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
savethesharks (11:11:38) :
Apparently, I am being singled out as “that guy”….that is, the one who became the “tipping point” for Leif.
It seems that anyone who challenged Dr. S is “that guy” as I have also been made to feel that way by Anthony. I agree with your comments Chris and also with tallblokes, but I think we need to get some perspective. I also do not wish to see Dr. S disappear, but I would certainly like to see more balance in this forum, in the past any scientist who has had a different view to Dr. S has been severely chastised in a manner that is far from acceptable.
A top science blog needs balance and it would be better to protect all scientists that honor us with their presence, so that a fair debate can take place. Lately it has been one sided.
What I particularly appreciate about Jan’s work counting spots, presenting their spatial distribution(Meeus), etc., is that his schemas maintain continuity with past investigators.
We’ve been told by the data revisionists that the investigators’ methods have changed, but revisions need to be made by the investigators themselves, as Hansen and Mann have evinced, contrary to their purpose.
Janssens referred to the Maunder minimum
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/janssens21.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/janssens22.jpg
However, up to date no convincing scientific explanation for the phenomena, including the latest L&P measurements.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/janssens25.jpg
Whatever happened, it is obvious that it was a magnetism of one kind or another involved.
Was this just limited to the Sun only?
There is a strong possibility that the event was widespread through at least the inner solar system if not further.
Using data from the Institute of Geophysics at the ETH Zurich, one of leading research centres for geomagnetism, I compiled this composite graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EMF85N.gif
It shows complete 360deg sweep of the Earth’s magnetic field along 85degN parallel, at steps of 10deg with time intervals of 10 years. Data accuracy has been confirmed.
The peak is coincident with the Maunder minimum, followed by sudden drop with a ring reminiscent of a dumped oscillation of a resonant system hit by an impulse (a physicist or an engineer would understand what I have in mind).
I am tempted to conclude that inner or the entire solar system suffered a severe magnetic shock in mid 1600’s .
I am unable to come up with a credible explanation for the underlining mechanism, but coincidence is far too strong to be ignored.
vukcevic (14:00:32) :
I am tempted to conclude that inner or the entire solar system suffered a severe magnetic shock in mid 1600’s .
I am unable to come up with a credible explanation for the underlining mechanism, but coincidence is far too strong to be ignored.
Interesting post Vuk. Cassiopeia A around 1670AD?
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/cassA.html
A bit late and too far away maybe.
A new slant on the discussion from an observer: Hope this is not too off topic.
I am an engineer, but my brother trod a classicist route followed by economics and hence IT and particularly the logic of computer programming.
Amongst our friends we both find a peculiar intellectual apathy regarding the Climate Change Debate. These are intelligent people in often responsible positions; but their lack of scientific ethos appears to render them diffident in expressing any meaningful views.
Usually they resort to the “Precautionary Principle” as a means to close any debate.
Whilst you scientists debate the intricacies, you appear to just assume the logic which although endemic for you is alien to others.
However from our two perspectives both my brother and I have concluded that the AGW hypothesis, now marketed as ‘Consensus’, is based on fundamentally flawed logic. I in engineering thermodynamic terms and my brother in fundamentally logical terms.
Here I cite but one simple example:
It is true that CO2 exhibits greenhouse warming characteristics. The IPCC has quantified this; but has only done so on the assumption of ‘Ceteris Paribus’ [other things being equal], which is manifestly untrue except at an instant of time.
Transposing this into a 100 year prediction is therefore grossly flawed. It is just not logical.
Put simply; the question that should be put to the IPCC is: “If global Albedo cannot be predicted over a 100 years time span, how can global temperature be predicted”? [Here Sunspots could replace global Albedo]
The Sunspot scenario is typical of the consequences, boxed in as it is in a state of “paribus” and the media should be made well aware of this flawed stance of the IPCC.
The battle may best be fought upon matters of logic and methodology rather than upon the details of the science.
Meanwhile I remain fascinated by Sunspots and this WUWT site.
Carla(11:59:49):
“Seems realistic, do you take into account the heliospheres location in interstellar space?”
The location of our solar system in interstellar space has little to no impact on solar cycles. Timing and intervals about the galaxy might trigger an event in the course of thousands of years and therefore incapable of regulating at smaller harmonics.
The heliosphere is a product of solar wind and the pressure forced on it from the LISM. If the heliosphere plays any role in solar cycle variability, we would have to find some correlation between up stream and down stream magnetic fields and the plasma it carries with it. Investigation is needed.
I think any impacts from heliospheric harmonics are more likely to play a greater role on the planets than on the Sun itself.
The Suns’ hydromagnetic dynamo has been considered the highest probable factor in cyclicity. The investigations of modern science suggests that variables in solar convection is causitive , but as of yet, quantum mechanics has yet to reveal the source of that variable.
Other factors need to be considered. Angular momentum? Rate of change around SSB? Differential rotation? All of the above? All evidence is still inconclusive. But I think we are on the right track.
Landshiedts’ theories may produce insight to the harmonics of solar cyclicity, but only as a ‘trigger’. If supporters of Landshiedts’ theories can narrow the timing of that ‘trigger’, the field of science would be forever changed.
That being said, I only based my prediction from the close relationship between SC 4-5 to SC 23 and the upcoming solar cycle, as pointed out by Jan Janssen. The only striking difference I could see, is the SSN between 4-5 and 23-24 during minima. The current minima is far lower and could play a greater role in global temperatures. Colder to be precise.
p.s. Those of you from the Landshiedt camp need not feel singled out. The probability of any of you responsible for Svalgaards hiatus is about on order to a million to one. So relax !
Cognog2 (14:51:34) :
Put simply; the question that should be put to the IPCC is: “If global Albedo cannot be predicted over a 100 years time span, how can global temperature be predicted”? [Here Sunspots could replace global Albedo]
The Sunspot scenario is typical of the consequences, boxed in as it is in a state of “paribus” and the media should be made well aware of this flawed stance of the IPCC.
Ah but the IPCC have determined that the sun’s variation has much less impact on our climate than a trace gas occupying 0.039% of the atmosphere dontcha know.
Except natural variation has come back to bite them on the arse. Not that they ever seem willing to specify which natural variations they are. Maybe we could tell from the teeth marks.
David Alan (15:08:47) :
Carla(11:59:49):
“Seems realistic, do you take into account the heliospheres location in interstellar space?”
The location of our solar system in interstellar space has little to no impact on solar cycles. Timing and intervals about the galaxy might trigger an event in the course of thousands of years and therefore incapable of regulating at smaller harmonics.
The heliosphere is a product of solar wind and the pressure forced on it from the LISM. If the heliosphere plays any role in solar cycle variability, we would have to find some correlation between up stream and down stream magnetic fields and the plasma it carries with it. Investigation is needed.
I think any impacts from heliospheric harmonics are more likely to play a greater role on the planets than on the Sun itself.
The Suns’ hydromagnetic dynamo has been considered the highest probable factor in cyclicity. The investigations of modern science suggests that variables in solar convection is causitive , but as of yet, quantum mechanics has yet to reveal the source of that variable.
______-___________—_________—–____——________——–______
Yeah, sure ok ….
Ah, then are you able to tell us where the heliosphere is currently located with respect to the nearest, adjacent interstellar cloud? Could you also tell us what makes the adjacent cloud different than the one we are now exiting?
@ur momisugly Fred Lightfoot:
“can I put a ; Fred Lightfoot in front of your forever fighting our frivolous foes of fanaticism ?”
But of course. Its just a shame your last name isn’t Footlight. Would have had a stronger appeal. 🙂
I’ll take that as a “NO,” David Alan. You may just want to check into it. Seth Readfield and David Linsky were involved in quite an extensive mapping study.
_____——__-___—-_—_-_–__-_–_–_—_-_-_—_—_-_-_—————-_—-___—-_-_—___—-_—_—-_———-_-___—–
Carla(16:13:33):
“Yeah, sure ok .
Ah, then are you able to tell us where the heliosphere is currently located with respect to the nearest, adjacent interstellar cloud? Could you also tell us what makes the adjacent cloud different than the one we are now exiting?”
Our sun is currently passing through the Local Interstellar Cloud that resides, currently, in the Local Bubble. One of the differences in these two clouds is the temperature and their size. Our LIC is quite cooler than the Local Bubble, and among other differences, the size of the LIC can be measured in hundreds of light years and the LB even larger.
Wiki has some information on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/local_bubble
The Suns’ current location in the LIC is on order of a few light years from its edge. Even if we were exiting the LIC, at the Suns’ current orbital velocity of roughly 25km/s, makes the time to travel that distance staggering.
@Carla
I might have exaggerated the size of the local fluff, but I still fail to comprehend the significance of your point.
Could you be more specific?
Leif Svalgaard (15:14:38) :
First, it is not clear when a minimum should be called a Grand Minimum. Solar activity 100 years ago was low too and we are likely to get down to at least that low level of activity. The Dalton minimum was perhaps [although our data is poor] a tad deeper, and may be called a Grand minimum too, but I personally think that we should reserve ‘Grand Minimum’ for the ones that are REALLY deep like the Maunder. Perhaps one can still name some minima without requiring them to be ‘Grand’, so we could still have a Dalton Minimum [1810], a Gleissberg minimum [1910] , an Eddy Minimum [for the coming one, 2020]. Since these minima have come about every 100 years for a while now, it is no big feat to ‘predict’ one [my little grandson Peter did that several years ago just by looking at http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html ].
In his honor.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL INTERSTELLAR
@David alan
Article released last summer.
Cloud Tripping Through the Milky Ways
The solar system is currently in between the LIC and G clouds, which cover about 70% of the sky around the Earth. A collision between these two clouds is producing the filamentary Mic cloud,
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/research/highlights_archive/2009_summer/cloudTripping.html
MEDIUM IV: DYNAMICS, MORPHOLOGY, PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES, AND IMPLICATIONS OF CLOUD-CLOUD
INTERACTIONS1
Seth Redfield2,3 and Jeffrey L. Linsky4
65pages 27-September 2007
Abstract
…Contrary to previous claims, the Sun appears to be located in the
transition zone between the LIC and G Clouds.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.4480v1.pdf
Quote Rosine Lallement, when asked what her first reaction to the IBEX data was.
Quote Rosine
Very shortly my first reaction was, wrong!
I thought we were seeing something I’ve worked on. We know that the sun will leave our small cloud and there is a next cloud it will enter soon, it should enter one day.
We don’t know if the two clouds are touching each other. If they do, one is faster than our cloud, there must be an interstellar shock. So when I saw that, maybe we ah see some feature of this interstellar shock, but that was for 5 minutes only…………hee hee wink. End quote.
There’s more…
New solar Spin Orbit Coupling: presentation available for download
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-solar-spin-orbit-coupling.html
Sun, comic rays and earths cloud cover:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/sun-cosmic-rays-and-earths-cloud.html
@Carla
I have yet to see how this information, about adjacent warm clouds and their relation to the LIC and effects on the heliosphere, contradict anything I’ve said.
If anything, I agree with that paticular field of science.
Maybe we don’t understand one another properly. My post regarding the heliosphere was that, in all likelihood, had little to do with solar cyclicity. Without clear probability, GCRs have very little to do with the hydromagnetic dynamo and has more probable causitive effect on planets.
The HCS modulates GCRs quite effectively, and thusly limits any amplification beyond the norm, in increasing or decreasing order. Without it, we wouldn’t exist.
So, two thing comes to mind:
(1)We can both agree that interactions impinging on the heliosphere has little to do with solar cyclicity and more about geo-thermal interactions, or
(2) New discoveries regarding adjacent warm clouds and the LIC effect the solar cyclicity and/or the rest of the solar system.
I’m picking #1.
I read this site every nite….and all the comments. I am a big fan of Dr. Svalgaard and have learned a great deal about the sun from his comments! Please come back with your Knowledge and wit and help us to greater understanding
Ron de Haan (18:44:41) :
Ron de Haan (18:47:59) :
Excellent ! Thanks for the linkage.
Now only if we could get that data to correspond over several hundred years and show correlation to temperature. That would be a neat trick.
Some background about this would be nice. Who is Jan Janssen? Where was this presented? What is “VSW Urania”?
@Fabius Maximus
I don’t know the man personally, but to find out about his personal views regarding climate change, goto:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/climate.html
to find out more about VSW Urania, goto:
http://www.urania.be/english/index.php
Not sure where it was presented. Leave it to an economist to ask the really hard questions.
Good luck on your sleuthing.
Ron de Haan (18:44:41) :
New solar Spin Orbit Coupling: presentation available for download
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-solar-spin-orbit-coupling.html
So what?
Gedanken experiment:
I plot the cycle of the moon around the earth the past 100 years.
I plot the cycle of the sun turning around itself the past 100 years.
With a bit of lag, a shift of start of the plots , great correlation.
So what?
Can I conclude that the sun’s rotation is rotating the moon around the earth?
That the moon is controlling the sun’s rotation?
The physical mechanism is important and it is missing in the link you gave. The tides are not enough, have not enough energy .
Lets put it another way, maybe in the millions of years that the solar system exists the solar tides even if small would make the moon’s rotations rate similar to the sun’s rotation rate by the small tidal differences of the far side and close side of the moon to the sun. At present it is just synchronized clocks, not causative of the moon’s current motion .
In the PPpresentation your link gave, a synchrony of two giant clocks is shown, planetary tides and the SS cycle. It could be coincidence, once you have 11 year cycles in two independent time sequences the clocks are correlated by construction.
It could be that in the millions of years that the solar system exists the tidal forces have synchronized the internal rotations of the sun, but the record is too short, and in any case it would be irrelevant to the physics of the sun spot creation and group size. IMO.
anna v (22:14:21) :
The physical mechanism is important and it is missing in the link you gave. The tides are not enough, have not enough energy .
The link is wrong as I have tried to point out, but my comments dont seem to be getting through. We also have the missing physical link? I am sure Janssen himself might be interested in this.
anna v (22:14:21) :
It could be coincidence
Various very intelligent people have done probability calculations on this stuff. It could be coincidence, but the likelihood that it is, is very very very very small.
Don’t underestimate resonance as an amplifying force. Our measurement of the solar system might not have been going on long enough to be certain about things, but the solar system has been going on long enough for resonances to be humming away with effects beyond the apparent causative strengths.
Ron de Haan (18:47:59) :
Sun, comic rays and earths cloud cover:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/sun-cosmic-rays-and-earths-cloud.html
I have an open mind about the galactic cosmic ray and climate connection. The link gives a correlation with low cloud cover. This is good and I hope will be verified. I am a great believer in albedo being the moderator of climate :).
Of course you must realize that the planets have nothing to do with this physical mechanism except counting like a clock the sun spot sequences.