Leif Svalgaard writes in comments:
We plan to submit tomorrow to JGR the following…
http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf (preprint)
…showing the run of the heliospheric magnetic field since 1835 [not a typo]. I plan to discuss the whole peer-review process here on WUWT, complete with nasty comments by the reviewers and our responses. This will be an illustration of the peer-review process as it unfolds. Should be interesting.
I’ll say. I’ve taken some of the most interesting graphics and put them up for WUWT readers, along with the abstract.
IDV09 and Heliospheric Magnetic field 1835-2009
Leif Svalgaard1 and Edward W. Cliver2
Stanford University, HEPL, Cedar Hall, Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4085
Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-3010
Abstract.
We use recently acquired archival data to substantiate and extend the IDV index of long-term geomagnetic activity, particularly for years from 1872-1902 for which the initial version of the index (IDV05) was based on observations from very few stations. The new IDV series (IDV09) now includes the interval from 1835-2009, vs. 1872-2004 for IDV05. The HMF strength derived from IDV09 agrees closely with that based on IDV05 over the period of overlap. Comparison of the IDV09-based HMF strength with other recent reconstructions of solar wind B yields a strong consensus between the series based on geomagnetic data, but significant lack of support for a series based on the 10Be cosmic ray radionuclide.
The reconstructed data in the graphic below, from the paper, is quite interesting. Currently, we appear to be at the lowest point in the record.
Click for larger images.
Here’s the comparison with the Be10 isotope record:
Wolf-Gleissberg Cycle Paper
Sorry for being off topic but this really takes the cake, and so I encourage readers to take issue.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in this Telegraph report calls Americans, the very people who constantly force him to revise and correct his erroneaous UN reports, ignorant on the subject of climate science.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6240611/Americans-are-illiterate-about-climate-change-claims-expert.html
I encourage readers here to take a few minutes to pick up the phone and let his office know your opinion.
THEY SPEAK ENGLISH OVER THERE. Please call them.
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE
Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK)
Postfach 60 12 03
14412 Potsdam
Germany
Tel.: +49 (331) 288 2502
Fax: +49 (331) 288 2510
E-Mail: director@pik-potsdam.de
As for Leif Erikson, North Americans are more familiar with Eric the Red.
But then he was a Norse of a different colour.
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself)
This will be a breakthrough because of its “correlations” 🙂
One of these with the supposed galactic current sheet.
Quote tallbloke (03:25:48) :
A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Also ref British-Norse ‘Lief and Liege’ unquote
As I understand it Leif Svalgaard is Danish or of Danish origin, so
I am in love = jeg er forelsket
I love you = Jeg elsker dig.
loving, affectionate or fond = kaerlig
As far as I know ‘Lief’ (as a word) has no connection with love or similar.
In German you have “liebe’ such as Ich liebe dich = I love you.
Back to the subject, it will be interesting to see if this recent dip in magnetic field strength can in any way be correlated to the recent increase in ice both at north and south pole, combined with steady 21st century global temperatures both above and below sea level and the recent levelling off of sea level increases. I am now convinced that there are other forcings than CO2 and these appear to be able to override man made CO2. I am beginning to favour the idea that if there is a 0.8 degree C increase in global temperatures over the last 100 years then it has been caused by a mixture of CO2 (20% per Spencer/Linzen), solar activity & cloud changes (Svensmark – another Dane), change caused by other human activity such as land change (Pielke) and possibly uncertainty over the accuracy of temperature time series such as HAD/Cru etc (McIntyre). There was also that Finnish study showing that heat emitted by human activities such as fires, heating of houses, running of motors and industrial activities alone could account for the recorded warming. I think this is “chaos” in action we are seeing.
re: It should be Leaf.
Based on my somewhat limited knowledge of Scandanavian/Germanic languages, I think is should be “Lafe” using more standard English spelling. The “ei” typically makes a long “a” sound. Leif can correct me if I’m wrong (or if he cares much for that matter.)
I imagine both Lief and Leif are quite used to this problem. My own last name is often misspoke and misunderstood. One gets used to it after many years and realizes it’s not a big deal.
I am really, really pleased to see Leif and Edward’s reconstruction agrees with the ~65-70% increase in B from 1900 to 1990 found by Mike Lockwood et al 2009
This fits well with my own model of temperature rise relative to the cumulative sunspot counting method I have developed. Because sunspot number is ‘dimensionless’ it can accomodate further changes and findings regarding other factors. The flip side of that coin is that it can’t ‘disprove’ the influence of other factors either, but I don’t see that as a problem.
I think it will be found that magnetic effects are far more important to climate variation than has been previously thought, possibly via ionisation and it’s effect on cloud formation. Where there is magnetism, there is current flow. This is axiomatic.
A “fact” in fact. 🙂
i have a 4 character last name and i was looking at an 1650’s family will and it was spelled 4 different ways in the document. And this was from the educated classes as shown by our frequent witnessing of wills
I wonder if the divergence of the 10Be record might be due to reading it from ice cores. If cosmic ray flux is not uniformly distributed around the world, then 10Be creation would not be, and long term weather patterns would distribute it unevenly, perhaps shifting it away from the icecaps for periods of time.
tallbloke (06:20:26)
‘I think it will be found that magnetic effects are far more important to climate variation than has been previously thought, possibly via ionisation and it’s effect on cloud formation. Where there is magnetism, there is current flow. This is axiomatic.’
I agree, but from no more than intuitive hunch on my part. Also the possibility of a polarity effect on climatic trend disparity in north and south hemispheres, especially at the poles, even accepting that ocean/land mass distribution is also probably a primary control. Also an ozone hole control?
Great paper Leif.
I sometimes think of scientific papers as being of three basic types: papers proposing new methodologies, papers providing new scientific data and indices (sometimes based on those new methodologies) so that other scientists can use it, and then analysis and supposition of what the data shows (hopefully objectively).
There would be no progress without all three types.
There has been some speculation on this site recently that the Sun’s magnetic field strength can affect the Earth’s climate. There is some small correlation between the two. Your newest data continues that some small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
UK Sceptic (00:40:00) :
“The reason is that the solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900, for reasons that are not fully understood.”
As you can see from the Figures, the solar magnetic flux has not increased by a factor of two since 1900. It is now just what it was back in 1900. See more on that here: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
Mick (01:02:52) :
Leif if the heliospheric magnetic field is ~8nT @ur momisugly Earth distance, how much would be at the Sun. What would be the strength of a theoretical magnet to produce a similar field strength?
What about the magnetic field to produce a sunspot?
If there were no solar wind, the magnetic field would fall off at the [inverse] cube of the distance [which is 215 solar radii], so be 1/215^3 times smaller at one 1AU. The solar wind drags the surface fields out into space and carries it to us, causing the field to fall of with the square of the distance, so to be 1/215^2 times smaller. But because the Sun is rotating it winds up the dragged out field, so that the component of the field that is in the Sun’s equatorial plane [are we are close to it] will only fall off linearly with distance so be 1/215 times smaller. Taking all this into account, one finds that the field is about 30,000 times smaller at Earth than at the Sun. The field in a sunspot is a different matter because most of that does not end up in the solar wind, but closes in on itself near the Sun. Currently a sunspot has a field of 2000 Gauss, where the unit Gauss is 100,000 nT, so 2000 G = 0.02 Tesla
tallbloke (01:45:48) :
Please could you give us your views on the divergence between your curve and the 10Be curve.
We think it is due to a calibration problem with the cosmic ray flux. The ’10Be’ curve is really not a 10Be curve. It is difficult to measure the 10Be concentration in the very top of the ice cores where the snow has not really turned into ice yet, so that part of the core falls apart when you pull the top section out of the borehole. Now with enough care and perhaps using another technique than drilling, it should be possible to get the top section data, but people haven’t just not done that yet: the interest has been on the deep past.
So the record is spliced together from three sources: the 10Be before 1930s, then the ion-chamber cosmic ray detectors up through 1952, and finally our modern neutron monitors since then. The ion-chamber data are not ‘absolute’ in the sense that they count cosmic rays the same way as the neutron monitor does, so have to be calibrated. This was done by sending up balloons with plates of emulsions in which cosmic rays would leave tracks. And we think that this is where the problem lies, but now the effort should be directed towards finding out how. It is like finding a temperature record in somebody’s 100-yr old journal. We may not know what the units of his temperatures were [Celsius and Fahrenheit unit were introduced later than the journal] so we must calibrate the old readings in terms of our current scale.
bill (02:23:14) :
if you are refering to the cyan line then isn’t this a 200year cycle?
The cyan line has a minimum at 1900 and about now. A cycle is defined from one phase to the same phase hits again, e.g. from min to min, so from 1900 to now is about 100 years, not 200.
[for you to fill in]
This is a draft and there is a few lines missing here [which will be filled in this morning]. You might want to click on the link tonight for the final submitted version.
DaveF (02:49:27) : and others
re: Leif, Lief etc.
I don’t complain, partly because it is hopeless, but also because in the Dutch language [which we actually use at home – although I am Danish], ‘lief’ means ‘dear’. 🙂
Mike Lorrey (03:03:52) :
I think the HMF vs Be10 convergence from the past to present reflects the aerosol pollution record, since Be10 in the atmosphere apparently has to attach to aerosols in order to precipitate and wind up in the ice core record. What say you, Leif?
See upthread for my comments on that. However, the aerosols are a contaminant, and the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 probably is responsible for the anomalous dip in the 10Be record for a few year after that [as indicated on the figure]. Let me also say that the plot does not show the 10Be concentration, but rather the HMF calculated from 10Be according to the models and calibrations that McCracken used [and that is where the problem is – the concentrations themselves are not in doubt – although they can be contaminated as we just discussed].
tallbloke (03:25:48) :
A long time ago Leif told me that Lief in his countries language is a term of endearment. Lief = Love.
Also ref British-Norse ‘Lief and Liege’
There you go.
tallbloke (06:20:26) :
I am really, really pleased to see Leif and Edward’s reconstruction agrees with the ~65-70% increase in B from 1900 to 1990 found by Mike Lockwood et al 2009
What has happened is that Lockwood has changed his values so that they now reflect the ‘facts’ [our reconstruction] because he has seen the light and abandoned his old method for the ones we have pioneered. Another point is the ‘rise’ from 1900 to 1990. Cycle averages are as follows:
14 5.2
15 6.0
16 5.9
17 6.6
18 7.1
19 7.1 <== 37% higher than cycle 14
20 6.2
21 7.0
22 7.0
23 6.3
24 5.0 <= this is a guess [a prediction if you like]
As the graphs shows there is a 10-yr 'wave' with a maximum [37% higher] near the middle [say cycle 19] and low value at both ends [1901 and 2009].
This fits well with my own model
Leif’s law: data is good if it fits well with my own model 🙂
Mike McMillan (06:30:15) :
10Be creation would not be, and long term weather patterns would distribute it unevenly, perhaps shifting it away from the icecaps for periods of time.
Climate/weather does have an influence on the 10Be deposition.
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
I sometimes think of scientific papers as being of three basic types: papers proposing new methodologies, papers providing new scientific data and indices (sometimes based on those new methodologies) so that other scientists can use it, and then analysis and supposition of what the data shows (hopefully objectively).
The best are the ones that in them combine all three types. We hope that ours does just that.
Your newest data continues that same small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
Since we are now back [as far as the Sun is concerned] to conditions of 108 years ago, one might ask if our climate is too. I don’t think it is.
tallbloke (06:59:07) :
OT UAH anomaly is out for sept. 0.42C
That’s what no spots do 🙂
This is so completely Off Topic that I’m sure it should get snipped before it even gets posted. From the movie Spaceballs, to answer an actual legitimate question:
“I am not sure I get the “Tomorrow” on the timeline: is it to be submitted or is it accepted already?”
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?… When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now, You’re looking at now sir…Everything that happens now is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet:When.
Colonel Sandurz:Just now… We’re at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then?
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz:I can’t
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon!
Dark Helmet: How soon?
Technician: Sir!
Dark Helmet: What?
Technician: We’ve identified their location!
Dark Helmet: Where?
Technician: It’s the moon of Vega
Colonel Sandurz: Good work. Set a course and prepare for our arrival
Dark Helmet: When?
Technician: Nineteen hundred hours, sir!
Colonel Sandurz: By high noon tomorrow they will be our prisoners!
Dark Helmet: WHO?!?!
[Face mask falls in front of face]
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52):
It is like finding a temperature record in somebody’s 100-yr old journal.
should have been ‘400-yr old’.
Thanks, BTW, to the typo spotters.
Bill Illis (06:52:52) :
Your newest data continues that some small correlation. Any thoughts about that?
Since we are now back [as far as the Sun is concerned] to conditions of 108 years ago, one might ask if our climate is too. I don’t think it is.
dalton or maunder, that looks to be the big question.
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
tallbloke (06:20:26) :
“As the graphs shows there is a 10-yr ‘wave'”
Arghh: a 100-yr wave
Leif-this is a good thing you’ve done.Good luck,as I’ve been in that peer review
trash compactor-back in my undergrad days,it still doesn’t hurt much,except when it rains.Reading Porcupine entrails does not get you the Nobel prize…
Oh,the Leif vs.Lief thing-as I have posted I have a tendency for Dyslexia,not helped in part by my 4th grade,ruler wielding Nun of a teacher as she looked on any southpaw
as evil…
Hathaway SC 24 prediction updated for October 2009:
http://hamchatforum.lefora.com/2009/10/07/solar-cycle-prediction-updated-20091005/page1/
“This analysis indicates a maximum sunspot number of about 89 ± 25 for cycle 24.
We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a starting time of March 2008 with minimum occurring in November or December 2008 and maximum in March or April 2013.”
147 It is evident that IDV from only a single station (provided not too data is missing because
148 the recording went off-scale or other data problems)
provided not too much data is missing
Of tax-payer interest.
——————
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
http://cei.org/print/23512
In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
I hope we’re not censoring the Man-made global warming myth skeptics and man-made climate change skeptics here at WUWT. Except for the unintelligent name calling of course. It’s so much more fun when they challenge us.