New Svalgaard paper – reconstructing the heliospheric magnetic field since 1835 – with insight into the peer review process

Leif Svalgaard (05:38:43) :
tallbloke (23:06:09) :
And you are told the green curve is the sunspot number.
No, you were told that the green curve was B determined from the sunspot number.
Hi Leif,
I don’t need to argue this point with you, I’ll just quote what you said again:
” We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
This says we can determine B from the sunspot number Rz (green curve), not that the green curve is B determined by the sunspot number
We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the Rz as shown in Figure 8.”
Approximately. I realized that my statement was open to misinterpretation after I posted. It’s the quantities in the equation which are arbitrary, I completely agree there is an inverse square relationship.
No need to tweak a physical relationship. We know whey Lockwood’s curve for cycle 14 is too low: He uses too few stations for those years and [and this is the bad part] deliberately omits other stations that give higher values so that he can maintain that there is a larger centennial increase in B.
That’s a serious accusation and ascription of motive to Lockwood.

Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
You well know 1 record every 10 years will not suffice for this type of analysis. Any chance of you going back further with the HMF records?
10 years is quite enough, that gives you 17 points to define your 172-year cycle. When people plot the 11-year sunspots cycle from the 11 yearly values that is also enough, so you’ll have even better time resolution. So what is that with “You well know”? I and every thinking being well know that if 11 points is enough to define an 11-yr cycle, then 17 points is enough to define a 172yr cycle, there being ~10 points to the cycle in both cases.
Grand minima always occur centered at the top of the wave, so they happen at the same time as maxima
So when we have a Grand Minimum it is also a Grand Maximum?
You may disagree with the reason but I certainly do have one. It is laid out clearly on my blog as you know.
No, nothing is ‘clearly’ laid out. Explain again what causes the 11-yr cycle with its polarity reversals, and why maxima are cased by another process [which one?] than minima.
tallbloke (23:06:09) :
I don’t need to argue this point with you, I’ll just quote what you said again:
” We can determine B from IDV (blue curve), from the sunspot number Rz (green curve)”
But you are arguing. The two ‘from’s make the B transitive making it clear that what is meant was “B from IDV, and B from Rz”
If you want the green curve to be Rz, then the blue curve must be IDV. In fact, both are B. This is also clear from the Figure itself where it says [in blue] B(IDV) and [in green] B(Rz) and [in red] B(obs). No reasonable person can argue that the green curve must be the sunspot number.
It’s the quantities in the equation which are arbitrary, I completely agree there is an inverse square relationship.
B = a + b*sqrt(Rz) contains no arbitrary quantities. B is the magnetic field [not arbitrary], Rz is the sunspot number [not arbitrary in the relation – although one might say that the way it is defined is arbitrary], a is the physical floor corresponding to tha case of no sunspots, so not arbitrary, and b is the contribution of a ‘single’ spot, so not arbitrary. All four quantities have well-define physical meaning, none are arbitrary. The values of a and b are found by a least-squares method, and there is no arbitrariness in that eiter.
“so that he can maintain that there is a larger centennial increase in B.”
That’s a serious accusation and ascription of motive to Lockwood.
Indeed, but it happens to be true. And it happens very often that people cherry pick data to support their view. This is just an example of that, nothing more.
Sorry Leif, no chance of that. I notice that in the noisy and inconclusive graph, the larger amplitude ‘kick’ around 88 years is the first subharmonic of the ~176 year period Geoff refers to.
The solar activity graph is noisy. And you’ll not get a subharmonic without the fundamental frequency being present too. Furthermore it is the 88-year cycle that people have noticed and which was named the Gleissberg cycle. The graph is not inconclusive, there is clearly power at 88-years rising above the background [that itself is rising as characteristic for time series with most of the power at very long periods – millennia]
So, yes, there is a chance of the 88-year cycle being there.

Vukcevic (02:48:43) :
Presumably you would have to obtain my permission to do that, I have not received a request yet.
I thought you said “your are on!” or similar. Well, is the paper good enough shape to release it for scrutiny? Or don’t you want to make the effort anymore?
It could be an interesting affair, which could give me a priceless publicity.
Jack the Ripper got a lot of publicity too.
However, since that paper is a bit out of date, I am currently updating my hypothesis on the Polar Fields, which appear far more promising.
If the paper is out of date, why do you peddle it?
So ‘far more promising’ means that the old paper was not all that promising.
Geoff Sharp (03:11:07) :
Leif Svalgaard (01:34:38) :
Geoff Sharp (23:27:45) :
If I had the cycle max readings every 10 years I might have a chance, but trying to decipher at which point in the cycle or using an average of 10 years will not cut it. I am surprised you would suggest such a weak analysis.
You don’t seem to have any idea of analysis. You don’t have cycle max readings every ten 10 years. You have a sample every ten years and sampling a 172 cycle at 17 points gives a good definition of the cycle. Better than what we get by sampling the sunspot cycle every year. The very fact you you yourself provides a plot of your purported 172 cycle means that you can see it.

Geoff Sharp (03:11:07) :
this method or learning in front of an audience is not working.
This is the way science usually progresses: you publish your paper so it comes in front of an audience, and the system works well, provided the paper has any worth. Indeed, worthless and meaningless papers [if they survive the review process – which some do] will have no impact and will just be ignored.

Leif Svalgaard (04:42:11) :
what we are looking for is the subtle changes through the cycles to determine the wave pattern. Your flogging a dead horse on this one.
A 10-yr mean gives a good definition of the wave form of a 172-yr wave or a 100-yr wave. It looks to me you are just looking for a way of not doing the analysis because you are afraid of the outcome. So, one more time: make a time series of 10-year averages of reconstructed SSN [from 14C] and this already exists so should be easy. Then make a series of Vuk’s formula averaged over 10-yr windows [should be trivial too]. Then make a series of AM [or whatever you use] averaged over 10 year windows [also trivial as you have the data]. Do this for 3000 years or more [if you really want to convince anybody. Then plot the three series on top of each other for everybody to see the 172-yr cycle, the 107-yr cycle, and the 80-yr cycle, or the lack of said cycles, whichever way the plots comes out. If I were reviewing a paper of yours claiming what you do claim, I would ask for such a plot [reviewers do nasty things like that to get clarification] and tell the Editor that if such a plot is not produced to my satisfaction, the paper should be summarily rejected. [and it will be].

Geoff Sharp (05:31:31) :
To analyze sunspot cycle data you need detail records
We are not analyzing the sunspot cycle, but the 172, 107, or 80 year cycles. And in spite of the data not being there as you say, you still see the patterns you see.

Vukcevic (06:08:09) :
you will find it was strictly conditional,
on what? I must have missed it.

Vukcevic (10:19:33) :
“…have not been published previously.”
But it has not been properly published before. And in any case it is always allowed to expand on previous work. So, write it up.

Vukcevic (11:12:14) :
which appear far more promising.
So, the old paper was far less promising…
I will be using extensive quotes from two papers:….”
You don’t write papers by extensively quoting other people unless it is a review paper of their work.
No haste: “what you can do today, leave for tomorrow, and tomorrow tick it off as done yesterday”.
Then spare us the deluge of links to your old outdated ‘paper’ in the meantime. They just dilute the discussion, especially when combined with extensive self-congratulating snippets. Bring something to the table, or stay off it.