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
“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.
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.
Correction
consequently change its intensity in the onward intensity
should be:
consequently change its intensity in the onward direction.
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…
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.
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.
Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
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.
I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
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.
I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
The sun-earth distance does not change because of the barycenter movement [I think we can treat that as established, or do we have to go through that one again?], but perhaps you want to assert that the earth does not orbit the barycenter? or the sun? or both?
Leif Svalgaard (17:12:45) :
You jump too quickly, I am not talking about Earth. The SSB is the middle point
of the Sun’s path taken over 179 yrs approx.
Geoff Sharp (16:58:55) :
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.
Consider a double star, each star with its complements of planets [make the distance between the stars large enough that the tidal effects are not too large]. The barycenter of that whole system lies halfway between the stars. What do the planets orbit?
Leif Svalgaard (17:26:56) :
I suspect you are baiting for barycenter comments, I am quite happen to continue this at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=488
Repost your question there if you wish.
I’ve been out of the (astronomy/astrophysics) loop for a long time, so forgive me if this has been covered.
WRT Sun-Jupiter coupling, barycenter, whatever, my suspicion is this: if a gas giant can somehow couple with a bigger gas giant and create disturbing forces resulting in flares and sunspots, then surely the bigger gas giant is causing much greater forces on the smaller – eg: does Jupiter show any periodic disturbance that could be attributable to the same ‘linkage’ which some of you posit exists between it and the sun? The effect should be much larger and easier to correlate than Jupiter’s reciprocal effect on the sun. The are both gaseous bodies, both have magnetic fields, both primarily hydrogen. The primary difference (aside from size) are the thermal characteristics, so if you cannot correlate similar events on Jupiter, then you must add a thermal dependence, or a similar variable, in the linkage.
On a lighter note, a rare typo by Dr. Svalgaard combined with tired old eyes resulted in a new word: madomness. It has been defined as a random event sufficiently significant as to render any attempt of prediction impossible, thus driving theoretical scientists mad. With that in mind:
Sunspots should be more but were less
Predictions became just a guess
Albert Gore quickly claimed
CO2 was to blame
In truth it was just madomness.
Geoff Sharp (17:17:48) :
You jump too quickly, I am not talking about Earth. The SSB is the middle point of the Sun’s path taken over 179 yrs approx.
I thought is was 173 years, and doesn’t the SSB [Solar System Barycenter for the unwashed masses] move from moment to moment? And not just as an average over a long time?
Geoff Sharp (17:56:38) :
I suspect you are baiting for barycenter comments […]
Repost your question there if you wish.
As you yourself pointed out there are different audiences, so let’s do it here as long as Anthony permits, to get it out of the way. This is not ‘baiting’, simply asking for clarification of your thoughts so they can be discussed transparently. So, we have a series of specific questions awaiting detailed answers. Do I have to repeat them all?
Adolfo Giurfa: Idlex: Program your satellite to observe the light of stars behind if deviates around the barycenter 🙂
I’ll have a try when I’ve put the stars in. And figured out a viewpoint to use to display them. …oh, and implemented the theory of relativity. 😉
Leif Svalgaard: 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.
I can certainly do that. My simulation starts in March 1940 when the barycentre was about a quarter solar radius outside the Sun. I could find out exactly where it was and start the satellite at that radius, again in a circular orbit.
Geoff Sharp: 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.
If you could explain how I might do that, I’ll also give it a try. But I can’t see how I can do any such thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit the barycentre – or any other location in the solar system. I can only make it orbit some particular body, like the Sun or the Earth. The barycentre is not one of those bodies. My simulation model calculates the gravitational forces acting on each body in the solar system due to all the other bodies in that system. And then it works out the acceleration on each body due to those forces. And then it works out their resulting speeds and locations a short interval later. And I sit and watch where they all go.
Leif Svalgaard: I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.
It’s not the motion of the barycentre that matters. The Sun is also moving. Everything is moving. The problem is that the barycentre is a notional thing rather than an actual thing. I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the barycentre. Just like I can’t make my satellite orbit a notional thing like the Lagrangian points between the Sun and Jupiter.
Leif Svalgaard: The sun-earth distance does not change because of the barycenter movement [I think we can treat that as established, or do we have to go through that one again?], but perhaps you want to assert that the earth does not orbit the barycenter? or the sun? or both?
Surely it is that the Earth is pulled every which way by the Sun and all the other planets in the solar system? It just so happens that the Sun is by far the heaviest body in that system, and its influence is predominant. But if all the bodies in the solar system were of equal mass, there wouldn’t be any nice elliptical orbits at all (Note to self: run the simulation for a while, and then make the masses of all the bodies in the solar system the same, and see what happens).
I’ll try out the satellite going through/above the barycentre tomorrow, Leif, and report what I found. My satellite is moving in the ecliptic plane, so it almost cetainly won’t go smack through the barycentre, which will be above or below that plane. Is there anything you’d like me to measure? Today I was simply looking for any perturbation in my initial satellite’s orbit. And I found none.
idlex (18:18:35) :
Leif Svalgaard: “I don’t think he can as the barycenter moves.”
It’s not the motion of the barycentre that matters.
Remember that the barycenter crowd labors under the concept that everything in the solar system orbits the BC.
It just so happens that the Sun is by far the heaviest body in that system, and its influence is predominant.
That is not the real riposte. The reason is that the Earth simply orbits the Sun.
Is there anything you’d like me to measure? Today I was simply looking for any perturbation in my initial satellite’s orbit. And I found none.
any setup will work as it will not make any difference.
Leif Svalgaard (18:12:04) :
As you yourself pointed out there are different audiences, so let’s do it here as long as Anthony permits, to get it out of the way.
Ok….but will wait for Anthony.
REPLY: Ah…jeez you GUYS!
Carry on until my head explodes from barycentric gravitational forces. – Anthony
vukcevic (13:47:15) :
Simple:
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.
The lesson starts with some basics about the Heliospheric current Sheet [HCS]. Here is a movie of what the HCS looks like [the blue stuff] at a time where the warping of the HCS was 45 degrees [as in 1983 and 2005]: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Movie.gif
It shows the inner 5 AU [out to Jupiter]. To get to the termination shock it is just more of the same but 20 times further out. In the HCS the solar wind speed is low and what is plotted is actually the solar wind speed in a meridional cut [North pole up, South down, Equator across the middle. Notice that the structure is rotating around the Sun, i.e. the left half of the structure is coming towards you, while the right half is going away from the onlooker [sitting way out in space]. Because of the rotation you can actually watch the warps move up and down if you look really carefully at the structure just next to the Sun. In the HCS the density is also higher [that is what really carries the current], so here is a movie of the density: http://www.leif.org/research/Dens-Movie.gif
As the time moves towards solar maximum the ‘warps’ [the wavy structure – blue in the first movie] expands all the way to the poles, moving towards solar minimum the warps become flatter. The current separating the upper half [above the HCS] from the lower half [with opposite polarity] circles the Sun in the inner part of the region shown, then slowly turns and ends up following the blue ‘folds’ – up and down, up and down, up and down, many, many more times. At the termination shock the whole structure has steepened in a shock wave and everything is completely scrambled [all structure is lost, just like the circular motion in an ocean wave disappears when the wave breaks onto the shore] and the particles that used to carry the HC disappear into interstellar space, i.e. do not return to the Sun.
So far, so good?
P.S. it is the warped blue folds that scatter the cosmic rays [heped now and then by a CME that pushes it way out against the folds and piles them up on top of one another]. So at solar max, when the folds extends all the way to the poles, the most CRs are scattered out of the solar system, while at minimum, when the folds are confined to a thinner strip nearer the equator, clearly most CRs can enter the inner solar system without encountering any folds or warps or CMEs, hence we get a maximum at GCRs at solar minimum.
REPLY: Ah…jeez you GUYS!
Carry on until my head explodes from barycentric gravitational forces. – Anthony
watch the movies in the above post, they are very instructional and quite fascinating. Worth enduring the barycentric and electric universe nonsense to experience. They were made by Vic Pizzo.
Gary Gulrud said: 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.
Very eloquent post no doubt. Had to read a couple times to get it. That is the bottom line here. There are some really brilliant minds on here.
The unfortunate part about the debate and all of this great mental energy… is that we are online and not in person.
The upside to that is that there is a written record of everything. (So you can be held to your quotes!).
The downside is that there is no personal face-to-face discourse.
It is one thing if Lloyd Bentsen had typed to Dan Quayle “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
It is much more significant when he said it in person. LOL
Anyway….things are what they are….and the other OTHER upside is that I am getting a free education without having to pay tuition (Anthony that is not a hint to start charging LOL).
But Anthony thanks for your efforts here and thanks everyone for your contributions.
Our goal is to arrive at the truth. And that is a difficult, trying, and messy process.
Carry on gentlemen and ladies. Just remember not to let the argument take on a life of its own and create its own negative feedback cycle.
No….the end result is the truth.
Where better than to search for the truth on here?? Better here than some Newspeak AGW blog that censors the best of us….
Thanks Anthony….and carry on.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
savethesharks (19:58:10) :
There are some really brilliant minds on here.
In regione caecorum rex est luscus 🙂