When I last looked at the Ap geomagnetic index back in January, it looked pretty grim.
Now with the release yesterday of the new Ap data from NOAA, we see the largest jump in 2 years.
We’ve had a rash of sunspots lately, and it appears sol is awakening from its magnetic slumber. The question is: “dead cat bounce” or start of an upwards trend?
Hi Ulric
Be gentle to our kind doc. I pursued my ideas too vigorously elsewhere and got banned. Now I have to be careful how to ‘market’ my ideas WUWT, or as a good friend of mine with a wired sense of humour put it (not forgetting good old doc too):
“I absolutely concur; Dr. Leif is a great guy and scientist of the greatest repute, the 21st century ‘guardian of the heliosphere’s pearly gates’ with subtlety of Erik the Viking.
The ‘rascal’ you enquire about (that’s me, Vuk) was run out of town by somewhat overzealous sheriff. I believe he is now ‘peddling snake oil’ and his latest invention geo-‘magnetic charms and bracelets’ in a nearby parish. Come to think about it, he does have a snake-like design imbedded in his website ?! http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm “
Who needs friends like that?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“the missing piece is how the increased solar wind velocity actually causes the warming.
And that is the important piece, isn’t it?
Without that, there is nothing.”
Not true.
I showed my Father my findings, he thinks I have a very good case without proving the exact mechanism. I can take you through a tour of the all the coldest winters in the last 1500yrs at some point, and tell you which months were colder, and when there was an early thaw ect. from the point of view of what is actually causing it. With such power of hindcasting, I am very pleased with the forecasting success I am acheiving.
Leif Svalgaard (1:25pm) :
And that is the important piece, isn’t it?
Without that, there is nothing.
There are correlations, so that’s something as opposed to “nothing”.
Persistent correlation hints at a possible linkage – something to investigate. A lack of correlation is less interesting, of course – that would be “nothing”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm
So if you don`t think changes in the solar wind is causing surface temperature anomalies, do I assume you think it is the geomagnetic disturbances that are the cause, and if so, how? I`m sure between us we can stack up enough data on short term changes in solar wind velocity/density, correlating to short term changes in surface temperatures. Pick a mechanism…….
Ulric Lyons says:
May 6, 2010 at 4:00 pm
do I assume you think it is the geomagnetic disturbances that are the cause, and if so, how? I`m sure between us we can stack up enough data on short term changes in solar wind velocity/density, correlating to short term changes in surface temperatures. Pick a mechanism…….
Geomagnetic activity and solar UV cause heating in the thermosphere, but that heat does not propagate downwards, and if ir did, would be global, so correlations with winters at a specific location are spurious. There are no known mechanisms to pick from.
The correlations have in the past always ended up being coincidences that eventually broke down. Here is a reference to some of my own work on this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0.pdf that didn’t pan out eventually. It was credited for ‘re-invigorating’ sun-weather relations in the 1970s. There are hundreds of such correlations out there going back centuries and none of them have shown themselves to hold up.
If the correlation is REALLY good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism, but there are VERY few such correlations in the natural sciences.
It is wrong to assume that the ‘establishment’ are fighting a rearguard action to keep such correlations out and down [as is often claimed by starry-eyed enthusiasts]. On the contrary, should one turn out to be valid, our field would instantly draw much new funding and fame. And we all want that, it is just that there is nothing there. We all want to prove ‘Einstein’ or whomever else famous [Hansen. Mann, Gavin, Fat Al, Sagan, Milankovic, etc] wrong, but it turns out to be really hard to do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Geomagnetic activity and solar UV cause heating in the thermosphere, but that heat does not propagate downwards”
Wouldnt UV also have a significant effect on stratospheric temperatures? I realize at the moment there are several competing theories as to the stratospheric cooling(and very possibly competing mechanisms effecting stratospheric temperatures). But surly UV would have a very direct effect. And looking at it extremely simply also have an effect on tropospheric temperatures(just through a greater differential in radiation exchange) As you say, it would be global… unless O3 production/ UV absorption is effected enough hemispherically just through scattering/greater UV saturation on the winter hemisphere… Im not going to pretend to know(i dont)… just musings.
Mike Ewing says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Wouldnt UV also have a significant effect on stratospheric temperatures?
Yes it does, and much more because the air is a million times denser in the stratosphere than in the thermosphere.
And looking at it extremely simply also have an effect on tropospheric temperatures (just through a greater differential in radiation exchange)
No, because the level where the vast bulk of the radiation escapes to space in still in the troposphere [only 6 km up].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Geomagnetic activity and solar UV cause heating in the thermosphere
Any specific wavelength range of UV where such effects predominate?
rbateman says:
May 6, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Any specific wavelength range of UV where such effects predominate?
Yes, extreme UV in the range 10-100 nm ionizes atomic Oxygen in the F-layer and far UV [190-250 nm] ionizes molecular Oxygen in the E-layer.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 7:23 pm
That’s something. The weak sunspots are also relatively weak on 171 band of SOHO and STEREO, but are quite good on the faculae when near the rim.
Does the 171 band do anything to the atmosphere worth noting?
rbateman says:
May 6, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Does the 171 band do anything to the atmosphere worth noting?
The 171 is in Angstrom, not in nanometer, so 171 A is 17.1 nm which is absorbed by atomic oxygen in the F-layer, way up there at 200-400 km So is important for low orbit satellites, but not for our weather or climate.
Leif, does it have to do with the sharp little hooks that pad the spider’s feet, thus applying much more pressure up the wall than when crawling on a flat surface? So if the pressure underfoot going up the wall is calculated to scale, you would over-shoot the comparison you used by quite some magnitude. Thus your correction to the flat surface.
Pamela Gray says:
May 6, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Leif, does it have to do with the sharp little hooks that pad the spider’s feet
No, when the spider is crawling on a horizontal surface it is pressed towards the surface by its weight and that determines the pressure under its feet [actually only one foot enters the calculation 🙂 ], but on a wall there is no weight pressing it towards the wall so no pressure due to its weight. The spider uses little hooks or whatever to stay on the wall.
The point is that the pressure of the billion tons CME is minute. The Earth is not ‘slammed’ with enormous impact, causing earthquakes and other mayhem.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“If the correlation is REALLY good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism, but there are VERY few such correlations in the natural sciences.”
You mean something like this.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
Finally! I shall treasure those words.
Thank you Leif, i did find this paper on the effects o variable UV. Which is interesting for anyone interested. But basically says what you said… but longer winded (but has modeling in it for the modeling opposed;-)
https://www8.imperial.ac.uk/content/dav/ad/workspaces/physics/spat/Jo/The%20effect%20of%20solar%20UV%20irradiance%20variations%20on%20the%20Earth%27%27s%20atmosphere.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Geomagnetic activity and solar UV cause heating in the thermosphere, but that heat does not propagate downwards, and if ir did, would be global, so correlations with winters at a specific location are spurious.”
Yes global of course, for example, I predicted a very sharp drop in surface temperature from July 7th 2009 (solar forced), the drop caused a small drop in N.H temp`s and a large drop in S.H. temp`s as you would expect at this time of the year. The N.H, experienced widespread flooding while 100`s of folk died from the sudden temp` drop in the S.H. Its when the drop is relative to the seasons that matters, I would have thought you would have realised that.
“If the correlation is REALLY good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism, but there are VERY few such correlations in the natural sciences.”
They say that there is nothing new under the Sun. My field of study goes back some way. From what I read, Kepler was on an identical track, and highly successful in determining short term or seasonal changes in the solar signal that would produce a cold winter (and as we now know, the simultaneous flooding in the opposite hemisphere in its summer, due to the temperature drop) The Ancients even carved some important observations into rock surfaces all round the world in the form of the 7 circuit labyrinth.
My correlations are stunning, I really can show you the cause of EVERY one of the coldest winters in the last 1500`s beyond any doubt, you can have a look after I have shown everyone else. For now, just watch my forecasts. Thanks for your help!, and good bye please.
Leif. In the advancement of science, a keen interest and a well developed power of scrutiny is ideal. A measure of scepticism may have its place in ” not taking anyones word for it” but maybe at the expense of coming up with any original ideas oneself. Cynicism and mockery only serves as a potential distraction to those doing pioneering work, you learn to ignore this after a while and it goes away. Did I notice it was the good folk that came up with all the good discoveries?
vukcevic says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:43 pm
You mean something like this.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
No, that is not a good correlation, so isn’t in the category to be taken seriously.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:03 am
My correlations are stunning
Pseudo-science always is in the eyes of the believer. They often stun the author first and prevents him from exercising sound judgement.
Here is an analysis of the power spectrum of CET: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-CET.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:May 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“If the correlation is REALLY good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism, but there are VERY few such correlations in the natural sciences.”
Leif Svalgaard says: May 7, 2010 at 6:27 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
No, that is not a good correlation, so isn’t in the category to be taken seriously.
I hope you are not backtracking on your statement. Perhaps you would be so kind to show me a good correlation number (preferably from your extensive work), so I can have an idea what you have in mind for R-square.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
I think anyone would consider R-square of 0.93 an excellent correlation especially for an event not well understood.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 7, 2010 at 6:27 am
“Here is an analysis of the power spectrum of CET: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-CET.pdf”
Dr. Svalgaard that is a very important analysis, particularly your CET FFT power spectrum graph. It has a significant power dip at ~50 years.
It should be noted that Vukcevic Solar Anomaly formula has the half-period at 52 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETs.htm
>>>Leif Svalgaard says: May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
>>>Coriolis force is fairly weak.
>>How weak? To make that statement you must have a number.
Sorry Leif, it is too long since I have had to deal with forces. Here is the formula for coriolis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#Applied_to_Earth
But what I do know is that a cannon-shell will only be deviated by a few feet by coriolis, and a jet aircraft does not have to fly one wing down to compensate.
So the force that results in hurricane formation, is but a flap of a butterfly wing in comparison to its eventual results.
.
Vuk etc. says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:13 am
I think anyone would consider R-square of 0.93 an excellent correlation especially for an event not well understood.
No, just anyone who does not know what he is talking about. The important number is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. Suppose I have just two data points, then R-square is 1.0000000, but there is no significance to this ‘correlation’. Since a careful explanation and tutorial on this is not likely to make any difference to you, I’m a bit loath to waste my time on making one. But we can make a small start. If there is a good correlation, then it should survive the ‘difference test’. That is: for each timeseries compute a new series as the differences between successive data points, then correlate the two resulting difference series, and tell us R-squared.
Ralph says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:58 am
But what I do know is that a cannon-shell will only be deviated by a few feet by coriolis, and a jet aircraft does not have to fly one wing down to compensate.[…]
Yet, it is the Coriolis force that is responsible for the Westerlies and Tradewinds on Earth, and for solar differential rotation and thus ultimately for solar activity.
P.S. I have forgotten what the original problem was.
Leif, where do I find a simple text-format list of daily solar wind speed going back many decades?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:27 am
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:03 am
My correlations are stunning
Pseudo-science always is in the eyes of the believer. They often stun the author first and prevents him from exercising sound judgement.
Here is an analysis of the power spectrum of CET: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-CET.pdf…………………………………………………………………………………
Oh dear, it was such a simple task, I`ll say it again. Take the monthly values for each month on CET individually from 1900-1999, and do a linear trend plot for each month individually. And then compare them. See the stronger rise around the Equinox months. You already agreed with that anyway;
“May 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm: “That may well be, but it has nothing to do with the solar wind.”
You have not seen my correlations, so make no comment until you do.
You also are incompetant at following a line of enquiry, just as you have displayed here, by mixing the subject of CET monthly anomalies, with my claimed yet undisclosed correlations between global temp` change, and my observations as to their cause.