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
here is a link to a Palle Bago &Butler paper
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
with the crucial plots.
tallbloke (14:41:08) :
“Cassiopeia A around 1670AD?
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/cassA.html
A bit late and too far away maybe.”
It is more likely something within the Sun. According to L&P to suppress sunspot visibility a drop of 1000-1500 Gauss is required. It can be estimated that the Earth’s field of 0.5 Gauss ‘suffered’ an enhancement of about 20%, since disturbance appear to be of the same polarity. Two major planets would have very tiny reduction (they have opposite polarity to the Earth’s). Interesting would be the case of Mars (only magnetic exception beyond Venus) if it had magnetic field of same polarity as J&S but of strength below 0.05 Gauss, it would be ‘degaussed’ i.e. lost its permanent magnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EMF85N.gif
tallbloke (15.36.33)
Re: Question to IPCC: 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]
Yes indeed. The IPCC logic and methods leave much to be desired. The current attacks on Henrik Svensmark and his hypothesis on cosmic influence on low cloud cover is evidence of this.
However with Albedo the matter is more difficult to refute as the Stefan equation reveals that a mere 0.000025 increase in earth’s Albedo offsets any global warming due to a 1ppmv increase in CO2 concentration. This only requires Albedo to increase to 0.30845 to offset a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. So the IPCC assumption of constant Albedo looks decidedly shaky.
[I would be grateful if some one would check this figure as I am only a mere engineer.]
Thus if the ‘Sunspot – Cosmic Ray – Low Cloud – Albedo’ correlation can be verified it would comprise a nice hefty spanner in the IPCC works. I can’t wait!
If anyone is interested, Svensmark’s book “The Chilling Stars” is an excellent read. [No vested interest] and deserves a few twittery comments here.
anna v (23:18:47) :
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.
You state this as if it a self evidential or well known truth, yet you offer nothing to support it, and feign an ignorance of the research which shows otherwise even though you’ve been pointed to it.
Ray Tomes uses a numerical planetary model to successfully account for sunspot numbers over hundreds of years with above 60% accuracy.
Can the dynamo theory do that?
tallbloke (03:00:57) :
anna v (23:18:47) :
“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.”
You state this as if it a self evidential or well known truth, yet you offer nothing to support it, and feign an ignorance of the research which shows otherwise even though you’ve been pointed to it.
It is self evident to anybody with a scientific training. Correlations are not causations and in previous posts, which you must have read with half your attention, I have given concrete examples why this is so.
The existing physics framework supports it, and your cyclical correlations offered as a predictive tool are in the same spot as AGW or now morphed into CC, the proof should be on your side. Correlations are not proof of dynamical mechanisms.
Ray Tomes uses a numerical planetary model to successfully account for sunspot numbers over hundreds of years with above 60% accuracy.
I do not know the model, but if it has as many parameters as the IPCC GCMs there should not be much trouble in hindcasting the sunspots either.
Dynamo theories try to bring out the physics dynamics behind the spot manifestation.
David Alan (19:22:40) :
@Carla
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.
As, you will.
The heliosphere has been located in a WARM interstellar cloud for approx. 14,000 years. The heliosphere is now in a transition zone between a warm cloud and a cooler cloud. The transition zone is called a micro interstellar cloud (MIC). This is the shock zone where the two clouds collide, the flow between them has been identified as coming from the direction of Sco. Cen. association. IMHO In the last 50 years the heliosphere just traversed the shock (MIC) zone. The heliosphere is now entering the cooler, faster, denser G cloud.
What would the consequences to the heliosphere be when encountering a cooler, faster, denser interstellar cloud? Why does the science community believe that ice ages occur when the solar system is located in COLD interstellar clouds?
My choice is the second one you have listed, David Alan. Keeping in mind also that magnetic fields are everywhere.
Fanatiscism, said the Earth was flat.
Fanatiscism now is telling us that the sun is flat and will not acknowledge that the sun is a part of a galaxy and that the galaxy does not revolve around the sun.
Missing Leif, over on SS24. Sure hope he changes his mind.
anna v (04:55:06) :
Of course you must realize that the planets have nothing to do with this physical mechanism…
It is self evident to anybody with a scientific training. Correlations are not causations
False. The fact that correlataions are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.
Correlations are not proof of dynamical mechanisms.
True, but when the probability of their not being connected becomes as vanishingly small as it does in the case of planetary relations to solar activity, rejecting them rather than accepting the possibility is foolish.
Dynamo theories try to bring out the physics dynamics behind the spot manifestation.
How well is it going at the moment?
“True, but when the probability of their not being connected becomes as vanishingly small as it does in the case of planetary relations to solar activity, rejecting them rather than accepting the possibility is foolish.”
Eh??
The sun’s atmosphere is vastly more energetic than ours and its gravity higher, so planetary influences would control our weather before they could influence solar weather??
Carla (04:59:37) :
Missing Leif, over on SS24. Sure hope he changes his mind.
Carla
Dr. Svalgaard possibly needs some rest, but a I am sure he will be back in his time, and on his terms to keep informing, educating and dealing with few ‘raskolniks’, including myself.
As far as SC24 is concerned, in recent weeks, a moderator has banned number of people (justifiably or not), also issued this warning to Dr. Svalgaard:
“Leif…..You are not to address anything that Vukcevic says. If he attempts to engage you you are to inform one of the Mods or the Administrator immediately. We need your cooperation in this matter.”
I could not believe that such request could be issued to Dr.S!!
Btw, explanation for my ban: “You’ve drawn the wrong type of attention. You are not to engage in discussion with Leif Svalgaard in any forum.”
Discussion forums and blogs, of course are free to set their terms and conditions.
Without Dr Svaalgard how are we mortals to know what is and what isn’t voodo science?
tallbloke (05:24:37) :
anna v (04:55:06) :
“Of course you must realize that the planets have nothing to do with this physical mechanism…
It is self evident to anybody with a scientific training. Correlations are not causations”
False. The fact that correlataions are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.
Do you know the difference between necessary and suficient conditions in proving scientific statements?
Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.
“Correlations are not proof of dynamical mechanisms.”
True, but when the probability of their not being connected becomes as vanishingly small as it does in the case of planetary relations to solar activity, rejecting them rather than accepting the possibility is foolish.
I am becoming boring, but there is a very good correlation between the rate of the moon’s rotation about the earth and the rate of the sun’s rotation about its axis, that would give the same vanishingly small probability I am sure.
It is not possible to accept the possibility that the moon turns the sun ( as the planets turn the sun according to planetary suggestions).
It is possible to think that in the millions of years that the solar system exists, the tides working like the mills of God slowly synchornized the moon to the Sun’s clock.
It is equally probable that the 11 year cycle appearing mainly through Jupiter is due to this also, the tides of the sun on Jupiter synchronizing it , as the sun is so much more massive than Jupiter after all, and it is not the tail that wags the dog, even as slowly as the mills of God.
anna v (07:08:04) :
“Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.”
There is more to the movement of solar plasma than ‘tidal force’. In my post
vukcevic (10:51:26) : there are two references to studies from well known solar scientists and equally well known research institutions, perhaps you care to take a look, it might broaden your horizons.
anna v (07:08:04) :
Do you know the difference between necessary and suficient conditions in proving scientific statements?
Yes Ma’am, I studied logic at university.
Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.
Do you think this is incompatible with my statement? Or is it just a non sequiteur?
vukcevic (07:43:36) :
anna v (07:08:04) :
“Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.”
There is more to the movement of solar plasma than ‘tidal force’. In my post
vukcevic (10:51:26) : there are two references to studies from well known solar scientists and equally well known research institutions, perhaps you care to take a look, it might broaden your horizons.
??
What do these links have to do with the price of tea in China?
In other words, of course there are other internal dynamics that govern the solar cycles. I am sure that I gave no reasons for people to think otherwise.
I have been occupied by more down-to-earth issues and haven’t had time to read all the threads. Now that I realize Leif has taken leave, I doubt it was because he was insulted. I would rather think that he just got tired of rehashing the same subject with people far less educated on the central solar issues. I would have tired of it far before he did. Fortunately, he has a web site that I visit often. And without the unrelenting banter and cacophony of the notion that the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars…
tallbloke (08:18:49) :
Anna:
Correlations are necessary but not sufficient to prove a causal relationship within systems dominated by physics’ mathematical laws.
tallbloke: Do you think this is incompatible with my statement? Or is it just a non sequiteur?
You had said:
“False. The fact that correlations are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.”
In the sense that a correlation is not sufficient to prove a dynamical causation one should reject treating it as if there is a causal link, if no dynamical mechanism exists.
So yes, it should be rejected unless a dynamical mechanism is proposed. As I have said there exist very many correlations that are trivial in the cosmic clocks that the solar system provides.
anna v (09:03:10) :
You had said:
“False. The fact that correlations are not causations does not logically lead to the necessary rejection of a correlation as an indicator of a causal relationship.”
In the sense that a correlation is not sufficient to prove a dynamical causation one should reject treating it as if there is a causal link, if no dynamical mechanism exists.
So yes, it should be rejected unless a dynamical mechanism is proposed.
I feel a bit hamstrung answering this. I have named the author of the dynamical mechanism proposed, but our host has asked us not to discuss it. I will respect his wishes.
My point is that logically speaking, the fact that correlation is not causation is not a sufficent condition to reject the possibility that the discovered correlation is connected with the uninvestigated potential cause.
vukcevic (06:24:58) :
As far as SC24 is concerned, in recent weeks, a moderator has banned number of people (justifiably or not), also issued this warning to Dr. Svalgaard:..
..Btw, explanation for my ban: “You’ve drawn the wrong type of attention. You are not to engage in discussion with Leif Svalgaard in any forum.”
Discussion forums and blogs, of course are free to set their terms and conditions.
Didn’t get that moderators motivation the first time I heard this and still don’t get it. There are those that should be moderators and then there are those that should not be. Maybe his sweet is washing his drawers in too hot of water. LOL
Possible “shock wave,” around the Maunder, that was interesting Vuk.
Carla (16:32:21) :
I have found it interesting since the moderators on SC24.com expressed their views on the world, very firmly in the AGW camp and not liking to diverge from the NASA view of solar activity. I had no option but to fall on my sword, I wont be a part of it.
Look Tallbloke, we are talking at cross purposes.
One can examine an infinity of dynamical possibilities for correlations.
Those possibilities have to be within the physics of the dynamical system. For example Svenmark’s hypothesis is a wholly legal hypothesis within the physics dynamics of the sun and earth system to give the cause for a correlation between sun activities and the earth weather. There is no violation of energy or angular momentum conservation or anything like that in the hypothesis of the galactic cosmic rays proposal.
Suppositions of planetary influences on the mass of the sun violate energy conservation (not enough energy in the tides) and angular momentum conservation (virtual points have zero mass and thus no angular momentum) so cannot be rational/acceptable as a suggestion for explaining “observed” correlations . The hypothesis is outside the dynamics of known physics and on the other hand there are ways that known physics could create in these giant clocks over the millenia the correlations seen, without violating the known laws of physics. So these possibilities have to be rejected from first principles.
A viable, but not provable, hypothesis for a causal path of the planet/sun correlations would be postulating new physics , to be found sometime in the future. Not to use angular momentum wrongly. It is like all those people who tried to make their fortune with a perpetual motion machine made of gears and gyroscopes.
Remember, in our reality, the tail does not wag the dog ( that is energy conservation and angular momentum conservation ).
I close on correlations in remembering that my little brother, scared by the noise of a large eucalyptus tree in our back yard during wind storms, urged my father to cut it down, so that the wind would stop. He did believe that the tree was making the wind.
And I think have explained as best as I could so this is my last on the subject for the nonce.
Where are the Sunspots?
They are under the influence of L&P. The progression of that effect has reached the point where a percentage (15-25%) of sunspots are already dimmed out of existence. The rest that do appear are faded examples where umbras are no darker than penumbras, and penumras are ??
Maunder possible? Sure it is. All that has to happen now is for the Sun to ramp into an appearance of a normal cycle, then plunge down to zero. That’ll sure fit the opening act.
Dalton possible? Very. Again, all that has to happen is for the same lackadaisacal slope of increase to continue 3 more years.
Less than a Dalton? Seems to be on the outside probability now. Too much ground has been lost, too many false starts have backed the the QB into the endzone.
Why is all this happening? That’s the provence of theory, and I’m no good at that. But I can point you to occurences like this:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/LastYear_B.jpg
where indications of N-S magnetic lines are overriding the E-W flows (Coriolis) and we see a tad too many spots form twisted more N-S than we should.
So, I just keep digging around, looking for events or sequences of things that might tattle on what’s going on under the smoking hood of the Sun.
To my eye, the Sun ramped Jan 2008 in a squelched state. What’s the difference between an SC24 that started up too late and an SC24 that started life crippled? They both are going to be lazy dogs.
rbateman (06:24:36) :
“Where are the Sunspots? ”
Hi Bob
I still look regularly at your SC24 contribution, and admire you patient systematic approach, which I am sure researchers of the future will find useful.
We can only sit and wait to see what happens. It looks to me lot of theories will have to be reassessed, and in hindsight some will tell us they new it all along.
My approach to these maters is purely numerical, I made attempt to link past, present and future with a formula, with an associated graph for visualising, which can always be tested (so no backing out if wrong). Unfortunately they disappeared overnight with a rather popular thread, but if anyone whish to go back, some of the graphs and formulae can be found here:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
The interesting slide on Janssens presentation is the Dr.Howe image of the Doppler image showing the torsional oscillation flows. The butterfly pattern of sunspots has been overlaid similar to when I first did it back in February. Janssen and Hill show a similar outcome which shows the spots occurring on the slow moving parts of the flow which is not how it was perceived in the past. More research needs to be done in this area, the flow holds many of the answers I believe, especially how they are created and how each flow affects the cycle. The SC24 flow is long and slow.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/
******************
Geoff Sharp (13:21:08) :
The interesting slide on Janssens presentation is the Dr.Howe image of the Doppler image showing the torsional oscillation flows. The butterfly pattern of sunspots has been overlaid similar to when I first did it back in February. Janssen and Hill show a similar outcome which shows the spots occurring on the slow moving parts of the flow which is not how it was perceived in the past.
****************
I guess it would be hard to depict, but has anyone done a 3-D model of the flow patterns? Does anyone even have the data to do such a thing? I guess one of the newer visual data mining methods where one can “walk” or “fly” through the data might be interesting.