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?
What you are suggesting is not valid for oscillating systems involving periodic functions. Flux and its corresponding emf have for the two delta series R^2 =0, despite the fact that one is derived from the other.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 7, 2010 at 1:38 pm
where do I find a simple text-format list of daily solar wind speed going back many decades?
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
vukcevic says:
May 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm
What you are suggesting is not valid for oscillating systems involving periodic functions. Flux and its corresponding emf have for the two delta series R^2 =0, despite the fact that one is derived from the other.
Then your R^2=0.93 is invalid as well 🙂
By adding your arbitrary constant you make the phases the same and then you can compare. As you did by computing an R^2.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 1:44 pm
You also are incompetant
Nice to know from such a knowing source…
Leif Svalgaard says: May 7, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“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.”
To satisfy your curiosity I have done so. R^2 = 0.9053. Is that good enough for you? It is time you took my formula more seriously!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-Vukdiff.htm
vukcevic says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm
To satisfy your curiosity I have done so. R^2 = 0.9053. Is that good enough for you? It is time you took my formula more seriously!
You have numbers of the order of 300 and 400. These cannot be differences. Here is how to calculate differences:
Day PF diff
1 200 —
2 210 10
3 190 -20
4 200 10
etc
Re: Leif Svalgaard 3:02pm May 7
Thank you.
Can you be more specific (e.g. by pointing me straight to a plain-text-format webpage that lists decades-worth of daily solar wind velocity data)?
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/nx1.cgi
That is handy, cheers Leif, bookmarked.
Leif, on the seperate monthly linear trends on CET from 1900-1999, why are Jan+Feb+May so flat, and such a strong rise in March over this century? any other ideas?
Further to Paul Vaughan 3:58pm May 7 Re: Leif Svalgaard 3:02pm May 7
Leif, cancel that request, but please see new question (& request) below in this post – thank you.
Accessing daily & 27 day Bartels rotation solar wind speed averages:
The hub:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
From there “OMNI data (spacecraft-interspersed, near-Earth solar wind data)” “Low resolution OMNIWeb (1-hour, 1 and 27 days, 1963 – current)” leads to:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/ow.html
Then links under the heading “Access Data by FTP” lead to this directory:
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/
Relevant files there are:
1) daily averages: omni_01_av.dat
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/omni_01_av.dat
(solar wind speed in column 25)
2) 27-day Bartels rotation averages: omni_27_av.dat
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/omni_27_av.dat
(solar wind speed in column 25)
3) info: 00readme.txt
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/00readme.txt
4) more detailed info: omni2.text
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/omni2.text
(This is where one learns that solar wind speed is in column 25.)
Leif, has used column#25 of file#2 in this file http://www.leif.org/research/IDV,%20B%20analysis%20-%20rotations.xls .
Leif, does your SW speed reconstruction back to the 1880s work adequately at daily resolution? (If so, can you provide a link to your estimates?)
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm
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.
May 7, 2010 at 3:03 am; Yes global of course, for example….
****************************************
At least that is a known unknown.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
strong rise in March over this century? any other ideas?
Climate/weather is messy. If you find something you think is valid since 1900 it should also be valid since 1659, unless caused by CO2.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Further to Paul Vaughan 3:58pm May 7 Re: Leif Svalgaard 3:02pm May 7
From there “OMNI data (spacecraft-interspersed, near-Earth solar wind data)” “Low resolution OMNIWeb (1-hour, 1 and 27 days, 1963 – current)” leads to:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/ow.html […]
You make it really hard on yourself. I just use their handy web interface:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html
Leif, does your SW speed reconstruction back to the 1880s work adequately at daily resolution? (If so, can you provide a link to your estimates?)
No, not really, although I have 3-hourly ap back to the 1840s. Now: ap = k B V^2, so is a decent proxy for SW speed. I don’t know why you focus on the speed [which in itself doesn’t have much meaning. What is important are the merging electric field BV and the dynamic pressure on the magnetosphere nV^2 [B= mag field, n = density].
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:09 pm
At least that is a known unknown.
Too many unknowns for my taste. I go with what we [think we] know.
Looks like the Sun’s ready for another nap.
>>>Leif Svalgaard says: May 7, 2010 at 1:25 pm
>>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.
[snip]
There is prima face evidence for a link between sunspot activity and climate, but no obvious mechanism for this. A proposed vehicle for a mechanism is the latitude of the jetstreams (which are created by the coriolis force**) being affected by solar wind/solar magnetic flux.
You may mock, Leif, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the sun can affect the delacate balance of our weather systems, and force the jestreams towards the equator (and give us cold N Hem winters, like this winter).
** Yes, I know that coriolis is more of an effect than a real force – rather like a cousin of ‘centrifugal force’.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 7, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“You have numbers of the order of 300 and 400. These cannot be differences. ”
Nonsense. It just shows you do not understand what is going on. Since solar signal is very noisy (using WSO from 1976.439) you have to take larger step for delta T but you move it along time axes one sample at the time, eg correlate columns.
A1– A144 ; B1– B144
A2 – A145 ; B2 – B145
A3 – A146 ; B3 – B146
etc., the above is used in case of a noisy signal to find embedded periodic oscillation related to a known one. Here delta T=144 (one cycle about ~430 samples, so use for delta T ~1/3).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-Vukdiff.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
Leif Svalgaard 10:16pm May 7 “I just use their handy web interface: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html […] What is important are the merging electric field BV and the dynamic pressure on the magnetosphere nV^2 [B= mag field, n = density].”
What names do those variables & their components go by on the “handy web interface”? (Do we do the calculations independently? Or has Dr. Papitashvili canned them for us?)
“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
strong rise in March over this century? any other ideas?
Climate/weather is messy. If you find something you think is valid since 1900 it should also be valid since 1659, unless caused by CO2.”
Yes from 1659, or any 40-50yr section of CET wher the yearly trend is upwards.
Does CO2 have a prefference for March???
“Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:09 pm
At least that is a known unknown.
Too many unknowns for my taste. I go with what we [I] know.”
Which is nothing about natural climate variation, and nothing on Sun and its true infuence on climate/weather. As you prefer to dodge the questions, and be of no help [snip]
Hale.
Even numbered sunspot cycles (22, 20, 18 etc.) through Maunder and Dalton are stronger than the odd numbered cycles. From around 1820/30, till recently, odd numbered cycles have been stronger than the even nunbered cycles. C22 to C23 shows signs of that balance changing again, leading to the coming even cycles being stronger than the odd cycles.
J.P.Desmoulins was plotting for a strong cycle 24.
I`ll stick to the facts from now Anthony, excuse me.
The Sun is years late on this “solar cycle”. The 10.7 cm flux would be at 130 to 150 by now; not 80. The flux is my “honest” view of the Sun’s activity.
The SO2 and ash from the Iceland volcano will reduce solar input to Europe/Asia (Russia). Ignored by Global Warming Religionists.
The Pacific heat is running out (El Nino is about done).
Unless the Sun “turns on” we are in for a interesting cold future!!!!!
Music is such a wonderful metaphor, hardly anybody knows who the best guitar player in the world is. Seems to me thats the same for weather/climate/solar cycles.
Just a little solar magnetics diversion for a moment ~ have the Sun and Venus copulated and given birth to a new planet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngPEMGhfXc
Seriously, what is that? Have you guys been watching this with your fancy SDO equipment? Fess up Leif ~ what is that baby?
Paul Vaughan says:
May 8, 2010 at 2:19 am
What names do those variables & their components go by on the “handy web interface”?
Flow Pressure, nPa
Ey – Electric Field, mV/m
But you can also compute them yourself from B, V, and n.
Ralph says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:21 am
There is prima face evidence for a link between sunspot activity and climate
It is the ‘evidence’ that I question. I don’t think there is.
but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the sun can affect the delicate balance of our weather systems, and force the jet streams towards the equator (and give us cold N Hem winters, like this winter).
I think it is beyond the realm of possibility, from energy considerations. The Sun does not move the jet streams. The Sun may change the radiation balance, which then moves the air around. But there is no need to look for mechanisms as long as there is no good evidence for a significant Sun-climate link
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 5:15 am
“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
or any 40-50yr section of CET where the yearly trend is upwards.
Then you have already selected your result. If you select according to the desired result, you’ll find that result.
Does CO2 have a preference for March???
CO2 does have an annual variation, but that is not what is usually thought to be important by the AGW crowd, rather the long-term increase.
As you prefer to dodge the questions
I’m waiting for you to produce some evidence, until such time there is little basis for ‘help’.
vukcevic says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:56 am
you have to take larger step for delta T but you move it along time axes one sample at the time, eg correlate columns. A1– A144 ; B1– B144
The issue is one of ‘number of degrees of freedom’ that describes the ‘signal’ and that number is very low [about three per cycle; there are not hundreds of independent points as is assumed in your calculation of R^2]. If you are concerned about the noise, then the proper way to deal with that is to average the data over a suitable interval. If you average over a year, the R^2 of the differences falls to below 0.6 which is nothing to write home about with so few degrees of freedom. But even ‘good’ correlations can be spurious. A typical example is the R^2 = 0.9283 between the global temperature anomalies and the cost of a US postage stamp since 1975. A spurious correlation shows itself by not holding up as we go before [or after] the time over which we noted the coincidence. And so it is with your formula. There are only three [better 2 and a half – because one is shared with the next cycle] independent data points: the minimum and maximum times and the size of the maximum. With those three, any cycle is well determined. Your fit to those few independent points is determined by three free parameters [your 1943.5 and pi/3 for the first COS, and no pi/3 for the second COS]. But fails outside of the 1970-2008 interval on which it was based. From observations and theory we find that the polar fields reverse about one year after solar maximum and are largest in magnitude at or just before solar minimum [before the cancellation by new cycle flux begins]. So we can check the phase from observations. As you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-6.png the observed phase begins to drift away from the phase given by your fit. The red squares are times of polar field reversals [determined from the sunspot number]. The cyan circles are times of solar minimum. Once we get back to ~1900 your fit is now out of phase with the observations. The circles are placed at +/-100 according to the sign of the PF.
Now, I know, of course, that your cop-out is that the Sun is what has changed in the sense that around 1895 the polar fields didn’t reverse and therefore the phase relationship rather than having failed shows a new and exciting solar phenomenon that is also predicted for the coming cycles. Unfortunately, there are observations that show that this is false. The PFs did change and there has been no ‘phase-catastrophe’. How do we know that? There is a 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [explained here: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf sections 8-9 pages 50-56] that depends on the polarity of the PF [equation 17], so we can use the 22-yr variation to show us the polarity of the PFs. We find that there was no phase change.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 5:47 am
Hale. […] leading to the coming even cycles being stronger than the odd cycles.
J.P.Desmoulins was plotting for a strong cycle 24.
So you are already looking falsification in the eye. There are strong signs that cycle 24 will be a very weak cycle.
Suranda says:
May 8, 2010 at 8:49 am
Seriously, what is that?
There are lots of artifacts in those raw data.
Mr. Alex says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:02 am
——–
Thanks for the comment and link! This was nice to find:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Robert Bateman a very motivated amateur solar enthusiast and myself started a thread at http://www.solarcycle24.com (which has unfortunately developed into an anti Landscheidt, Pro AGW forum) and soon devised a plan to come up with a reliable standard. We would use the existing SOHO 1024 x 1024 Continuum images and measure the pixels involved in a Sunspot.
Initially it had to be determined what a standard sunspot should represent in size and density, to try and represent a minimum counter like Wolf may have done 200 years ago. After some deliberation and advise from Robert who also dabbles in Astronomy with his own equipment, we came up with a minimum standard.
—–
OK, so THAT’S who Robert Bateman is! Outstanding!