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?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2010 at 11:14 am
What ever you think about C24, the point I made about the phase change in the Hale cycle still stands.
“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,”
My investigation of the cause the solar cycle came up with a result. I checked to see if I had re-invented the wheel, and I had, I agree with Mr. J.P.Des. It says so much about the solar magnetic reversal at every maximum. And I would still stick roughly to my original forecast for C24;
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
Leif Svalgaard 11:11am May 8 “[…] But you can also compute them yourself from B, V, and n.”
Which B?
This is not clear:
” 9 F6.1 999.9 Field Magnitude Average |B| 1/N SUM |B|, nT
10 F6.1 999.9 Magnitude of Average Field Vector sqrt(Bx^2+By^2+Bz^2) ”
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/omni2.text
And on this page http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/ow_data.html different symbols are used (e.g. F for “Field Magnitude Avg” & there are angled-brackets on F & B).
Also, there is no plain “B” here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html .
I’m also not sure which use of | | in |B| is being used. I would guess its a norm, not an absolute value – (additionally I’m not sure if that’s the B to which you are refering). “SUM” is also ambiguous – sum over what?
I need clarification.
By n do you mean “Proton Density, n/cc” ( http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html ), which also seems to be represented as N …
“24 F6.1 999.9 Proton Density N/cm^3 ”
…and as Np …
“28 F6.3 9.999 Na/Np Alpha/Proton ratio
29 F6.2 99.99 Flow Pressure
P (nPa) = (1.67/10**6) * Np*V**2 * (1+ 4*Na/Np)
for hours with non-fill Na/Np ratios and
P (nPa) = (2.0/10**6) * Np*V**2
for hours with fill values for Na/Np”?
ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacecraft_data/omni/omni2.text
Hey Doc
Thanks for the detailed analysis. It must have taken some time. Averaging data, is OK for graphs, but it is reducing amount of information contained in the data (as you are well aware), so no surprise diff R^2 is reduced. You should have used the WSO raw data, as I did, than slide your selected time interval (1/3 of SS cycle) along time axes, taking as many samples as possible, in my case over 1000, which produced R^2 ~ = 0.9. That is proper way of analysing noisy signal.
If the two critical period numbers are anything else but very accurate astronomical constants, I would indeed agree with your assertions. The phase constants agree, are chosen for best fit, but that is not here or there, since we do not understand, or even know what is the transfer mechanism between PF and SSmax (B-L is only a hypothesis, Max-Plank’s Solanki has other ideas).
Thanks for the effort, but again NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I am looking forward to yet another more critical go, more severe the better. If true, it should withstand anything you throw at it, if ‘numerology’ then it deserves to be knocked out. No decisive blow as yet! It is going to take more than ‘US postage stamp correlation’ to bring the Vukcevic’s formula down. Get some of the young brains from Stanford to have a go; it should be a good challenge. I am not a believer, just enjoying the ride.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC25.htm
See you next time, dovidjenja, dosvidaniya, au revior, auf weidersehen, (Danish?) !
This catches my instinct: “IMF Magnitude Avg, nT” ( http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html ) — but I need clarification, particularly about the variation in terms & symbols.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:14 pm
the point I made about the phase change in the Hale cycle still stands.
Not at all. Most of the even-odd-ness and the phase shift comes simply from the cycles being part of a longer pseudo-‘cycle’. Here is a simple example: http://www.leif.org/research/Odd-Even-Artifact.png
For the first half of the long cycle ALL even cycles are larger, for the last half ALL odd cycles are larger. There is no real asymmetry ever discovered as far as Odd-Even is concerned [lots of silly claims though]. In addition, our knowledge of the sunspot number before ~1825 is not good enough to detect ay difference, if it existed.
And I would still stick roughly to my original forecast for C24
Sticking to it does not make it right. All signs are for a very small cycle; and not at all very strong in 2010 as you predicted. So, Nature likely has already proven you wrong on this one.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Which B? This is not clear
It depends on the time scale and what you want to do. The merging electric field is BV times q(a,f) where q(a,f) is a function of the angle, a, B is making with the Earth’s field and the fractional variance f = sigma(B)/B. The function q is on average [day or more] of order unity.
So you want to use the field magnitude, and |B| is abs B. Sum over all measurements within the averaging interval. The magnitude of the average vector tends to zero as the averaging interval gets larger, because the field varies randomly over long-enough time intervals.
By n do you mean “Proton Density, n/cc”
Almost. ‘n’ is the effective average of Np and Na in
29 F6.2 99.99 Flow Pressure P (nPa) = (1.67/10**6) * Np*V**2 * (1+ 4*Na/Np)
It would help to know what you want to do to give a meaningful answer.
vukcevic says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Averaging data, is OK for graphs, but it is reducing amount of information
No, reduces the noise in your case [because of the autocorrelation].
many samples as possible, in my case over 1000, which produced R^2 ~ = 0.9. That is proper way of analysing noisy signal.
It seems you don’t have much experience in ‘proper’ analysis.
Calculation of R^2 assumes that the data points are independent from one to the next. This is not the case as the autocorrelation function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoregressive_model see http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-7.png shows that a solar cycle in PF and your formula as well only contains about three or less independent points, not hundreds.
If the two critical period numbers are anything else but very accurate astronomical constants
It doesn’t matter how accurate the constants are if the formula does not fit the data [as I showed]
(B-L is only a hypothesis, Max-Plank’s Solanki has other ideas).
The transfer function is the solar dynamo, and Solanki does have other ideas about that.
Thanks for the effort, but again NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I am looking forward to yet another more critical go, more severe the better.
Nothing will be good enough in face on unshakable ignorance. My analysis would satisfy any scientist worth his salt. There is no failure of the polar fields to reverse [at least back to the 184os where we have data]. Your formula predicts such a failure, and is thus directly and simply falsified. Apart from its shaky statistical foundation.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:38 pm
but I need clarification, particularly about the variation in terms & symbols.
There is no agreed upon unity in terms and symbols. Most people would interpret the various things from the context. Again, if I knew what you want to do, it would help the clarification [give me a context].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2010 at 4:10 pm
“There is no real asymmetry ever discovered as far as Odd-Even is concerned”
There has been now. But that is minor compared to showing exactly why the Nile froze in 829 and 1010AD. You would be surprised how many very cold winters in the last 1500yrs are close to 179yrs apart. (1963/1784) These things just don`t get noticed by many.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“Nile froze in 829 and 1010AD. You would be surprised how many very cold winters in the last 1500yrs are close to 179yrs apart. (1963/1784)”
Spot the difference, Dec 828, Jan 1010, Feb 1784, Dec 1962;
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:14 pm
And I would still stick roughly to my original forecast for C24
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
Leif
“Sticking to it does not make it right. All signs are for a very small cycle; and not at all very strong in 2010 as you predicted. So, Nature likely has already proven you wrong on this one”
I would say I am doing fine. I specified the cycle would start diminished, and would become augmented from 2010 to 2013. We are some 3 years from maximum, and twice this year have had SSN 70+. It is still early 2010. So far, I rest my case.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Severe cold spell set in from roughly mid-December 1767 and lasted until beginning of the second week of January, 1768. Gilbert White (Selborne) writes: .. “the most severe known for many years – much damage to ever-greens”. [This latter comment perhaps implies that as well as very low temperatures, there was a considerable ‘wind-burn’ effect.]
During last few days of December 1767, ‘considerable’ falls of snow at Selborne (NE Hampshire). Bitterly cold spell second half of December 1767. Further snowfall in the opening days of January 1768. Some very low temperatures – daytime maxima no higher than 18 or 19 degF (circa -7degC) in some places.
Severe frost and deep snow (London/South).
+179 years = 1947.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Note the period between 1010AD and 1963 is 953yrs.
This is three times the best return of Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter (3*317.666yrs).
Stelliums of these three return in periods of around 40yr, 139yr, 179yr and 317.66yrs.
This is one of the periods Dr King-Hele was studying, that can be found in storm/climate patterns in The Hudson Bay staircase;
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I would say I am doing fine. I specified the cycle would start diminished, and would become augmented from 2010 to 2013.
note how close your language is to a ‘real’ fortune teller: all cycles start diminished [from nothing] and ‘augment’ as maximum is approached. You may not see the vacuousness of what you are saying.
But, if the cycle turns out to be very small [as I think it will], then you will completely abandon your ideas, having been shown false by Mother Nature herself. right?
Leif, you’ve asked for context on what I’m trying to do. I can clarify that my interest in these quantities stems from your comment that I should be looking at the merging electric field and the dynamic pressure on the magnetosphere. My aim was to casually investigate specific claims I’ve heard during the past week about solar wind speed affecting weather during certain seasons at daily-to-weekly timescales, so I was first simply looking for daily solar wind speed data (accomplished). Perhaps I should ask why you suggested that it is not solar wind speed but rather these other parameters that are “important” – important for what? for weather/climate?
The 40yr, 139yr and 179yr Jovian returns are evident in weather event series, as they harmonise well with the Earth/Venus synodic. The 317.66yr period will only do so after three steps, so will only show in monthly/seasonal anomalies that would say produce a very cold N.H. winter, every 953yrs. Hence the period between 1010AD and 1963. There are no severe winters recorded for the UK for 1963-317.66yr(-317.66yr);
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
So long barycenter boys.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm
“a ‘real’ fortune teller”
Why thank you very much!
“having been shown false by Mother Nature herself. right?”
Quite the opposite actually. As for abandoning my ideas, you told me that before on the “Open Mind” blog where in Dec 2007, I predicted the El Nino starting in July 2009. I am very happy with my progress Leif, especially my hindcasting through history. It is trully fascinating.
“all cycles start diminished”
Diminished? yes, lack of spots, low solar wind velocity (lower than average yes?), cool summers and winters, and now it`s sprung to life. Augmented stage…. lets see how it does this year.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 8, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Perhaps I should ask why you suggested that it is not solar wind speed but rather these other parameters that are “important” – important for what? for weather/climate?
The solar wind can have short-term impact only via forces. The forces that act on the magnetosphere are given by the electric field seen by the magnetosphere [ E = -V x B ] and by the gas pressure confining the Earth’s magnetic field. So those are the physical reasons things [currents, heating, particle precipitation, …]. It therefore makes sense to consider those a drivers and to investigate possible effects. There are some important effects on the upper atmosphere where the density is billions to quadrillions smaller than in the troposphere [and therefore the amounts of air, heat, etc are equally minute]. It seems hardly credible that such a tiny tail can wag such a mighty dog, but the believers and ‘seekers’ are legion.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 9:27 pm
As for abandoning my ideas
I was specific about the magnitude of the cycle. But you evaded that. so I ask again: if cycle 24 turns out to be much smaller than cycle 23, then you abandon your ideas about what drives the cycle leading to a failed prediction.
“all cycles start diminished” Diminished? yes
Is vacuous, because they all start from nothing, and they augment from there. This is tautological. There is no information content in this. BTW, you are not a ‘real’ fortune teller. The difference is that they know they are faking it, while you, presumably, don’t. Or do you?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 8, 2010 at 9:40 pm
It looks to me from the graph above, that we have had the biggest upturn in solar activity in 4 yrs. I suppose long range weather forecasting is fortune telling, fortunate for those that have the forecast, and maybe I`ll make a fortune too! I am sticking completely firm with J.P.Desmoulin on the main bodies that cause the solar cycle, though our ideas about mechanisms may differ. If C24 does not meet my expectations of reaching as high as C23, then I will have to investigate why, thats science.
Leif Svalgaard : May 8, 2010 at 4:10 pm
……
Your arguments have failed, since you have not shown or proven (or even attempted to do so), that the records of the PF available to date, do not follow or correlate the mathematical form I presented.
I have proved that they do, conclusively !
It is up to those with abounding of knowledge and experience to ponder why.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC25.htm
Ulric Lyons says:
May 8, 2010 at 10:30 pm
If C24 does not meet my expectations of reaching as high as C23, then I will have to investigate why, thats science.
Then your theory is falsified. Here is how SC24 has been doing:
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
Leif Svalgaard : May 8, 2010 at 11:11 am
…….
Your interpretation of my Sunspot formula
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-6.png
is wrong and gives a false result and impression.
Correct chart can be seen here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
as you can see it does follow the Hale cycle as expected.
We do not have any data for the PF prior to mid 1960’s, any speculation from that angle to invalidate the vukcevic’s formula is irrelevant !
For follow up see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Ulric Lyons says: May 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm
“…..This is one of the periods Dr King-Hele was studying, that can be found in storm/climate patterns in The Hudson Bay staircase;”
Hi Ulric
Some time ago I wrote an article describing possible relationship between North Atlantic temperature anomaly and the geological/geomagnetic events of the Hudson Bay area.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
I shall read with interest the Fairbridge’s article.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 2:34 am
You don`t know how fast it will climb. You will know by 2013 if my forecast is way out or not. But hey, its just an academic issue, interesting but with no purpose really, apart from predicting damaging solar flares. Most people want to know the weather, and you cannot tell that by SSN, especially at solar minimum! If coronal holes dissapeared, then I would be worried.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 4:49 am
Hi Vuk,
Notice the mean periodicity of about 45 years in the Hudson staircase. I mentioned this figure to Paul Vaughn, but its a new one to him. I had the “components” of this cycle plotted some while back, its 179/4 years. Maybe we should exchange e-mails to discuss some matters away from the distraction of the Minotaur?
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 4:38 am
Your interpretation of my Sunspot formula
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-6.png
Is not your sunspot formula, but is [as the title says so clearly] the polar field formula.
We do not have any data for the PF prior to mid 1960’s, any speculation from that angle to invalidate the vukcevic’s formula is irrelevant !
The polar fields have been measured since 1952. Here are a few examples of early magnetograms: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-Early-Obs.pdf
and some of Baback’s papers:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1955.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf
The observations showed a very strong polar fields at the 1954 minimum. A reversal around 1958, and a weakening of the polar fields up to the 1965 minimum, where they were barely measurable [with the sensitivity of the day]. You formula shows a stronger 1964 field that in 1954, so is in conflict with observations.
The sign of the polar fields can be determined from geomagnetic data back to 1844, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/95GL03086.pdf and shows no phase reversal around 1895 as predicted by your polar field formula, so a second falsification.
There are thus good reasons not to bother with your formula.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 6:03 am
You don`t know how fast it will climb. You will know by 2013 if my forecast is way out or not.
I have a prediction of how fast it will climb and the Sun is right on track.
But hey, its just an academic issue, interesting but with no purpose really
There is one obvious purpose: falsification of your ideas and prediction. But since they are are not supported too well, I can see why you wish to downplay this.
Most people want to know the weather, and you cannot tell that by SSN, especially at solar minimum
Some people claim that really cold winters are related to the SSN…
But there is enormous practical implications of correct predictions of solar activity. Satellite operators gamble billions on that, and care VERY much.
Ulric Lyons : May 9, 2010 at 6:21 am
…………
The Hudson Bay area is multifaceted puzzle. In my article, I have in some detail covered certain geological and geomagnetic aspects, with the related maps.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm follow NATA link.
Currently science cannot account for some of the events. Even NASA scientists have looked into it and given up.
My email is at:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm top right-hand side.