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:
Sorry, I meant to say:
“If you think that an increased magnetic field instantly will heat our planet”
But I guess you all understood anyway. The main point was that we have to wait a long time to notice the effect of varying magnetic field.
“”” DaveC (13:30:34) :
Whenever I write Leif’s name and I’m wondering is it ‘e’ before ‘i’ or the normal ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’, I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉 “””
My table of the Fundamental Physical Constants does not contain any entry for the English Language; suggesting it is not a universal invariant.
But even if one has just a smattering of contact with the German Language; one would get the idea that the “ei” is very common in many northern European Languages.
So why are we so damn lazy that we can’t take the trouble to educate ourselves.
English is hardly a paragon of fixed linguistic rules.
Just how many ways are there to pronounce ” ough ” in common English usage ?
We swiped most of our language from whomever didn’t complain loudly enough.
Tipos are one thing; but lets not try to rationalis(z)e why Leif’s name should be spelled or pronounced some other way.
George
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:32) :
tallbloke (11:09:23) :
But your Rz sunspot curve shows cycle 14 being around 3/4 the amplitude of cycle 19.
No, again, look at it carefully. My plot does not show Rz, but B calculated from Rz. The formula is B = 4.3 + 0.3 * SQRT(Rz).
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to be a pedant, but here’s what you originally said:
http://www.leif.org/research/B-IDV-Rz-LRF-Obs.png The oval shows cycle 14. We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)
Not: the square root of the sunspot number multiplied by 0.3 plus 4.3
I’m good, but not telepathic.
Invariant (13:54:22) :
Sorry, I meant to say:
“If you think that an increased magnetic field instantly will heat our planet”
But I guess you all understood anyway. The main point was that we have to wait a long time to notice the effect of varying magnetic field.
You may have had it right to start with. The Earth’s magnetic field has been getting weaker as things have warmed up since the 1700’s.
Leif Svalgaard (12:30:32)
The LIA lasted several centuries and [as you point out] the coldest temperatures were at the high solar activity when Galileo [and others] first observed the spots.
I am reluctantly prepared to accept the idea that Maunder min was not the cause of sudden temps drop, at least not in Europe.
In your link you show Loehle temperature reconstruction, which was subject to some criticism. After reading his correction paper (2007) and range of the world proxy locations, predominantly North Atlantic, with absence of Indian Ocean, west Pacific and South America, I decided not to bother with it, since it is not strictly local or entirely global.
As far as I can conclude, Lamb did thorough work but was not aware of the Maunder min significance in a way we are, at least not when he produced his initial chart in 1965, so I am inclined to take his work as good.
Prior to 1600 Lamb and Eddy charts agree, and I would assume J. Eddy et al just accepted Lamb’s numbers. However, from 1600-1880 correlation between two charts is practically zero; Rsq =0.0122.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
It is possible, to take a cynical view, and assume that J. Eddy et al were swayed by SS numbers around 1680 and 1810, but that would be unfair, and more importantly their chart also had a wide acceptance.
Therefore, is it not the case that they gave more importance to the North American records, which again, it is conceivable had different trend to the European, thus both charts can be taken as good, as long as they are considered to be regional and not global; Lamb’s certainly is, but still a good representation of the Euro-Atlantic trends.
O/T again.
Im sorry but I cant avoid.
If Leif raises a lot of confusion I sugest you to try spell Leifs family name. Svalgaard. ehheehhe
My mother language is latin and I now how difficult is to try speak danish. Ouch! 😉
Sorry to all but I couldnt avoid to more make noise.
DaveC (13:30:34) :
I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉
The word is ‘extraordinary’
George E. Smith (13:51:08) :
how do I get from Nitrogen or Oxygen to 4Be10 ?
There is no nuclear reaction leading to 10Be. The process is much more brutal and is called ‘cosmic ray spallation’. It simply means that an energetic cosmic ray [proton most often, but any will do] rams into N14 or O16 and knocks out some protons and/or neutrons leaving a cinder of Be10 [and other more short-lived isotopes we don’t see because the fall apart right away].
Quite a compelling paper, but I find this statement at about line 201 rather doubtful: “Cycle 23 looks remarkably like cycle 13, including the very deep solar minimum following both cycles, likely presaging a weak cycle 24 as predicted from the solar polar fields [Svalgaard et al., 2005]. It is clear that we are returning to conditions prevailing a century ago.”, and the preceding comment about the 100 year Gleisberg cycle at bit iffy.
Agreed that the min for the 2 cycles is about the same so far (Leif’s floor so no surprise?) and the tops are very close (within 5%) and the shapes of the tops are similar. So what? cycle 13 is 11 years, cycle 23 as shown 13 years and counting. doesn’t that matter. Rates of change on the up and down sides are quite different. Cycle 12 is not at all like cycle 22, or 9 like 19.
Does one fairly similar pair of cycles really suggest a Gleissberg cycle? The paper would be much better without these doubtful observations. Murray
tallbloke (14:20:18) :
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry to be a pedant
When wants to be pedantic, one should foremost be correct.
Not: the square root of the sunspot number multiplied by 0.3 plus 4.3 […]
I’m good, but not telepathic.
Perhaps not even good.
Let’s try some numbers:
max of cycle 14: Rz = 64, sqrt(64)=8, *0.3 = 2.4, +4.3 = 6.7, B = 6
max of cycle 19: Rz = 190, sqrt(190)= 13.8, *0.3 = 4.1, +4.3 = 8.4, B = 9
min of cycle 20-21: Rz = 10, sqrt(10) = 3.2, *0.3 = 1.5, +4.3 = 5.8, B = 5
and so on.
You can see that with good approximation [within a nT] B is indeed what one would calculate from the formula.
Well, all confusion over Leif’s name can be eliminated by referring to him as Dr. Svalgaard. 🙂
If you are not aware of it, Dr. Svalgaard often posts on the message board at SolarCycle24.com. There is a link on the right side column here on this site.
SolarCycle24.com now shows that the solar flux has dropped below 70 again, and we are at an “official” 6 days without a sunspot. Interesting times we live in.
Dan Murphy
Murray Duffin (15:29:58) :
Does one fairly similar pair of cycles really suggest a Gleissberg cycle? The paper would be much better without these doubtful observations.
It is not just SC13 and SC23 that determine that, but the fact that they are at either end of sequence of cycles that had higher cycles in the middle. My paper is not trying to show that there is a Gleissberg cycle [Gleissberg did that], just to show that the HMF is fairly consistent with that observational fact which is the Gleissberg ‘cycle’ for the past 300 years. We furthermore weaken the claim a lot, by remarking that ‘there is a hint of the ~100-year Gleissberg cycle’ which, indeed, there is.
Leif must not be happy that most of the readers are actually commenting on his name rather than his work…that tells a lot. Not his fault, Amerians run in a much slower frameRate.
tallbloke (14:20:18) :
sorry to be a pedant, but here’s what you originally said:
“We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
This means that we have several ways of determining B. If we determine B from IDV we get the blue curve, showing the B determined from IDV [but, of course, not IDV]. If we determine B from Rz we get the green curve, showing the B determined from Rz [but, of course, not Rz].
I don’t know how more I can do to explain this to you. Perhaps the label of ‘nT’ on the Y-axis should tell you that was plotted was B and not Rz. Anyway, this all came about, because you said “The sunspot numbers seem to agree better with their version” without having any foundation for that statement [which is false as we all now know]. I hope you are agreeing with me that their version does not agree better with the sunspot number.
the_Butcher (15:53:21) :
that tells a lot.
about the people that point such things out, yes it does, indeed.
I’m utterly unqualified to comment, and I’m not ready to even figure out where to ask questions.
I really appreciate the chance to learn bits here and there.
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard and Anthony for providing the forum and maintaining the relationships.
Mark
Leif,
Unprofessionally insulted lay person here [motives and/or belief system assumptions not even in the right ballpark I’m afraid]. Let us never speak like or of that again. I am here principally to learn, never to goad. Now, move on please.
Can’t follow the detail entirely, no access to underlying papers referenced, etc. But I get the drift. Forget the content and peer review for now, here’s a tax payer’s immediate reaction:
Observations relating to *all* papers I’ve seen:
1. What are you trying to achieve and why (probably in grant app but why not here to)? It says what you’ve done only. Just seems sloppy to me, the context of it all will become detached and lost over time. Contrast and compare with other professions such as engineering, etc.
2. Little standardization across and within journals, etc.
3. Poor non-automated cross-referencing, etc. I can sonme but not reliable it seems.
4. The whole thing should be in standards based HTML, not in PDFs, etc. and available to anyone online. A “The Literature” repository, Not difficult, surely.
5. Non-specific references to location of data, etc.
All seems outmoded, arcane and long overdue for a complete overhaul.
Yours specifically:
1. What was the approx total cost (including overheads, appropriate proportion of discounted value of all kit used to originally acquire the data not donated, heat, light, vent, CPU, all leases, etc.?
2. What was the ultimate source of the funding? Public finance, foundation trust fund, private finance, etc.
3. What conclusions have you drawn that in your opinion materially further the body of scientific knowledge?
4. What would you estimate their potential value to mankind/investor to be over the next decade and how do you justify that?
Wet finger guesstimates and one liners fine, no pedant at home.
I know of “couple of paragraph summaries plus a ball-park estimate” type summaries of projects competing for funding. I’d just like a little indication of the bureaucratic dross you have to endure to get the green light in the first place; whether any performance feedback (such as the above) is required and whether that ever makes it back to the ultimate investor in its original form?
Minimal answers (e.g. 5 page proposal, 4 page justification, 10 man days over 9 months, yes, no) fine.
I’m merely trying to establish the bigger picture here.
Dan Murphy (15:49:22) :
Well, all confusion over Leif’s name can be eliminated by referring to him as Dr. Svalgaard. 🙂
Oh no! then we’ll get Svaalgard, Svalgard, Sualgard, etc, many more changes of getting it wrong. Try to google scholar these misspellings and see how many hits you get 🙂
SolarCycle24.com now shows that the solar flux has dropped below 70 again
The flux they show is the flux uncorrected for solar distance, so has to be used with caution. It just so happens that right now it makes to difference because we are by chance close to 1 AU from the Sun. For radio ham’s it is the uncorrected flux that matters because that is what actually influence the ionosphere [and their reception]
There seems to have been a low period in sunspots and heliospheric magnetic field strength around 1890 to 1900. Is there any correlation of this with climate ?
Leif Svalgaard (07:35:52) :
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]
There is a real message in these numbers. SC18, 19, 21, & 22 all nearly have the same HMF value. Its the top of the wave that many are noticing and maybe can explain out late 20th century warming that the IPCC has so much trouble with.
This wave I think is continuous through the centuries and never varies, all that varies is the strength of grand minima that interrupt the wave. Here is another view of the wave.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwavesm.png
If you go back further Leif I think you will see the wave also in your HMF signal. You have subtly agreed to its existence in the past but perhaps its time to fully recognize its importance as your own records are beginning to show it. Its not the product of a random number generator.
On a lighter note I will be interested to see how your solar floor hangs on to the scrutiny….this is the important part of the paper.
Aligner (16:48:30) :
Observations relating to *all* papers I’ve seen:
4. The whole thing should be in standards based HTML
HTML has changed a lot over the years and will change again, so is not a standard. SGML is, but is very cumbersome. XML is better, but is not really supported as a presentation medium.
All seems outmoded, arcane and long overdue for a complete overhaul
Overhaul is being done, but incrementally, as it must.
See, e.g. http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/
———————–
1. What was the approx total cost (including overheads, appropriate proportion of discounted value of all kit used to originally acquire the data not donated, heat, light, vent, CPU, all leases, etc.?
3675 station years at a cost [in 2009 dollars] of approximately $1 Million each, so estimate of ‘several billion US dollars’.
2. What was the ultimate source of the funding? Public finance, foundation trust fund, private finance, etc.
Dr. Cliver is a US Govt. employee. My research is funded by me, helped along by a 100 Trillion Dollar contribution, see: http://www.leif.org/research/donors.htm
3. What conclusions have you drawn that in your opinion materially further the body of scientific knowledge?
Knowing what the Sun has been doing in the past is very important for placing constraints on physical theories about how the Sun works and how it influences our environment.
4. What would you estimate their potential value to mankind/investor to be over the next decade and how do you justify that?
priceless.
I’m merely trying to establish the bigger picture here.
‘merely’ and ‘bigger’ don’t go well together. And know for the habitual insult: “your post is a bit on the silly side”
@Leif Svalgaard (15:28:24) :
DaveC (13:30:34) :
I remember it by thinking ‘Leif is abnormal.’ 😉
The word is ‘extraordinary’
Extraordinary good humor, for sure. Thanks for your contributions to this blog Leif.
Dr A Burns (16:54:13) :
There seems to have been a low period in sunspots and heliospheric magnetic field strength around 1890 to 1900. Is there any correlation of this with climate ?
Not that I can see.
I plan to discuss the whole peer-review process here on WUWT, complete with nasty comments by the reviewers and our responses.
Are we to simply be an audience who listens and learns what happens during a peer review process, or will we be permitted to participate? I’ sure it will be highly informative either way. But once brutes like us are let into the room, complete with popcorn and beer, I can’t see anyone stopping us from vocally participating.
Geoff Sharp (17:09:14) :
This wave I think is continuous through the centuries and never varies
it is a ~100-yr wave and we point it out mainly to pay lip-service to people that think it is important. There are dynamo theories that claim they explain the wave, but much of that is ad-hoc IMHO. The paper is concerned with establishing good DATA about the HMF with a minimum of speculation.
idlex (17:23:37) :
will we be permitted to participate? I’ sure it will be highly informative either way.
I can’t stop you from doing it as you say, and I won’t. But, of course, it will have no influence on the ‘official’ review process, except helping me to sharpen up my response to slings and arrows.