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
I’ll run the simulation again tomorrow.
Geoff Sharp (18:23:12) :
Only trouble is that the proponents are not content to stay in their pen.
Thats one way of dealing with anyone that challenges your views…just lock them up 🙂
That’s what we got asylums for :~)
Leif, since your attention is in this thread ( the simulations are interesting) can you answer this off topic question?
Somewhere in clicking on links I read the claim that though the total solar energy changes are very small the UV changes are up to 30%. ( no link to claim) Is that true? I would be grateful for a link if you have one.
If true, since this is the component that heats the oceans in depth, it could be very interesting for PDO etc.
anna v (21:27:30) :
the UV changes are up to 30%. ( no link to claim) Is that true? I would be grateful for a link if you have one.
As you go to smaller and smaller wavelengths the variations become relatively larger [several hundred percent of more for the shortest], but the absolute amount of energy received becomes smaller and smaller faster than the variation becomes larger, so the net effect is very small. In http://www.leif.org/research/Erl74.png you can see the spectral distribution of energy. The left-hand part of the spectrum varies a lot with solar activity, but is way down in energy provided.
Leif Svalgaard (21:48:25) :
“but the absolute amount of energy received becomes smaller and smaller faster than the variation becomes larger, so the net effect is very small.”
thanks
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
With the second plot I have reservations (gut feel) that N & U angular momentum figures are too low.
The maximum AM of each body [as a percent of adding them all together] is:
J 61%
S 25%
U 5%
N 8%
Ma 0,01%
E 0.09%
V 0.06%
Me 0.003%
Sol 0.11%
Leif Svalgaard (22:15:02) :
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
With the second plot I have reservations (gut feel) that N & U angular momentum figures are too low.
The maximum AM of each body [as a percent of adding them all together] is:
J 61%
S 25%
U 5% <== but varies VERY little: from 5.469% to 5.476% if you move the BC one solar radius.
N 8% <== but varies VERY little: from 7.779% to 7.788% if you move the BC one solar radius.
Ma 0.01%
E 0.09%
V 0.06%
Me 0.003%
Sol 0.11%
:
Geoff Sharp (18:23:12) :
Thats one way of dealing with anyone that challenges your views…just lock them up 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (20:48:21)
That’s what we got asylums for :~)
I am told the Siberian salt mines were also all the rage.
Leif Svalgaard (22:36:07) :
I have seen many calculations for AM across the planets, no two the same which is a concern, the majority have Jupiter around 50%. I have had the advantage of real world observation in my research and its is clear Neptune & Uranus altho no where near the main players, do have a strong impact. You have them combined at 13% which is workable, but I suspect higher.
It may be of interest to Geoff Sharp that when the vertical barycentric displacement is considered rather than the radial, Neptune and Uranus have a considerably greater proportional effect, due to their long orbital periods.
Planet Mass Distance Period Inclination Acceler. Displacement
M D P I
Mercury 0.056 0.387 0.2408522 3.18 0.021 0.0012
Venus 0.826 0.723 0.6152078 3.75 0.10 0.039
Earth 1.012 1.000 1.0000417 7.14 0.13 0.13
Mars 0.108 1.524 1.880885 5.51 0.0045 0.016
Jupiter 318.4 5.203 11.86233 6.00 1.228 172.9
Saturn 95.2 9.538 29.4568 5.45 0.099 86.2
Uranus 14.6 19.182 84.016 6.36 0.0044 31.1
Neptune 17.3 30.06 164.802 6.36 0.0021 57.6
Leif,
I think the problem yesterday was that I had the Sun motionless at the origin, and the barycentre moving around it. It wouldn’t have mattered if I’d calulated the motion of the barycentre, but I wasn’t doing that. So I had a motionless Sun and a motionless barycentre. No wonder, really, that the Sun AM came out with low values.
I’m now running the simulation again with barycentric coordinates, and more sensible figures are coming out, which agree with Carl’s Tables. Or what I know of them.
But I’m still not calculating the motion of the barycentre. And I think that this must introduce a small error into the results. I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
Of course the barycentre isn’t a body, so I can’t work out its acceleration as I do with other bodies. But I can work backwards. I know where the barycentre is at any moment in time, and where it has been. So I can work out the speed it must be moving to get from where it came from to where it is now. And once I’ve got the barycentre speed, I should use this in calculating the relative speeds (and angular momenta) of the Sun and planets.
Lots of different scenario’s going on here, all good stuff….but, imagine if we had a quantifiable example of an interaction that warranted a trade off in angular momentum, but instead of more/less solar velocity, we see a rotation change of the Sun?
That would have to prick up a few ears?
Geoff Sharp (23:48:41) :
You have them combined at 13% which is workable, but I suspect higher.
This is one of the problems with this: “suspect”. There is a way of finding out that takes away suspicion and replaces it with knowledge. It is called physics. Angular momentum is defined as distance*mass*speed, which for Uranus is 2.9E12 m, 8.7E25 kg, 6810 m/s which means AMu = 1.72E42. A similar calculation yields AM for all bodies and their sum as AMt = 3.14E43 or AMu = 0.055 of AMt.
Geoff Sharp (05:11:56) :
but instead of more/less solar velocity, we see a rotation change of the Sun?
That would have to prick up a few ears?
No, because physicists know that there is no coupling between orbital motion and rotation.
idlex (03:47:34) :
I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
I don’t think so. At any given moment you just want to calculate the AM of the Sun with respect to the barycenter, which is simply the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the Sun times the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. Same with all the other AMs.
I’ve just finished pushing some data around which has yielded a correlation between the distribution of northern/southern hemisphere sunspots and the total sunspot area modulated by the north/south motion of the sun with respect to the solar system barycentre.
The Pearson R squared value is 0.7 over 4 solar cycles.
Looks like there might be some legs on the Tomes theory after all. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (13:34:35) :
idlex (07:58:12) :
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (08:07:14) :
Leif Svalgaard:
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
1940.0164 29.7692585 1.443421203e+0 3.110540598e+47
1940.0301 30.1524092 1.445292036e+0 3.115656421e+47
1940.0437 30.5351703 1.447155454e+0 3.120519371e+47
1940.0574 30.9175140 1.449011260e+0 3.125116246e+47
What we need is a set of values covering the above times [every 5th day] so we can compare.
We need to define which units the values are expressed in. I use SI units, meter, second etc.
I have discovered an issue with my calculation so I need to rerun it. Maybe it removes the discrepancy. Because the orbital planes are not all parallel with each other, one needs to use vector mathematics when computing the AM and AM sum. Otherwise there will be ‘apples and oranges’ summed. I need some time to do it. I have a day-job so it takes a bit of time 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (17:19:35) :
Carsten, what are your values for the first few 5 day intervals of 1941? for the Sun.
As mentioned I will redo the analysis and provide all numbers. Patience.
Leif Svalgaard (07:18:09) :
idlex (03:47:34) :
I should really calculate the x,y,z velocities of the Sun relative to the x,y,z velocities of the barycentre.
I don’t think so. At any given moment you just want to calculate the AM of the Sun with respect to the barycenter, which is simply the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the Sun times the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. Same with all the other AMs.
Are you sure? The reason my simulation failed yesterday was because I had, at the beginning at least, a motionless Sun at the origin and a motionless barycentre nearby. If I’d calculated the motion of th barycentre, as I now believe I should have, the lack of motion of the Sun at the origin would have been compensated by the motion of the barycentre. Changing to barycentric coordinates resulted in a motionless barycentre, and a moving Sun, and the right sort of angular momentum. If the origin is elsewhere (and it is elsewhere in my simulation) then I should, I believe, find out both the speed of the Sun and of the barycentre.
the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter
If, in some coordinate system, at one instant in time the Sun is moving towards Capella at 3 km/s, and the barycentre is alongside the Sun (where ‘alongside’ means in a direction perpendicular to the Sun’s motion), and moving at 1 km/s towards Capella, the tangential velocity of the Sun relative to the barycentre will be 2 km/s. And the same would be true if the Sun was heading for Capella at 103 km/s and the barycentre at 101 km/s. But you would say that in the first case the tangential velocity of the Sun was 3km/s in the first case, and 103 km/s in the second case?
I can calculate both. All being well, I should be able to send you what you’re asking for later on today. And maybe follow that with the figures for when the ‘correction’ I’m proposing for tangential velocity is included. The differences will be slight, I imagine.
Geoff Sharp (18:17:06) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
I have been plotting all that JPL data I was talking to you about, might have found something. Would appreciate your feedback if possible, there is a spreadsheet on the other forum we have been in.
I am not retired, so everything is on limited free time. I will get back to that on the other forum when I can.
This discussion of the details of angular momentum calculations is actually quite useful, considering how many online discussions there have been in various forums that are heavy on words and light on substance.
One thing I find interesting about the suggested calculations is that the Sun is being treated as a point that has a simply-defined distance and angle from the SSB, when in fact it is a collection of (largely connected) points, each of which has a unique distance and angle from the SSB due to the proximity of the Sun to the SSB and the size of the Sun. My understanding is that most physicists assert that this does not matter for a rigid sphere – and that some will concede that it does matter when there is a fluid envelope. I’m not suggesting there is a spin-orbit coupling (nor do I want to offend some people by suggesting there isn’t one) – I’m just saying this discussion isn’t convincing me it has given this matter the careful & thorough treatment needed to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of all involved parties, even though I acknowledge this thread has now succeeded in evolving past some of the emotions and attempting to focus on so-called objective facts & laws.
This whole barycentre controversy is fascinating from a sociological perspective. Perhaps it does have a place in these forums, which are recording the evolution of influence & power in public debate on the unknowns & uncertainties in contemporary science, in what may be only the early years of an evolving information age. Some future historians & archaeologists might revel in these records – if they are preserved – but I still think we might be doing them a favor if we concentrate as many of these discussions as possible in a dedicated BaryUncensored forum. (On the other hand, that might increase the risk that the whole record will be destroyed easily.) I had a look at the forum Leif suggested as a “pen” – and I’m not convinced that it can handle this topic as well as Watts.
Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion.
Leif Svalgaard (17:19:35) :
to
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:29:03) :
Carsten, what are your values for the first few 5 day intervals of 1941? for the Sun.
I have done a quick pass for 1941 using vector sums (still running). Numbers for January-May 1941 are available in
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1941_Jan_May_20090326.csv
There are 3 columns for each object and the sum. These are the (x,y,z) vector components of AM. The sum is vector sum of all the others (should be constant to prove no spin-orbit coupling). I have no idea how this compares with Carl’s as the numbers appear to be orders of magnitude different to what you showed, possibly due to different units.
The sum looks very constant now, so maybe it is an indication of no spin orbit coupling. But a longer series and independent confirmation will be required before I conclude 🙂
I know very little regarding calculations considered above, thus my question may not be entirely relevant.
As far as I remember solar surface g-force is 28 or so ( number = certain birthday), giving acceleration of approx 275 m/s2.
These are extremely large numbers (even the light is measurably bent).
Is the science absolutely certain that, due to high temperatures, where most of the mass is not molecular Hydrogen but in form of free protons, that Newtonian physics laws are entirely valid for calculating mechanical effects for the movement and actions of the solar surface plasma ?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (09:40:13) :
Here are some values [4th column] from ‘Carl’s Table’:
1940.0027 29.3857447 1.441543241e+0 3.105195908e+47
We need to define which units the values are expressed in. I use SI units, meter, second etc.
Carl’s are cgs, so compared to mks [or SI] you must adjust exponent down by 2[for cm]+3[for g]+2[for cm/s]=7. So 3.105…e+47 is 3.105…e+40
idlex (09:44:30) :
“the tangential velocity of the Sun perpendicular to the direction to the barycenter. “Are you sure?
Yes, because we don’t want ‘absolute movement’ [is no such thing], but just AM relative to the barycenter, so can treat the BC as at rest.
Paul Vaughan (10:22:23) :
My understanding is that most physicists assert that this does not matter for a rigid sphere – and that some will concede that it does matter when there is a fluid envelope.
You can consider two extreme cases: (1) the Sun is rigid and (2) the Sun is a collection of non-interacting particles that are allowed to move freely. In the first case the situation is clear. In the second it is also clear [makes not difference], but some people have problems seeing that, so we can for them calculate the difference between the AM of one half of the Sun and the other half. This is what DeJager et al. did and showed that the resulting difference in acceleration is several orders of magnitude smaller than the ordinary forces acting on the Sun [rotation, plasma flows, etc], so even in that case there would be no observable effect over the noise.
All of this is, however, not needed, because the Sun gains/loses going around the BC the planets lose/gain, so there is no net change and hence no effect.
But, as you point out there are fascinating sociological issues relevant to even AGW, namely how people with strong [but wrong] convictions react when the ground gives way under them.