Leif Svalgaard writes to inform me that Livingston and Penn have published their article recently in EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION.
As WUWT readers may recall, we had a preview of that EOS article here.
L&P write in the EOS article:
For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1), and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.
The last solar maximum occurred in 2001, and the magnetically active sunspots at that time produced powerful flares causing large geomagnetic disturbances and disrupting some space- based technology. But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933 (see http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html).
The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago [Fisk and Zhao, 2009].
The full article as a PDF is available here
Leif also provides his version of their Figure 3 (showing umbral intensity -vs- total magnetic field which I’m sure he’ll want to discuss here.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Svempa (05:51:27) :
So critical gravitational or/and magnetic interaction between star and planet may be possible at short distances, if proved then it remains to discuss if a similar interaction between the Sun and the gas giants of the Solar system is possible considering the much vaster distances involved.
These effects are well understood and pose no problem. The critical issue is the distance, ans both magnetic and tidal influences decreases by the cube of the distance. The planet in question is a hundred times closer to its star than Jupiter is to the Sun, so its influence is 100*100*100 = 1,000,000 times larger and that makes the difference.
vukcevic (07:21:24) :
circulating of highly ionised plasma is especially sensitive to any electric or magnetic input, could be synchronised by it through resonance
Because of the solar wind that excludes any external electric and magnetic fields from the inner solar system there is no such input. And solar activity is not an oscillation in the first place [requires a restoring force], so the analog with resonance does not apply.
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29) & Leif Svalgaard (07:57:09)
Ok, magnetic flux of 1 or 2 Gauss over the 3′ aperture of the measuring instrument. Any one of many of NASA’s photos shows that many individual sunspots cover areas of order of 3′ spatial angle.
Amplification process is a ‘mystery’ since there is no clear explanation of it, just fudge. Even bigger mystery is how the unipolar remnant magnetic area (which should not exist anyway, since the other half ‘cancels’ over the equator, again contradiction with meridional flow, two plasma flows are not mixing) which mysteriously acquires the missing half of double polarity, to become a fully fledged sunspot.
Hathaway supports the theory of sunspot generation by meridional flow,
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt
but this is in a contradiction with classical view of stretching, twisting and breaking of magnetic field as shown here
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/spaceweather/images/sunspot_form.jpg
Hathaway: “Flows within the convection zone were previously thought to be the source of the solar cycle (for both α- and Ω-effects). Both dynamo types had a problem with too much α-effect in the convection zone. Now, important aspects of convection zone rotation and flux tube dynamics indicate that the interface layer or “tachocline” is the seat of the solar cycle and both of the EARLY MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt#14
What possibly he could have in mind, Babcock-Leighton, Parker ?
It is worth noting that every solar scientist has his own personal solar dynamo: Hathaway, Dicpati, Charbonneau, Svalgaard- Schatten, Priest etc.
That is fine than, anything goes except resonant synchronisation, which you neatly avoided to comment on.
Solar wind is no obstacle for electromagnetic waves, whatever frequency, even if measured in nanoHz. Magnetic field strength is a vector, and if not of exact amplitude and opposite spatial direction, cannot be cancelled out by another one. If to are oscillating vectors (phasors) of different frequency than a continuous cancellation has a negligible probability.
vukcevic (09:34:05) :
Amplification process is a ‘mystery’ since there is no clear explanation of it, just fudge
The creation of magnetic field is described by the induction equation dB/dt = e Laplacian(B) + grad x v x B of plasma movements with velocity v in magnetic field B, and e is the diffusion coefficient. The problem is to specify e, v, and B and those are poorly constrained by observations, hence the many different versions. The process itself is not mysterious.
That is fine than, anything goes except resonant synchronisation, which you neatly avoided to comment on.
I cannot comment on unspecified mechanism. Give some details of how it specifically works and I can comment.
Solar wind is no obstacle for electromagnetic waves
You moved very quickly from electric and magnetic fields to EM waves. And indeed EM from Jupiter can reach the Sun, the problem is how much energy there is in those EM. Calculate that and tell us so we can comment. If you cannot then, may I propose that it is less than the amount of sunlight Jupiter receives and reflects. So, you are proposing that Jupiter shining on the Sun is controlling solar activity. Seen from the Sun Jupiter shines less than many stars shine on the Earth. Perhaps the stars also influence things on [the much smaller] Earth, and perhaps the Chaldeans were right, after all.
vukcevic (09:34:05) :
Ok, magnetic flux of 1 or 2 Gauss over the 3′ aperture of the measuring instrument.
No, it has nothing to do with the 3′ aperture. And it is not a magnetic flux, but a flux density, so the size of the aperture cancels out. The polar fields consist of a large number of very small highly concentrated field elements that are too small to observe individually [up to now]. The magnetic field strength in these elements is of the order of 1500 Gauss. The reason we only measure a flux density of 2 Gauss is that some 99.9% of the photosphere is not magnetic at all [or rather has no organized magnetic field related to solar activity].
Hi all,
Is the work (whilst not peer reviewed and validated) not of interest? Here, we take the sunspot cycle, and integrate with a few other parameters such as sea-ice, ENSO, and volanic activity. Add a bit of hysteresis, and hey presto, not a bad fit to Hadley.
Indeed we had major problems with matching some anomalies during the mid part of the last century. It took a while, but fortuntately, another poster found an article that showed the period in question was down to Hadley errors. What’s the chances of finding that?
What’s the chances of using four publicly peer reviewed sets of data and getting a Pearson score of over 90%. I haven’t done the maths yet for the Chi2 analysis, but it’s on it’s way.
You can find it here:http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/51548-climate-modeling-using-a-leaky-integrator/page__view__findpost__p__1518279
Leif Svalgaard (10:36:39)
With a limited knowledge (and unlimited entusiasm to probe into unknown) I am looking into any possibility that might oppen the door. Your comments are not ignored, just probed for a possible gaps in the current understanding. Resonant synchronisation, is a phisical reality in many cyclical systems, and has ability to overcome required energy input. Do I have an answer? No I do not, but that should not be reason not to continue search.
vukcevic (12:00:10) :
No I do not, but that should not be reason not to continue search.
A person has only so much energy to spare. Better to spend at least some of it actually learning something, rather than searching. Many people have searched and their combined findings have something to teach you, if you would only learn [which seems to be your main problem].
You can have a mind so open that the brain falls out.
Leif Svalgaard (13:05:32) :
“Many people have searched and their combined findings have something to teach you, if you would only learn [which seems to be your main problem].”
Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20040428_UTA_Seminar.ppt#14
Leif Svalgaard (07:39:29) :
Geoff Sharp (00:06:29) :
I noticed in Scafetta’s presentation he agrees with me and shows how solar Angular Momentum/Solar distance to SSB is the driver of the modulation of the solar cycle.
————————————————–
He does not agree with you at all. He refers to Jose. There is no mention of your notion of Neptune/Uranus running the show. Scafetta muses about a 60-year cycle, no 172-year cycle. He draws attention [and mars his presentation] to a 60-yr quasi-period in CMSS and possibly in the LOD. No Grand Minimum.
Leif, your totally missing the point, in another universe in fact. The 1st graph I referred to shows a modulation in the distance of the Sun from the SSB which goes through a sixty year cycle. The amplitude changes when Neptune & Uranus are together every 172 years (2 sep cycles), Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor yet but he has shown the result in his graph. I have emailed him and sent some links so hopefully one day he will catch on. Jose’s graph of Sun/SSB distance is almost the same as the AM graph which is also the same as the torque graph, they are all interelated. The AM graph produced by Carl shows extra detail that Jose and Landscheidt could only dream about….that extra detail is the discovery of how N/U control the modulation cycle.
If you understand the theory none of this is hard.
vukcevic (15:23:30) :
Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
So? Our new ones are better.
Geoff Sharp (17:31:30) :
Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor
So cannot be agreeing with you. Tell us what his answer to your email is when [if] it arrives.
Leif Svalgaard (23:38:34) :
Geoff Sharp (17:31:30) :
Scaffetta is not aware of the N/U factor
————
So cannot be agreeing with you. Tell us what his answer to your email is when [if] it arrives.
He agrees and shows the solar modulation caused by the solar distance…that is the crux. The N/U factor will come.
his email reply as follows:
Geoff
I gave a look at your web-site.
I do believe that your web site looks interesting. However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
There are scientific journals that do not ask any fee.
So you may try to prepare a manuscript and submit it.
nicola
vukcevic (15:23:30) :
Hathaway: “EARLIER MODELS WERE FATALLY FLAWED.”
Leif Svalgaard (22:26:44) :
So? Our new ones are better.
I will treasure this one !
( p.s. but are they any good ? )
vukcevic (01:46:34) :
( p.s. but are they any good ? )
They are better. You see, We can learn.
Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
Should be easy for you with such a remarkable result.
In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?
noaaprogrammer (14:25:18) :
In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?
Once the old guard is removed there is no doubt…..
Leif Svalgaard (06:31:58) :
Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
However, you should organize your work and try to write some paper and publish it.
————————-
Should be easy for you with such a remarkable result.
There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.
noaaprogrammer (14:25:18) :
In the future, if SC24 turns out to look like the beginning of sunspot sputterings similar to those of the Maunder Minimum, will NOAA’s Solar Cycle Prediction Panel solicit predictions on those sputterings from planetary theorists?
There were some this time around too.
Geoff Sharp (01:06:30) :
There is a possibility of co-authorship in the wind, and perhaps a conference appearance so perhaps you are right, the remarkable result might pave its own way.
The editor might even ask me to review the paper….