The Sun: double blankety blank quiet

Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.

Not today.

Left: SOHO MDI “visible” image                     Right: SOHO Magnetogram

Click for larger image

Wherefore art though, cycle 24?

In contrast, September 28th, 2001

0 0 votes
Article Rating
806 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Wood
March 21, 2009 2:08 pm

I was thinking about that yesterday. The Sun is completely inert at its surface.

March 21, 2009 2:16 pm

Hello Mr. A.Watts, I’m an Italian boy,and every day i read your blog… i have created a my blog http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com , his name is new ice age! Many of my article comes from your blog, and Italian people are very interested on my project, as you i believe that the sun is the most important forcing in the climate change! My compliments Mr. Watts,and excuse me for my English… Simon from Pesaro (Italy)
REPLY: Simon, grazie! Best of luck on your new venture. Folks lets hit the link above to give this lad some encouragement. – Anthony

Hanko
March 21, 2009 2:19 pm

Though?

ice2020
March 21, 2009 2:31 pm

Thank you very much Anthony…you have to continue your “war”, the the truth you will be right!
simon

Aron
March 21, 2009 2:39 pm

Molto bravo, Simone! Cera bisogno di un sito in Italiano!

March 21, 2009 2:56 pm

The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun. Care needs to be utilized to make rational determinations of cause and effect. While the quiet sun is a once in a lifetime event, everything needs to be considered. Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.

March 21, 2009 2:58 pm

In bocca il lupo, Simon…

Robert M. Marshal
March 21, 2009 3:06 pm

Sorry, no habla Italian. However, Your sight looks great and I wish you all the best. I will check back regularly.

Ohioholic
March 21, 2009 3:21 pm

Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?

March 21, 2009 3:32 pm

The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
===
I’ll bite.
If the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina drive year-to-year temperature rises and falls, WHAT changes/energizes/starts/stops the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina variations?

Ninderthana
March 21, 2009 3:41 pm

captdallas2,
Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?
If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation
at:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
The details of the paper backing this presentation have been translated into Russian by Dr. Anatoly Kchlystov from Sternberg Astronomical Institute.
It will be prepared for publication in Book “Global Change”, coming out
later this year.

EricH
March 21, 2009 4:03 pm

Anthony,
Maybe you should add a “Clock” to your site. Something like
Sun Cycle 23–only 243 days before it becomes the longest cycle ever recorded
—and counting
or something along those lines.
I’ve been on the Italian site it’s good to know the word is spreading keep up the good work.

John F. Hultquist
March 21, 2009 4:09 pm

Robert Wood (14:08:14) : You wrote: The Sun is completely inert at its surface.
Hold on now! Don’t leave the sun-blocker at home. Ol’Sol is still pumping out a lot of energy. Have a look at some other wavelengths:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

Methow Ken
March 21, 2009 4:13 pm

Wherefore art thou #24, indeed. . . .
hmmm. . .
A day or even a week or likely even a month of total solar quiet in both the visible and magnetogram spectrums does not I suppose provide conclusive evidence that we have entered a major ”outside-the-standard-deviation” solar event.
But: I wonder:
How long would both the MDI and magnetogram images have to remain in more-or-less this ”nobody home” state; before experts in this area (not me) would start to talk about there being a reasonable chance that we could be entering another solar event along the lines of a Dalton Minimum or even a Maunder Minimum. Admit I ask before don’t have a feel for what criteria scientists would use to base such a ”crossing the threshold” conclusion on. Since IIRC the Maunder Minimum lasted about 50 years and the Dalton Minimum considerably less than that, I’m pretty confident this ”window” is considerably less than 10 years. But how much more than we have so far I don’t know ??. . .
Just curious. . . .

George M
March 21, 2009 4:14 pm

I don’t know any ethnic Chinese, so I wonder who laid the: “May you live in interesting times” on me?
Maunder?
Dalton?
Sporer?
Whatever. Bring it on!

Methow Ken
March 21, 2009 4:16 pm

oops:
What I meant to say in my above was:
”Admit I ask because don’t have . . . .”
not ”before don’t have”.
Sorry.

John F. Hultquist
March 21, 2009 4:16 pm

Ohioholic (15:21:29) : Just in case Leif doesn’t pick up on your question, I think his issue is with the small variation in TSI, not whether or not it is in the ON position. Further, it is in the ON position over one-half Earth at all times. And, the issues is not the temps during a 24 hour day at one spot.

George M
March 21, 2009 4:20 pm

After I submitted my last, I took a look at Simon’s ice2020. He has a shot from late 3/21 (22:24) of SOHO showing a small sunspeck on the upper left. He has IDed it as cycle 23, but I believe the high latitute indicates cycle 24, correct? Or did NASA cancel 24 after all?

Richard deSousa
March 21, 2009 4:21 pm

I wish I could poll the astrophysicists to see where they stand regarding Svendsmark’s theory. I know this astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv, believes cosmic rays have a primary role in our climate: http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

Gary
March 21, 2009 4:24 pm

I am amazed at how people think that the sun’s changes “cannot” be a major factor influencing the earth’s temperature (and, by effect, climate). This is the only way the earth receives any of the heat it has!

Ohioholic
March 21, 2009 4:26 pm

John F. Hultquist (16:16:17) :
Hmm…. I must have misread or pulled an Andy Pettite style ‘misremembering’ of what he said then. This is definitely possible given the workload I have been under lately. Come to think of it, I may not even be thinking of the same person, but attributed it to Leif for some reason. I’m sure he’ll let me know, hopefully in a nice way. 🙂

Leon Brozyna
March 21, 2009 4:41 pm

Before you know it, it’ll be SC25 time creeping up on us while 24 keeps on limping along. Perhaps 24 will be lucky to even peak at 50/month before it fizzles out around — what’s that date again? — 2015. Best make sure I have a few pair of long johns handy…

Mike Ramsey
March 21, 2009 4:45 pm

Anthony,
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s theory on the “Influence of Cosmic Rays on the earth’s climate”
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
predicts an increase in incident galactic cosmic rays hitting the earth’s atmosphere leading to an increase in cloud cover and a corresponding increase in the earth’s albedo.
Referring back to your 17 October 2007 post titled “Earth’s Albedo Tells an Interesting Story” and to the Earthshine project page
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
The earth’s albedo has increased.
The Earthshine project aims to determine “a global and absolutely calibrated albedo … by measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth and, in turn, back to the Earth from the dark portion of the face of the Moon.”
The following graphic
shows in blue the Earthshine changes in albedo from 1999 to 2007.
The following is from the conclusion of a paper that can be found here:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
“However, preceding CERES, earthshine and ISCCP-FD reflectances show a significant increase before flattening and holding the increase. This implies a reduction in the net sunlight reaching Earth. In the context of the recent climate change, it is important to point out that the physical causes behind these large decadal variations in albedo are still unknown, and that we just don’t know yet whether we should expect the albedo changes observed during the modern period to persist into the future.
Further, we have demonstrated that the trend toward an increasing terrestrial albedo seen in the earthshine is due to evolving cloud properties, rather than sampling problems or issues arising from the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry. Future observations of the earthshine from a planned global network of robotic telescopes will provide an even more valuable tool, complementary to satellite data, for the study of changes in the short-wave forcing of the Earth’s climate. The first robotic telescope is already in regular operation.”
Interesting.
–Mike Ramsey

Editor
March 21, 2009 4:49 pm

I think I see the sunspeck too, see:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/ then
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ or better:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
Image time 2224.
REPLY: Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. Thats Murphy for ya! – Anthony

DanD
March 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Hmmmmm, on my arbitrary time axis sun activity is inversely proportional to our carbon emissions. Clearly humans are to blame for this impending catatrosphe.

David Corcoran
March 21, 2009 4:56 pm

There will come a time when Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will be remembered as another example of Lysenkoism… fraudulent scientific theories propped up by a failing state.
The serene sun seems to be the sign of contradiction for alarmism. Each day brings new counter-proofs.
“The advantage of being a cynic is that you expect little, get nothing and yet remain serene” – Charles Krauthammer

bill
March 21, 2009 4:57 pm

What effect do solar cycles have?
I think most would agree that the average cycle length is 11 years and varies between 9 to 14?
If this is true then a FFT plot of total solar irradiance would show these regulat cycles as peaks.
If peaks are visible and TSI have an effect on temperature then these peaks should be visible in the temperature records, An FFT will not be affected by:
*delays in TSI to temperature (days or years providing the delay is constant)
*positive or negative or no trend in temperature (UHI will not affect the peaks)
*absolute values of temperature (arctic or equator will not matter).
*the peaks are time accurate unless temperature reporting has been done in a different universe (i.e. a peak at 7.8 years is NOT the same as a peak at 8 years)
however:
* records are not available for long enough to give sensible output beyond say 50years
* peaks occurring at slightly varying periods will give a wide hump in the output
Looking at one FFT of temperature for one place shows vague peaks NOT at the required peiod but has so much noise that no real conclusions can be drawn.
I therefore took a number of places with LONG records:
central England, Hohenpeissenberg, Uppsala, Melbourne, New York Central Park , Albany, Binghampton, Shanghai and did a simple average of the FFT output.
The FFT of Leif’s TSI data and the averaged temperature FFT is shown below:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/861/averageffttempcftsi.jpg
The FFTs are all from monthly data (hence peak at 1 year) and all records have been padded out with 0s to enable a 4096 sample FFT to be made (this gives an artificial high level at long periods)
Note that the scale is period and not frequency (as is usual in FFTs).
The FFTs are done in excel.
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
Am I wrong and if so why?
Bill

Frederick Michael
March 21, 2009 5:03 pm

It’s amazing that we are getting such a marvelous chance to test Svenmark’s theory. While lots of folks predicted a weak solar cycle, this one is seriously interesting. We could get a minimum worth a name.

crosspatch
March 21, 2009 5:05 pm

I don’t believe the changes in solar radiation are given enough credit for changes here. True, natural variations due to changes in distance to the sun and the like are greater in amount, where the impact in radiation is going to be seen are at the extreme ends of these natural changes.
For example, if the sun’s output is just a little less than normal, then the peak radiation we get when the we are closest is less and the minimum is more extreme as well. And it probably doesn’t play out over a single year. But after several orbital cycles of less radiation from the sun, the earth would have to lose energy to space. So while at any given time the solar radiation received is within the bounds of “normal”, it is at the extremes of maximum and minimum seasonal variation where the difference will be most important.
If radiation doesn’t reach the level this summer than it reached last summer, maybe a little more ice is left. Maybe if we have two or three entire solar cycles that peak at lower levels, the impact begins to be noticed. While I won’t buy into the notion that a change is going to be felt immediately, if it becomes a pattern over decades, I can’t see how it can’t help but be felt eventually.
But here we are with nearly another month gone by and still no spots. At what point does this become anomalous? I understand that cycles vary in duration and some are longer than others … but when do we cross, say, the 75th percentile into the longest 25% of cycles?
Dr. Hathaway was quoted in a NASA press release in 2004 as saying that it appeared that the current solar minimum might arrive a full year earlier than predicted:
“”This is a sign,” says Hathaway, “that the solar minimum is coming, and it’s coming sooner than we expected.”

But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.
The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought.”
Well, it turns out it arrived even sooner as a NASA release from March 6, 2006 announces the arrival at solar minimum, a year and a half earlier than expected. Now here we are in March 2009.
On March 10, 2006, NASA released the following:
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.

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.”
And so here we are. No “doozy” in sight.
I have followed what Leif has been saying and been patient. But it seems that what the “experts” say this year will be completely different next year. It is getting very difficult not to take anything said on the subject with several grains of salt.

Joe Miner
March 21, 2009 5:09 pm

Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. Thats Murphy for ya! – Anthony
Actually I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up. 🙂

tehdude
March 21, 2009 5:12 pm

Wherefore means “why” in modern English, not “where”.
This is why Juliet said “wherefore art thou Romeo”, asking why he has the name of Montegue’s son, and not the name of a man she could wed.

ice2020
March 21, 2009 5:14 pm

George, the high latitude would think of the cycle 24, but the polarity of the cycle is 23 … or maybe 25?
Simon

Larry Sheldon
March 21, 2009 5:15 pm

Regarding the Simon’s English.
It is way better than my Italian.
He needs make no apology.

Larry Sheldon
March 21, 2009 5:20 pm

I’d never seen the “sunspek” discriptor before.
Saw it on http://solarcycle24.com/ then realized it had been used here.
Is that a new coinage, or am I just slow?
REPLY: Or maybe I just typed too fast and dropped the “c”. ? – Anthony

Josh
March 21, 2009 5:33 pm

How the real deniers think: “It is crazy – crazy – to think the sun has a major influence on Earth’s climate! Clearly CO2, a life-giving trace gas comprising less than one percent of all greenhouse gases, is driving major climate change. Computer simulations prove it. Let’s destroy our fossil-fuel based energy infrastructure immediately and send humanity back to the dark ages so we can SAVE THE PLANET!”

Ohioholic
March 21, 2009 5:35 pm

What of the energy we reflect back to the sun? What becomes of that?

Ice Age
March 21, 2009 5:36 pm

It’s a very small new sunspot according to the Solar Cycle 24 website
http://www.solarcycle24.com
“A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
Today I am watching the STEREO Behind images as there appears to be a bright area approaching the eastern limb. It is still too early to tell if this will be anything of interest or just another Cycle 24 dud.”

hareynolds
March 21, 2009 5:40 pm

Is anyone else concerned that the few spots that we HAVE seen in the last, say, six months have all been FUNKY in one way or another?
First, just about every other spot seems to have SC23 polarity (apparently including this latest one, even though it is HIGH LATITUDE) Very spooky.
Second, about half the recent spots have been SPECKS which lasted HOURS instead of days. Many of these likely wouldn’t be counted in centuries past.
Third, of course, there just AREN’T ANY SPOTS relative to where we are supposed to be in the cycle. Zip nada null set.
Seems like a “shy” polarity shift; a failure to “snap-over” as it were; like a meta-stable wobbling.
Questions:
(a) is there an established criterion for “calling” a minimum? (while you’re IN IT, I mean; ex post facto seems like it would be pretty easy to call). I’m supposing there isn’t.
(b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum (or perhaps Gore-Hansen)?
My feeling is that if this indeed a Minimum, and the climate follows the Maunder and Dalton pattern (or, heaven forbid, a colder pattern), future generations REALLY need to be reminded about the hubris of AGW.
(c) how many days until we’re outside TWO standard deviations for the length of SC23?? I seem to recall that we shot past one std deviation sometime this winter, and that the 2nd was pretty quick thereafter (ie the distribution is pretty tight about 11.6 years). How big does the excusion have to be (in std deviations) before this becomes a noteworthy event?

savethesharks
March 21, 2009 5:45 pm

Repetitive quote of the year:
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
“The sun is blank. No sunspots.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA

marcus
March 21, 2009 5:51 pm

Thank you to Simon’s blog! 😀
of course…sunspeck is 23 cycle. anybody saw a 24 spot? 😉

mark wagner
March 21, 2009 5:53 pm

Am I wrong and if so why?
TSI is not the whole story. It ignores indirect (magnetic and/or Svensmark) effects.
Even the IPCC acknowledges these indirect effects. Right before they proceed to ignore them.

March 21, 2009 5:54 pm

George M (16:14:06) :
“I don’t know any ethnic Chinese, so I wonder who laid the: “May you live in interesting times” on me?
Maunder?
Dalton?
Sporer?
Whatever. Bring it on!”
That´s a good and healthy psyche!! . You know, those anxious of solving their traumas unavoidably seek their own “end of the world” (By the way we try our best to help them find it)
Nothing will happen…whatever it comes..cheers!

March 21, 2009 6:01 pm

There are two specks, one on each hemisphere!

Gerry
March 21, 2009 6:02 pm

This published prediction was made by R. W.Fairbridge & , J. H. Shirley in 1987:
“Our tentative prediction is for inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.” in
Prolonged Minima and the 179-yr cycle of the Solar inertial motion, p. 207:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000197.000.html
The solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013 happens to be the current solar orbit. The predicted prolonged minimum Cycle 23 started in 1996 and the absence of sunspots is still continuing. To the best of my knowledge, The late Rhodes Fairbridge and Shirley were the only scientists to actually predict the current prolonged minimum. NASA was caught flat-footed and still seems totally clueless! That is especially ironic because the work published 22 years ago by Fairbridge and Shirley at Caltech JPL was funded by NASA (JPL is a NASA facility). Page 204 has an excellent diagram of the current barycentric solar orbit. As noted in the paper, these orbits are very different from perturbed Keplerian orbits.
I sdlo highly recommend this paper:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/66/11/PDF/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony

March 21, 2009 6:06 pm

Gotta change that conveyor belt!

D. King
March 21, 2009 6:11 pm

ice2020
Simon,
I went to your blog. Well done young man!
Dave

bill
March 21, 2009 6:27 pm

mark wagner (17:53:31) :
TSI is not the whole story. It ignores indirect (magnetic and/or Svensmark) effects.
Even the IPCC acknowledges these indirect effects. Right before they proceed to ignore them.

But, I thought these were sychronised to sunspot count and therefore TSI.
If this is so their effect should also produce a peak around 11 years.

Tom in Texas
March 21, 2009 6:31 pm

RA RA RA RA
Don’t know whether to believe Leif or my lying eyes.
At what point (date) do we/they start to re-evaluate?

March 21, 2009 6:32 pm

Ninderthana (15:41:21) :
captdallas2,
“Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?”
Have do done any supplemental linkage work with 10Be and 14C records that are associated with solar activity or are these proxies irrelevant to your study?

John Adlington
March 21, 2009 6:34 pm

I’m from the UK. We could not feed a population of 30(ish) million people in WW2 withouth the stalwart support of our allies, paticularly the USA, and now we have a population of 60 million and rising. Given historical records that co-relate grain production and sun-spot numbers I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit

March 21, 2009 6:36 pm

Would a sunspok be only half-Vulcan eyezed? 8<)

Editor
March 21, 2009 6:45 pm

Adolfo Giurfa (18:01:47) :
Yeah, I was about to ask about that. It liiks like there is a simewhat larger, midlatitude, siuthern hemisphere spot as well. Both Cycle 23?

Squidly
March 21, 2009 6:54 pm

Ric Werme (16:49:16) :
I think I see the sunspeck too, see:

Ric, I think this image shows it rather well:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_171/1024/latest.html

Harold Ambler
March 21, 2009 6:55 pm

Gerry: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony

I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect. Dr. Svalgaard is one scientist. Gerry is apparently another — maybe each of them knows some things that the other doesn’t?
Gerry’s point is that no one (including Dr. Svalgaard) predicted sc23’s length the way Fairbridge did (with the possible exception of Landscheidt), let alone 20 years ahead of the fact.

Squidly
March 21, 2009 6:55 pm
David Ball
March 21, 2009 6:56 pm

I would like to hear from Dr. Willie Soon on the current state of the sun and with regards to it’s affect (or not) on the climate. :^) Dr. Soon, any possibility?

Editor
March 21, 2009 7:01 pm

bill (16:57:27) :
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
Am I wrong and if so why?
Bill
There’s a lot of variation in periodicities in temperature series, Bill. Especially on a regional level, it is going to depend a lot of the impact of how long term climate systems modulate the influence of TSI. Leif acknowledged a few days ago a chart I linked to showing a series of changes in the rate of change in temperatures that can plausibly be linked to TSI. Here it is again:
http://s5.tinypic.com/hreogj.jpg
This is the time domain representation. The frequency domain (MTM spectrum analysis) looks like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/r1adtl.jpg
This for a 1895-2008 US temperature data set for the Southern Region of the US. There is a significant “decadal” periodicity here, with two peaks, one at 11.02 yr and another at 8.53 yr. The first may correspond to the solar cycle, and the second to the lunar nodal cycle.
These kinds of decadal and bidecadal signals are found in all kinds of climate time series.
Since you are using the CET series, you might want to take a look at Figure 1, Panel (b), in this:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/MGEGEC.pdf
Whatever the sun is doing to influence terrestrial climate, it is “filtered” through complex interactions with oceanic and atmospheric systems like the NAO and PDO which will create considerable variation in regional regimes. This will be especially the case for an island adjacent to a major ocean like Central England. I don’t think what happens in Central England is definitive for what happens everywhere else.
On a global basis, the decadal and bidecadal variation in rates of change in global temperature look like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2ily161.jpg
and the spectra like this:
http://s5.tinypic.com/2j12ype.jpg
The link to solar it is there. But look carefully at the vertical axis of the time charts. These are very small changes, well within the range of being attributable to the 0.1% variation in TSI over the course of a solar cycle.
What explains the long term trend since the mid 18th Century is something else. I’m not ruling out a role for solar, but I’ll concede (to Leif) that it isn’t the 11 year cycle in TSI.

Tanner Waterbury
March 21, 2009 7:04 pm

Ooh dang it, one of my pixels burned out… Oh Wait a minute, Thats a Sunfleck.
But seriously people I am scared of the sun being so quiet. If this was a human patient, someone would of pulled the plug LOOOONNNG ago. Im biting my nails in anticipation for activity.

Henry Phipps
March 21, 2009 7:05 pm

John Adlington (18:34:52) :
“…I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit..”
Brilliant, sir, practically Shakespearean. I’ve been needing an inspiration for my first tattoo, and you delivered.
Henry

Ian Holton
March 21, 2009 7:06 pm

Your images of sun are updating ones and a few specks are now appearing on the
Magnetogram….might have been better not to use an updating image!

March 21, 2009 7:18 pm

If these new sun specks are typical of the last few they will not last very long.
I am beginning to think that there are more riddles underlying the dynamics of the sun than are being used in making the current predictions for cycle 24. I doubt that 8 solar cycles of data will provide sufficient data to project the start of the next solar cycle or the maximum magnitude of sunspot activity.
Even if someone may come close enough to proclaim success it may require another solar cycle to confirm the theory!

mr.artday
March 21, 2009 7:20 pm

I suggest we call the mimimum the Chicken Little Minimum.

March 21, 2009 7:23 pm

captdallas2 @14:56:29:
“Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.”
Is that self-parody?

Richard deSousa
March 21, 2009 7:34 pm

It appears like Cycle 23 is like Lazarus…. it keep coming back from the dead… LOL. We’re in uncharted territory since no one seems to understand WTF is going on with the sun, not even the so called experts.
I smell a Dalton Minimum coming and lets hope nothing worse than that otherwise the northern hemisphere will be in a heap of hurt.

VG
March 21, 2009 7:35 pm

Another a MAJOR paper published. Surprised when the first version came out year ago I think, some attacked is as quackery so now it has definitely been published in a major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. This debunks the WHOLE concept of AGW and the physics behind it!

Editor
March 21, 2009 7:42 pm

The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
Sure. The normal variance of a normal minimum is c. 0.1C. Not a whole lot. But if it turns out to be a Grand Minimum, hoo brother! Whole ‘nother story.

savethesharks
March 21, 2009 7:43 pm

Gerry wrote: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
Anthony you have made it clear what you think (or don’t think) of the Landscheit research.
However, not everybody here shares the same disdain, though even some of us who think it a possibility, remain skeptical.
Understood about the Svaalgard Test. Point taken. I read everything that Leif says with great interest…and I love to watch him in action. Definitely a brilliant mind with no agenda.
But on the other hand….you have a retired, RETIRED orbit specialist here “Gerry” who was proffering some information and some studies.
I emphasize “retired” as he started working at JPL the year I was born.
And he was delivering some information as he saw it related to TOPIC….about the inordinately quiet sun.
And until Landscheit is proven 100% wrong without a shadow of a doubt (who knows maybe it will be 50 years from now…or maybe it will be validated), then in courtesy and respect of free inquiry…such comments to gentlemen such as this…are not warranted.
That being said…this is your blog….and its a GREAT one….but i have to say that it is not reasonable to shut down someone like this poster in such a way.
There are plenty of other “plants” on here who clog up your award-winning blog with pages of sophistry and it is on them that the shut-down efforts should be aimed.
Thanks for your efforts. Just making a point.
Back to topic: Question: At what point in time or date does this minimum become officially “grand”?
REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony

Ohioholic
March 21, 2009 7:44 pm

Nice paragraph at the end of the link to Telegraph:
A London employment tribunal has ruled that Tim Nicholson, right, was wrongly dismissed as a property firm’s “head of sustainability” because of his fervent commitment to “climate change”. Mr Nicholson had fallen out with his colleagues over his attempts to reduce the company’s “carbon footprint”. The tribunal chairman David Neath found the company guilty of discriminating against Mr Nicholson under the 2006 Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, because his faith in global warming was a “philosophical belief”. Recalling how “eco-psychologists’’ at the University of the West of England are pressing for “climate denial” to be classified as a form of “mental disorder”, one doubts whether the same legal protection would be given to those who fail to share Mr Nicholson’s “philosophical belief”.
Anyone up for a sociological discussion on acceptance of science and rejecting accepted science? Tesla, are you out there?

Roger Knights
March 21, 2009 7:47 pm

“It was quiet in Dodge–too quiet.”
(Pandemonium brewing?)

phydeaux
March 21, 2009 7:52 pm

Methow Ken,
i recently asked your very question to Dr. Tony Phillips over at Spaceweather.com. Dr. Phillips is very much in the “just move on, nothing unusual here” camp about SS 24. No answer yet as to when he and his colleagues at NASA might begin to consider the current situation a Dalton like event.

CPT. Charles
March 21, 2009 7:52 pm

Slightly OT, but hopefully helpful…
For those using the Firefox browser, there is an ‘add-on’ called FoxLingo. It currently supports 45+ languages and can do webpage and text translations.
Back to the matter at hand…we are now coming to the point where the wheat and the chaff will be parted: those within the science community are the intellectually honest and those who aren’t. The current state of the sun is beyond denial; what it ultimately means has yet to be fully understood. The incurious will stand out for all to see.
Scientific inquiry or cherished tropes; the fork in the road is upon us.

Editor
March 21, 2009 8:08 pm

Running and hiding
Take and dividing
You’ve got your secrets
I’ve only got a sleeping sun

Keith Minto
March 21, 2009 8:08 pm

Mike Bryant,
That report is very interesting. I wonder if my comment helped?
” Keith Minto (20:37:59) :
Of course reporting the Catlin ’survey’,responsible journalists and their editors would balance their article with “however, US Army Ice buoys using longer term data have reported………”.
Wouldn’t they “

phydeaux
March 21, 2009 8:12 pm

That should be SC 24.

savethesharks
March 21, 2009 8:28 pm

REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony
Yes but why immediately put him on the defensive with such a Newspeak reply?
Why make a comment at all?
As I said before, there are plenty of other “plants” on here that deliver pages and pages of gibberish. I won’t mention any names Foinavon. LOL
I don’t know man….it just could have been delivered a little more respectfully to a man who is our grandfather’s age.
And so your comment to him was a type of shut-down.
A snipped statement is not a shut-down. It is a deletion. Make sense?
Anyway…thanks for allowing free speech.
And thanks for your efforts. They are much appreciated.
Back to TOPIC…Question: At what point in time or date does this minimum become officially “grand”?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
REPLY: I would say when SC24 is so late that SC25 should be starting. – Anthony

DR
March 21, 2009 8:37 pm

@VG
Isn’t that interesting. Well well, weren’t we told Gehrlich was a lone wolf, an outsider, a kook and unworthy to publish in a “recognized” journal?
Even Steve M at CA refused discussion on G&T. What about now?

Roger Knights
March 21, 2009 8:40 pm

If temperatures plummet this year, it will become known as The Taunter Minimum.

Tim L
March 21, 2009 8:51 pm

Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?
Don’t for get the slight tilt gets us winter LOL

Leon Brozyna
March 21, 2009 8:53 pm

Here we go again …
Looks like it is an SC23 in the Northern Hemisphere with white leading black on the magnetogram (even if it is high latitude). Looks like the sun’s refusing to allow itself to being pigeonholed — doing what it darn while pleases, while us critters on this little blue-green planet try to figure it out.
As for references to the Southern Hemisphere; that’s an SP (stuck pixel) that’s been there for quite awhile.
As for this latest pair of teensy specks — who knows, they may be gone in the morning. Maybe Zeus knows…

Tim L
March 21, 2009 8:53 pm

Joe Miner (17:09:49) :
Yup, no sooner than I posted this, one appeared. That’s Murphy for ya! – Anthony
Actually I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up. 🙂
The Anthony Watts effect!

bill
March 21, 2009 9:06 pm

Basil (19:01:45) :
There’s a lot of variation in periodicities in temperature series, Bill. Especially on a regional level, it is going to depend a lot of the impact of how long term climate systems modulate the influence of TSI. …
Since you are using the CET series, you might want to take a look at Figure 1, Panel (b), in this:

CET was only one of 8 global locations used in the averaged spectrum. But it is interesting that my CET spectrum corresponds well with the spectrum in the article you reference, but in the average the 5 and 25 year peaks are very much reduced.
Whatever the sun is doing to influence terrestrial climate, it is “filtered” through complex interactions with oceanic … This will be especially the case for an island adjacent to a major ocean like Central England. I don’t think what happens in Central England is definitive for what happens everywhere else.
The average was from global locations. LP Filtering with a period of >11 years will get rid of the 11 year peaks (obviously!) but it will also remove the TSI variability and only show other solar variability.
What explains the long term trend since the mid 18th Century is something else. I’m not ruling out a role for solar, but I’ll concede (to Leif) that it isn’t the 11 year cycle in TSI.
I’d agree with that!

anna v
March 21, 2009 9:09 pm

Well, I see one spot, high up, which is a cycle 24 signature, BUT the magnetogram gives the wrong polarity for 24.
from solarcycle24.com
A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
So either a rogue 23 or a rogue 25
Maybe 24 will be only 9 years long so we get the incoming tale of 25 😉

Robert Bateman
March 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Well then, Anthony Watts, that’s one mighty strange SC23?? spot you have scared up. Twisted, just like some we saw earlier this year. An axis of dipoles running somewhere’s about 45 degrees.
Some have suggested SC24 died and SC25 spots are now trying out for Dancing with the Stars.

Tim L
March 21, 2009 9:15 pm

ice2020 (17:14:32) :
George, the high latitude would think of the cycle 24, but the polarity of the cycle is 23 … or maybe 25?
Simon
Ice Age (17:36:52) :
It’s a very small new sunspot according to the Solar Cycle 24 website
http://www.solarcycle24.com
“A small new sunspeck has formed high in latitude in the northern hemisphere. It has the proper latitude of Cycle 24 but with the opposite magnetic polarity. It poses no threat for solar flares.
This may indeed be a Cycle 25 speck.
Nasa may have let slip out that 24 is over. there has been 2 -3 year cycles in the past.
hareynolds (17:40:24) :
If the sun does a double pole change that would explain this minimum would it not?
savethesharks (19:43:12) :
I agree completely!
Gerry (18:02:00) :
we hope you reply here more.

Stephen
March 21, 2009 9:48 pm

REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
Sorry I missed his discussion, and I’m prepared to be corrected, but as I understand it, the barycenter effect has nothing to do with a barycenter mass… it has everything to do with the effect of acceleration and torque on a non-solid??? To get an idea, take a bowl of spinning water and place it on the edge of a rotating table. Now change the position of the bowl relative to the center of the table including going passed the center, (retrograde, as during the sun relation to barycenter in 1990) and observe the liquid contents! The mass involved is the mass of the sun itself and the effect the changing acceleration has on the suns very flexible gas make up.
I’m wondering if the retrograde effect may somehow be the cause of the high latitude cycle 23 type specs and or spots?
Stephen

Tim L
March 21, 2009 9:52 pm
March 21, 2009 10:14 pm

I will suggest to call the existing sun minimum the “WATTS MINIMUM” !
REPLY: Thanks but I don’t need anything named after me – Anthony

Just Want Truth...
March 21, 2009 10:22 pm

The sun spot today–Galileo wouldn’t have seen it. You have to put a friggin circle around it in the photo from SOHO to see it.
Scroll down here to see what I’m saying :
http://solarcycle24.com/

Just Want Truth...
March 21, 2009 10:27 pm

“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.

March 21, 2009 10:41 pm

bill (16:57:27) :
If this is true then a FFT plot of total solar irradiance would show these regular cycles as peaks.
It does, although a better plot uses the sunspot number [my TSI is just derived from the SSN] as a proxy for TSI [and cosmic rays]. Here are some musings about FFTof sunspot numbers:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-SSN-14C.pdf and this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png that shows the effect of starting the data one year later successively for 11 years to show the end effects on pressing the data into periodic sine and cosine functions.
I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.
You are perfectly correct. Although I have come across the argument that eye-balling with an open mind and a willing heart beats hard-nosed FFT and statistics every time.

March 21, 2009 10:55 pm

Stephen (21:48:17) :
To get an idea, take a bowl of spinning water and place it on the edge of a rotating table. Now change the position of the bowl relative to the center of the table including going passed the center, (retrograde, as during the sun relation to barycenter in 1990) and observe the liquid contents!
The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two. And that the Sun is not solid has nothing to do with it. The Earth is solid and is slowed down by friction of the tidal bulge due to the Moon, the couple being the physical contact and hence the friction.
But we shouldn’t really get into this again, it has been covered in almost every ‘sun-related’ post before, as the discussion always degenerates into visions of planetary influence on the Sun. Look though [just about] any of the older postings.

March 21, 2009 11:02 pm

REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
REPLY: If I intended to “shut him down”, I would have snipped the entire post and then posted that note. As it was I left it open for him to respond. – Anthony
Hi Anthony, I hope it’s ok for others to respond too.
There is a theory which is a bit different to the other barycentric theories which has the correct order of magnitude effect, and a plausible physical basis with demonstrable mathematics. Using it, it’s author achieved a R=0.65 correlation for sunspot numbers spanning several centuries. I have on three seperate occasions tried to get Dr Svalgaard to have a look and comment on this theory, but have been ignored each time. I don’t think ignoring a theory amounts to “debunking” it.
The last time I was having a short exchange of posts with another contributor, lgl, on matters relating to solar and planetary motion, you did snip our entire posts, and replaced them with an injunction:
“No further barycentrics here.”
SInce then I have respected your preference and avoided the topic as far as possible, but given your responses on this thread I am left wondering whether your injunction applied to that thread alone, or the whole blog in general.
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour, I would have thought that a spirit of free scientific enquiry and debate was in order, and that other theories, even though they may not be approved of by current mainstream solar physicists, should be up for discussion.
If you don’t want that discussion on your blog, fair enough, it’s your blog, but I don’t believe others should be misled by sweeping statements about all such theories having been “debunked”, because they haven’t.

Roger Knights
March 21, 2009 11:03 pm

I wrote:
“If temperatures plummet this year, it will become known as The Taunter Minimum.”
Even better would be “The Tauntem Minimum.”

Paul Stanko
March 21, 2009 11:03 pm

Hi all,
Using the 13 month smoothed International Sunspot number (which I believe is the official number used for defining the beginning and ending of solar cycles), I plotted all 24 numbered solar cycles by month. The last month is the minimum, and as it started to increase again, I assigned that to the next cycle. According to this methodology, the most recent data available is from September 2008 (6 months ago, includes these most recent 6 months in the smoothing) and it indicates that cycle 23 had not yet ended.
So, inquiring minds are left wondering, what is the average length of a solar cycle and the standard deviation? Microsoft Excel was only too happy to provide me an answer! The average length of a solar cycle is 132.3 months (yes, almost exactly eleven years!). The standard deviation is 14.99 months (okay, just call it fifteen!). Here are the results…
No solar cycles were shorter than 102 months (8.5 years, avg – 2 sigma)
Solar cycles 2, 3, 8 and 21 were 103 to 117 months, between 1 and 2 sigma below the average.
Solar cycles 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 were 118 to 132 months (shorter than average but not in a statistically meaningful way).
Solar cycles 1, 5, 10, 11, 14, 20 and 23 are 133 to 147 months (longer than average but not in a statistically meaningful way). HOWEVER, it is worth noting that cycle 23 is not over, and is at 145 months so it is just 2 months short of hitting the next category! Also note SC#5 is part of the Dalton minimum.
Solar cycles 6, 9 and 13 are 148 to 162 months (between 1 and 2 sigma longer than the average. Note that SC#6 is part of the Dalton Minimum.
Solar cycle #4 is the gold standard at 164 months, it is more than 2 sigma longer than the mean. It is the one that started the Dalton minimum. We’ve got a year and a half to go before we make this level!
Just thought I’d let you all know,
Paul

Editor
March 21, 2009 11:24 pm

captdallas2 (14:56:29) : The sun is quiet, but there are other factors that are involved in climate. The cool PDO shift is likely more responsible for the current cooling trend than the quiet sun.
Or perhaps the sun stirs the ocean via a spin-orbit coupling of angular momentum conservation:
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/wilsonforum2008.pdf
Don’t focus too heavily on the sun or you may miss the real drivers of climate.
And don’t soft focus yourself too much for the same reason…

March 21, 2009 11:24 pm

tallbloke (23:02:35) :
I have on three separate occasions tried to get Dr Svalgaard to have a look and comment on this theory, but have been ignored each time. I don’t think ignoring a theory amounts to “debunking” it.
I never ignore anything [that is one my problems; if I only did, these discussions would wither on the vine], but I have yet to see a plausible physical explanation. Doesn’t have to be correct, just possible, i.e. not violating physical laws or being energetically inadequate.

March 21, 2009 11:28 pm

tallbloke (23:02:35) :
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour
What failure? One of the best prediction methods we have [based on solid dynamo theory] predicts a very low cycle [‘smallest in a hundred years’]. Such cycles are slow starters, so the Sun is doing just what it should.

Just Want Truth...
March 21, 2009 11:32 pm

“Harold Ambler (18:55:42) : I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect.”
I would too Harold.
I am also tempted to respect Anthony Watts and what he has accomplished here with this blog.
I have an idea : let’s respect all of them. Let’s use the difference in each ones views as a spurring to go deeper.
Einstein encouraged his students and friends to ask him questions. Eisenhower improved (a lot) on Montgomery’s D-Day plans. NASA would not have got Apollo 13 back to earth if just one brain was working on the problem (I recommend the movie ‘Apollo 13’ to see what I’m saying). More minds, more creativity, more answers.
My point : I’m not going to throw out Gerry, I’m not going to throw out Leif Svalgaard, I’m not going to throw out David Archibald, I’m not going to throw out Milivoje A. Vukcevic (vukcevic), and I wish Willie Soon, Nir Shaviv, and Piers Corbyn were here.

ked
March 21, 2009 11:39 pm

hareynolds (17:40:24) :
(b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum (or perhaps Gore-Hansen)?
My feeling is that if this indeed a Minimum, and the climate follows the Maunder and Dalton pattern (or, heaven forbid, a colder pattern), future generations REALLY need to be reminded about the hubris of AGW.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As much as I can enjoy the irony of your suggestion, it will go over the over-inflated heads of Gore-Hansen. They do not deserve to be remembered as anything but fools – and naming a grand-minima after them would undermine that objective. It is human nature to forget “why” something is named what it is, and just remember the name.
Besides there are physicists who have done serious work on the subject, who do deserve to have their work recognized. It was my understanding (I may have received faulty intell) the next grand-minima was to be named for Theordor Landscheidt, who back in the ’90’s was predicting sunspots to all but disappear after SC24 until 2030.

Editor
March 21, 2009 11:52 pm

Ninderthana (15:41:21) : If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right. I had been working my way down this path, some significant distance behind you, and Geoff Sharp pointed me at your paper.
IMHO, your paper shows that as the solar orbital angular momentum approaches very small (as the orbital position vector of the sun tends toward small), ends up being conserved at least in part via changes in the planetary spin angular momentum (our spin rate changes) via spin-orbit coupling. This would explain not only the PDO action, but also the observed correlation of volcanic and earthquake activity with periods of low solar orbital angular momentum (as our spin rate change flexes the earth crust a bit).
Season with a bit of GCR increase changing albedo and reducing O3 levels (letting heat out via the 9-10 IR window that only O3 significantly blocks) and you can account for just about everything.
Your paper is the key that opens this door. Thank you.
Now if you can just show a spin-orbit coupling of solar orbital angular momentum into solar spin angular momentum and a subsequent modulation of the traditional solar cycle you could wrap everything up rather nicely. A lot of work to do it, and who knows if it can be done, but think that truth lies down that path…

MattB
March 21, 2009 11:55 pm

The planet has been through plenty of variations like this before and here we are all happy as Larry. What’s the problem;)

Lee
March 21, 2009 11:56 pm

The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun. And that tidal bulge must have some interesting characteristics with two major drivers and two minor drivers. The complex cycloid movement of the sun around the barycentre suggests that the tides do not have uniform speed, and I wonder if it is possible that the sun might make such a sharp pivot that the tide might run retrograde for a very short period. Also the distance from the sun to the barycenter (which is almost always between the sun and jupiter varies by a couple of solar diameters, and that should cause a change in tidal height as well. To me that’s a ‘couple’, and a chaotic one at that, with possible neutralizing effects mixed with occasional harmonic amplification.
If sunspots are related to the fact that the sun rotates at different speeds at different distances from the equater, then anything that causes tidal variances could be relevant.

Ron de Haan
March 21, 2009 11:56 pm

Robert A Cook PE (15:32:33) :
“If the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina drive year-to-year temperature rises and falls, WHAT changes/energizes/starts/stops the PDO/AMO/El None/La Nina variations?”
Maybe this document contains the answer to your question:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

ked
March 21, 2009 11:59 pm

Richard deSousa (19:34:50) :
It appears like Cycle 23 is like Lazarus
~~~~~~~~~~
Or the energizer bunny . . . . .

Glenn
March 22, 2009 12:10 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:28:09) :
tallbloke (23:02:35) :
Given the failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour
“What failure? One of the best prediction methods we have [based on solid dynamo theory] predicts a very low cycle [‘smallest in a hundred years’]. Such cycles are slow starters, so the Sun is doing just what it should.”
Your prediction was for maximum around 2011. If your prediction is not a failure, and you knew that the Sun would be doing “just what it should”, do you still expect a maximum of what was it, 72 in 2011?

Roger Knights
March 22, 2009 12:31 am

OT: Here is a quote from a post on SeekingAlpha.com by Michael Fitzsimmons
“If the goal is to reduce foreign imports as Obama said, how come he has yet to even utter the words “natural gas transportation” in any energy related discussion since elected? As a result, America’s greatest industrial asset, the 2.2 million mile natural gas pipeline grid connecting 63,000,000 homes where 130,000,000 cars and trucks park every night, remains underutilized. Obama seems content to rely on the Gore environmental purists for energy policy.
“I wish someone would explain to Obama that over the next 10-20 years, there is simply no realistic way that wind and solar energy source will significantly reduce the 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline the US burns every day. In this era of government and professional double-speak, it’s very apparent that the environmental purists are actually responsible for increasing CO2 emissions. An ideology that lumps natural gas in the same category with coal and oil simply because it is a “fossil fuel” is simply wrong headed, illogical, highly polluting, and keeps us addicted to foreign oil. Obama’s energy policy grade: “D-“.”

Remainder is at: http://seekingalpha.com/article/127110-a-natural-gas-centric-revitalization-program

Rhys Jaggar
March 22, 2009 12:42 am

In defence of Mr Watts’ moderation:
I have to say I’ve been vilified on several sites for daring to engage in debate, be that the Ski Club of Great Britain website (talking about snow conditions since 1975); the Marohasy site, where an obnoxious physicist displayed his contempt for debate and discussion in a way which I found pathetic and worthy of one of the most controlled furious dressing-downs I’ve ever delivered in my life; and the Daily Telegraph’s blogs stimulated by Chris Booker’s articles. At this site, I’ve read a lot, added a few comments and not seen any evidence of thuggery or intimidation. [Will this cause it to emerge, just as this article caused new solar activity to emerge, me wonders?!]
I’ve seen little on this site to suggest that censorship exists, which is unlike almost every UK newspaper site. Even http://www.telegraph.co.uk now engages in censorship, a sad state of affairs indeed……….
And that’s the way it should be, because if you guys want world opinion to move in your direction, you need to engage with those who disagree with you. Otherwise all we’ll have for years to come is two sets of self-serving diatribes from diametrically opposed camps refusing to consider where the other lot are coming from……….
Might it be a good idea to post a solicited article summarising all modulators and hypothesised drivers of climate change, with postulated cycle lengths and driver modulators, so that a large audience can see, at one source, a current best picture view of the holistic position?

Editor
March 22, 2009 12:45 am

John Adlington (18:34:52) : Given historical records that co-relate grain production and sun-spot numbers I think we are up the proverbial without a whotzit
The good news is that thanks to the high CO2 level, plants are producing somewhere around 20% more (IIRC) from CO2 fertilization. Add in the added productivity from the green revolution short stem grain varieties (about another 25-50%?) and added optimized fertilization levels and we’re talking one heck of a lot of grain!
Further, as I’ve noted before, it takes 10 units of feed to get one unit of Beef. So the ‘worst case’ is that instead of the 1 pound beef steak you take the 10 pounds of grain and eat it instead. 10 pounds of grain takes a very long time to eat…
Yes, it will likely be rough during the realization / transition period, and prices will rise, but it is very manageable. I have been buying the grain ETF, though (ticker JJG ) as a way to hedge the likely price impacts… I also got good at growing cold cycle plants in my garden this winter (cabbage, kale, onions, peas, beets / chard, etc.) to get ready for the coming colder seasons. Maybe I’m a year or two ahead of the herd, but other gardeners will catch up pretty quick. (Last year I planted my first cold tolerant tomato – Siberia. This year the nursery had 3 more varieties… someone has a clue. Two of these bear fruit in 40 to 45 days! so shorter seasons will not be as critical either.) There has been a lot of work on short season vegetables. Maize, for example, was 120 days to maturity 50 years ago. Now 55 days is old hat and 40 something is the goal.
And then there is the whole movement into greenhouse farming. In many areas of the world (even here in California!) many of the tomatoes, specialty lettuces, italian squash (you call them courgettes?) and several other vegetables come from greenhouses. We have year round ‘hot house’ tomatoes, so a little cold isn’t very important…
So I wouldn’t worry too much about food supply (unless you were a beef cow… but then food would be the least of your worries 😉

Editor
March 22, 2009 1:07 am

Just Want Truth… (22:27:05) :
“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.

The solar cycle minimum ought to be named for someone of merit in the field of solar research. The attendant cold period, however….
Somehow “The AlGore Pessimum” has a very nice ring to it, but I could be convinced to go for “The Hansen Gore Pessimum”!

Alex
March 22, 2009 1:21 am

Many here talk about focussing on the other factors rather than the sun (PDO, cloudcover etc). The focus is on the sun because what happens on the sun will effect the other factors. Maybe not tomorow but the effects could be seen in a few years. Yes the sun is not directly affecting temps, but PDO is likely driven by solar activity!~ ie weak sun -> cold PDO -> cooler conditions (2020s?)
A new “microspeck” has appeared at 24 latitude but 23 (25!?) polarity… I say “microspeck” because solarcycle24.com have actually included an image that shows this spot to be literally one or two pixels in size!! People are getting desperate lol

Jerker Andersson
March 22, 2009 1:22 am

Anthony, as allways when you make a post about that there are no spots on the sun, a spot appears..
Now look what you have done again!
http://solarcycle24.com/

Robert Wood
March 22, 2009 1:29 am

John F. Hultquist @ 16:09:57
Well, yeh, OK, the Sun is completely inert; I didn’t mean it quite like that :^)

Paul Stanko
March 22, 2009 1:33 am

For those who would prefer a ranked list…
1) Solar Cycle 4 was 164 months long (13.67 years)
2) Solar Cycles 6 and 13 were tied at 157 months long (13.08 years)
3) Solar Cycle 9 was 150 months long (12.50 years)
4) Solar Cycle 23 is currently 145 months long (12.08 years)
5) Solar Cycle 5 was 144 months long (12.00 years)
6) Solar Cycle 20 was 140 months long (11.67 years)
7) Solar Cycle 11 was 139 months long (11.58 years)
8) Solar Cycle 14 was 138 months long (11.50 years)
9) Solar Cycle 1 was 135 months long (11.25 years)
10) Solar Cycle 10 was 134 months long (11.17 years)
11) Solar Cycles 17 and 19 were tied at 126 months long (10.50 years)
12) Solar Cycles 7 and 22 were tied at 125 months long (10.42 years)
13) Solar Cycles 12 and 16 were tied at 122 months long (10.17 years)
14) Solar Cycle 18 was 121 months long (10.08 years)
15) Solar Cycle 15 was 120 months long (10.00 years)
16) Solar Cycles 8 and 21 were tied at 117 months long (9.75 years)
17) Solar Cycle 3 was 110 months long (9.17 years)
18) Solar Cycle 2 was 109 months long (9.08 years)
So, we’re already in the 75th percentile. If Cycle 23 persists another 5 months, which indeed it might, we could break the 80th percentile. Could go even higher, but we’ll have to see.
Later,
Paul

Andrew
March 22, 2009 1:41 am

Surely the increase in carbon dixode in the atmosphere on Earth caused by anthropogenic emissions is the reason for the quiet Sun!
It shouldn’t be too difficult to create a computer model to validate this perfectly rational theory. After all, there is more than enough peer review validated computer model output data to be used as inputs to this new model.

March 22, 2009 1:50 am

E.M.Smith (23:52:52) :
Ninderthana (15:41:21) : “If you want evidence backing up this arguement, please read my presentation”
I didn’t realize who you were through the pseudonym. FWIW, I’m fairly certain that you are right.

Wow, wow, wow, Ninderthana, your presentation is one of the clearest, most fantastic I’ve yet seen from anywhere in Climate Science, showing the evidence for the solar driver. At the very least, this is worthy of one of Anthony’s threads. If I were running a blog I’d put it right up but since I just run a forum I’m going to start a forum thread about it.
Thanks.
and btw Anthony I sympathize totally with your position re barycentre though I don’t agree. I have to draw lines too and I know that sometimes I’m throwing out good stuff! However, IMHO this paper goes a long way towards showing the evidence we need.

Editor
March 22, 2009 1:58 am

I’m sorry, but a visit to solarcycle24.com showed a close up of the SOHO image and this “speck” is about 1 1/2 pixels. We’re counting this? I’ve got a high resolution screen with a dedicated satellite picture and it still had to have a circle around it to spot it? “dud” seems a bit lacking…
Also, FWIW, I’m “barycenter friendly” so if folks want to discuss it in peace (and if Anthony does not find it worthy to have here) they are welcome to conduct their discussions over on chiefio.wordpress.com (presently being kicked around under the quakes thread:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
though I could add another related to solar stuff if desired.
As near as I can tell, angular momentum conservation requires that as the solar position vector shortens with the sun center approaching the barycenter, the solar orbital angular momentum (r x p or: position vector crossproduct linear momentum) approaches zero, so the angular momentum must go somewhere. There are not a lot of choices.
Solar spin. Planet orbit. Planet spin. Two out of the three ought to have significant effects on the sun or the oceans, and planet orbit might well effect seasons. Is it enough? I don’t know, someone better with vector calculations and with all the relevant orbital mechanics knowledge needs to do the math.
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?

March 22, 2009 2:06 am

Re – Lee (23:56:04) :
“The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun.”
It’s all down to Gravity.
F = GMm/R²
Where F is force in Newtons, G is the gravitational constant (6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg²) M & m the masses in Kg and R² the squared distance between the two bodies in metres.
Earth/Moon
Average distance 3.84*10^8 m
Mass of Earth & Moon 5.98*10^24 kg & 7.35*10^22 kg
Sun/Jupiter
Average distance 7.7657*10^9m
Mass of Sun & Jupiter 1.9891 ×10^30 kg & 1.898*10^24kg
I believe in a previous thread, Dr Svensmark said that the tide raised upon the surface of the sun by Jupiter was in the order of a few millimetres.
ie diddly-squat!

March 22, 2009 2:17 am

New forum thread: Evidence for solar barycentre effects on our weather Happy to take the load off you for this Anthony if you like. Just want good science 😉

Andrew P
March 22, 2009 2:33 am

OT – the ICCC conference has finally gor some coverage in a UK newspaper: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/Case-against-climate-change-melting.5096564.jp
Needless to say they get some quotes from alarmists to counter, e.g.
“… Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves”.
The comments are generally favourable however, although Slioch has just appeared.

Lindsay H
March 22, 2009 2:54 am

If TSI does not include solar magnetic flux then perhaps we should look a little closer at the effects Coronal Mass Ejections have on the planet.
Its been noted high intensity CME’s have been related to a lengthening of the Earths Length of Day by a few miliseconds. and that durnig periods of solar minimum the earth speeds up. We get more earthquakes at solar minimum, and more volcanic activity. Perhaps evidence of core /mantle interaction.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
has some interesting observations.

Les Francis
March 22, 2009 3:23 am

Rhys Jaggar (00:42:38) :
In defence of Mr Watts’ moderation:
I have to say I’ve been vilified on several sites for daring to engage in debate. At this site, I’ve read a lot, added a few comments and not seen any evidence of thuggery or intimidation.

I would like to say that Anthony’s site has been relatively free of Ad Hom attacks and trolls. That is what keeps his readers and posters coming back and adds up to the best scientific blog.
The discussions are always lively and full of well intentioned debate, free of put downs and there are always voices of reasons such as Dr. Svalgaard’s.
Long may it last.

Steve M.
March 22, 2009 3:34 am

‘“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”
Al Gore’s name shouldn’t be attached to anything except the fact that children can’t sleep good after seeing his moving. This is the only thing he has earned being remembered for.’
Gore and Hanson’s name should only be remembered in infamy. Like “Gore’s global warming scare” or “Hanson’s surface temerature debacle”

March 22, 2009 3:38 am

REPLY: I would say when SC24 is so late that SC25 should be starting. – Anthony
Well, at that stage there will be no doubt, for sure. But that implies waiting another 10-11 years. You don’t have to wait until a corpse reaches ambient temperature to call it dead 🙂
But to [maybe over-] simplify things a little, let us say we end up having more than 1000 spotless days some time next year (we are just under 600 now). That would be a pretty strong sign I think. I know we have 2 cases (#12 and #15) with just over 1000 spotless days, but from then on we are in ‘unchartered territory’.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Main
Another useful metric is perhaps if we go beyond 1 standard deviation of the SC10-15 average
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
So I think if the situation is largely similar as today by mid 2010, it would be safe to declare a grand minimum?

idlex
March 22, 2009 3:49 am

Slightly OT: A different take on it all. A look at the ethics of the global warming debate: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

March 22, 2009 4:17 am

To everyone responding to my post. I don’t deny that the sun is a factor. But it is not a strong enough factor with only SC variation. There are a lot of other factors involved. That is why weather and climate are chaotic. Warming trends tend to increase convection which increases energy transfer. Cooling periods have the reverse response. If you think that you can predict climate based only on solar cycle variation you are on a fools errand.
Low solar TSI plus a cool oscillation phase will enhance cooling. But only until the overall system reaches a point of reversal. There are roughly 25 to 30 years climate cycles that vary based on the whims of nature. I use whims of nature because the driving forces are not fully understood. Though Tsonis has shed some light on the effects, the causes are still mysterious.
It is better in my mind to look at the complexity of the big picture instead of grabbing a small snippet. As a captain, I don’t believe everything weathermen or climatologists say. I look out the window.

WakeUpMaggy
March 22, 2009 4:43 am

I really was a bit surprised to see the retired orbit specialist scientist so quickly muzzled. We may not think much of barycentrism, possibly we need to think of it some. Many of us non-scientists need to know that it exists. I too tend to welcome input from our fathers and grandfathers, with respect.
It may be an insignificant part of the whole picture, but someone has devoted a lifetime of work doing the math and at least laying some more groundwork on our feeble understanding of the solar system.
We refer to Chicken Little and Lazarus stories of the past, let us watch ALL the “Blind Men and the Elephant” as they each explore their own little part, lest we lose faith that we are honestly trying to see the big picture.

anna v
March 22, 2009 4:47 am

Lee (23:56:04) : and everybody else with barycenter motions
The idea that the earth and moon are ‘coupled’ while the sun is not doesn’t make sense to me. The effect may be small, but all the larger planets, particularly Jupiter must raise a tide on the sun.
Leif is right and we have been through this in all threads that mention the sun.
Here is a summary:
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.
2)The barycenter of the earth moon system is 1700 km under the surface of the earth and moves continuously synchronously with the tides, but does not create the tides as the barycenter has no mass and therefore no gravitational force. It is the moon earth system that have both the mass and the gravitational coupling.
3)Barycenters are mathematical points useful for calculating what the solar system does with respect to the galaxy and other bodies outside it, with an effective mass.
It is the only use of the barycenter that I know. Similarly the barycenter of the earth moon system is useful for the trajectory of the earth moon system about the sun.
Nobody worries that the barycenter racing in the crust of the earth will stir it up like mayonnaise, because it cannot, it has no existence except in our heads. (coordinate systems)
4)Correlations of planetary motions and the sun are interesting, but correlation is not causation. In addition, in the chaotic dynamics of the solar system there will be sinusoidal dependences that can correlate, or +/- some hundred years when they do not. It is inevitable. I give the example of waves in two different oceans. It is easy to find correlations in their space and time sequence (+/- something), but can anybody seriously think that it would mean anything except similar dynamics (solutions of similar equations)?
In conclusion, if a dynamical mechanism can be shown much stronger than the gravitational coupling to introduce spin orbit or orbit orbit couplings, I would be one of the first to applaud, and look at putative correlations with another eye. At the moment nothing is being offered.
Science fiction: I have suggested before that maybe it is the famous dark matter, which has been postulated to be 9/10ths of the mass of the universe that will be introducing these couplings. If so it will be the second confirmation of dark matter.
This suggestion shows how desperately in need of a coupling force any spin orbit etc mechanism is. ( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).

March 22, 2009 4:49 am

Great to see censorship has not stopped people thinking……

March 22, 2009 5:05 am

Gerry (18:02:00) :
I hope your still around, if so your comments would be very welcome at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
We have several projects I am sure you could help us with. We are a community forging ahead with new research into Planetary Influence. Dr. Ian Wilson is a contributor and great support and I have my own work as do others, with mainstream science ridiculing, but failing, its time for a different approach based on scientific principles but prepared to look outside the square.

March 22, 2009 5:06 am

One thing about the sun most people don’t know or follow and I certainly don’t understand is that certain “outputs” (radiation, winds, magnetic storms) appear to make seizures worse. For the past 9 years seeral of us been following it a a special web site (http://weather.alcollier.com) and have found when certain parts peak, seizures are more prone and when the same factors are low people wh cronically suffer from migraines find them worse. There appears to be a relationship to the sun and the increase in pain leels for folks with fibromyalgia (sp?).
There is much, much more to the the sun’s affects on the human race other than just light.

Paul Stanko
March 22, 2009 5:07 am

For all interested, here’s a ranking of the spotless days (includes March 22, which just came out about 20 minutes ago!)
#1) Solar Cycle B, 1689-1706, 5847 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#2) Solar Cycle E, 1642-1661, 5524 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#3) Solar Cycle D, 1661-1677, 5521 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#4) Solar Cycle C, 1677-1689, 4272 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#5) Solar Cycle A, 1706-1720, 3579 spotless days (Maunder minimum)
#6) Solar Cycle 6, 1810-1823, 2236 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#7) Solar Cycle 7, 1823-1833, 1533 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#8) Solar Cycle 5, 1798-1810, 1358 spotless days (Dalton Minimum)
#9) Solar Cycle F, 1626-1642, 1149 spotless days
#10) Solar Cycle 12, 1878-1889, 1028 spotless days
#11) Solar Cycle 15, 1913-1923, 1019 spotless days
#12) Solar Cycle 14, 1901-1913, 938 spotless days
#13) Solar Cycle 13, 1889-1901, 736 spotless days
#14) Solar Cycle 10, 1856-1867, 647 spotless days
#15) Solar Cycle 1, 1755-1766, 638 spotless days
#16) Solar Cycle 24, 2009-20??, 580 spotless days
#17) Solar Cycle G, 1614-1626, 574 spotless days
#18) Solar Cycle 17, 1933-1944, 568 spotless days
#19) Solar Cycle 8, 1833-1843, 563 spotless days
#20) Solar Cycle 3, 1775-1784, 536 spotless days
#21) Solar Cycle 16, 1923-1933, 534 spotless days
#22) Solar Cycles 9 and 19, 1843-1856 and 1954-1964, 446 spotless days
#23) Solar Cycle 11, 1867-1878, 406 spotless days
#24) Solar Cycle 2, 1766-1775, 349 spotless days
#25) Solar Cycle 23, 1996-2009, 309 spotless days
#26) Solar Cycles 21 and 22, 1976-1986 and 1986-1996, 272 spotless days
#27) Solar Cycle 18, 1944-1954, 269 spotless days
#28) Solar Cycle 20, 1964-1976, 227 spotless days
Limitations: Spotless days for Cycle 4 could not be estimated due to excessive missing data. Some might argue I should throw out the Maunder minimum.
Hope you all find this ‘enlightening’,
Paul

March 22, 2009 5:08 am

OT/Heads Up:
CBS Sunday Morning is about to visit the “Arctic Ice Melt”.

Editor
March 22, 2009 5:09 am

VG (19:35:10) :
Another a MAJOR paper published. Surprised when the first version came out year ago I think, some attacked is as quackery so now it has definitely been published in a major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. This debunks the WHOLE concept of AGW and the physics behind it

While I’m supportive of the purpose of arxiv.org, and not impressed with the quality of peer review in the so-called peer reviewed journals, you apparently do not understand what arxiv.org is. It is definitely not a “major Physics Journal.” There is very little screening done to what gets posted on arxiv.org. That doesn’t mean that good stuff doesn’t get posted there. But it does mean that stuff that would not normally make it through any kind of normal peer review might end up there as well.
Before you make any further references to arxiv.org, read up on it. The Wikipedia article on it is informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

Pat
March 22, 2009 5:12 am

Where’s Terry Wogan when you need him? (In blankety blank terms of course).

Tom in Florida
March 22, 2009 5:17 am

Paul Stanko (01:33:45) : “For those who would prefer a ranked list…
Thanks Paul for putting the “11 year average” into perspective. Too many forget that 11 years is just the average. According to your list 9 of the 23 cycles are outside of the 10-12 year range so while it is quiet it is not yet what could be considered abnormal. That said, you may want to consider a long term stategy of buying property in Florida now before the rush starts.

March 22, 2009 5:19 am

Glenn (00:10:11) :
Your prediction was for maximum around 2011. If your prediction is not a failure, and you knew that the Sun would be doing “just what it should”, do you still expect a maximum of what was it, 72 in 2011?
Good question…I have another. Will the predicted 72 SSN max that will happen within 2 years, be based on how we count spots today or as we counted them during the last grand minimum? Its getting into a gray area, perhaps giving you a weak legout…lowest in a 100 years is quite different to grand minimum?

Editor
March 22, 2009 5:21 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:41:47) :
[quoting Bill]I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature. However there are apparent peaks at 7.8 years approx and possibly at 2.3, 3.5, 13 and 19 years.[end quote]
You are perfectly correct. Although I have come across the argument that eye-balling with an open mind and a willing heart beats hard-nosed FFT and statistics every time.

Leif,
This isn’t quite consistent with what you said to me a few days ago. You said you would expect there to be variations in temps attributable to TSI within the limits of an absolute variation of 0.07K. That’s not the same as saying that there is NO influence attributable to TSI. Now maybe you are reading something out of Bill’s no “visible influence” that is different than what I took Bill to mean. I think he was saying “no influence at all” visible in the evidence he presented, and that he was implying that it was demonstrating “no influence at all, period.”
So let’s just be clear. The 11 yr cycle in TSI cannot explain the long, century long rise in temperatures seen in the data, but it can explain more modest cycles in temperature on the order of ±0.02C over decadal time periods. At least that is what you acknowledged a few days ago.

Mike Bryant
March 22, 2009 5:40 am

Idlex,
Very eye-opening look at the ethics of GW.
the summation:
“That so many academics, scientists, journalists educators and policy-makers have allowed ideological bias to determine where they stand on a matter requiring clear-eyed and unbiased science is a disgrace. Their biased attitudes make it nearly impossible to reach coherent and responsible decisions on matters that have long-term implications for world poverty, health, quality of life and survival. The only ethical way to approach climate change issues is to be honest about what we know, to be clear about what we don’t know, to admit what we can’t know, and to make intelligent choices among options determined by facts and analysis rather than manipulation and bias.”

Harold Ambler
March 22, 2009 5:42 am

Well, wuwt is Anthony’s “house,” and on a fundamental level the rules of the house are none of my business.
Even I, with my limited knowledge of physics (one of the top 150 high-school-level physics students in California in 1983, and that’s about it), agree with Dr. Svalgaard that the distances involved in the solar system make meaningful tides seem unlikely.
And yet there is this problem of the jovian-planet theorists being on to something.
I may as well come out and say what I think here, which is that there is more about the workings of the Universe (at the level of the large and the small) that we don’t know than there is that we do know.
If you visited the average astrophysicist 30 years ago and asked him how large of an effect star formation in the Milky Way had on cloudiness on Earth, he likely would have sent you out of his office. And yet it turns out that there is a mechanism that seems to have an important influence of this kind.
What if what has been described as barycentric coupling, with gravity as the central feature, is really a coupling involving dimensions to which we remain blind, or nearly so? In other words, what if the gravity component is just the outermost (and one visible) feature of a set of complex processes that we won’t be able to witness for generations?
(If ever…)
I’m pretty sure Anthony knows the respect that I hold for him, but just in case, let me say here that I think that his intellect, courage, and energy are all admirable in the extreme. He is, simply put, a leader.

VG
March 22, 2009 5:42 am

Basil : point taken you could be right but having read the article itself, I think it stands. Time will show. the other articles published seem robust as well?

Psi
March 22, 2009 5:44 am

Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures?

Now, now, let’s not get “unscientific”! 🙂

anna v
March 22, 2009 5:44 am

E.M.Smith (01:58:29) :
As near as I can tell, angular momentum conservation requires that as the solar position vector shortens with the sun center approaching the barycenter, the solar orbital angular momentum (r x p or: position vector crossproduct linear momentum) approaches zero, so the angular momentum must go somewhere. There are not a lot of choices.
Solar spin. Planet orbit. Planet spin. Two out of the three ought to have significant effects on the sun or the oceans, and planet orbit might well effect seasons. Is it enough? I don’t know, someone better with vector calculations and with all the relevant orbital mechanics knowledge needs to do the math.
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?

The only forces are gravitational forces, and those are too small to do anything fancy.
Conservation of angular momentum of a mass means that it does not change unless a force is applied to it. The barycenter is not applying any forces. The planets are, and they do exchange angular momenta between the sun and them through their gravitational forces, but the effects are very small.
Have a thought experiment. Instead of the barycenter, calculate the angular momentum of the sun with respect to a comet falling into it. Distance 0 at time t0. Does the sun feel anything with respect to angular momentum while this is happening, except a tiny impact?
The barycenter has 0 mass so does not even have any impact.

Ninderthana
March 22, 2009 5:46 am

Lucy Skywalker and E.M. Smith,
Thankyou for your kind words about my 2008 presentation. My solar paper published in PASA:
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008, Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling
Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?, Publications
of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 2008, 25, 85 – 93.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
provides reasonable support for a spin-orbit coupling between the
Sun’s motion about the Barycentre and its equitorial rotation rate,
at least for the period from 1874 to the present.
The problem is that we have not been able to come up with a plausible physical mechanism that could explain why this spin-orbit coupling takes place. So, in a way Leif is right in saying that until someone comes up with
a resonable mechanism we need to have a skeptic filters on full. However, he
is wrong in saying that there is little or no evidence to support the existance of a spin-obit coupling. All he has to do is look at figure 8 of our paper to
see the evidence first hand.
I have data that is even more compelling than that shown in figure 8. Indeed, the spin-orbit coupling is so evident that I have made the prediction that by ~ 2010 to 2011, we should see a higher equitorial rotation rate on the Sun [provided that the trend seen since 1874 continues].
Leif is correct in pointing out that the chief problem with any planetary tidal or gravitational mechanism is that the forces (tides) involved fall magnitudes
short of what is required to produce the required changes in the Sun’s internal motion. Effectivey the Sun’s mass is distributed in such a perfect sphere that the already miniscule tidal forces of the planets have nothing to latch onto in order to speed up or slow down the Sun’s rotation rate.
Unlike Leif, I have not blocked off this area of enquiry because I cannot [currently] come up with a plausible mechanism.
One possible mechanism that I am persuing at the moment is the possibility that the extremely weak tidal force of Jupiter is able to see a dynamically distinct torus or ring of matter in the Sun’ convective layer that is tilted at 7 degrees to Jupiter’s orbit. This torus of matter is formed by the differentially rotating equatorial regions and it appears to rotate with respect Jupiter once every 0.8 to 1.3 years. This is pure speculation at present, but I am persuing the idea that the tiny tidal force of Jupiter actually causes this torus of matter to begin to precess, taking about 100,000 years to slowly build up a precession speed of ~ 6 m/sec (seen in the torsional oscillations). Of course,
these are sort of ideas that it is only safe to discuss with the fairies at the bottom of the garden rather than is “serious” scientific circles.

VG
March 22, 2009 5:47 am

Basil again: Re major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. Again considering that the journal Nature actually published a complete load of B…… Steig et al as a major cover story ect…re fabricated/made up/”modelled” antarctic temperatures (see climate audit), I take back what I said before and support the major Physics Journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161. ie: it appear’s that one may be as credible as the other!

idlex
March 22, 2009 6:08 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:55:56) : The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two.
I can understand why some people think there’s a coupling. And I can also see why Leif is saying there isn’t one. Myself? I don’t know.
I built a simple orbital simulation of the solar system a couple of months back. It calculates the accelerations, velocities, and positions of the Sun and planets every few seconds. And it works quite well, with the planets going round the Sun in more or less the time expected. It also demonstrates the cycloidal orbital motion of the Sun, agreeing with published results.
It occurs to me that I could use this simulation model to see how the Sun behaves, by replacing my current point mass Sun with a spinning circular chain of masses – the circle radius equalling the radius of the sun, and rotating once every 25 days like the Sun -. And then I’d run the orbital simulation and see whether this new “Sun” changed its behaviour at all as it followed its cycloidal path.
But I suspect that Leif Svalgaard is right, and that my “Sun” won’t change its behaviour at all. And it won’t demonstrate any spin-orbit coupling. But then, I haven’t tried it out yet…

Garacka
March 22, 2009 6:17 am

The theory that solar/planetary orbit pattern variations (causing changes in gravitational “tugging”) are a 1st order climate driver is very appealing to me because of its simplicity. This theory also says that the Sunspot variations are the Sun’s response to those same “tuggings”, so climate and sunspots may be correlated, but they’re both correlated to the “tuggings”. Other sunspot/climate correlations exist but are likely 2nd or 3rd order. (except maybe the Cosmic ray piece- which maybe a 1.5th order) Didn’t someone say that simple is “better”?

John-X
March 22, 2009 6:21 am

Jan Janssens on today’s small sunspot:
” 22 March 09 – New SC24-group has reversed polarity… – The new sunspotgroup that is visible in today’s SOHO-images, has -according to the corresponding magnetogram- a reversed polarity (SC23/25). Though on itself this is not so peculiar (every solar cycle has about hundred such groups, or about 3% of the total), it is already the second SC24-group showing this “aberration”: NOAA 1003, visible for just one day (04 October 2008) on the southern hemisphere (-23°), had a polarity equal to that of a unpair solar cycle too (see slide 4 of my presentation). That makes 2 out of 13 (15%), if this group gets a NOAA-number. ”
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engnieuwtjes.html#Zon

March 22, 2009 6:21 am

So not much talk on the polarity of this SC24? spot. This latitude and polarity would be rare?

red432
March 22, 2009 6:22 am

Re: major Physics Journal :: citing wikipedia information as a criticism of an academic publication is amusing. A lot of wikipedia is good, but it can also be completely hijacked by people with an agenda, especially when it comes to the AGW discussion — the watchers of wikipedia never sleep it seems…
Check out their article on the medieval warm period, especially the graphic on the right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
If you look at the logs: it kept getting criticized, edited, and then reverted. Eventually the objectors just gave up.
There are many other examples of this.

anna v
March 22, 2009 6:23 am

Basil (05:09:31) :
The paper has been published.
Falsi cation Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph] 4 Mar 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c
World
Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

from the link of the publishers:
To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing. We welcome you to submit your research papers to IJMPB for publication.

March 22, 2009 6:35 am

anna v (04:47:46) :
Very interesting to see how your views have changed. About 9 months ago on WUWT you said this in response to Ian Wilson’s paper:
I think the importance of this paper does not so much lie on the content, rather that it is a peer reviewed paper that introduces new theories in the mix.
The more the better to clarify for the public that the science is NOT settled and before humanity jumps into the economic chaos of CO2 witch chasing, it should be made aware of this.
It is unfortunate that a great number of national societies of this and that have come out for the AGW theory, I am sure without polling their members and stating percentages. It is like declaring their faith, and it is good that dissenting voices become loud.
As far as the content, as a physicist, and having seen elsewhere that the baricenter lies inside the fluid sun I do not exclude the possibility that these motions change the magnetic fields in tandem . Of course it needs a serious study by a magnetic dynamo solar theorist, and a fluid dynamics one for sure ( to see how the gravitational changes couple with the rotation) . In addition it needs proof that changes in the sun’s magnetic field create weather changes ( albedo and galactic cosmic rays? remains to be proven).
As I said, the science is not settled.

Seems it might be, you and others might be convinced by one person?

Psi
March 22, 2009 6:43 am

Harold Ambler (18:55:42) :
Gerry: Pretty interesting, don’t you think? I’m a retired orbit specialist, who worked at JPL from 1965 to 1980. I find barycentric solar orbits most fascinating.
REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony
I would be tempted to treat an orbit specialist who worked for 15 years at JPL with some respect. Dr. Svalgaard is one scientist. Gerry is apparently another — maybe each of them knows some things that the other doesn’t?
Gerry’s point is that no one (including Dr. Svalgaard) predicted sc23’s length the way Fairbridge did (with the possible exception of Landscheidt), let alone 20 years ahead of the fact.

A revealing exchange. I would have to agree that no matter how sophisticated and knowledgable Dr. Svalgaard is, the predictive success of Fairbridge merits respect and can’t simply be laughed off by saying that his proposed causes are insufficient to produced the alleged results. Perhaps if the Barycentric forces are insufficient, there are other forces — e.g. electricity — involved.
That could explain how the orbital frequencies of planets effect the solar cycle even if the gravity alone cannot account for the reasons why.
Vukevic? Is that it?
-psi

Bill Illis
March 22, 2009 7:11 am

Related to the topic brought up by Ninderthana and the barycentre discussion, there is a thing called …
… Atmospheric Angular Momentum – atmospheric winds literally create a drag on the Earth’s rotation (a few thousandth of a millisecond +/-) and it is carefully measured. This is the main cause of the change in the Length of Day noted by Ninderthana.
It seems to be modulated highly by ENSO events with the other ocean cycles playing a part.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=23097
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/aam.rean.shtml
Anyone know where there is monthly average data on this or for the length of day. All I’ve found is daily data which is going to take too much time to turn into something useful.

Robert Wood
March 22, 2009 7:15 am

Already the SC24 Sun Speck is only visible in the magnetogram.

anna v
March 22, 2009 7:26 am

Geoff Sharp (06:35:57) :
I had said: As I said, the science is not settled.
You comment: Seems it might be, you and others might be convinced by one person?
Not a person. The physics as explained by a person.
My field is particle physics. I had taken a general relativity course back in 1970s, and even taught mechanics from Goldstein for a season but that does not mean that I have celestial mechanics at my fingertips.
I have been convinced that gravitational forces of the solar system are not enough to produce the necessary effects on spin orbit, and by thinking a bit about it, that the barycenter business is an unnecessary complication, like the epicycle theory in a geocentric coordinate system.
In addition I have been reading a bit into chaos and complexity. Sinusoidal type of dependencies are very common in chaotic dynamical systems, so I am not impressed by periodical correlations as I would have been before delving into the subject of chaos.
I think the challenge is to come up with a dynamical mechanism, and thus the science is still open.

Leon Brozyna
March 22, 2009 7:37 am

That odd high latitude SC23 pair of specks is gone this morning. All that’s left is a plage area. The specks were never even noted by SWPC or Catania. Too brief a phenom to bother with? So the string of {official} spotless days continue.
REPLY: See my newest post on the main page – Anthony

SandyInDerby
March 22, 2009 7:56 am

I personally like the barycentric theory, I have no idea if it is correct though. Sort of rests well with Milankovich and and other of the earths bio-rythms.
Anyway most of the UK population will have other things to worry about if Porritt gets his way. I assume he’ll (porritt) be one of the 30 million?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece

Roger Knights
March 22, 2009 7:57 am

“The Inconvenient Minimum”?

Ohioholic
March 22, 2009 8:02 am

How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
REPLY: In the old days, it was an asbestos tape measure…but in these modern times…. 😉 Anthony

March 22, 2009 8:16 am

Just Want Truth… (22:27:05) :
“hareynolds (17:40:24) : (b) I can’t get ANY traction with this, but I keep trying if this IS a Minimum, shouldn’t it be named the Gore Minimum”

AGW Minimum!

March 22, 2009 8:46 am

“REPLY: We don’t think much of barycentrism here. Too little mass to make any difference. Dr. Svalgaard has debunked it extensively here – Anthony”
With due respect, Will to disbelieve?, nothing to be discarded yet, after Newton came Einstein, perhaps there are no big newtonian forces in play but it seems there are other forces which we do not know yet, there is correspondence though it may no be causation, but who knows somebody sometime in the future, perhaps here in WUWT, will come out and explain the whole issue for us.

March 22, 2009 8:48 am

Basil (05:21:53) :
“[quoting Bill]I think it is evident that there is no VISIBLE TSI influence on temperature.”
but it can explain more modest cycles in temperature on the order of ±0.02C over decadal time periods. At least that is what you acknowledged a few days ago.

Bill was asking if he did anything wrong in his analysis, and my answer was that he did not. The tiny solar cycle variation we expect does not rise enough over the noise to be visible. For a 300-year series the noise on the average [or on an FFT peak] would be of the order of the standard deviation divided by the square root of 300 i.e. ~18. The standard deviation [variation from year to year] is certainly larger than a degree, hence the noise would be larger than 1/18 = 0.06 degrees, so no wonder that the TSI signal does not show.
Re prediction:
Our polar field method only predicts the size and not the timing. The 2011 time frame is a ‘nomimal’ time just adding 11 years to the 2000 maximum time [BTW, the referee’s wouldn’t let us speculate on the timing, pointing out (correctly, we conceded) that the polar field precursor method does not provide a timing prediction in itself]. So, this was not a prediction. In 2006 we made a stab at a timing prediction: page 15 of http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf . Based on a minimum in 2007.5 we estimated SC24 max in 2013.5. Since minimum is now a year later, we expect maximum to be similarly later, i.e. 2014.5. This is a ‘weak’ prediction based on the usual or statistical rise time for an Rmax = 75, and the statistical variation is not small, so we should allow for an error of +/-1 year at least.
On the barycenter/planetary stuff: so much has already been hashed on this that there is not much to add. Perhaps a bit about the tides: The tidal bulge from Jupiter is 0.46 millimeter high, and is there ALL the time, thus does not have an 11-year [or 11.86 yr for Jupiter] period. Enthusiasts now would say, “Ah, but the orbit of Jupiter is not a circle”. This is true and the result is that the tidal bulge varies from 0.41 mm to 0.55 mm over an 11.9 year period for a total of 0.14 mm, about the width of a human hair.
On the spin-orbit coupling: to change the rotation of the sun you need to apply a torque and a torque requires a lever arm that provides a couple. I cannot fasten a nut by waving my hand in pront of it. Only if I use a wrench to connect my hand with the nut, can I turn the nut.
So there is no way we know of that can achieve the coupling. this means that we are back to how good the correlations are. There is a historical precedent for this situation: in the 19th century it was noted that there is a correlation between sunspots and wiggling of the ‘magnetic needle’. The famous first observation of a solar flare by Carrington in 1859 was followed about a day later by a magnetic storm. It was suggested by ‘enthusiasts’ at the time that magnetic forces on the Sun were coupled with and caused disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field. The most eminent physicist at the time, Lord Kelvin [we name the temperature scale after him] proved conclusively [and his proof is still valid today] that it is physically impossible that a change in the Sun’s magnetic field could cause the magnetic disturbances we observe at the Earth, and that therefore the correlations were a mere coincidence.
But the correlations got better and better as more and more data accumulated, so the coincidence argument got weaker and weaker. The solution turned out to be ‘new physics’, a phenomenon that Lord Kelvin [real name W Thomson] did not know about [although he was a co-discover (confusingly together with another Thomson (J.J.) of the electron as part of atoms], namely the new state of matter we now call a plasma. Later [in the 1940s] Hannes Alfven showed that a magnetic field would be ‘frozen’ into a plasma and move with it, so the solar wind [predicted in the 1950s and discovered in the 1960s] could carry the magnetic field from the Sun to the Earth and thereby circumvent Lord Kelvin’s objection [based of the known distance-cubed falloff of a magnetic field in a vacuum and the distance-squared falloff you get from dragging the field out by the solar wind].
So, should we resort to invoking new physics? IMHO the correlations are not good enough for this.

Editor
March 22, 2009 9:00 am

Ninderthana (05:46:03) :
Thanks for the links to your paper and slide presentation. They were most informative.

March 22, 2009 9:05 am

Ohioholic (08:02:33) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.

Ohioholic
March 22, 2009 9:11 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:05:05) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.
Those are quite the eyeballs, my friend. You must be a fantastic cook. Not to mention your retinas of steel. Gee, maybe I should go try it….. Harhar. Can’t help feeling a little hostility in that answer.
Surely there is some kind of satellite? I am just interested in knowing if it is public data, if it exists somewhere.

March 22, 2009 9:12 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:24:53) :
I never ignore anything [that is one my problems; if I only did, these discussions would wither on the vine], but I have yet to see a plausible physical explanation. Doesn’t have to be correct, just possible, i.e. not violating physical laws or being energetically inadequate.

Hi Leif,
firstly, thank you for responding, I’m sure the previous occasions on which I’ve tried to flag this one up, there was too much else going on. Thanks also to Anthony also for having the good grace to allow further discussion of these theories and results.
The theory I am referring to is that of a cycles and harmonics expert Ray Tomes. A year or so ago, Ray presented this theory on the bautforum.com website. I’ll give it a quick praisee and then provide the link to the original discussion. Bautforum is a fairly tersely run website where people putting forward new theories get a real grilling from physics and astronomy experts and questions must be answered to avoid the thread getting locked.
Ray’s theory is that the important effect of the gas giant planets on the sun arises out of the fact that the sun is tilted at 7 degrees or so to the plane of invariance the main planets orbit in. Whereas radial barycentric forces are cancelled out in the period of a solar rotation, the motion of the slow moving planets north or south of the solar equator continue for many years at a time. Because the matter and energy in the sun has a gradient from core to surface, the Einsteinian relativistic effect of the Jovian planets gravitation is to diferentially pull the matter of the sun north or south, creating internal pressure waves which result in the production of sunspots.
Because the Jovian planets lie in more or less the same plane, the times when the effect is at a maximum, also coincide with the times when the planets are in conjunction, which is why the radial barycentric effect more commonly discussed appears to fit the data, but lacks a viable physical mechanism. In fact, when Ray calculated the fourier transformation, he found a peak not produced in the more commonly considered theory, which matches the sunspot cycles more accurately.
The theory also postulates that there is a natural resonance period for the sun of around 10.5 years, with a variable ‘Q’ factor which Ray believes will turn out to be a cyclic function related to the interactions of planetary motions over a long period beyond the currently available data. I rememeber a discussion Leif and I had on climate audit a couple of years ago where we concluded the solar effects on earths climate may have a ‘lag’ of around 10 years, this may be why that is so.
Because the period of time it takes for energy to move from the centre of the sun to the surface and issues around relativistic mass-energy exchange are still uncertain, the strength of the effect can curently only be determined to within an order of magnitude or so, Ray comes up with a few possible figures throughout the thread, don’t dismiss the effect as being in inadequate at the first given figures.
So to summarise, the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. Because the effect is minimal if conjunctions occur at the crossing points of the sloar equatorial plane and the plane of the planets, this explains why some conjunctions of particular pairs of planets are more or less powerful depending on angle relative to the tilt of the suns axis. This may help us understand why some solar minima are deeper than others.
The thread where Ray proposed this theory requires attentive reading, and is tough going in places, but the four pages are worth sticking through to get the full gist of the theory, and it’s mathematical expression.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/72665-explaining-planetary-alignments-relationship-sunspot-cycle.html
Thanks as always for your time and patience Leif, I hope you can find the time to give this theory the time and consideration I think it deserves.

March 22, 2009 9:17 am

Adolfo Giurfa (08:46:12) :
but it seems there are other forces which we do not know yet
imagine you are having a televised debate with Al Gore on this and when he shows a picture of polar bears and penguins struggling to stay on the same shrinking ice floe, your argument is that there must be ‘other forces which we do not know’ in play.

MartinGAtkins
March 22, 2009 9:20 am

I will suggest to call the existing sun minimum the “WATTS MINIMUM” !

REPLY: Thanks but I don’t need anything named after me – Anthony

To late, you’re already a unit of energy. One Anthony = ten Blogaspheres.

Garacka
March 22, 2009 9:26 am

Gravitational variations act “instantaneously” throughout a continuum. Doing so in a fluid that is governed by a bunch of 2nd order (I can’t remember if there are 3rd order terms) coupled partial differential equations suggest that the opportunity exists for some larger scale oscillatory solutions to arise to those equations.
I seem to recall that there a number of simplified cases in fluid mechanics where the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved explicity and they reveal oscillations that may not have been expected in advance (if you hadn’t first looked at the physical system to see them.)
Is there a very simplified scenario, perhaps with a sphere with 2 layers of immiscible fluid acted on by a small varying external gravity force, for which the equations can be solved numerically, (or even explicitly) that might support the contention that magnified effects can occur? Isn’t one of the theories regarding Sun cycles that oscillations are set up in the Sun between 2 “layers”?

David Reese
March 22, 2009 9:31 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:55:56) : The problem with your picture is that there is a coupling [namely friction] between the rotating table and the liquid in the bowl, but there is no coupling between the rotating Sun and its orbital movement. It has been suggested many times that as a planet goes around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, i.e. changing its orbital speed that it would rotate slower or faster depending on its orbital speed. This doesn’t happen either, again because there is no couple between the two.
There is a coupling between an electromagnetically active sun and disturbances caused by movement about a barycenter. The solar systems immense magnetic field is accompanied by immense solar electrical currents. If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple! Immense electromagnetic disturbance can be caused by planets pulling the sun in different directions. These disturances might result in variations in sunspot cycles.

Robert Bateman
March 22, 2009 9:57 am

Leif Svalgaard (09:05:05) :
Ohioholic (08:02:33) :
How often is the sun’s circumference measured? How is this done?
Every 96 minutes by looking at it.

NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.
One must be ever vigilant, even if one thinks that novices are absent.

March 22, 2009 10:17 am

Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
“Every 96 minutes by looking at it.”
NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.

SOHO looks, this is the only way it has to observe the Sun.
David Reese (09:31:51) :
If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple!
You need to have the force first and the tidal forces are so small that they have no effect compared to the other forces that are working on the Sun, like the convection of hot material from the interior. The convection consists of a million Texas-sized cells moving up and down at half a kilometer per second. Compare that to a hair-thickness-size movement of the tidal bulge.

David Reese
March 22, 2009 10:29 am

Leif, there is a force that moves the electrical currents. It is the gravitation force of the planets which move the sun about it’s barycenter.

Editor
March 22, 2009 10:34 am

I noticed that my question has been left sitting. That often means that something contains an issue to be resolved… So I’ll repeat the question:
But the mass of the sun orbiting at 2 solar radii is not a small r x p and that must be conserved as r approaches zero. That is physics, not opinion. So where does it go?
We had some hand waving about tides, but I don’t think this is tides issue…
My take on it is given below as a “thought experiment”. I know these are fraught with all kinds of opportunities to delude yourself; and I also know that I’m no physicist (I did OK at it, but freshman college physics was as far as I went…). I’m not offering this as proof of anything; just as a way to get to the answer to the question of “Where does the angular momentum in solar r x p go as the position vector goes to zero?” It must be conserved.
While a lot of the articles I’ve seen talk about the tidal force transferring the momentum, I’ve done a thought experiment that does not use tides. Perhaps a physics major can critque it?
Draw a graph with a ‘center of orbit’ point. Put a hypothetical ‘planet’ center at distance of 10 units from the center of orbit with planet radius of 1 unit and planet spin of 1 per orbit (so the same face always faces the center of the orbit). At this point, the center of the planet is traveling a distance of 10pi in one time period (orbit) while the outer edge is travling 11pi and the inner edge is traveling 9pi per unit of time.
Now displace the planet in to a distance of 1 unit orbit for the planet center. Closest edge is at the orbit center, so no orbital velocity. Yet it had a speed before, and that speed had it making an orbit in 9/10 the distance of the planet center so 9/10 the speed. Now it’s zero of orbit so speed has to go into spin torque (conservation of MV).
Seems to me it would still have that speed, but that speed would now have to show up as spin of the leading edge in the direction of the orbit.
Repeat thought experiment for the trailing edge. It was going faster by a small amount (11/10 compared to planet center, or 11/9 compared to inner edge), but now is going at an even lesser percentage (i.e. it does 2pi distance when the core does 1pi distance and inner edge does 0pi; so it’s now 2x distance to travel as the center of planet, but only moving 11/10 as fast, ergo slow relative to the planet center, ergo spin force dragging against the orbit…) so it pulls to the trailing direction of the orbit.
Net result, increased spin…
And no tidal forces are involved. So Liefs complaint about free fall and gravity does not apply as near as I can tell. And no, I don’t think the center of orbit produced any forces on anything, it’s just the reference frame.
Now imagine said ball is a big fire ball of fluid plasma… I have to think that such a spin force difference would disrupt or modulate whatever ‘conveyor belt’ was working … and do something to the sun spot cycle.
(Please, be gentle… you are dealing with a non-physicist just trying to learn how angular momentum and spin-orbit coupling work… and I remember not liking the angular momentum part of my physics class, yet here I am voluntarily chasing it…)

gary gulrud
March 22, 2009 10:46 am

“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. ”
Very interesting, and within scope for engineers! In the course of DiffEq one studies harmonic resonances with simple 2nd order linear differential equations.
We had one short movie in the course, a galloping suspension bridge! As I remember an old model A or similar vintage car was stopped halfway and disappeared for much of the time as the waves(both in the direction of the bridge and transverse) were much larger in amplitude.
The wind speed at the time of the film escapes me.

Editor
March 22, 2009 10:55 am

Already spotted one error… that 10pi, 11pi, etc. ought to be 2piR (or piD) so it would be 20pi, 22pi, etc.
Did I mention that I didn’t like angular momentum physics in school?… 😎

Ohioholic
March 22, 2009 10:55 am

Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:19) :
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted the answer. The internet makes it hard to sort sarcastic comments from a simple answer. It seemed at first like a sarcastic, go look for yourself kind of answer. Apology.
Is there somewhere one can look at the sun’s fluctuations in size?

March 22, 2009 10:55 am

David Reese:“If one moves a current within a magnetic field, forces are involved, hence a couple! Immense electromagnetic disturbance can be caused by planets pulling the sun in different directions”
The trouble is that we, as observers of just an “instant solar system” can not but imagine what would it be if our “blinking of an eye” would be, say, 30000 years long; we would be arguing about not about spheres (or worst, round pebbles in the sky) but about helicoidals, perhaps resembling a Ruhmkorff coil.

March 22, 2009 11:15 am

David Reese (10:29:56) :
Leif, there is a force that moves the electrical currents. It is the gravitation force of the planets which move the sun about it’s barycenter.
They move the whole Sun and not just a piece of it. It is like moving a battery-powered flashlight. Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?
E.M.Smith (10:34:06) :
At this point, the center of the planet is traveling a distance of 10pi in one time period (orbit) while the outer edge is travling 11pi and the inner edge is traveling 9pi per unit of time.
Gravity and ‘orbital forces’ work as if all the mass was concentrated at the center of gravity. This was a fundamental result first derived by Isaac Newton.
Here is more on forces, center of gravity, torques, and lever arms:
http://www.valdosta.edu/~pbaskin/phys1111ch9notes.doc
And this has nothing to do with the Sun being fluid [people often think that that is somehow important]. There are small deviations form the ‘center of gravity’ principle and these are called ‘tides’ stemming from the fact that the gravitational force is different from one side of the body to the other side. On the Sun these are VERY small.

March 22, 2009 11:19 am

gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years
I missed where you got this ‘tidbit’ from?
Ohioholic (10:55:33) :
Robert Bateman (09:57:24) :
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:19) :
Ok, maybe I misinterpreted the answer. The internet makes it hard to sort sarcastic comments
You and other can rest assured that I would never do a thing like that. I may say that something is nonsense if I think it is, but that is not meant sarcastically.
Is there somewhere one can look at the sun’s fluctuations in size?
Basically no, at the present time.

Editor
March 22, 2009 11:26 am

anna v (04:47:46) :
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.

I would assert that you only need conservation of angular momentum, not tides, to influence the solar spin.
( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).
I would further assert that barycenter movement is relevant since, as the center of orbit, it determines the length of the position vector in the ( p x r ) calculation of orbital angular momentum.
As the position vector approaches zero: p x r approaches zero and that angular momentum must be conserved and must go somewhere with solar spin being a prime candidate (and maybe via some kind of orbital resonance? into planetary orbit / spin changes).

David Reese
March 22, 2009 11:27 am

Adolfo Giurfa: Have you found my misplaced Spirograph. I like to think of our Solar System’s Journey as a Symphony replete with many Harmonics.

Editor
March 22, 2009 11:31 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:48:07) :
The tiny solar cycle variation we expect does not rise enough over the noise to be visible. For a 300-year series the noise on the average [or on an FFT peak] would be of the order of the standard deviation divided by the square root of 300 i.e. ~18. The standard deviation [variation from year to year] is certainly larger than a degree, hence the noise would be larger than 1/18 = 0.06 degrees, so no wonder that the TSI signal does not show.

Leif,
What do you think it is I’ve been showing? In my last post, I presented two MTM spectrum analyses, one for global temperature data, and the other for a regional data set for the US Southern Region. Both show spectra that are statistically significant (i.e. rise above the noise) at frequencies that could plausibly be related to the solar cycle.
But ignore that (since that is what you are doing), for a moment. Let’s do your exercise with my data for the US Central Region (previously I miswrote “Southern” Region; I’ve got data on all 9 regional divisions I’m studying). I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. The standard deviation is 0.64875. That s.d. divided by the square root of 1356 is 0.0176. The units are in Centigrade. You’ve said TSI can account for absolute range of about 0.07, which is about twice this (2×0.0176 = ~ 0.035). So there is no reason to close your mind to the possibility of being able to see this signal above the background.
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:
http://s5.tinypic.com/r1adtl.jpg
And the time domain representation here:
http://s5.tinypic.com/hreogj.jpg
Now let’s back away from this for a minute. I don’t know that solar is “the” cause of the spectra you see in the preceding graphs. What I know are that (a) we are looking at something that cannot be dismissed as “lost in the noise,” (b) the magnitude of variation is within the range of what could be attributed to TSI, and (c) the spectra are of a frequency that could be attributed to the solar cycle.
Previously you’ve said that you would “expect” to see this. Then you come along and say that you don’t expect to see it because it is not “visible” above the background noise.
You are a hard person to dialog with, even on the best of terms, sometimes.

David Reese
March 22, 2009 11:38 am

Leif, if you drop a copper penny into a strong magnetic field, the penny slows down dramatically. While it is moving in the field, electrical currents are induced that produce a force that opposes the force of gravity. The penny will resume the acceleration of gravity as it leaves the field.

Ohioholic
March 22, 2009 11:48 am

Does temp fluctuation on the surface of the Sun, combined with our exposure to hot spots due to orbit, make a difference at all? I have no idea how many times during one orbit we are exposed to the same specific spot on the sun, and if it is a hot spot, what difference that would make. Just as example figures to try and illustrate what I am asking about, as I am having a hard time putting it into words, if we are exposed to a hot spot 75% of the time, and a cold spot 25%, and then in our next orbit the opposite, would this make a difference?

Editor
March 22, 2009 11:49 am

@Leif Svalgaard (11:15:01) : Here is more on forces, center of gravity, torques,
Thanks, I’ve downloaded it and will proceed to read…
But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question: As the position vector approaches zero, where does the angular momentum go to be conserved?…
Conservation of Angular momentum: It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
Position Vector approaches zero as barycenter approaches solar center (and this is known to happen, not a hypothetical.)
Position Vector near zero says L=r x p near zero. Physics, by definition.
Angular momentum was conserved.
Where did it go?

Editor
March 22, 2009 12:12 pm

E.M.Smith (11:49:17) : Angular momentum was conserved.
Where did it go?

I probably ought to add to that:
From kohai, nervously eyeing his usual spot on the foor 8-0 !
(I do feel almost exactly like I did as a lowly purple belt asking 4th? degree black belt Sensei “What happens if I did This? ” — hello floor… )

March 22, 2009 12:35 pm

Solar magnetic fields (polar and sunspots) change polarity along the solar cycles’ progression (with half a cycle phase shift).
One way this can be achieved is through the flow of ‘solar currents’, modulated by a feedback through energy interchange between solar wind and the planetary magnetospheres.
The intensity of the feedback may also be a function of planetary position within heliosphere’s geometry.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link

kuhnkat
March 22, 2009 12:40 pm

Leif,
” Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?”
if it has an inductive set up to recharge the batteries in it I DO!!!!
HAHAHAHAHA

Glenn
March 22, 2009 12:47 pm

Leif Svalgaard (08:48:07) :
“Our polar field method only predicts the size and not the timing. The 2011 time frame is a ‘nomimal’ time just adding 11 years to the 2000 maximum time [BTW, the referee’s wouldn’t let us speculate on the timing, pointing out (correctly, we conceded) that the polar field precursor method does not provide a timing prediction in itself]. So, this was not a prediction.”
“we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 +/- 8”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005GeoRL..3201104S
This clearly looks like a prediction and “speculating”. Treat it as not being formally a prediction if you wish, but I find your claim that the reviewers would not let you speculate on the timing, yet allow the speculation to occur in the prediction itself, but only based on a “generic” 11 year cycle. If that it were true there would have been absolutely no reason to approximate timing of the maximum, *especially* if you knew then what you claim now. In any event my question remains unanswered. If you knew then that a small cycle would take longer to appear from minimum and be slower to ramp up to maximum than a larger cycle, in your words the sun would be doing “just what it should be”, why did you approximate SC24 maximum in 2011, in your 2005 prediction above?

anna v
March 22, 2009 12:48 pm

E.M.Smith (11:26:04) :
“anna v (04:47:46) :
1)The only viable coupling in the solar system, i.e. with some energy to create tides, is gravity. The effect of the planets on the sun is tiny tides, of the order of milimeters.”
I would assert that you only need conservation of angular momentum, not tides, to influence the solar spin.
Conservation of angular momentum of a spinning object means it will keep on spinning at the same angular velocity, unless something interferes with it. Take a spinning top on ice. Have an ice skater run in a circle around it. You can define an rxp between the spinning top and the skater. So? If the skater stops will the top stop spinning? If a hole opens and eats the spinning top will the skater change angular momentum? There is no interaction between skater and spinning top and that is why it is irrelevant to calculate angular momenta between the two.
It is the forces that define angular momentum changes.
“( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).”
I would further assert that barycenter movement is relevant since, as the center of orbit, it determines the length of the position vector in the ( p x r ) calculation of orbital angular momentum.
You can always define an angular momentum for moving masses, from an infinity of axis. The point is whether these axis have a relevance to the forces in the problem. The only relevance of the orbiting of the sun about the barycenter comes from the gravitational interaction with all the planets and the balance of orbital angular momenta is with the total solar system ( when the sun’s increases, Jupiter etc decreases, usw). It is all a matter of coordinate systems. The individual planetary and sun spins about their axis are conserved, except for the small effect of gravity with the tidal forces.
As the position vector approaches zero: p x r approaches zero and that angular momentum must be conserved and must go somewhere with solar spin being a prime candidate (and maybe via some kind of orbital resonance? into planetary orbit / spin changes).
By construction, the barycenter does not pass through the center of the sun. The changes of the orbital angular momentum you are envisioning are taken up by the whole solar system. As with earth/moon, so with the sun, even if the barycenter goes through a part of it, nothing happens since the barycenter has no mass.

March 22, 2009 12:54 pm

Ninderthana (15:41:21) :
captdallas2,
“Has it ever occured to you that the undrelying mechanism that drives the PDO
may be indirectly linked a mechanism that drives solar activity?”
Have do done any supplemental linkage work with 10Be and 14C records that are associated with solar activity or are these proxies irrelevant to your study?
What drives what is the mystery. I am not particularly impressed with the quality of proxy reconstructions or the quality of most models. They are only predictive is things don’t change. Things change in climate and finance. Don’t put your retirement plans in models or you will work for the rest of your life.
Here are my thoughts:
All proxies should be viewed with great skepticism.
Trees are not thermometers.
It ain’t the sun, at least for now.
While climate is complex that don’t mean it can’t be predicted. The error bars may be large, but there are things that are predictable.
So for the next twenty to twenty five years we should see a slight cooling trend. It could be a flat trend, but odds are we will have some cooling. That doesn’t mean that there may be a high or low spike year, just that the trend should be neutral or cooler. Why? Because temperatures have been higher than normal. The Earth is a huge buffer. Oceans, atmosphere and ice all seek a mean climate. They will change to seek that mean
Does that mean there is no anthropogenic induced climate change? No, it just means that it is harder to decipher how much may be anthropogenic.
My money is on 1 degree C for co2 doubling. The water vapor feedback numbers don’t seem to add up so Hansen’s 4 degrees seems to be irrational. Actually, Hansen often seems irrational.
There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.

Editor
March 22, 2009 1:49 pm

@ anna v (12:48:39) :
Thank you for the response. It does seem to me to still ‘skip over’ some bits that I think can not be skipped…
Conservation of angular momentum of a spinning object means it will keep on spinning at the same angular velocity, unless something interferes with it.
I was talking about the angular momentum of the orbit, not the spin, in this first part. That as the orbit about the center of rotation (the definition of the barycenter) approaches zero, the orbital angular momentum position vector (distance from center of rotation and change of radians per unit time) must drop approaching zero. In that case the cross product with linear momentum will approach zero. Where does the angular momentum go? It’s a later assertion that it might go into spin…
( barycenter movement is irrelevant and a red herring, one needs forces).

I would further assert that barycenter movement is relevant since, as the center of orbit, it determines the length of the position vector in the ( p x r ) calculation of orbital angular momentum.

You can always define an angular momentum for moving masses, from an infinity of axis. The point is whether these axis have a relevance to the forces in the problem.
Is it not the case that the definition of barycenter is that it is the center of mass about which objects in the solar system rotate in their orbits? Is that not the only place the sun is orbiting? I can see no rationale for putting the solar center of orbit vector on, for example, the moon… All it would do is make the math very very messy, but at the end of the day, the distance for solar center to center of orbit changes and that changes orbital angular momentum.
If it is, in fact, the correct root for the solar position vector in L=r x p then we must admit that the length of the position vector changes (up to 2 x solar radii outside the sun center, and sometimes crossing right near the center of the sun, during the “retrograde” part of the orbit approaching zero.
The only relevance of the orbiting of the sun about the barycenter comes from the gravitational interaction with all the planets and the balance of orbital angular momenta is with the total solar system ( when the sun’s increases, Jupiter etc decreases, usw).
And that’s the whole point. The angular momentum is going somewhere… and there is spin orbit coupling; certainly at the subatomic level and from what I can find, accepted at the planetary level, so I don’t see how we can just say to ignore it without knowing how to calculate how much and why…
It is all a matter of coordinate systems. The individual planetary and sun spins about their axis are conserved, except for the small effect of gravity with the tidal forces.
That is an assertion, not a solution of the physics. As L=r x p has the position vector approach zero (use zero, or use 1/10th if you don’t want to accept that it could actually reach zero; it doesn’t change the problem…) the angular momentum attributable to the orbit about the center of the orbit approaches zero (or 1/10th, again, it doesn’t change the final question).
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin? If it went off to Jupiter, how did it get there? When it got to Jupiter, why would it show up as orbit, with zero as spin (given that spin orbit coupling seems well attested as a part of physics.)
By construction, the barycenter does not pass through the center of the sun. The changes of the orbital angular momentum you are envisioning are taken up by the whole solar system.
I don’t really care if the center of orbit ever crosses exactly through the zero point. We know that it ranges from 2 x solar radii away from the center of mass of the sun, down to at least 1/10th of a solar radius in 1990-91 darned near the exact center of the sun (when, IIRC, it snowed here abnormally…) This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
You again assert that it goes into ‘the whole solar system’. What bit of physics sorts it between solar spin angular momentum, planetary orbital angular momentum, planetary spin angular momentum, {else clause}?
I’ve made a “thought experiment” that looks to me like a reasonable way to convert orbital momentum into spin momentum (without tides). I see no reason to just wave away the angular momentum to a vague somewhere else. (Now, I could just be blind, but i don’t think so…)
Sidebar: Mr. McGuire, as physics teacher… He had a turntable students could stand on. He would hand us a bike wheel on a spindle, then spin it up and spin us up, and we would move the wheel. Strange things happened. Now, unfortunately it was about 40 years ago so memories are getting dodgy… but I would swear that one of the things we went over was exactly that thought experiment and that as the wheel was brought closer to the person, both the person and the wheel changed spin… I would love to find such a table on bearings and wheel with handles again…
As with earth/moon, so with the sun, even if the barycenter goes through a part of it, nothing happens since the barycenter has no mass.
You are again implying that my question wants the barycenter to have a force, a mass, or something physical. I specifically disclaim any such assertion. It has no mass. It has no gravity. It has NOTHING physical. I get it.
But what it does have is a definition. By definition it is the center of orbit. By definition, it is where the solar orbit position vector ends. By definition, as the distance of the barycenter from the solar center changes, the solar orbital position vector changes. When then, again by definition, L= r x p says the orbital angular momentum changes.
So where does the angular momentum go? And what does it do when it gets there? And how do you know? What formula is used?

Ohioholic
March 22, 2009 2:25 pm

“There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.”
Hence the skepticism of global warming, yes?

Garacka
March 22, 2009 2:46 pm

gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
That was a bridge (“Galloping Gerdy” (sp?)) across the Tacoma Narrows at the southern tip of Puget Sound in Washington State. As I understand it, the wind was something like 70 mph. The problem was that the bridge deck was behaving like an airplane wing and one side would want to lift. But because it was constrained, that lifting force could not be sustained and the bridge would need to return to its original position but would overshoot. There was a periodicity to this forcing and it happened to coincide with a natural harmonic structural vibration frequency of the bridge which “magnified” the effect. I don’t know if there were further special circumstances required. Did the wind need to be within a small band of direction and speed for the forcing to continue, or was the bridge susceptible to a fairly broad range? BTW, I believe it got its name before it broke apart.
Perhaps the sun spots and our ocean cycles are galloping like Gerdy.

March 22, 2009 3:49 pm

Ohioholic (14:25:32) : said:
“There is just more to the story than pick a pet theory. It is chaotic.”
Hence the skepticism of global warming, yes?
Exactly. Don’t get me wrong, I am not the sharpest tack in the box. I am fairly intelligent and a devote skeptic of everything. Some of the climatological stuff makes sense and some I find asinine. Eric Steig’s Antarctic study I feel is asinine because the potential error is so large it is a coin toss. His abstract should have said the antarctic may or may not be warming. I don’t know which.
Micheal Mann’s affection for tree rings is just that, a warm and fuzzy emotional feeling. His science sucks or he would have compared updated versions of the records he used. He is an egomaniacal idiot. Just my personal opinion Anthony, don’t mean to be offensive, but if the shoe fits.
So there is a lot of stuff to be skeptical of. The sun though, by itself, is a red herring that detracts from the advancement of the debate. Proxy reconstructions are cited by both sides without consideration of their validity. Why outdated proxies are cited is beyond me, stupidity, politics, who knows. People do need to get up to speed if they want to learn the truth.

bill
March 22, 2009 4:14 pm

Basil (11:31:58) :
…I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. …
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:

Hello basil – do you have a source of this data that I can access please?
Not sure how the harmonics are displayed using the ssa mtm programme so I would like to try using excel!!!

bill
March 22, 2009 4:19 pm

Basil (11:31:58) :
…I’ve got a little over a hundred years of monthly observations for this data series, 1356 to be exact. …
And that’s what you see here, in an MTM spectrum analysis of this particular data series:

Hello basil – do you have a source of this data that I can access please?
Not sure how the harmonics are displayed using the ssa mtm programme so I would like to try using excel!!! I assume the prog reconstructs the black harmonics ?

Jack
March 22, 2009 4:58 pm

If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?

Editor
March 22, 2009 5:17 pm

Bill,
The US Regional data can be accessed here:
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
Click on the “Region” tab to access the regional data sets. I do some processing of the data before I do the MTM spectrum analysis. The temperature data is in Fahrenheit, so I convert it to Centigrade. Then I subtract the monthly observations from the mean to normalize, or standardize it. Finally, I do a 12 month centered moving average, to annualized the series (removes seasonal variation).
I have all this in a gretl database. I can easily export it to excel, if you’d like to play around with it.

March 22, 2009 5:25 pm

Jack (16:58:30) :
If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?
Nope. Another red herring, Lief can explain it better, but the variation is insignificant.

idlex
March 22, 2009 6:43 pm

I’ve made a “thought experiment” that looks to me like a reasonable way to convert orbital momentum into spin momentum – E. M. Smith
Perhaps you should bear in mind that it’s just a thought experiment.
Thought experiments can come up with all sorts of notions that may be completely unrealistic. And in this respect I think it’s the idea that the Sun is going in a tight little cycloidal orbit around the barycentre that sets people (me included) thinking that the angular momentum of the Sun has to be conserved, perhaps by somehow being turned into spin momentum, as it slows down and speeds up during that strange little orbit.
But the barycentre is a theoretical construct. It’s just the centre of mass of the solar system. The “solar system” is also a construct. And the Sun doesn’t really go round “it”, if only because the solar system is speeding towards Vega, and the real path of the Sun is a corkscrew in that direction.
I see no point in getting lost in thought experiments. I’d like to know how to answer this question for once and for all. For myself, I think I’ll put my trust in my orbital simulation model, and the spinning Sun I propose to introduce into it. This model is brutally simple. It knows nothing about momentum, or angular momentum, or spin momentum, or even energy. It only knows about the acceleration of masses through gravitation. If, when I’ve got a spinning Sun performing a tight little cycloidal orbit around the barycentre, it spins faster when it slows down, and slower when it speeds up, then I may begin to really believe in this spin-orbit coupling business. But for now, it seems to me that Leif Svalgaard and Anna V are asking the obvious questions: what is the physical coupling with this theoretical barycentre?

March 22, 2009 6:50 pm

Basil (11:31:58) :
Previously you’ve said that you would “expect” to see this. Then you come along and say that you don’t expect to see it because it is not “visible” above the background noise.
The original poster claimed he could not see any signal. I would accept that on the plausible grounds that the noise is his data would obscure the signal. If you have found [called cherry picking] a series that does have a signal of the expected size I cn accept that easily. Cheery picking is a standard technique: scientists rarely publish negative results, but should they find a positive one, they select that one for publication.
David Reese (11:38:54) :
If you drop a copper penny into a strong magnetic field, the penny slows down dramatically.
This is precisely what happens with the solar wind [the penny] as it moves into the Earth’s magnetic field: The solar wind is effectively stopped at the ‘nose’ of the magnetosphere [40,000 miles up] and forced to flow around the Earth. The current is there: 40,000 miles up.
Ohioholic (11:48:25) :
Does temp fluctuation on the surface of the Sun, combined with our exposure to hot spots due to orbit, make a difference at all? Yes it can make [very rarely] a difference of up to half a percent of the radiation received: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png shows a sharp dip in October 2003 because a very large dark sunspot group was on the disk of the Sun.
E.M.Smith (11:49:17) :
But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question: As the position vector approaches zero, where does the angular momentum go to be conserved?…
Perhaps you didn’t get an answer because the question is not clear. Are you asking where the AM goes if I chose an arbitrary axis closer and closer to a moving body [and eventually at zero distance] as the origin of the position vector?
vukcevic (12:35:25) :
Solar magnetic fields (polar and sunspots) change polarity along the solar cycles’ progression (with half a cycle phase shift).
One way this can be achieved is through the flow of ‘solar currents’, modulated by a feedback through energy interchange between solar wind and the planetary magnetospheres.

This not only is not a viable mechanism, it is also not the way the Sun works.
kuhnkat (12:40:03) :
” Do you think that you get more light from it if you wave it vigorously?”
if it has an inductive set up to recharge the batteries in it

I was talking about just moving the battery…
Glenn (12:47:26) :
I find your claim that the reviewers would not let you speculate on the timing
Perhaps I’m not too interested in what you find. I know what transpired and as you could see [if you had cared to look] when we did speculate in 2006, we fixed the timing to 2013.5 based on a typical rise time from a minimum in 2007.5. Based on the current minimum I would not be surprised if maximum is even a year further out.
E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin? If it went off to Jupiter, how did it get there?Imagine a solar system with only one planet, Jupiter, in a very eccentric orbit. The barycenter is then always between the Sun and Jupiter. Because Jupiter’s orbit is very eccentric [we posited that] the barycenter [BC] will vary its position greatly and the Sun’s distance to the BC will vary greatly. The AM of the Sun around the BC will then vary greatly, but so will Jupiter’s [as it is also changing its position vector], and the change in the Sun’s AM will exactly balance the change in Jupiter’s as the sum must be conserved. That is how it works. The spin of either Jupiter and the Sun and the elementary particles making them up will not be affected in any way by the celestial dance of the Sun and Jupiter, because there is no lever arm to transmit a torque. The orbital changes are transmitted by the curvature of space around the bodies.
Jack (16:58:30) :
If the centre of mass of the sun is orbting around the (moving) barycentre of the solar system, and the interior of the sun is not rigid, it seems reasonable to assume that the internal activity of the sun will be influenced by the dynamics of the gravitational forces involved – doesn’t it?
No. And why is it so important that the Sun not be rigid? If you put a heavy weight on a table will the rigid table not feel the weight? anyway, it is not just the center of the Sun that is orbiting, all particles of the Sun are. If they orbit in a uniform gravitational field they all move together in parallel with no change of distance between them. If the field is not uniform, they will be influenced. The influence is called a ‘tide’ and it VERY VERY VERY small.

Glenn
March 22, 2009 8:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
“Perhaps I’m not too interested in what you find. I know what transpired and as you could see [if you had cared to look] when we did speculate in 2006, we fixed the timing to 2013.5 based on a typical rise time from a minimum in 2007.5. Based on the current minimum I would not be surprised if maximum is even a year further out.”
It doesn’t matter whether you are interested or not, but it’s understandable that you should be defensive, snip the relevant question I put to you and make an unsubstantial reply. Talbloke made a claim that appears to be accurate, a “failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour”,
and you have handwaived around that by denying any failure and pointing to an as yet unrealized prediction of SC24 maximum, and claiming that the Sun is doing “just what it should”, as if there is nothing unusual or surprising about the current state of the Sun.
I then asked a perfectly reasonable question about the current subject of solar minimum, why you had predicted solar maximum around 2011, if you knew what the Sun now is indeed “doing just what it is supposed to be doing”. You handwaved around that as well, but simple facts are hard to deny, such as your own paper I referenced, which also claims “At present, our limited understanding of the solar cycle does not allow predictions of future solar activity from theory” and clearly predictions of the timing of solar minimum and maximum have failed. And I’m very sorry, but “updated” predictions of past failed predictions do not provide much confidence in the counter claim to Talbloke’s, that predictions of the sun’s behavior have not failed.
As to the 2011 prediction, I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do* consider in your paper, have considered before, that many other do consider, that you seem to regard as trivial, “just as it should be doing”.
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

savethesharks
March 22, 2009 8:29 pm

Glenn said:
“As to the 2011 prediction, I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do* consider in your paper, have considered before, that many other do consider, that you seem to regard as trivial, ‘just as it should be doing’.”
He has a point, Lief. Sometimes you violate your own very high standards with Newspeak all-or-nothing statements like “the sun is doing just as it should be doing”.
I saw that comment and thought….wow….given the current anomalous inactivity of the sun….how can he say that “it is doing just as it should be doing?”
And an adjustment from a predicted maximum in 2005 of ~2011…to 2013.5 in 2006…hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing”.
A little cognitive dissonance affects the best of us. But even the best of us must weed through it, and that includes you, too, Lief.
Thanks for your hard work and keep it up. I am actually a fan of you and your intellect….but please watch though lest your confidence turn into your achilles when things don’t go precisesly as planned (i.e SC24).
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA

savethesharks
March 22, 2009 8:38 pm

savethesharks wrote: And an adjustment from a predicted maximum in 2005 of ~2011…to 2013.5 in 2006…hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing”.
That was not worded clearly. CORRECTION:
I meant to say, in effect:
A 2005 prediction of a ~2011 maximum, adjusted in 2006 to predict the max to occur 2013.5, hardly helps the case that the sun is doing “exactly what it is supposed to be doing.”

March 22, 2009 8:45 pm

Glenn (20:00:59) :
I find it very curious that your reviewers would allow you to speculate based on an 11 year cycle, but not cycle length and timing that you *do*…
Again, what you find curious is of no interest. Nowhere in that paper do we make a reasoned prediction of 2011. In fact, in the introduction we simply said: “we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years”. The little squiggle (~) signifies uncertainty or approximation. We did start with 2013, but one of the reviewers objected to that number without a paragraph in the paper that explicitly justified the number, and since we were running up against the 4 page limit for GRL, we just changed it to ~2011 which was the generally expected epoch of the maximum at the time as the number itself in the context of our paper was not important, but simply served to specify which maximum we were referring to. And this is not ‘curious’ in any way, just the way it was.
And your cherry picked out-of-context quotations are not useful, e.g. “At present, our limited understanding of the solar cycle does not allow predictions of future solar activity from theory” simply meant that we must use data [namely the polar fields] for the prediction as the article makes clear.
as if there is nothing unusual or surprising about the current state of the Sun
And there isn’t. We have been in this territory before, in the 1890s and in the 1790s. Many people were expecting this, even my 11-year old grandson.
tallbloke’s lament should be objected to as it is not accurate; since the ‘unrealized’ maximum has not occurred yet, no theory [mainstream or not] can be said to have failed. Very low activity has been in the cards for quite some time now. E.g.
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Authors: Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
Publication: American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817 Publication Date: 05/2003
Abstract
Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations. My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
So, it is simply not the case that low activity is unanticipated and represent a failure of mainstream solar science, hence it is reasonable to object to allegations of such failure. Your ‘findings’ and ‘curious’ designations are uninformed, seemingly agenda -driven polemics, that are not called for.

Stephen
March 22, 2009 8:52 pm

Att. Moderator, please feel free to not post this message… And I apologize for opening old wounds. I am certainly not interested in taking away from the spirit and intent of the great work put forth by Anthony et al.
It is just that I am amazed at the coincidence of the solar minimums, (at least since the Wolf minimum), occurring during the so called disordered periods of the barycenter track and am also having a hard time getting my simple mind around the idea that the dynamic motion of the sun in its loops and hoops of changing radius and centripetal motion about the barycenter doesn’t have any effect on the internal dynamics of the sun??? I do appreciate those who have much better training, who have tried to instruct me.
As I understand it, there are times when the barycenter traces out ordered trefoil patterns. I imagine that during these times, the solar cycles may be more predictable, but there are other times when it traces out disordered, chaotic patterns when solar cycle predictions may be more difficult??? As near as I can determine, the last several minimums, (Wolf to present), all happened during one of the disordered periods, (see link below). For me that is an astronomical coincidence… pun intended. For those interested in further study, (outside this blog) the following link provides some very interesting info, and I think, worthy of more study… There is also a neat down loadable program that you can use to trace the barycenter track for any time period, called SIM-1.
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
Thanks again for all the great info. And, I will hold my peace and refrain from posting any more on this subject.
Stephen

March 22, 2009 8:52 pm

savethesharks (20:29:36) :
but please watch though lest your confidence turn into your achilles when things don’t go precisesly as planned (i.e SC24).
If not, we have all learned something and that is precious. The only way to learn is to be as sharp as possible. If we had said: “solar maximum would be 100+/-100” we would almost surely be correct, but will have learned nothing in being so. Any theory should be formulated in a way that maximizes its chances of being wrong.
Now, I have repeatedly stated the provenance of the ~2011 and will take it as an affront to have that referred to as ‘curious’.

savethesharks
March 22, 2009 9:19 pm

All I am saying Lief is that your statement ex post facto of those 2005/2006 and now 2009 (for 2014.5) adjustments for the maximum of 24 of basically “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”…seems a little over the top.
Be careful lest you lapse into the bad habits of the many that you successfully discredit.
I have said it and will say it again I respect your towering intellect but I will also say some of your all-or-nothing statements “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing” you should weed out before you write them.
Best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA

savethesharks
March 22, 2009 9:27 pm

Stephen said: “Thanks again for all the great info. And, I will hold my peace and refrain from posting any more on this subject.”
No. Please do not NOT post if you have some data to share. Would love to see it.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

anna v
March 22, 2009 9:32 pm

E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
Angular momentum must be conserved. Where did it go if not into spin?
Maybe you should be thinking more about coordinate systems with respect to forces in the problem. We choose a coordinate system that simplifies the solution of the problem. There is an infinity of coordinate systems where thoughts can be tied in knots.
The barycenter is the center of mass of the total solar system. It is what an observer on Sirius would use to calculate the trajectory of the solar system in the cosmos, with an effective mass the mass of all the solar system. That is where it has a simple and useful meaning. When in the solar system, it is irrelevant. The trajectories we are interested in, if we want to go to Jupiter for example, are trajectories with respect to earth, not the barycenter. Always choose the relevant coordinate system.
This navel gazing with the angular momentum of the sun by changing coordinate systems is not productive. Go to a heliocentric system. Here the angular momentum of the sun is 0 by construction. Where is the orbital angular momentum you worry about,? Running around dancing with the planets.
BTW spin orbit interactions at atomic and nuclear level involve forces that are doing the coupling ( electromagnetic or strong). This is what is missing in all this: that in the solar system there is not enough energy in the coupling between the spinning objects about themselves and the orbital spin. Just the tiny tidal forces. As far as present physics goes with long range forces.
I don’t really care if the center of orbit ever crosses exactly through the zero point. We know that it ranges from 2 x solar radii away from the center of mass of the sun, down to at least 1/10th of a solar radius in 1990-91 darned near the exact center of the sun (when, IIRC, it snowed here abnormally…) This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
Hmm. I suspect that my previous answer that “it is taken up by the total system” is relevant only if we are changing coordinate systems. ( admitting a mental confusion here). Within this barycentric coordinate system it goes nowhere, it will still be conserved: the angular velocity, will change so as to keep the conservation of angular momentum ( as happens with elliptic orbits around a central force).

March 22, 2009 9:39 pm

savethesharks (21:19:37) :
All I am saying Lief is that your statement ex post facto of those 2005/2006 and now 2009 (for 2014.5) adjustments for the maximum of 24 of basically “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”…seems a little over the top.
We stressed in our paper that “An important advantage of the polar field precursor method is […] its potential for continual (real-time) update as the cycle gets underway.”
I don’t see any reason for ‘being over the top” if we are taking advantage of the potential of the method as stated.

alphajuno
March 22, 2009 9:41 pm

This is a fascinating thread, thanks for the insightful comments. It’s a thrilling time in our history, finding out so many new and wonderful things.
I really can’t see how acceleration and velocity changes theoretically brought upon by Neptune’s and Uranus’ alignment can’t make a difference to the Sun. Maybe it’s looking at it from an orbital mechanics point of view first and then physics next, not sure. One day, it will be a TV special. For now, the Sun is still quiet and we have formulas that show that mass and distance of heavenly bodies from it are important (tidal forces are secondary in this discussion). When massive bodies are aligned on one side of the Sun (that don’t need to be as massive if they are farther away – but still revolve as part of the solar system), then the Sun’s distance from the barycenter changes to compensate – and presumably induces a bit of chaos from its heterogeneous makeup. Another day, something else may be a plausable answer.

Editor
March 22, 2009 9:43 pm

Be vewy, vewy quite. I’m hunting wadiation.

March 22, 2009 9:56 pm

Stephen (20:52:09) :
Your comments summarize the dilemma of the situation. The unordered patterns coincide with all solar slow downs in the past 6000 yrs at least in my research. This is hard to argue against, but can be done because a strict scientific coupling has not been produced, so far.
I can understand why Anthony doesn’t want his blog cluttered with endless barycenter theories and ideas that in most cases will go nowhere. This might be best done in other forums, but to right off Planetary Influence theory completely doesn’t make sense.
This topic still continues to attract a lot of attention and wont go away, but could I suggest setting up a separate continual thread/story where barycenter discussions can be thrashed out in semi private. It would be like a backwater where those interested or game could discuss to their hearts content without taking anything away from the main blog.

savethesharks
March 22, 2009 10:19 pm

Lief wrote: “I don’t see any reason for ‘being over the top” if we are taking advantage of the potential of the method as stated.”
Was not calling into question having to move the goalposts a bit as being “over the top”….was calling into question your blanket statement which basically said in an earlier post “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”.
I appreciate your fluidity as a scientist and certainly respect that…its just that 2011 then to 2013.5 and now 2014.5 can not be seen as “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing.”
Even in solar years…. (dog years LOL).
Can you not accept any criticism whatsoever, Leif?
Is it more important to you that you be right and correct in every turn and that you trump your opponent every time? Is that a sign of victory?
Or….can you not just bow out for just once (as the need to have the last word sometimes takes on a life of its own)…and just….not respond?
I believe that highly-evolved superior intellect of yours very much can, bro.
Let it be. I am not calling into question you or your hard-earned stripes of research, nor especially your smarts.
I am only calling into question those quasi-absolute shut-down statements that you sometimes mutter that “the sun is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.”
That’s all.
Mad respect…your work is much appreciated. Lighten up.
Good nite.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

March 22, 2009 10:28 pm

E.M.Smith (13:49:10) :
This means we know that the position vector approaches zero, which still leaves us with the problem. Where does the angular momentum go?
Having thought about what you might have meant, I’ll try another tack. Imagine you launch a satellite and place it in orbit around the Sun at one solar radius above the surface at a time where the barycenter is also at that distance, then the satellite will pass [we arrange it so] through the barycenter once per orbit [takes 8 hours] but will, of course, maintain a constant altitude over the Sun’s surface of 1 solar radius [just like the ISS or any geostationary satellite does, no matter where the Moon – and hence the Earth-Moon barycenter is]. The angular momentum about the barycenter of the satellite will be exactly zero when it passes through the barycenter [because the position vector then has length zero], yet the satellite will not crash into the Sun as if it had lost all its angular momentum. It still has all the real angular momentum it always had namely that of its orbit about the Sun, so doesn’t crash. The angular momentum around the barycenter has no physical meaning at all.

March 22, 2009 10:32 pm

Geoff Sharp (21:56:40) :
suggest setting up a separate continual thread/story where barycenter discussions can be thrashed out in semi private. It would be like a backwater where those interested or game could discuss to their hearts content without taking anything away from the main blog.
There is already such a backwater at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi so why not continue there. There is also an ‘iron sun’ thread for that crowd.

March 22, 2009 10:50 pm

tallbloke’s lament should be objected to as it is not accurate; since the ‘unrealized’ maximum has not occurred yet, no theory [mainstream or not] can be said to have failed. Very low activity has been in the cards for quite some time now. E.g.
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Authors: Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
Publication: American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817 Publication Date: 05/2003
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

Hi Leif,
It’s interesting that Schatten should have a prediction which is at such variance with Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s, when they all hold to the same Babcock Leighton dynamo theory. Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
Consensus, what consensus? 😉
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.

March 22, 2009 11:17 pm

gary gulrud (10:46:49) :
(tallbloke’s summary of Ray Tome’s theory)
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years, and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances which ‘ring the sun’s bell’ and amplify or dampen the effect, modulating it to the varying length and amplitude solar cycles we see in the sunspot record. ”
Very interesting, and within scope for engineers! In the course of DiffEq one studies harmonic resonances with simple 2nd order linear differential equations.
We had one short movie in the course, a galloping suspension bridge! As I remember an old model A or similar vintage car was stopped halfway and disappeared for much of the time as the waves(both in the direction of the bridge and transverse) were much larger in amplitude.

Indeed, and there are many other examples of bridges going into large oscillations when affected by small forces applied at ‘just the right timing’. Military manuals warn that soldiers should break step when crossing bridges rather than marching in time because of the potentially fatal effects of setting up a runaway harmonic oscillation feedback.
Having read some of Ray Tome’s work on harmonics I think he may well be onto something with his solar planetary theory. I really hope Leif will check it out and give us an opinion. Fourth time lucky.

March 22, 2009 11:34 pm

savethesharks (22:19:00) :
Was not calling into question having to move the goalposts a bit as being “over the top”….was calling into question your blanket statement which basically said in an earlier post “the sun is doing exactly what it should be doing”.
What I was taking issue with was the blanket statement:
“failure of current mainstream solar theory to predict the sun’s behaviour”,
It is not about me ‘wanting to be right’ or about ‘victory’, it is about objecting to what I see as misrepresentation of the state of affairs. Myself and my colleagues do not find [and have not for several years now] that the Sun is in an abnormal and unanticipated state. On the contrary, our prediction of the size of SC24 looks better and better with every passing day, even with SC23 dragging its feet. If you think that is over the top or object to some of the details that is fine with me as long as it is just me personally you are having a problem with and not the many people involved in this and their ‘failure’. But, hey, what does it matter what I say, the Sun will do its thing regardless and we’ll hopefully learn something.

March 22, 2009 11:46 pm

tallbloke (22:50:13) :
It’s interesting that Schatten should have a prediction which is at such variance with Dikpati’s and Hathaway’s, when they all hold to the same Babcock Leighton dynamo theory. Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
We are all, including myself, adherers to the same Babcock-Leighton dynamo theory. It is ‘broad’ enough to encompass the wide spread. The issue is not the theory but the boundary conditions: is the dynamo deep [Dikpati] or shallow [Schatten and I], is the diffusion of magnetic field into the Sun fast [Choudhuri] or slow [Dikpati].
These things can be settled by observation and by how the models fare, and SC24 will be a crucial test.
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.
No, I’m not aware of this. Link?
“the sun has an internal oscillation period of around 10.5 years”
Never heard of this.
and the motion of the planets above and below the solar equator create harmonic resonances
By which forces?
We have a very good [and getting better] understanding of the Sun’s interior and of the flows and oscillations that go on, and none of the things you mentioned fits into that or are observed. I’m on the Solar Dynamics Observatory team and the launch of our instrument HMI on SDO later this year will give us further detailed information.

March 22, 2009 11:51 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:46:48) :
Perhaps the difference lies more in Schatten’s calculations of solar variability, which are wildly at odds with your own.
Ken and I predict precisely the same level of activity for SC24. My prediction [75] was published first and when he saw that he changed his prediction which was also 75 to 80, because he wanted to be ‘different’.
For the record, Schatten now agrees with me that my re-calibration of the sunspot number is sound. Hoyt does not, because he does not understand it yet.

Jack
March 23, 2009 12:40 am

Leif and others:
Can I suggest another tack? I can accept that the “tidal” forces and effects are tiny. Nevertheless, at the atomic level, components of the sun must be subject to very different forces, proportional to the square of their distance from the barycenter, as they collectively orbit the barycenter. As the barycenter moves position, relative to the center of mass of the sun, these changing forces and their effects should affect the internal dynamics of the sun.

March 23, 2009 1:00 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:32:23) :
There is already such a backwater at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi so why not continue there. There is also an ‘iron sun’ thread for that crowd.
Thanks Leif, but I was making the suggestion to Anthony…there is quite a different crowd here, and it would solve a problem with this particular blog. Offenders could be quarantined 🙂

March 23, 2009 3:04 am

Just Want Truth… (23:32:34) :
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
I’m not going to throw out Leif Svalgaard, I’m not going to throw out David Archibald, I’m not going to throw out Milivoje A. Vukcevic (vukcevic), and I wish Willie Soon, Nir Shaviv, and Piers Corbyn
(Piers is the most consistent UK weather forecaster) were here.
Sincere thanks for vote of a ‘conditional’ confidence.
You put me in an eminent group of professionals, which I am not, just a casual amateur.
I am not a barycentrist, but I am convinced, because of alternating magnetic fields and planetary correlation, only possible solution could be trough a magnetospheric feedback with a reference to the heliospheric geometry.
I do appreciate fact that the scientists of repute would not suddenly abandon their life-long work and ideas to embrace a new hypothesis, or even elements of it.
In view of that, I take Dr. Svalgaard’s comment
This not only is not a viable mechanism, it is also not the way the Sun works.
as entirely genuine (we argued point on many occasions and there is no point agonising over it further).
My hypothesis may not be based on entirely sound science, as it is currently understood, but I would say that the Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridianial flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc. Experience tells us that is not the case, but if scientists wish to introduce anomalies based on a chance, than result is a ‘Swiss cheese’ theory.
As far as I understand it the Livingston & Penn’s measurements project a significant minimum within next 10 or so years, accordingly my formula, based on two by far largest magnetospheres of the solar system (Jupiter and Saturn), predicts exactly the same result i.e. a ‘major’ or grand minimum (to extend during period of 2020-2030).
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
These are only two predictionst hat entirely agree, the Livingston-Penn’s based on actual measurements and Vukcevic’s based on simple calculations. That gives me confidence that I am on right track.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link

Editor
March 23, 2009 3:48 am

Leif Svalgaard (18:50:51) :
If you have found [called cherry picking] a series that does have a signal of the expected size I cn accept that easily. Cheery picking is a standard technique: scientists rarely publish negative results, but should they find a positive one, they select that one for publication.

The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not. True, I chose to present a positive result for discussion. But if I ever were to try to publish the results, I wouldn’t ignore the negative results. And I have some. Regionally, the US is divided up into 9 regions. A signal plausible solar signal is present in some of the regions, but not all of them.
I also have the HadCRUT3 global data series, where the signal seems clearly present, but I’m going to look at the zonal components in closer detail now that I’ve seen that the signal is (a) stronger in some regional series, and (b) absent in others. I’m curious how this plays out in global data broken down into its hemispheric and zonal (and sst vs. land) components.
I don’t actually consider the possible evidence of a solar signal to be the most important aspect of what I’m doing, though that is not unimportant to me. It is the technique that I’m using that intrigues me. I think it is novel. It does something I’ve not seen in the published literature. As you know, there are thousands of reports of decadal and bidecadal oscillations in climate data of all stripes (tree rings, varves, temperature series). All we ever see are reports of frequencies, and if they are close to 11 yr or 22 yr then the paper concludes “Solar!” Or, if the signal is closer to 9 yr or 20 yr, the paper concludes “Lunar!” Or, in some cases, a hybrid (beat cycle) is proposed.
But all you ever see in these papers are frequencies. What I’ve found, with temperature series, is a way to assign amplitudes to those frequencies, and chart them in the time domain, functionally equivalent to wavelet transforms, but more useful, I think. Now if I’m just reinventing the wheel, be a friend and tell me so. Point me to some papers that present this kind of information. But don’t attribute motives (cherry picking) to what I’m doing, because I don’t think you know what I’m doing.
Basil

Paul Stanko
March 23, 2009 5:13 am

Hi all,
In order to achieve more than 1 sigma for spotless days, we need quite a few more indeed. We have to get 820 spotless days to reach mean + 1 sigma, and that is if we exclude the grand minima. Still, if the sun stays in its current funk, this is a realizable target in the 4th quarter of this year.
If this minimum reaches 1202 spotless days, then it will at the mean +1 sigma even if we include the Dalton minimum. Now we’re talking something that would raise some eyebrows, but it won’t happen until late 2010 at the earliest, maybe 2011. With Leif’s updated predictions of max being in 2014 though, it is I suppose a possibility.
Only if this minimum reaches an epic 3198 spotless days will it be at mean +1 sigma even if we include the Maunder minimum. For now I’m going to say that this won’t happen. Being a scientist myself, though, I’m always willing to update (and admit I was wrong) if new information becomes manifest.
Hope you all enjoy,
Paul

gary gulrud
March 23, 2009 6:42 am

“I missed where you got this ‘tidbit’ from? ”
Tallbloke’s early entry, scores into the thread, about harmonic resonance. And on that note.
“We don’t think much of barycentrism here”
The conversion of: every speculation on the serendipity of oscillations in planetary motion with those of solar activity into a discussion of the vacuity of barycentrism or of every speculation on a possible mechanism of solar forcing into an argument over the inadequacy if TSI variation to influence climate is a well-known sophist gambit: To recharacterise an agrument into a that of a loosely congruous “strawman”.
I am increasingly disappointed in the level of “human sympathy” exhibited by people of obvious intelligence.

gary gulrud
March 23, 2009 7:14 am

“In order to achieve more than 1 sigma for spotless days, we need quite a few more indeed. ”
I get 12.8 years to date for 23 vs. your 12.08. May 1996 – March 2009.
Note that if this is a redo of cycle 4, a ‘Dalton’-like minimum ahead, cycles 5 and 6 were reversed in rise to run proportions. Rmax could then fall 2015 or later.

March 23, 2009 8:12 am

Jack (00:40:05) :
As the barycenter moves position, relative to the center of mass of the sun, these changing forces and their effects should affect the internal dynamics of the sun.
The are no forces on an object in free fall [apart from tidal ones], so no effects would be expected.
Geoff Sharp (01:00:35) :
Offenders could be quarantined 🙂
Except that experience shows that they rear their head anyway
vukcevic (03:04:44) :
My hypothesis may not be based on entirely sound science, as it is currently understood, but I would say that the Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridionall flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc.
Which they usually are. What breaks the chain is that the polar fields are only a tiny amount of the total flux [1/1000] and such small amounts are subject to stochastic fluctuations as observed.
As far as I understand it the Livingston & Penn’s measurements project a significant minimum within next 10 or so years
Let me correct your understanding: What L&P suggest based on their data is that sunspots have become warmer and thus more difficult to see. The sunspot number may not be a reliable indicator of the Sun’s magnetic field [this is the heretical part that caused rejection of their paper]. We know [from cosmic ray proxies and aurorae counts] that during the Maunder and Spoerer minima, the Sun’s magnetic field was still cycling as usual, yet few spots were seen. L&P suggests that we may be in a similar situation soon, as early as 2015. That the coming cycles will be small has been predicted by many and seems quite likely by now.
Basil (03:48:15) :
The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not.
I meant it in the more positive sense of not overflowing the scientific literature with all the blind alleys and dumb ideas I myself [and most scientists] have lots and lots of. For every positive result I throw away ten negative ones [except when I get a negative one and somebody else got a positive one looking at the same phenomenon – then it is question of non-repeatability which
is important to report]
But all you ever see in these papers are frequencies. What I’ve found, with temperature series, is a way to assign amplitudes to those frequencies
I thought that a power spectrum explicitly gives you the ‘power’ i.e. the amplitude of the signal and the frequency…
What is your additional novel idea?
Paul Stanko (05:13:32) :
Being a scientist myself, though, I’m always willing to update (and admit I was wrong) if new information becomes manifest.
A forecaster should always update his forecast in the light of new data. Some theories [e.g. mine 🙂 ] have the capability to accommodate such adjustment. Others do not, e.g. if the barycenter movement predicts a minimum [as it did] 173 years after the Dalton minimum in ~1810 and it didn’t happen, it is hard credibly to patch it up, other than by special pleading that extraordinary circumstances made it fail [I’m reminded of a sign I once saw in the window of the psychic ‘shop’: ‘due to unforeseen circumstances we are closed today’].
gary gulrud (06:42:42) :
I am increasingly disappointed in the level of “human sympathy” exhibited by people of obvious intelligence.
Your disappointment is of little general interest. And as any working scientist can tell you, science is cruel towards pet ideas and unsupported speculations, we do not accept a result to be ‘nice’ to deserving recipients of our sympathy.

March 23, 2009 8:47 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51) :
Basil (03:48:15) :
The remark about cherry picking is uncalled for. You do not know whether I’m cherry picking or not.
I meant it in the more positive sense of not overflowing the scientific literature with all the blind alleys and dumb ideas I myself [and most scientists] have lots and lots of. For every positive result I throw away ten negative ones [except when I get a negative one and somebody else got a positive one looking at the same phenomenon – then it is question of non-repeatability which is important to report]
correcting tags…

March 23, 2009 9:11 am

gary gulrud (07:14:24) :
I get 12.8 years to date for 23 vs. your 12.08. May 1996 – March 2009.
F10.7 is often a more reliable indicator than the sporadic sunspot number: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
November 2008 may be a better guesstimate than March 2009. For the same reason October 1996 might be better. Although I’ll concede that the whole business of trying to pin down ‘minimum’ to a month is somewhat meaningless as there is no physical ‘event’ signaling a minimum, just the cross-over of two fairly independent curves.
Note that if this is a redo of cycle 4, a ‘Dalton’-like minimum ahead, cycles 5 and 6 were reversed in rise to run proportions. Rmax could then fall 2015 or later.
SC23 did not look at all like SC4, but much more like SC13. This, of course, does not alter the conclusion much as SC14 [which is close to predicted SC24 took five years to grow].

March 23, 2009 9:16 am

As far as we know barycenter theorists (I.Charvatova among others) say that every 178.7 years the sun follows a disordered type of orbits around the barycenter, which they think correlates with a minimum.
And “The results indicate that `solar dynamo’ that was long sought in the solar interior, operates more likely from the outside” (I.Charvatova)
Some others attribute a “shake effect” on sun’ s plasma:
http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/article1.html
All this, of course, supposes an axis centered in the center of mass of the solar system.

March 23, 2009 9:34 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51) :
vukcevic (03:04:44) :
….Babcock-Leighton hypothesis of meridionall flow (existence of which I do not dispute) is just not reliable enough to be used as a base of any viable predictions. According to it, essentially, a big cycle should be followed by even bigger one and so on or small one by smaller one, etc.
Leif Svalgaard (08:12:51)
Which they usually are. What breaks the chain is that the polar fields are only a tiny amount of the total flux [1/1000] and such small amounts are subject to stochastic fluctuations as observed.

Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
As far as I see it, this must be a statistical miracle of the highest degree.
Alternatively, we have two strongest DC (long term steady) magnetic fields of the solar system orbiting the Sun, and in combining their orbital properties we have an excellent correlation with the polar fields waveform as in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
not to mention the total agreement with the Livingston & Penn’s measurements and the their future estimates.

George E. Smith
March 23, 2009 9:55 am

“”” Ohioholic (15:21:29) :
Well, I know Leif will be by, so one question I would love to pose is as follows:
If the sun’s effects are minimal on temperature, why the difference in day/night temperatures? “””
In case you haven’t noticed *holic, in climatology, there is no day/night temperature difference; that is WEATHER not CLIMATE.
So it is 14.44 deg C +/- 2 deg C every place on earth 24/7 or 365 days a year.
Clmate deals with long term averages (it says so in the definitiion of climatology); so day night temperature differences have nothing to do with climate.
It is not your place; or mine; to query why we don’t model what the planet itself is modelling; which would include day/night temperature differences; but then it wouldn’t be climate; it would be something else. But it would at least be real world.

Editor
March 23, 2009 10:11 am

Leif,
You continually surprise me! Who else would ever use “cherry picking” in a positive sense. If you didn’t mean it in a negative sense, then I retract everything I said that assumed you did.
I agree, where the negative results are the result of “dumb ideas” they don’t deserve reporting. And I agree that where one report is positive, and somebody comes across a negative result, it is worth publishing.
I’m sensitive to the negative implication of cherry picking because I know very well how easy it is “to torture the data until it confesses, even to crimes it did not commit” and try to avoid this kind of searching only for results that confirm a theory. In principle, I’m a die hard Popperian positivist. In reality, we all end up practicing Kuhnian “normal science” if we’re not careful.
Basil

March 23, 2009 10:16 am

vukcevic (09:34:33) :
Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif

Because both the polar fields and your curve have only a few degrees of freedom. And, BTW, the waveform is not so regular. Part of the seemingly regularity comes from the 30-day smoothing WSO performs.
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
The poles also reverse polarities at different times. This was noted by the very earliest observers in the 1950s. There can be up to two years difference in time of reversal.

March 23, 2009 10:27 am

Basil (10:11:32) :
You continually surprise me! Who else would ever use “cherry picking” in a positive sense.
I made a [fortunate] typo and actually said ‘cheery picking’ [cheery = ‘Showing or suggesting good spirits’]. My point was that it is a ‘standard’ technique and is done all the time, mostly for good reason. It only becomes bad if one willfully ignores results that don’t fit.
‘Normal Science’ is what almost all scientists do all the time. Kuhnian paradigm shifts come rarely, and ‘normal science’ is needed to prepare the mind and to learn the ropes and to speak the lingo.

March 23, 2009 10:41 am

vukcevic (09:34:33) :
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
It may help to plot them on the same graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-N-and-S-on-top.png

davidgmills
March 23, 2009 11:05 am

tehdude:
Wherefore is used a lot in legal pleadings, and when used in the legal sense, has the other meaning — therefore.

March 23, 2009 11:09 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:16:30) :
to
vukcevic (09:34:33) :
the waveform is not so regular. Part of the seemingly regularity comes from the 30-day smoothing WSO performs.

That is irrelevant point, this is not question of a day to day, month to month variability, it is a long term tendency, measured over number of years.
Lets don’t forget what B-L theory says:
Late in the sunspot cycle, the leading spots diffuse across the equator and cancel with the opposite polarity leading spots in the other hemisphere. The flux of the trailing spots and of the remaining sunspot pairs is carried toward the poles where it accumulates to form the poloidal field of the next solar cycle.
The N and S polar fields are rather different as you would expect from a random process
Indeed: Asymmetry of the last cycle in “Late in the sunspot cycle” 24 is considerable:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SC23.gif
It varies between 30 and 700% depend how late you whish to take B-L’s “Late in the sunspot cycle”, while asymmetry of ‘resulting’ polar fields is less then 5% (possibly order the of measurement accuracy and annual filtering methods), bearing in mind “1/1000 ratio and stochastic variability”.
….The poles also reverse polarities at different times.
This would be expected result of an external enforcement on a weaker internal dynamo. You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when external field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2-3 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcment is working against the internal dynamo.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif

Pamela Gray
March 23, 2009 11:42 am

Day/night temperature fluctuations are an Earth-bound variation (rotation away from the far more steady state of the Sun). Climate zone differences are an Earth-bound variation. Weather patterns and variation of weather patterns are an Earth-bound variation. Even trade winds are the result of axial spin and friction with the Earth. I am even beginning to think that oceanic oscillations are an Earth-bound variation. The Sun, at its more steady (in comparison to Earth) heating state, warms the oceans. With slow trade winds, the warm water kinda stays put. When trade winds increase, the Sun’s warming affect is overpowered by strong winds pushing warm water away revealing cold water. This event changes typical weather patterns so that trends go the other way. After a while (years to decades), trade winds calm and the surface waters stay put and begin to warm up. The trend now goes the other way. Even the trade winds could be part of an Earth bound oscillation that is powered by a constant state of imbalance one way or the other. And finally, it is possible that our own rotation around our own axis, along with the magnetic pull of our moon and the Sun, could be the energy source for this entire thing, like a watch without a battery that keeps on ticking by shaking it around.
You have read this from me before but I will say it again, in my opinion climate is stable. Weather patterns are not. Climate is stable because of its dependence on physically stable parameters, which are your address on planet Earth in terms of proximity to large bodies of water and mountain ranges, which are part of your longitude and latitude address, and altitude. And I say that with the understanding that my addresses is very slowly changing and thus my climate will very slowly change. Weather patterns are not stable because of trade wind changes, oceanic oscillations, local land use and other human-sourced events like pollution, and natural local events such as volcanic eruptions.
The only thing that overrides this (barring catastrophic events like meteor strikes) are long term changes in axial tilt and wobble.
This entire AGW vs natural source variation, regardless of who is right, should be about regional and local weather pattern changes, not climate change.

March 23, 2009 11:53 am

vukcevic (11:09:44) :
“not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.”
“the waveform is not so regular.”
That is irrelevant point

now, all the sudden all the irregularities that were ‘stretching credibility’ are supporting evidence, it seems.
Let’s try another tack: what reverses the polar fields? and in the way you can see here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/smag.jpg
and what reverses the polarities of spot pairs from cycle to cycle and from hemisphere to hemisphere. Details please.

LarryOldtimer
March 23, 2009 11:58 am

This is clearly a clasic case of “the watched pot never boils” syndrome.

March 23, 2009 12:10 pm

LarryOldtimer (11:58:47) :
This is clearly a classic case of “the watched pot never boils” syndrome.
What is ‘this’? always include a reference back to what you are commenting on…

March 23, 2009 12:40 pm

Leif Svalgaard:
tallbloke
Did you get a chance to look at Ray Tomes theory yet? I’ve had an idea how it might be tested statistically. I’ll get to work on it when I get home and have my data to hand.
No, I’m not aware of this. Link?

Do an inpage search for Ray Tomes, there’s a big long post by me summarizing his theory and providing a link.
Crosses fingers
5th time lucky. 🙂

March 23, 2009 1:26 pm

vukcevic (09:34:33) :
Stochastic fluctuations or not; if something depends on an assumed tiny proportion (1/1000) of something else, how come the result is such regular waveform as in:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
not to mention almost near equality between N and S poles, if they are formed independently, it is stretching credibility to an unreasonable extent.

This is one of the biggest weak points in the B-L theory….reminds me of a sign I saw in a physic shop “due to unforeseen circumstances we are closed today, was up all night trying to get the dice to roll the right way”

gary gulrud
March 23, 2009 1:31 pm

“we do not accept a result to be ‘nice’ to deserving recipients of our sympathy”
The word ‘sympathy’, ‘feeling with another’, was used in its most inclusive sense, not the colloquial, ‘feeling for another’ akin to pity. Its application was meant for everyone, on both sides of an argument.
Men/women do nothing and say little on behalf of reason but do so from their inner motivations, serving self-interest. The pointless arguments of one or more parties talking past each other seldom serves any of them.
A little more effort understanding your adversary will streamline the efforts of some.

March 23, 2009 1:47 pm

Leif Svalgaard (11:53:09) :
to
vukcevic (11:09:44) :

I noticed you avoided commenting on the following heresy :
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when external field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2-3 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo, I will return to it again.
and what reverses the polarities of spot pairs from cycle to cycle and from hemisphere to hemisphere. Details please.
Simple:
Two major planets with strong magnetic fields of their own, are interacting with the helispheric current sheet and in doing so take energy out of it, consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity. The HCS splits into two constituent components at the outlying reaches of heliosphere, and following magnetic field lines each returns back to the poles as polar current.
When polar current is rising (positive gradient) it induces secondary currents of a particular polarity, which in turn energise sunspot loops, notice their longitudinal orientation.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SolarCurrents.gif
Polar current reaches max, polar fields strongest, (gradient = 0), no induction of secondary current, no sunspot loops, at this point, when gradient changes direction. new rising secondary current will change polarity, and consequently sunspots change their polarity
Opposite is the case when polar current is falling towards the other extreme (negative value). Secondary current is strongest at the time of steepest gradient of polar current change (reversal of its direction), as the consequence polar fields go through zero, polar fields flip polarity (solar max).
To this, I may add that the Sun contains a weak internal dynamo of a long term steady polarity (analogous to planetary ones):
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PF.gif
when externally enforced field and dynamo are in polarity synchronism, or alternatively, up to 2 year resistance (1970 and 1990) when external enforcement is working against the internal dynamo.
Simple if you formulate a consistent a hypothesis that does not depend on a chance or 1/1000 of anything.
This hypothesis shows that Rmax of a cycle has a certain relationship to the strength of polar fields at previous minimum (further apart they are larger gradient change required), so your prediction method is consistent with it, (while polar fields are not related to the past cycle), and B-L theory is not.

March 23, 2009 2:02 pm

Correction
consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity
should be:
consequently change its intensity in the onward direction.

March 23, 2009 3:10 pm

vukcevic (13:47:15) :
I noticed you avoided commenting on the following heresy :
You will also notice smooth transition (1980 and 2000)

I NEVER ‘avoid’ commenting. there are things I don’t think are worth spending time on. The data from WSO is useless in 2000-2002. Here is what they say on the website: WSO sensitivity problems from CR 1970 – CR 1992 (November 2000 – July 2002) . They also say that the data has been corrected. This unfortunately not the case. In figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf you can see how the WSO data disagrees with Mt. Wilson. The smooth behavior you see is just that of smoothed noise waving around zero.
The rest of your post is pure fantasy. There are no such currents. I haven’t decided yet to comment on it as it ‘is not even wrong’, It has to make sense to be ‘wrong’. But perhaps I’ll try. The reason I hesitate is that my effort presumably will have no effect as we gone over some of these things before. But perhaps this time is different. It will take a large amount of education of you, but that might be worthwhile to the general readership too, so perhaps…

March 23, 2009 3:16 pm

gary gulrud (13:31:58) :
Men/women do nothing and say little on behalf of reason but do so from their inner motivations, serving self-interest.
I guess you are speaking for yourself. I do have a wider goal. Society has supported my research, so there is something to give back.
A little more effort understanding your adversary
Again, I guess your are seeing yourself as an ‘adversary’. You have not yet risen to that in my eyes as you have brought no science to the table, but maybe one day … one may be permitted to hope for the best.

idlex
March 23, 2009 3:49 pm

Brief report: Using my solar system simulation model, I set up a 1000 kg satellite in circular orbit around the Sun at 6 solar radii, with an orbital period of 40.8 hours, and watched its orbital motion over 11 terrestrial years as the barycentre moved from outside the Sun’s disc to very near its centre. Results: the satellite stayed in a very stable orbit throughout this period, showing almost no variation at all. Conclusion: the motion of the barycentre had no influence on the motion of the satellite. And since the Sun may be regarded as a number of point masses rotating about its centre, most likely the motion of the barycentre will have no effect on the behaviour of the Sun either.

March 23, 2009 4:07 pm

Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂

March 23, 2009 4:34 pm

Adolfo Giurfa (16:07:20) :
Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
What matters is what happens with the relative positions of the Sun and the satellite. Idlex: start your satellite at 1 solar radii from the surface so the barycenter will pass above it.

March 23, 2009 4:44 pm

Geoff Sharp (13:26:55) :
Stochastic fluctuations…
This is one of the biggest weak points in the B-L theory….

On the contrary, that is its strongest point, what makes it work. The random buffering by the super-granulation [convective cells] is one of the most efficient way of transporting the magnetic flux.
It is the same basic mechanism [random walk] that makes it possible for you to smell a rose or a skunk.

March 23, 2009 4:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:34:54) :
Idlex: start your satellite at 1 solar radii from the surface so the barycenter will pass above it.
or straight through it for more effect.

March 23, 2009 4:58 pm

idlex (15:49:50) :
You could also try setting up the satellite so it orbits the solar system barycenter instead of the Sun, and then watch the Sun/satellite distance move.