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
anna v (04:33:40)
“[…] either correlations are fortuitous, or there is unknown physics behind them […]”
= lurking factors – a point I raised upthread.
anna v: “I think you are confusing the issue. Describing something is not the same as predicting the future, unless you have very many experiments. Leaves growing offer innumerable experiments […]”
While I disagree on the former, the latter points you introduce are worthwhile – & very important. I will add 2 comments:
1) Leaf experimentation didn’t always offer the present variety – the point I would hope people take away is about the ongoing struggle science has with scaling phenomena.
2) I have no interest in forecasting.
Elaboration on point#2:
I do, however, have a strong interest in investigating patterns – and I do everything within my power to apply careful, level, conservative judgement in interpreting findings & assessing claims. (Of course not all people can be stopped from misunderstanding &/or twisting words out of context (qualifiers go missing, adjectives get overlooked, etc.))
Here is (in a nutshell) what I think has happened.
1) Some people found some credible patterns.
2) They got frustrated – and this led to them lowering some of their behaviour standards (very substantially in some cases – to the point of being unethical), but probably some of them considered the sacrifice of their credibility & reputations justified to keep interest in the line of inquiry alive.
3) People with devious agendas hitched their wagons onto the train, making a bad situation worse.
I would say that the line of inquiry now has so much momentum that no one at present need consider sacrificing their credibility (i.e. by throwing themselves upon their sword) to keep the line of inquiry alive. Low behaviour standards are not justified under the present scenario.
I will also add that having all these devious wagons on the train is an absolute nuisance. If these folks want to offer polite, neutral support, that’s tolerable, but by barking twisted words, they’re only creating a serious optics problem for the people who already have their hands full trying to pursue legitimate science in a very challenging environment.
I thank you for the wise words you have shared in this forum anna v. You demonstrate a solid handle on what statisticians call pseudoreplication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoreplication#cite_note-0
Warning – heavy reading:
http://evolution.unibe.ch/teaching/ExpDesign/Hurlbert_EcMonogr1984.pdf
Hurlbert, Stuart H. (1984). Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2), 187-211.
My focus was intensely on ecology for many years. It often takes ecologists a phenomenal amount of time & effort to get a tiny amount of data. People get pretty desperate come data analysis time. I’ve seen far worse “wishful thinking” in that field (generally speaking) than in the solar-terrestrial relations literature. Few ecological systems are closed and scaling phenomena wreak havoc with measures & interpretations. In many ways, it’s a worse zoo than what we’ve been seeing here.
I recommend the Hurlbert (1984) article as a mental exercise for folks who casually toss around the word “cause”.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dr. Svalgaard:
Can you please address my request [Paul Vaughan (23:20:56)].
This is an important loose end, since I am not convinced that people following this thread are necessarily aware that this makes any difference to the distances that were discussed.
This is the last item keeping my attention strongly focused on this thread.
To all who have contributed: Thank you. The tail end of this discussion went somewhere very important.
Regards,
Paul.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:35:31) :
Geoff Sharp (06:39:06) :
“There is a simple test, measure a Jovian planet’s distance to the SSB and then move forward exactly 1 orbit in time, the distance will be the same (give of take a few days) then look at the planet’s distance to the Sun on both occurrences, it will be vastly different. End of story.”
As my two posts on this show, this claim is not even true.
You have already seen how the story ends. […]
So there you have it. I have computed the values without really knowing why it was so important to you, maybe you can now.
The object was not to ‘know’ this, and it is not important in itself. The goal is diverting attention from the AM result, to throw doubt on it, to discredit people, to create enough confusion that other people don’t WHAT to think about it, etc. This is all standard fare and is surprisingly effective as every politician knows.
My post, (11:35:31) :
last sentence correction
…. maybe you can tell us now.
Leif Svalgaard (11:20:51) :
I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty.
Heh, good answer. I’m still trying to work out if this is an argument from authority, or a claim to hidden knowledge. 😉
Paul Vaughan (11:57:01) :
Can you please address my request [Paul Vaughan (23:20:56)].
This is an important loose end, since I am not convinced that people following this thread are necessarily aware that this makes any difference to the distances that were discussed.
The Jupiter system (i.e. Jupiter & its moons) has its own BC = (a). Jupiter by itself = (b).
(a), of course. It makes almost no difference because that point is well within Jupiter itself [almost at the center]. For the Earth, one should also use the Earth-Moon barycenter, and for all planets, as well in principle. Only for the Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon are there any differences of note.
tallbloke (12:44:07) :
Leif Svalgaard (11:20:51) :
“I know all these things because they are in my field of specialty.”
Heh, good answer. I’m still trying to work out if this is an argument from authority, or a claim to hidden knowledge. 😉
Not an argument, just a simple reply to your question, and nothing hidden about it. Hundreds [perhaps thousands] of other scientists and possibly millions of ordinary educated or interested folks know too. Even you could find out, by investing a bit of your time [instead of mine 🙂 ].
Leif Svalgaard (12:44:16)
“(a), of course. It makes almost no difference because that point is well within Jupiter itself [almost at the center]. For the Earth, one should also use the Earth-Moon barycenter, and for all planets, as well in principle. Only for the Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon are there any differences of note.”
I remember seeing a plot somewhere (sorry I don’t have a link) produced by an expert on ephemerides that showed the instantaneous-orbital-period of both Saturn & the Saturn-system-BC relative to the solar-system-BC. The Saturn variation was an order of magnitude larger than that for the Saturn-system-BC.
idlex,
Thanks for some hard facts but unfortunately you can’s do the Earth this way because it orbits the Sun-Earth/Moon barycenter and not the SSBC.
You also need to include the Moon in the calcs making it rather complicated I guess.
Carsten,
Thanks to you too but it doesn’t prove anything. How large is the distance variation and which point do they orbit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit2.gif
I know it’s not an identical situation but you get the picture.
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
request/suggestion for Geoff & Carsten:
When you produce these plots with time spanning decades (or centuries) on the x-axis, please consider adjusting the x-axis number-type to “number” (rather than ‘date’). This will dramatically improve the readability of your plots.
And – of course – thank you for sharing the plots – much appreciated.
Paul Vaughan (13:19:15) :
I remember seeing a plot somewhere (sorry I don’t have a link) produced by an expert on ephemerides that showed the instantaneous-orbital-period of both Saturn & the Saturn-system-BC relative to the solar-system-BC. The Saturn variation was an order of magnitude larger than that for the Saturn-system-BC.
I don’t think so, but in any case that would make the situation [the variation] even worse compared to the [corresponding] Jupiter-Sun period. Checking for Jupiter, I find that it makes only a fraction of a day difference compared to a total swing of a month so is not a worry, and in any case, the correct thing to do is to use the Jupiter-BC.
Leif:
Even you could find out, by investing a bit of your time [instead of mine 🙂 ].
Ah, but I don’t get to challenge the book author, and have him call me names and start an argument then.
Seriously Leif, thanks for your stamina, knowledge sharing, patience and sweet friendly good nature. Ok, I lied about the last bit, you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon. But anyway, it’s been good to kick the football about again, and I reckon we’ve sneaked a couple of curving volley’s into the net this time. There will no doubt be a post mortem by email, and a return match at a venue to be decided.
Paul Vaughan (11:57:01) :
To all who have contributed: Thank you. The tail end of this discussion went somewhere very important.
You mean the debunking of this mendacious claim?
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
lgl (13:29:31) :
It seems some in here are trying do refute Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, surprising.
already Isaac Newton did that…
To all concerned
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
tallbloke (13:46:38) :
you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon.
Science can be cruel, cold, and hard.
Maybe it would be a sensible plan to wait until Geoff is back online having had the opportunity to double check his data before ascribing motivation to his observations.
Words like mendacity tend to create more smoke and heat, than light. Unless that’s your aim. See how easy it is to cast aspersions?
Leif Svalgaard (14:10:07) :
tallbloke (13:46:38) :
you’re a bit of a cantankerous old git I reckon.
Science can be cruel, cold, and hard.
And wrong while it’s at it.
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
To all concerned
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
Thanks Mr V, but I think you may be putting out the fire with gasoline here. 😉
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (07:37:04) :
The correlations don’t control the path of the Sun, gravity does. The AM graph of an object is a function of the objects position and velocity. So if there is a correlation with AM, it is AM that follows from the positions and velocities, not the other way.
I dont really care, and would rather leave that detail to the boffins. At the end of the day Carl’s AM graph lines up exactly with your diagrams. You can argue about the semantics all day, but we have a scientific result that can be tested.
Your 2 graphs on Jupiter’s orbits need to be overlaid so we can see the differences. I have done it here.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/j_s_ssb.jpg
But that was not what I was asking, but interesting to see what method you chose.
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
I’m sure that is what he meant …
Leif Svalgaard (14:30:35) :
vukcevic (14:07:37) :
In England expression “cantankerous old git” is a term of endearment for an an elderly gentleman.
I’m sure that is what he meant …
Wisdom comes with age. Or as Frank Zappa said:
Wisdom is the domain of the wis, which is extinct. 😉
tallbloke (14:15:59) :
Maybe it would be a sensible plan to wait until Geoff is back online having had the opportunity to double check his data before ascribing motivation to his observations.
I pointed out the error early this morning. Even showed him his own data. He has been online since. Has it been me, I would have acknowledged my error, retracted all ‘end of story’ posts, both here and on other sites, where the same mistake is referred to. Not doing so, being silent, seems to me to indicate a hope that this would just go away with time, and that is a powerful motivation of the type I implied.
Words like mendacity tend to create more smoke and heat, than light.
I normally would not use this tone, but allow me to ‘retaliate’ a bit in the face of words used about me like ‘how low you can go’, ‘waffle, ‘pathetic’, ‘biased’, etc, the list goes on. I’m only human and [rarely] I do display some emotion. If Geoff does as I suggested above i would have done, then I shall profusely apologize. If he does not, my word stands.
tallbloke (14:43:33) :
“endearment for an an elderly gentleman.”
Wisdom comes with age.
Then I qualify.
Leif Svalgaard (07:17:08) :
Geoff Sharp (16:05:54) :
Take a point in time, I chose June 20 1951. Measure J distance to Sun & SSB. Move on 1 complete orbit of J, 4339 days later we find the J to SSB distance is exactly the same as in 1951.”
Tell us again how you move on 1 complete orbit? What is the criterion that the orbit is complete using the three tables you have provided?
From your table (2) we have:
Target body name: Solar System Barycenter (0)
Center body name: Jupiter (599)
Shown is distance in AU
1951-Jun-19 00:00 4.95509008582573
1951-Jun-20 00:00 4.95499927241922 * start
1951-Jun-21 00:00 4.95490872132356
1963-Apr-05 00:00 4.95512926483708
1963-Apr-06 00:00 4.95503231548752 * 4308 days
1963-Apr-07 00:00 4.95493622818420
1963-May-06 00:00 4.95238783851465
1963-May-07 00:00 4.95230888839073 # 4339 days
1963-May-08 00:00 4.95223031117184
—-
After 4308 days we have very nearly the same distance J-SSB, but 4339 days later the distance is different by 0.0027 AU or 404,000 km …
I made an error when calculating the Julian days and the figure should have been 4309 days not 4339. What I am trying to do is isolate the elliptical orbit semi-major axis changes to see if the Jup/Sun distance varies. By choosing the two dates with the same Jup/SSB distance I thought this would isolate any elliptical orbit variance. But 23 days away from the Jupiter standard orbit is probably too far away.
If we stick to the pure 4332 days it advances the date to April 30 1963, and if we do the same calculations we get Jup/Sun diff of .0025AU and Jup/SSB diff of .0021AU. So the answer to the question still eludes us based on these dates. That further advancement to April 30 pushes the Sun back towards the barycenter which is clouding the picture. If we assume 4332 days does eliminate the elliptical factor we still have the Sun moving 370,000 kilometers away from Jupiter from 1951 – 1963. This isn’t finished yet.
What we need is to measure the true Jup/Sun distance from its closest point at the barycenter and then again at its furthest point from the barycenter to test this properly. To do this we must remove the elliptical semi-major axis changes.
There are some smart people in here that should be able to do this. I might start by seeing if I can work out a daily elliptical semi-major axis change factor that can be applied to a date.
Leif Svalgaard (13:43:21) “I don’t think so […]”
I don’t think you would question this expert, but there is absolutely no chance I am going to name the expert in this forum. Rather, I am going to make an attempt to pursue this discrepancy independently and then if I need to I will approach the expert for clarification. Thank you for your comments.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
idlex (04:09:52)
“[…] Take the observed positions of the planets and try and fit a curve to them. […]”
This is what Horizons does – it’s based on a least-squares fit to observations.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
lgl (07:08:21)
http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
Hadn’t seen that one before.
Related:
I hope someone starts translating (from other languages like Russian) research from the past 40+ years and making it readily available in English.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Regarding all this “noise” in the thread about whether SunSSB distance (let’s call it ‘r’) is ‘influenced’ or ’caused’ by AM, let’s distinguish between ’caused by’ and ‘related to’.
For insight, here is a suggested exercise:
1) Make a timeplot of r^2.
2) Plot AM vs. r^2 (not in a time plot – but rather in a plain scatterplot).
[Note: r = SunSSB distance]
Related:
Most people overlook the very most important thing Jose (1965) had to say.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1965AJ…..70..193J&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=193&epage=193&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
[Hint: p.194 (pdf p.2)]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I welcome comments on the following substantial discrepancy (here – or elsewhere if this thread gets shut down soon).
Saturn’s orbital period:
Wikipedia: 29.657296a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn
Calculated from NASA orbital elements 1800AD-2050AD: 29.45069432a
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t1.txt
Calculated from NASA orbital elements 3000BC-3000AD: 29.47303787a
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/txt/p_elem_t2.txt
Notes:
a = annum (i.e. year)
retrieval date = Mar. 30, 2009
Before simply commenting “Nasa vs. Wikipedia on orbital periods! – lol!”, please Google “29.657296”.
This may seem a trivial detail, but it has interesting implications — for example some say that ~2400a periods in SIM & in geophysical data may be related – and this is relevant in that discussion (whether many have taken the time to consider it or not).
(Anyone want to bet we see changes soon? Take notes now…)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
tallbloke (08:27:29) & (09:02:01) and lgl (10:49:33)
I’m glad there is someone here pointing these things out (i.e. viscosity, turbulence, spatiotemporally varying differential rotation, etc.)
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:58) – “sure, but none of this has any bearing on transfer of AM from orbit to spin, which does not happen.”
I’m still curious to know why Shirley (2006) did not address this [See Paul Vaughan (20:35:08).]
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Leif Svalgaard (12:09:25) – “The goal is diverting attention from the AM result, to throw doubt on it, to discredit people, to create enough confusion that other people don’t WHAT to think about it, etc. This is all standard fare and is surprisingly effective as every politician knows.”
There may be some with such an agenda, but I need to again assert that I don’t even see this as being about AM (although AM has clearly been a component of this discussion, with varying priority for different participants).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Regarding Leif Svalgaard (13:52:14) – Thanks for the laugh.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
lgl (02:00:25) – “[…] i.e Both the Sun and Jupiter is accelerating (positve&negative) around the barycenter. And an object moving in an arc and being accelerated can’t keep a constant rotation.”
Waiting with interest to see how/if this gets attacked.