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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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 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.”
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.
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
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’.
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
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
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).
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.
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.
Be vewy, vewy quite. I’m hunting wadiation.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.