David Archibald forwarded me this PowerPoint presentation from Jan Janssens which he presented on October 22nd. It has some very interesting slides and is a good summary of the current debate over solar cycle 24.
I’ve put the entire slide show online in the post below at 50% size, as the PDF download of the PowerPoint document is quite large. For those that want it, you’ll find it at the end of the post mirrored on WUWT’s file system so that better bandwidth can help out.
The PDF of the PowerPoint (with full sized graphs) is available here
Warning, large file 5.6MB
Ted Annonson (12:47:22) :
Now, I have a question about the last sunspot. It had reverse polarity, so, was it a late SC23( to high in latitude), an early SC25, or just a badly confused SC24 spot?
According to Leif on a solarcycle24.com thread, 3% on average of spots display the wrong polarity magnetic signature. He has copied on his site a paper which shows data that for small magnetic disturbances that could be up to 40%, figure 4 in
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1992ASPC-Harvey.pdf.
John A (18:57:56) :
And the late Theodor Landscheidt who predicted the appearance of the last three solar maxima and predicted six years in advance that SC24 would be very quiet on the basis of the Sun’s motion about the barycentre of the solar system – but of course that would be pseudoscience wouldn’t it, Dr Svalgaard?
Yes, the pseudo comes from the disconnect between physics and predictions. People who have never solved a gravitational problem think they know the secrets of the universe.
Don’t get me wrong, I would accept it if a psychic had predicted the tsunami, or the 9/11 tragedy unequivocally. I would not call it science.
Gypsies reading palms will say ” you will meet a handsome man in three “terms” ” and “term” can be a week, a month, a year, an 11 year cycle.
In chaotic systems with oscillating behavior is is easy to find correlations that are not connected by causality. Cyclomania as Leif would say. It is how Casinos make a good living.
I have to say that as a physicist I felt protected by the way Leif champions the correct physics, particularly whenever the barycenter business raises its head. I hope he comes back, because I will feel forced to take up the battle for physics.
Once and for all barycenters are mathematical points, useful for calculations when a system is viewed as a whole from outside, for example the sun system as a part of the galaxy. Otherwise they are just red herrings in discussions about the sun, they can stir nothing and do nothing more than the tides, and the planetary tides are tiny on the sun ( 1mm disturbances).
Experimental fact, the barycenter of the earth moon system ploughs through the mantle of the earth at 1707 km depth, 24 hours a day, and nothing happens. It should raise earthquakes galore right in the middle of the mantle as it is, and it does not. Why? Because it is a mathematical point with zero mass.
It is the gravitational mass of the moon that raises the tides and not the zero mass barycenter.
I also find the prospect that Dr. Svalgaard might choose to not return as a very sad and unfortunate situation. As posted above by several, I find his input highly valuable and would like to see him return to the forum. I do understand how sometimes the constant flogging by idiots gets tiresome and a break is needed. I myself have abandoned a few web forums for the same reason.
Dr. Svalgaard I for one highly value your input and hope you return as your discussions are always very interesting, and I have learned a lot about solar science through your discussions.
Larry
I’d like to add my support for Dr. Svalgaard. He’s generally been very patient when answering the same questions over and over (maybe there should be a FAQ portion somewhere on the WUWT website). I, for one, have learned a lot reading his comments on the sun’s activity, and visit his website almost daily to check for updates on the sun.
David Alan 06:53:15
can I put a ; Fred Lightfoot in front of your ‘forever fighting our frivolous foes of fanaticism’ ?
Fred Lightfoot (02:55:13) : Dr. Svalgaard probably won’t be back; This to me is a disaster.
Unless he intends to join IPCC as the main expert on the sun/climate connection, this surely is a disaster. For me this forum is the most civilised place for unbiased and true knowledge seeking in possibly one of the most interesting periods in our time – deep solar minimum.
Indeed, I sincerely hope that he will be back, who is going to explain the impact of deep solar minimum to ordinary people now? While some of us may have peculiar viewpoints, we all understand that he is really helping us to reason and think in a clear, pragmatic and scientific way:
“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
– Isaac Newton
John Finn (05:18:03) :
Climate fluctuations over the last 100 years can be explained through many factors. High solar activity can cause cooling by heating oceans that give greater cloud cover, whilst less solar energy can give to a lower cloud cover and more direct sun hitting the earth. Its a not so straightforward effect of the Sun on oceans, which include PDO’s ENSO etc There are quite a few correlations between PDO’s and temperature.
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
The time series shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier.
“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.
REPLY: Dr Svalgaard probably won’t be back, he was insulted one too many times and got tired of it. I’m tired of it too. You know who you are. – Anthony
This is not good. We shall be short of Dr. Svalgaard’s advice in the time coming. Perhaps would have been better if this information was kept private by WUWT, in order to give time to Dr. S to have a break, and in due course reconsider, which I hope he may do anyway.
I only scrolled to the bottom of the comments to see what Dr. Svalgaard had to say. Quite a shame, really. Best wishes.
anna v, thank you for your clear and concise explanation of barycenters. You’re off to a good start!
Add please add my voice to those who hope Dr. Svalgaard returns.
Add please add my voice to those who hope Dr. Svalgaard returns.
Mine, too.
anna v (08:28:04) :
Experimental fact, the barycenter of the earth moon system ploughs through the mantle of the earth at 1707 km depth, 24 hours a day, and nothing happens. It should raise earthquakes galore right in the middle of the mantle as it is, and it does not. Why? Because it is a mathematical point with zero mass.
Another experimental fact, the relative motion between the solar system barycenter and the solar equatorial plane correlates strongly with lagged changes in Earth’s length of day.
Landscheidt offered a couple of ideas about the way the suns activity might be affected by it’s motion about the barycentre. These remain untested, but the correlations look promising, despite the fact that the exact nature of the causal mechanism remains elusive for now,
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
-Hamlet Act 1, scene 5-
In deference to Anthony I shall drop the subject now, provided those who deny the importance of these correlations do the same. If they raise the matter first I will reply, for the sake of balance.
I’m sorry Leif has gone too. His undisputed expertise in many areas of solar physics was a boon to the board, and it outweighs the occasionally bombastic way he treated people on other matters when he maybe shouldn’t have. There have been times when I have defended him against accusations and insults, and other times when I have had sharply worded exchanges with him myself. Given the way he liked to disparage ideas and hurl insults himself, I’m surprised he has decided to withdraw because of things said by others, and I hope he comes back to rejoin the fray soon.
anna v (08:28:04) : multi topic comment
Thanks for the comments. Well done. Clear and succinct.
Zero has been a problem for human minds for thousands of years.
Some might enjoy Seife’s “Zero: the Biography of a Dangerous Idea”
http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biography-Dangerous-Charles-Seife/dp/0140296476
I agreed with the first poster, it is hard to make sense of some of those slides. The presentation made a lot more sense, I am sure.
I hope Dr. Svaalgard enjoys the extra time he will have with his grandchildren. I can understand why he would decide to stop taking the abuse, he was usually very patient with questions. Vale Dr. Svaalgard. Hopefully, temporary.
anna v (08:28:04) :
And so, for SC24 misaligned spots, the question is which came first, the misaligned spots >3% or the weak magnetic field which makes victims out of spots?
The hard things about this cycle seems to be deciding how unusual it is.
The exception is a weak cycle the way some (including me) look at it, where others would say it has to a needle-in-a-haystack rare in order to be labeled unusual.
The argument, then, is about the definition of unusual. The really confounding part is that statistics alone won’t tell us what the Sun is apt to do next. It’s riding on the very edge, so unusual may have to wait for further clarification from the Solarian itself.
I know this is off topic,but golly I am ANGRY!
I valued Dr. Svalgaard’s input and his tireless patience and willingness to provide many answers to questions along with links in thread after thread after thread.And he gets insulted and whatever else for it?
PATHETIC!
I did not always understand or agree with his replies and thought he was unfair in a couple of areas,but I respect the man who went out of his way to spend a LOT OF TIME in a public blog,to help educate us on Solar research.He did not have to do that,and most busy scientists does very little of that outside of their communication circles.
Kudos for Anthony and his team of Moderators who try to snip out the unnecessary and nasty words,but still some come through because of the flood of comments that come here.They should not have to be so busy cleaning up the comments or simply block them because they are so absurd.
It is the rarity of someone who is a proven world class scientist,who goes well outside of the common communication and science circles,to interact with the “average joe’s” of the world in a popular blog,that gave a boost to solar science being sent directly into the homes of the world.
Now if it is true that he will stay away from this blog,to avoid the insults and whatever that he has had to put up with,then we should be ashamed for it.
I am for one currently sick with the Flu and being unhappy to learn that a prominent solar scientist,who for a time put up with the snark finally chose to leave.In my forum I have a scientist who comes from time to time to make a post on something,and I will darn well make sure he is treated respectfully there!
I hope this is a lesson for everyone that HIS respect was long well earned and yet he was being mistreated anyway,because some people fail to realize that being a nasty person does not create a better understanding,just division and ultimately a loss of a resource in the public community.
I found Jan Janssen’s presentation a useful and well balanced summary of what is happening to our sun at the moment, even though I found a few of the charts hard to fathom.
The main message I took from it was that these events were not expected and that even the experts were at a loss to give accurate estimates of what the sun will do next, or what will happen to Earth’s climate.
Like many here I will be sorry if Leif decides to stay away, as he was a staunch defender of the mainstream solar model, and it would be good to hear his views as future events unfold in these uncertain times.
John A (18:57:56) :
“Apart from Leif Svalgaard who predicted a low peak of for SC24 but (wisely) neglected to predict WHEN. So his prediction has yet to be falsified.”
Dr. Svalgaard Rmax predictions (as we know) are based on the strength of polar fields at previous minimum. I also believe there is strong link between two.
Two studies from well known solar scientists and equally well known research institutions have produced important theoretical works on the subject of evolution of the Sun’s Polar Fields’.
Y.-M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley, Jr
‘Role of Meridional Flow in the Evolution of the Sun’s Polar Fields’ from
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html
and
S. K. Solanki et al
‘Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field on the solar surface’ from:
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Germany
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
It is possible that the meridional flow is the key to the understanding of solar cycle
tallbloke (10:06:55) :
Another experimental fact, the relative motion between the solar system barycenter and the solar equatorial plane correlates strongly with lagged changes in Earth’s length of day.
Lets clear the scientific terms. A correlation is a fact, not an experimental fact. That the earth moon barycenter does not create earthquakes is an experimental fact.
Correlations are facts in the sense that, if proven, there is a coincidence, but not an experiment.
Example is the recent observation about the lightning storms in Africa having a 27 day correlation. The moon has a 27.x day cycle, and the sun has a 27.y rotation about itself. Both are facts. But one, if the correlation is correct, will provide a physical mechanism, maybe.
Landscheidt offered a couple of ideas about the way the suns activity might be affected by it’s motion about the barycentre.
Well he is wrong, because the earth moon experiment shows that the barycenter does not affect/move/swirl the mass in the mantle, and the sun is made of similar mass too.
Let me talk again about clocks and correlations. All clocks on earth are correlated, with a lag of an hour to 24 hours.
Nobody can have a doubt of that. They are not following the Big Ben because it is Big.
What people do not realize is that all the heavenly bodies are in reality huge clocks, they measure time in their revolutions as surely as our windup or cesium clocks do, in a complicated manner. In this sense, the barycenter is a clock too, with the combined motion of all the heavenly bodies.
A gedanken experiment: Suppose that the sun boils the way a pot boils, because of the chaotic way the fusion reactions add up in its center, plop, plop, plop plop, and it has a cycle, dictated by this chaotic boiling 180 years, pop goes the lid, it subsides again until it builds up in another180 years, etc., with an oscillating behavior. This will be correlated with the barycenter motion, because the barycenter also as a giant clock measures time, even though we know that it is the fusion that creates the chaotic oscillating behavior.( in this gedanken experiment).
,
Anthony and Moderators, if you would not mind allowing me to switch a little OT for this post as I need to address some comments on this thread where I apparently am involved, and offer a solution. I will attempt to keep concise and short.
Apparently, I am being singled out as “that guy”….that is, the one who became the “tipping point” for Leif.
What is great about the written word and blogs is that one always has a transcript to which to refer.
What is not so great…actually….VERY not so great about blogs and the written word, is that it takes away from personal, face-to-face discourse.
What is even greater than the written word, however, is that we have a tool called the Scientific Method and its close friend, Truth, to help us take a few breaths, stand back, and look at the body of evidence, and not focus on one lone Yamal tree.
And the body of evidence points to, just as Leif always likes to say “The sun is a messy place”, that the quest for truth is also a messy place.
Just because discerning the truth is “messy” and sometimes (rather, “often”) sparks fly in the process, does not mean it should ever turn into a personal battle.
Please look at the body of evidence and in the context of what was said.
Leif quipped that WUWT “did not deserve the WebBlog award nomination.”
He said, point blank, that on here there were many “peddlers of pseudoscience” and compared WUWT to Oprah (the last comment showing his sense of humor which I appreciate lol).
I ran to the defense of WUWT because this indeed IS a science blog, and a damn good one, and went overboard in that defense. For that I am sorry.
But that being said…even on here, there is way too much emotion and tendency to call people “peddlers” on here, or “trolls” or “idiots.” There are some great, great, GREAT minds on this site, and this amateur has learned much from them.
For all my aggressiveness, when something is right and true, I make an effort to chime in with an affirmation, as some of the absolutely brilliant posters on here such as rbateman, crosspatch, anna v, pamela gray, stephen wilde, hotrod, et. al….AND Leif, can attest.
(You may recall the thread where I told Leif that he would be the first adjunct professor I would like to have when I establish a private science academy I am trying to cook up).
And Leif truly IS one of the best scientific authorities on the planet. On the other hand (and as I am sure he of all people would agree the most), he does NOT want to be deified.
So this problem here is a two-way street. We are all adults here, and we all need to stick to science, and there is no reason just because Leif and I don’t seem to get along, that he should “punish” the rest of us with his absence.
This is my solution: Although we have never met or talked, I am going to try and contact Leif personally with a phone call or a personal letter with the ole’ hat in the hand, because personal discourse is better than just posting something.
Maybe I’ll get somewhere.
Anthony I sincerely appreciate your fairness on this blog and commitment to excellence. WUWT absolutely has my vote this year. Carry on everyone, and thanks.
Christopher “Chris” Malendoski
Norfolk, VA
PS If I could ask a favor of the moderators, I would like to post my email address, and for those that would like to contact me personally, I will try to respond thoughtfully: sharkhearted@gmail.com
And please, in an effort to not get this thread off-track anymore, please if you have comments on this issue, address me personally, and I will respond.
Back to topic: This Janssen powerpoint is one of the best apologias yet on what’s going on with the sun.
The use of VISUALS and graphs, some of them rather irrefutable, makes a very strong case.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Co-sign on respect for Dr. Svalgaard. His comments were a big part of why I constantly check this blog. Many threads here seem to degrade into the typical “warmie vs. skeptic” battles, with both sides offering unprovable explanations of why they are right. The refreshing thing about Svalgaard is he posted not for political reasons, but purely for the science, agree or disagree. A pure scientist is an observer and a recorder, something the good Dr. has done very well over the years.
David Alan (14:07:21) :
Bonzai Mode
While I’m not a betting man, I will make a prediction that solar max will be lower than a SSN of 55. I don’t see SC24 peaking either. I make a bold prediction that SC24 will be ‘flat topped’(having no peak). You think minimum this go around is hard to determine, wait until SC24’s SSN hovers between 45-55 for 6 to 8 months. Won’t that be a doozie. Toss in some nice spotless days during that time and voila, you got spectacular written all over it.
/Bonzai
Seems realistic, do you take into account the heliospheres location in interstellar space?
There will still be light in this “new dark age,” ..
anna v (10:54:55) :
tallbloke (10:06:55) :
Landscheidt offered a couple of ideas about the way the suns activity might be affected by it’s motion about the barycentre.
Well he is wrong, because the earth moon experiment shows that the barycenter does not affect/move/swirl the mass in the mantle, and the sun is made of similar mass too.
Apart from the sun’s composition as a highly charged highly fluid molten body and plasma being very different from Earth, the nature of it’s motion about the solar system barycentre is utterly, utterly different to the regular circular motion of the Earth and Moon about their common barycentre.
For example, at the onset of the Dalton minimum, the sun performed a very tight and swift loop de loop WRT the barycentre and briefly went retrograde. Coincidentally, the solar cycles took around 30 years to recover and get going again properly afterwards. I have personally downloaded the data from JPL and graphed this in some detail.
“I have studied it. You sir, have not”
-Sir Edmund Halley-
rbateman (10:17:19) :
The hard things about this cycle seems to be deciding how unusual it is.
The exception is a weak cycle the way some (including me) look at it, where others would say it has to a needle-in-a-haystack rare in order to be labeled unusual.
The argument, then, is about the definition of unusual. The really confounding part is that statistics alone won’t tell us what the Sun is apt to do next. It’s riding on the very edge, so unusual may have to wait for further clarification from the Solarian itself.
“Living On the Edge”, with the technology to actually see the edge.
Aye, aye Rob. ps aerosmith song, sometimes just can’t help it. oh my
“Landscheidt offered a couple of ideas about the way the suns activity might be affected by it’s motion about the barycentre.
Well he is wrong”
I could be wrong as well but I think a careful reading would prove Landscheidt to have supposed that a change in the rate of change in solar angular momentum was associated with a change in SS frequencies.
That being said, I think it fair to say his interest was solar activity and SS frequency but a humble proxy.
IMO, Bateman’s faculae are a better proxy and worthy of more discussion than we are prone to give.
Out, out damned spot!
No more discussion of Landscheidt here, the topic is Jan Janssen’s presentation – Anthony