dr. to see that.
    If we look at that 11000 yr record its made up of lots of peaks and troughs and a power curve. The peaks and troughs and power curve line up with the angular momentum graph. All of the solar downturns except one line up with N/U conjunctions every 172 yrs avg for 6000 yrs so far. My work needs to go further, and would do so if I can get some background data on the 11000 yr14C graph, I have emailed Usoskin, but no reply yet.
    So why do we see this fairly mind blowing correlation, I speculate that Angular Momentum disturbance that occurs on these troughs and recent grand minima changes the rotation rate of the Sun. This has been observed during past grand minima and is observed right now via Dr. Howe’s Doppler diagrams. The first phase of what we are experiencing now, changed the rotation rate just before SC20, this also lines up perfectly with the disturbance on Carl’s graph. If I have the causation wrong, there is still an almighty correlation that needs to be answered.
    I dont expect you to understand it all…its been hard in the past, but I suspect others will follow and hopefully backup the theory, using more robust scientific methods.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/

  100. Haha….THERE YOU GO AGAIN.
    Blogs are a little dispersonal (yes I invented that word). Would rather talk you you in real life.
    Your “Illiterate” or “Science Illiterate” allusions are meaningless. There is NO one that I know that believes the world is 6,000 years old.
    NO ONE. Not even my Mom.
    Again….to sing the same ole’ tune from the beginning:
    1) You can only disprove that which you scientifically back with 100% provable data against the disprovable.
    2) Your assertion about the scientifically illiterate or just the plain ole’ illiterate has NO BEARING on whatever is true and false. In other words…all of those HICKS can believe what they want to believe…but that does not change the truth.
    The TRUTH is what it is and it speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquiter.
    3) You really have avoided my original assertion that you should refrain from “against the man” arguments.
    You asked me to name one of YOUR against the man arguments:
    It is what you have repeated in the foregoing: The “Science Illiterate” and the “Illiterate.”
    Again LEIF I would caution you….(and I have not changed my tune from the beginning):
    Change your tone and you make your argument stronger!
    All of this effort in refuting my assertions. Why all the effort?? If you are 100% right, then why do you feel the need to respond??
    The psychologist in me would say that you are projecting something…

  101. SaveTheSharks (00:37:25) :
    All of this effort in refuting my assertions. Why all the effort?? If you are 100% right, then why do you feel the need to respond??
    Doesn’t this work both ways?

  102. SaveTheSharks (00:37:25) :
    There is NO one that I know that believes the world is 6,000 years old. NO ONE. Not even my Mom.
    Although this could be technically correct, there are 387,000,000 web pages that refer to the ‘young earth’:
    [Google: Results 1 – 10 of about 387,000,000 for ‘young earth’.]
    Read some of them, they are actually fun [in a sad way] and they show an astounding level of science illiteracy by all these people with thoughtful intelligence and caring hearts.

  103. SaveTheSharks (23:43:26) :
    Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp? .
    I will tell you a story of Hodja:
    Hodja is a wisejudge/fool in the anatolian tradition in Turkey, depending on the story.
    Hodja is sitting on the limb of a tree and merrily sawing away at it. He is sitting facing the trunk.
    A villager passes and says : Hodja, what are you doing? You will fall down and break your neck.
    Hodja payed no attention and kept sawing. Sure enough the branch with his weight on broke and he fell fortunately not killing himself. He hurried to find the villager.
    ” You must be a prophet” he said, ” please tell me, when am I going to die?”
    The disproof you seek is based on violating conservation laws, angular momentum and energy off hand. I do not need to be a prophet or a solar scientist to disprove theories that violate conservation laws.
    On the other hand I can easily be metaphysical, and think of a number of metaphysical theories to explain spurious correlations. God playing dice, for example, can make saturn what not correlations correlate with sun spots.
    This is an extreme metaphysics. I can call on dark matter and postulate what not effects that would conserve the energy and angular momentum missing in the “theories”. But I know very well the limits between known science, speculations and metaphysics.

  104. Dr. Leif Svalgaard
    Apologies for addressing you previously as Mr. Svalgaard.
    I shall assume that there is no reliable stream of data prior 1966.5, which I was hoping for.
    In your paper
    http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024%20(Observations).pdf
    page 12, the graph starts at 1967, I take account about of noise and unreliability before 1970. I am not happy about averaging before 1967.5. The SSN in 1970 (110) was reaching the later peak of the cycle (130), fields were expected to be weak, however your conclusion that fields would be low 5 years earlier (1965) seems to me to be not entirely good. This makes me even more surprised about strength of your statement to Mr. Sharp:
    “Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.”
    This is an estimate not an actual result of a reliable measurements,
    Therefore, I reserve my judgment on the matter (as do number of solar scientists, Dr. Hathaway for one)
    I had no reply from Mr. Vukcevic, going back through his posts; it appears that he has gone away, so I hope he may eventually put his side of story. I am not convinced at all by his ‘theories’, I do believe that he needs a help of an experienced solar scientist.
    That is not say that his formula has no merit, I think it has a great deal, since correlation is so close (very rare for such two different natural events to be a coincidence).
    I am a bit surprised that for your work based on 3-4 measurements at solar minima you state:
    “This correlation is good, telling us that the time is of the order of 5 years, not 20 years as in Dikpati’s scheme.” but you deride the formula by Mr. Vukcevic, based on a long stream of data, which in anyone’s eyes has far superior correlation.
    It is interesting (going through the work of Mr. Vukcevic) that his formula for cycle anomalies
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    accurately locates all of the odd cycles (including SC20) as well as number of extended minima, based on the multiples of the numbers he uses in his polar fields formula.
    I here conclude:
    It is far too early to despatch formula
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
    by Mr. Vukcevic to ‘garbage bin’. I do recommend that a more serious attention should be devoted to find exactly what is behind it.

  105. (very rare for such two different natural events to be a coincidence).
    Diameters of Sun and Moon as seen from Earth??

  106. “Extreme metaphysics??”
    Neither Lief nor Anna can produce smoking gun evidence which 100% dismisses the Landscheidt theories.
    And until they find that smoking gun, they are violating the spirit of the scientific method by dismissing that which they can not disprove.
    The Landscheit work is a THEORY thats all….a theory with some pretty strong correlations.
    I would say….For all of the brilliance in the both of you, don’t let that crowd out the ability to be reasonable. Thanks.
    Question: If this current spot falls apart, how long of a period of time will elapse before, do you think, the next one appears?

  107. Radun (03:25:06) :
    The SSN in 1970 (110) was reaching the later peak of the cycle (130), fields were expected to be weak, however your conclusion that fields would be low 5 years earlier (1965) seems to me to be not entirely good.The highest yearly average for cycle 20 was 105.9 for 1968. We don’t ordinarily hunt for the highest single daily value [which was over 200 for that cycle], or even monthly value.
    “Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole”
    This is an estimate not an actual result of a reliable measurements

    It is a good estimate [based on several measures]. Direct measurements by Severny at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory shows that the value was less than 100 uT, but not much less. There comes a time to pay attention to the best estimates by solar physicists who have spent their lives studying these things and building instruments to try and measure them.
    since correlation is so close (very rare for such two different natural events to be a coincidence).
    Neither you nor him seems to understand the concept of data conservation’ or ‘autocorrelation’. The many data points are not independent and the number of degrees of freedom [which determines the statistical significance] is very low [in fact, of the order of four]. What this means is that given almost any one of the data points [e.g. the maximum value, or halfway up the curve, or …] in a cycle essentially allows me to construct the rest of the curve for that cycle, and with only four cycles…
    I do recommend that a more serious attention should be devoted to find exactly what is behind it.
    I don’t think you will find any takers. This would not prevent anybody from having fun with the numbers, but science it ain’t.

  108. Radun (03:25:06) :
    “What this means is that given almost any one of the data points [e.g. the maximum value, or halfway up the curve, or …] in a cycle essentially allows me to construct the rest of the curve for that cycle, and with only four cycles…”
    To illustrate this in a simply way, lets take each cycle [from max to max] and divide the individual data points [every ten days] by the single number of sunspots at maximum [Rmax] for the next cycle [which the polar fields are supposed to be a predictor of]. This is what you get:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields%20Normalized%20to%20Next%20Cycle.pdf
    The thin light blue curve is just the average of all the dark-blue ones. It carries almost no information, just goes up and down. Dividing the actual data by Rmax makes all the cycles very alike, showing that I can construct the whole real curve [to very good approximation] by simply multiplying the average curve by four numbers [one for each cycle]. That is the number of degrees of freedom. Now one might ask, how about the average curve? doesn’t that have extra information that can be extracted from Vuc’s formula? Unfortunately not, as the formula predicts a much more symmetrical curve, while the average curve is markedly asymmetric, rising slower than falling.

  109. anna v (01:03:34) : RE:SaveTheSharks (23:43:26) :
    “Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp? .”
    The disproof you seek is based on violating conservation laws, … and think of a number of metaphysical theories to explain spurious correlations.

    Not that Mr. SaveTheSharks is correct but I am curious: how does one differentiate between spurious and non-spurious correlation without testing? Many seemingly spurious correlations are actually the result of hidden causes. A famous example is the correlation between preacher’s salaries and the price of rum. The hidden cause: inflation. “Spurious” means “no known cause.” Claiming spuriousness without proving spuriousness is hand waving. If the correlation truly IS spurious it will disappear upon expansion of the dataset.
    I am also puzzled how any correlation can violate conservation laws. A proffered explanation may but how can the observation itself?

  110. DAV (09:31:04) :
    I am also puzzled how any correlation can violate conservation laws. A proffered explanation may but how can the observation itself?
    A correlation without causation is useless. If there is nothing that causes the correlation, then it has no predictive power; and a causation can violate physical laws; and as I pointed out, the correlation has only four degrees of freedom so is likely spurious UNLESS it is a confirmation of a physical cause. A case in point is my prediction of the sunspot number based on the idea that the polar field is a seed for and determines the next cycle. IF this is correct, then only ONE data point is needed [for calibration or conversion between field and sunspot number; that number is 0.63 for polar field [abs(North-South)] is microTesla]. So, my prediction is not based on the strength of a correlation but on a physical theory.
    If the correlation truly IS spurious it will disappear upon expansion of the dataset.
    One problem with this is that the formula on the graph http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif is incomplete and does not compute the red curve as shown. I have tried to fix the formula by inserting what I think are the missing parentheses. I interpret it as Y = -152*[ COS(2π/3+2π(t-1937.5)/(2*11.862)) + COS(2π(t-1937.5)/19.859) ]. However this formula does not give the red curve either. Perhaps some reader could suggest what the formula should be. Once we have the correct formula, we can extend it back in time. There are good indications that the polar fields in 1965 were 170 uT and in 1954 300 nT [with some uncertainty, of course, as always in science]

  111. DAV (09:31:04) :
    A correlation in science is not spurious if it can be demonstrated with physics arguments, i.e. solutions of differential equations that apply to the problem, that it is a solution.
    If you take a time sequence of waves in the atlantic ocean, and one of the pacific ocean, you will easily find correlations in the two series of peaks and troughs, if you look carefully enough. These are spurious because entirely different forces act on the two bodies, and no physics equation can connect them. It is relatively easy to find correlations between time series with a sinusoidal type of expression.
    It is self evident that the trajectories of the planets are real time solutions of the complicated systems of many coupled differential equations which control the positions of the planets. These can be seen as peaks and troughs, depending on the coordinate system.
    I am also puzzled how any correlation can violate conservation laws. A proffered explanation may but how can the observation itself?
    It is the explanation, not the observation that violates conservation laws,
    The violation of the conservation laws comes from the models that want a causative correlation between the planetary positions and the behavior of the sun cycles .
    There is not enough energy ( gravitational, as this is the only available energy to the solar system with enough strength) transfered to be able to affect the rotational angular momentum of the sun ( rotating about its axis). The tiny tides generated by the planets on the sun are a fly on the back of an elephant. As there is no such demonstrable interaction, any correlation is spurious. If you say it is not spurious you violate energy and angular momentum conservation laws.
    It is for the people that propose models to give the physics backing of the model. At the moment the planetary influence models are science fiction as far as known forces go.

  112. A question or two for Leif or the other good scientists out there:
    Do you believe there is a link (however small) between the very low solar activity and sunspot dearth as of late, to the relative strength of that monster magnetar pulse that “shockwaved” across Earth’s magnetosphere on 21 January?
    I am sure you all have seen this many times from the NASA website, but I w can watch it again and again as it is spectacular!

    Switching a little bit to meteorology: At about the same time of that blast, a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event that had begun a few days earlier over the North Pole…all of the sudden seemed to amplify…and became one of the greatest events of its kind since records have been kept.
    So the second part of the question is this: Could such a large pulse of energy be (at least partially) the cause of such an epic SSW event?
    It is really puzzling, too, when you look at the animation from the CPC site showing the temperature changes at the 10mb level, it shows that SSW event has passed and that indeed significant cooling is occurring.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
    But when you look at the vertical cross section of the polar vortex, you get this:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
    This chart when combined with the 10mb video above, do not jive at all. As a matter of fact….the amount of RED since January 21 from about the 200 mb level on up, is rather unsettling.
    Anyone have an answer to that?
    And then back to my earlier question, in recap:
    Does…current low solar activity >
    sun’s defenses down to a degree >
    allow magnetar pulses to sweep across the solar system @ a stronger rate > affecting the earth’s upper atmosphere to a greater degree >
    and perhaps affecting weather on earth (such as this past epic SSW event)??
    Thanks.
    Chris
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA

  113. Dr. Leif Svalgaard
    Before I embarked on commenting on formula by Mr. Vukcevic, I have done some plotting of my own. I used data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory
    http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
    (the last column with Avgf from the first entry in 1976 to the most recent).
    Converted dates into decimal values
    And used following MS Excel entry
    = -76*(COS(2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/23.724)) (directly copied from the spread sheet).
    where B40 is my starting entry for the first date in 1976.
    It could be that Mr. Vukcevic quoted p-p amplitude of -152 (instead of the correct value of -76). I have obtained correlation of 0.97, exactly what Mr. Vukcevic quoted from 1980.
    This is the point where I decided his formula and the correlation obtained should not be rejected. Further, he may have a lousy theory, but has good astronomical values, which I trust (at this point in time) far more than I am prepared to trust some hypothetical assumptions of random drifting, sinking and re-floating of dead sunspots etc!!.
    Dr. Svalgaard, if you are scientist as you are recognized to be, you should look into his correlation with far more open mind, or even try to find a reason behind it, even if you have to question some of yours preconceived ideas.

  114. Leif Svalgaard (10:37:55) : A correlation without causation is useless. If there is nothing that causes the correlation, then it has no predictive power; and a causation can violate physical laws; and as I pointed out, the correlation has only four degrees of freedom so is likely spurious UNLESS it is a confirmation of a physical cause. A case in point is my prediction of the sunspot number based on the idea that the polar field is a seed for and determines the next cycle. …
    I disagree. A correlation is an observation. Now, I agree if someone is using the correlation as an assist in corroborating an hypothesis that is a different matter. Beyond that, it is a curious connection that indicates an opportunity for possible research.
    What I meant by “If the correlation truly IS spurious it will disappear ” is that a better definition for “spurious” is “coincidental” (I started to say that before but it came out a bit garbled. I need to fire my editor 😉 ). If the cause is coincidence, it will, more often than not, cease to be significant after more data collection and prove false. OTOH, if it continues, it is a head-scratcher begging for explanation (which may still include coincidence).

  115. Radun (12:51:10) :
    And used following MS Excel entry
    = -76*(COS(2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/23.724)) (directly copied from the spread sheet).
    where B40 is my starting entry for the first date in 1976.
    It could be that Mr. Vukcevic quoted p-p amplitude of -152 (instead of the correct value of -76).

    I think that your formula as stated above is also not reproducing the red curve. I get some thing closer with = -76*(COS(2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(B40-1937.2)/23.724)). Note the ‘2*’ in 2*PI()/3 that Vuk also has. Can you check this?

  116. DAV (14:06:22) :
    If the cause is coincidence, it will, more often than not, cease to be significant after more data collection and prove false. OTOH, if it continues, it is a head-scratcher begging for explanation (which may still include coincidence).
    Agree…initially my tests for 172yr match up only went back to around 1200AD. After further research and nearly 6000 yrs of testing the correlation is still there. There is a point in time when the correlation might over rule the need for causation.

  117. DAV (14:06:22) :
    “A correlation without causation is useless. If there is nothing that causes the correlation, then it has no predictive power…”
    I disagree. A correlation is an observation.

    I can construct a Lagrange Polynomial that matches any data set exactly and has perfect correlation. It will have no predictive power [they usually blow up very quickly outside of the given data points]. Only if I assume that there is a physical reality behind the correlation and that reality is also valid outside of the data does the correlation have use, so it all comes down to the cause in the end and to the assumption that the same cause works outside of the time covered by the data. The assumed physical reality behind Vuk’s formula is that Jupiter and Conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn control the solar cycle.
    Now, there is, as you realized, a simple test: does the correlation hold up outside of the interval over which it is defined. We don’t know about the future, but we can extend the correlation into the past, where we do have knowledge. I’m trying to do this, but the formula given by Vuk on the graph is garbled. The formula that Radun posted doesn’t give Vuk’s curve either as far as I can see, so we have to resolve this first, before we go ga-ga over faulty formulae.

  118. Radun (12:51:10) :
    than I am prepared to trust some hypothetical assumptions of random drifting, sinking and re-floating of dead sunspots etc!!.
    Unfortunately, that is how the Sun works. It is a messy place.
    Dr. Svalgaard, if you are scientist as you are recognized to be, you should look into his correlation with far more open mind, or even try to find a reason behind it, even if you have to question some of yours preconceived ideas.
    If the correlation was good and significant [like for 10 cycles or more], I might have done that, but since it isn’t, it is not worth a serious effort [the few hours spent on it here is but a minor waste]. And it has nothing to do with open mind and preconceived ideas, but more with the chances of it working, which I judge to be somewhere between negligible and non-existent, because the alleged ‘physics’ is nonsense. If there were even a 1% chance of there being something there, I would jump on with gusto, but alas… This is a choice that a scientist faces every day: what to work on? where to go?

  119. Radun (12:51:10) :
    If my prediction of SC24 bears out [and it does look pretty good now], then you can compute the polar fields [PF in uT] from the size [Rmax] of any following cycle like this: abs(2*PF) = Rmax/0.63. That gives very many more cycles against which to test Vuk’s formula. Too bad it is so garbled that I can’t use it. Were you so lucky as to figure out how to fix it? The formula you gave doesn’t work [reproduce the curve] either unless I’m mistaken.

  120. Leif Svalgaard (16:13:57) :
    And it has nothing to do with open mind and preconceived ideas, but more with the chances of it working, which I judge to be somewhere between negligible and non-existent, because the alleged ‘physics’ is nonsense. If there were even a 1% chance of there being something there, I would jump on with gusto, but alas… This is a choice that a scientist faces every day: what to work on? where to go?
    I second that. I might even put on my thinking cap and start playing with dark matter models. After all it was postulated because of conservations laws in the galaxies trajectories.
    If you manage to find a high long time correlation

  121. And I repeat…
    Somebody have some answers here? This is related to this thread (or “threadificiation” to use a GW Bush term)
    A question or two for Leif or the other good scientists out there:
    Do you believe there is a link (however small) between the very low solar activity and sunspot dearth as of late, to the relative strength of that monster magnetar pulse that “shockwaved” across Earth’s magnetosphere on 21 January?
    I am sure you all have seen this many times from the NASA website, but I w can watch it again and again as it is spectacular!

    Switching a little bit to meteorology: At about the same time of that blast, a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event that had begun a few days earlier over the North Pole…all of the sudden seemed to amplify…and became one of the greatest events of its kind since records have been kept.
    So the second part of the question is this: Could such a large pulse of energy be (at least partially) the cause of such an epic SSW event?
    It is really puzzling, too, when you look at the animation from the CPC site showing the temperature changes at the 10mb level, it shows that SSW event has passed and that indeed significant cooling is occurring.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
    But when you look at the vertical cross section of the polar vortex, you get this:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
    This chart when combined with the 10mb video above, do not jive at all. As a matter of fact….the amount of RED since January 21 from about the 200 mb level on up, is rather unsettling.
    Anyone have an answer to that?
    And then back to my earlier question, in recap:
    Does…current low solar activity >
    sun’s defenses down to a degree >
    allow magnetar pulses to sweep across the solar system @ a stronger rate > affecting the earth’s upper atmosphere to a greater degree >
    and perhaps affecting weather on earth (such as this past epic SSW event)??
    Thanks.
    Chris
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA

  122. savethesharks (22:52:03) :
    i>Do you believe there is a link (however small) between the very low solar activity and sunspot dearth as of late, to the relative strength of that monster magnetar pulse that “shockwaved” across Earth’s magnetosphere on 21 January?
    No, what would that be? BTW, I have no idea that the shock wave was real. Looks like an artifact to me. But educate me, please.
    So the second part of the question is this: Could such a large pulse of energy be (at least partially) the cause of such an epic SSW event?
    I don’t think so. “Energy” is much too vague here. Real Energy always has a form [as opposed to Potential Energy]. What form was the energy of the event.
    Anyone have an answer to that?
    What is the question? apart from a collection of events…
    And then back to my earlier question, in recap:
    Does…current low solar activity, sun’s defenses down to a degree, allow magnetar pulses to sweep across the solar system @ a stronger rate, affecting the earth’s upper atmosphere to a greater degree, and perhaps affecting weather on earth (such as this past epic SSW event)??
    Again, what kind of ‘pulse’? If electromagnetic [and what else] then solar activity has nothing to do with it.
    I guess that I have not heard about this event before and know nothing of it, so my comments can only be of a general nature. I know of magnetar events in the past that created ionization in the ionosphere, but 21 Jan. ? never heard about it. Tell me.

  123. Geoff Sharp (00:35:27) :
    If we look at that 11000 yr record its made up of lots of peaks and troughs and a power curve. The peaks and troughs and power curve line up with the angular momentum graph. All of the solar downturns except one line up with N/U conjunctions every 172 yrs avg for 6000 yrs so far. My work needs to go further, and would do so if I can get some background data on the 11000 yr14C graph, I have emailed Usoskin, but no reply yet.
    I have tracked down the 11000 data (Solanki), so I can make a start….surprised someone in the know didnt inform me, wasnt hard to find in the end.

  124. Leif,
    Take a few minutes to view the links below.
    That video (really a simulation) appeared on the NASA website….and now you can see in on YouTube.
    Here is a link you may have not seen:
    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
    So again that simluation:

    At the same time (even though this animation showing the onset of the SSW antedates the supposed event Jan 21, something caused the SSW to amplify around around that same time:
    (Unfortunately the following animation only backdates to 30 days so we are past January 21st…but one can see the SSW at its peak. And it shows now
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
    WHAT DOES NOT JIVE is from the same CPC site is a HUGE warm deviation from normal from the 200mb levels on up in the northern hemisphere over the pole which began exactly at the time of the “blast” and continues until this day….only recently showing signs of cooling returning.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
    Here is another different recording of whatever it was (gamma ray burst?) that came from that magnetar at around the same time. Listen to the recording.
    http://maestro.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi?date=20090121&Bx=on
    QUESTION 1: Did this pulse or blast or whatever it is have a direct impact on at least AMPLIFYING the HISTORIC SSW event that just occurred?
    QUESTION 2: During times of extraordinarily low solar activity, does the Earth become more vulnerable to cosmic bombardments like the one? Or is it all just a coincidence?
    QUESTION 3: Some scientists have linked the huge gamma ray blast of 1998 to the Super El Nino that occurred during the same. Does the sun’s huge magnetosphere help protect the solar system (and thus Earth) from outside cosmic bombardment? And currently, are the shields of the “Death Star” down (a little Star Wars allusion) with the sleeping sun?
    Some scientists have correlated the huge gamma ray blast that occurred in 1998
    Anybody want to take a stab at this??

  125. savethesharks (09:47:25) :
    Here is another different recording of whatever it was (gamma ray burst?) that came from that magnetar at around the same time. Listen to the recording.
    What magnetar?
    At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.

  126. savethesharks (09:47:25) :
    Take a few minutes to view the links below.
    The video shows the blast to come straight from the Sun [to the left] and hit the Earth head on. That would place the magnetar behind the Sun, and no rays would reach us. The ‘blast’ should have come from the direction of the part of the sky where the source was, and most likely hits us from the side rather than precisely from where the Sun was.

  127. Lief said: At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.
    HUH?
    What you say here runs contrary to readily available knowledge about the protective role of the magnetosphere. And I don’t personally know your Uncle Ernie…
    “The magnetosphere, which protects the Earth from the effects of solar wind. The sun, in reality much further away, is to the left of the figure. It constantly emits a flow of particles, the solar wind, which runs into the Earth’s magnetic field. The geometry of the very structurally complex magnetosphere is altered by major solar flares. In certain cases, the magnetic field of the solar wind combines with that of the magnetosphere at point 1. The Earth’s magnetic field is then disturbed and particles stored in the plasma layer create the aurora borealis and australis. Whatever the circumstances, with the opening of the earth’s magnetic field at the poles, the ionised particles, whether produced by solar flares or GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION, penetrate more easily at higher altitudes.”
    …From Pour La Science, June 2001
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136462,00.html
    http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/contenu_rayonnement.html
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3866
    And many others…..

  128. savethesharks (15:47:16) :
    Leif said: “At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.”
    HUH?
    The solar wind is a steam of charged particles. Gamma rays are just [very] shortwave light. Does the magnetosphere protect us from sunlight? or moonlight? or starlight? or magnetar light?

  129. savethesharks (15:47:16) :
    Leif said: “At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.”
    HUH?

    The solar wind is a steam of charged particles. Gamma rays are just [very] shortwave light. Does the magnetosphere protect us from sunlight? or moonlight? or starlight? or magnetar light?

  130. savethesharks (15:47:16) :
    HUH?
    GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION

    The cosmic radiation is a misnomer stemming back to 1912 when it was discovered. People then didn’t know that it is not radiation at all, but particles.

  131. This is actually getting fun…
    Hey Leif,
    Are you always this cantakerous…or does the snoozing sun got ya down?

  132. savethesharks (20:55:30) :
    And this article….
    Mow for the so many a times: the gamma rays are not charged particles that can be stopped by the Sun’s or the Earth’s magnetic field, and the cosmic rays are not radiation, but charged particles, and do not come from magnetars.

  133. savethesharks (20:55:30) :
    There is a proverb in modern greek:
    ” come granddad, let me show you which are your vineyards” .
    It is not shameful not to be educated in matters scientific, not even if it is in matters in other fields than the one has studied and worked in.
    What is dubious is to assume the mantle of “know all” and try to invent the wheel.
    The fact that electromagnetic radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, shortwave and longwave radiation and visible light are not affected in their passage through a magnetic field in the way charged particles are is a scientific trivia truth. Almost on par with conservation laws. Include in the list neutral non electromagnetic cosmic input like neutrinos and neutrons. Magnetic fields affect only the charged component of “cosmic rays”.

  134. Well I am glad you you are the authority on that given that there is a plethora of scientific convention that says to the contrary.
    Please demonstrate….without a shadow of a doubt…your foregoing outrageous cut-and-dry assumptions.
    {ANYBODY WATCHING THIS???]
    So then…what are gamma ray bursts? Are you saying they are science fiction?
    Your deductive style is very continually distasteful and (pardon me for quoting myself again and again): it weakens your platform.
    Let’s go a step further: It weakens your research.
    Reply: I don’t know who were talking to, but I suggest you adjust your style to a more constructive style of discourse or you posts will either be edited or deleted ~ charles the moderator

  135. savethesharks (22:28:58) :
    So then…what are gamma ray bursts?
    A gamma ray burst is a strong, sudden [that is what a burst is] influx of gamma rays. Gamma rays are very short wave light, are not charged particles, and are not influenced or stopped or deflected by magnetic fields [from the Sun, the Earth, or any other source].

  136. savethesharks (23:07:24) :
    So what was it that occurred Jan 21?
    Many things occurred on Jan 21 [my neighbor’s car had a flat tire]. People like to make things out of coincidences. Write up your ideas and submit them for publication somewhere, so they are not lost for posterity.

  137. “Many things occurred on Jan 21 [my neighbor’s car had a flat tire]’
    Don’t you dare leave us now, Lief.
    Your commonsense, rationality, logic and humor add a vital balance to some of the more “interesting” theories on this blog.

  138. savethesharks (22:28:58) :
    Here is an educational outlet if you are interested in what type of particles exist and how they interact with each other, what type of fields exist and how they interact with particles. This is supporting material for teachers in high school.
    http://education.web.cern.ch/education/Chapter2/Teaching/PP.html
    I can see where the confusion comes from. in
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/cosmic_rays.html
    they define cosmic rays as always charged.
    In my time with cosmic rays, back in the 1960s we called anything that hit the spark chamber from the cosmos, a cosmic ray.
    Whereas here, they call them gamma cosmic rays
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/history_gamma.html
    and the “cosmic” epithet confuses.
    If you want something definitive about electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with fields you have to take an electromagnetism course.

  139. Thanks, Anna. Will check those out.
    Anyone care to address directly these two events below, as to what caused the first one,

    And it came from this site:
    http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
    And is there is any possible causation that the above event amplified the epic Sudden Stratospheric Warming as shown on this chart? The amount of red is unsettling….though it is finally, after over a month, of extreme deviations above normal, is finally showing signs of cooling.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
    Or is this feature malfunctioning? I have tried to get an answer from CPC so far but to no avail.
    The 10mb animation began to show cooling weeks ago.
    What gives and why the lag?
    And does the extraordinarily low solar activity subject Earth to more “bombardment” of particles and whatever this thing was?
    The above correlations, though if they at all verify, at least in part….are at least worth pondering.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

Comments are closed.