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
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.
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 🙂
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
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
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
“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.
“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.
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.
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…
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].
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.
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.
“”” 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.
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
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.
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.
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
tehdude:
Wherefore is used a lot in legal pleadings, and when used in the legal sense, has the other meaning — therefore.
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
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.
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.
This is clearly a clasic case of “the watched pot never boils” syndrome.
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…
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. 🙂
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”