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 May 9, 2010 at 9:01 am
…………
The PF formula in essence, is the same as the sunspot formula with 3-4 year advance, to account for delay of magnetic polarity change between SS and PF .
I can understand your vehement opposition to it being publicised or god forbid accepted, since Vukcevic formula overtakes the Svalgaard / Cliver “Rmax” prediction method, by a mile.
It is only mathematical tool available for the long range SS cycle prediction.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
the Hale Cycle polarity reversals are shown clearly here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:12 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm follow NATA link.
Currently science cannot account for some of the events.
Current science doesn’t investigate your spurious ‘events’. Your various attempts of physical explanation [iron masses, induced currents in the oceans] are off by many orders of magnitude as I have shown you repeatedly [but you have a learning disability, it seems]. The non-dipolar excess magnetic fields are generated by non-uniform circulation within the Earth’s core. Nobody looks at your stuff and ‘gives up’, rather they reject it out of hand.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:01 am
“Some people claim that really cold winters are related to the SSN…”
To the position within the solar cycle yes, it is easy to see more cold N. H. winters around solar maximum = less coronal holes, but not every year within each maximum, and not relative to SSN, as you could have one January at -3C, 2yrs away from another January at +6C within the same maximum (ref.CET 1684, and there were not many spots then). Maximums can be very “spikey” Leif.
“But there is enormous practical implications of correct predictions of solar activity. Satellite operators gamble billions on that, and care VERY much.”
Yes I made it clear above this is an issue (May 9, 2010 at 6:03 am) and have some interesting findings on the subject. 250+ billion a year I should imagine.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:48 am
The PF formula in essence, is the same as the sunspot formula with 3-4 year advance, to account for delay of magnetic polarity change between SS and PF .
Not true, as the sunspot formula has a 2pi/3 phase in the first cosine term, while the polar field formula has a pi/3 phase. So you get the sign of the PF wrong in the 19th century. That is what my graph shows. The usual way pseudo-scientists deal with this is to add an anomaly correction that [for this case] changes the sign every century. So we may look forwards to such a correction. Or is it just that you made a clerical error and the pi/3 should really be 2pi/3?
I can understand your vehement opposition to it being publicised or god forbid accepted
You can understand nothing of the sort. Good scientists don’t oppose anything vehemently [except falsehoods] but look at the data and follow where they lead guided by physical understanding.
since Vukcevic formula overtakes the Svalgaard / Cliver “Rmax” prediction method, by a mile.
Your sunspot formula is useless as prediction tool. You have cycle 20 to be larger than cycle 19, while in fact 19 is almost twice as high as cycle 20. cycle 14 is wrong in phase and amplitude [three times over]. Etc., etc., etc. so you are indeed a mile off.
the Hale Cycle polarity reversals are shown clearly here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
But are fake, because you plot the sunspot number assuming the law. And the polar fields are still of the wrong sign in the 19th century. It is part of the solar cycle that the polar fields result from ‘follower’ polarity moving to the poles; this is directly observed e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk7.png .
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 10:12 am
Yes I made it clear above this is an issue
Yeah, you claimed: “But hey, its just an academic issue”
Leif Svalgaard says: May 9, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Current science doesn’t investigate your spurious ‘events’. ”
You never read things properly; here it is again: ‘The Hudson Bay area is multifaceted puzzle…… Even NASA scientists have looked into it and given up.’
Well you are wrong again. Google ‘ Nastapoka Arc NASA ‘ you may come across a reference.
Nothing to do with my article, which you could attempt to read,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm follow NATA link.
rather than make inaccurate summary statements. Nasa’s investigations were related to coincidence of a large meteorite impact and positive magnetic anomaly. Similar situation is the coincidence of very strong negative magnetic anomaly and possible huge meteorite impact in an area of Central African Republic (during Gondwana, before the Atlantic ocean was created), and then the adjoining Brazil Bahia area (google ‘Dr. Stephen Haggerty carbonado’).
whatsupwiththatthen?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
http://space-env.esa.int/Data_Plots/noaa/ssn_plot.html
SSN77 May 5th, SSN71 8th Feb, the next graph tho` has only just topped SS50
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
Ulric Lyons says: “Notice the mean periodicity of about 45 years in the Hudson staircase. I mentioned this figure to Paul Vaughn”
Some misunderstanding here.
Leif, as always, thanks for the valuable notes.
Leif Svalgaard : May 9, 2010 at 11:12 am
……..
That is a ‘much ado about nothing’ ; in some older files there is typo error of pi/3 instead of 2pi/3. The rest is as I said, vehement attack to discredit Vukcevic formula which happens to produce superior results to the Svalgaard / Cliver “Rmax”.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
AGW’s ‘kill opposition at birth’?
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
Nasa’s investigations were related to coincidence of a large meteorite impact and positive magnetic anomaly.
These anomalies have nothing to do with the large-scale magnetic structure computed from the multipole expansion of the main field related to circulation in the core. I do read your stuff, that is how I know you are wrong. How would I otherwise? Do you read mine? If so, explain, in your own words, how the 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [from with we infer the solar polar field polarity] works. I just gave you a link to the explanation.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:23 am
SSN77 May 5th, SSN71 8th Feb, the next graph tho` has only just topped SS50
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
First, SWPC/NOAA numbers are about twice as high as the official sunspot number. Second, my graph does not show sunspot number, but ‘active region count’, ARC, and shows monthly values. My website explains:
“The count is a count of days in each full month the region was visible [and no more than 70 degrees from central meridian] and then summed for every region. Yearly smoothed values are also shown as the smoother curves. Different cycles are coded with a different color. The detailed figures show the transitions between cycles.”
An approximate translation formula would be ARC = 2.25 SSN[official].
The ARC is similar to the Group Sunspot Number in concept, being insensitive to how different observers count the [often] many small spots in each region [group]. At solar max there can be up to a hundred small spots in a large group.
Leif Svalgaard says:
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
Nasa’s investigations were related to coincidence of a large meteorite impact and positive magnetic anomaly.
BTW, the term ‘anomaly’ is used to mean the small-scale structure that remains AFTER the main field that you showed in your maps have been subtracted.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:15 am
But hey, its just an academic issue, interesting but with no purpose really, apart from predicting damaging solar flares. If enough power grids go down in the USA, millions could die, unless these events can be predicted well, then the power transformers can be unhooked in advance. I`m sure not too many people can suffer badly (health-wise) if there is widescale satellite damage. What is far more serious though, is a sharp shift in climate. All major civilisations in the past, have prospered in warm/wet periods, and collapsed in cold/dry times. Thats life Leif, and the Sun does it.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:39 am
That is a ‘much ado about nothing’ ; in some older files there is typo error of pi/3 instead of 2pi/3.
Your polar field formula had pi/3. This is what I used.
Perhaps you have just corrected the pi/3 to 2pi/3? If you do so, you must also recompute the curve, which you have not done. Such revisionist dishonesty is in the category of Climategate. Perhaps we have a VukGate here…
Which one is it [blue or green]?
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-8.png
I added a trivial missing parenthesis.
Also, revisit your sunspot formula. Correct the errors, recalculate the curve.
Leif Svalgaard May 9, 2010 at 11:47 am
……..
Your comment about magnetic anomaly, again is a bit of the target, but lets don’t waste time on that.
If we assume that the circulation causes GMF, then we have electric currents, which then are the real source of GMF. If for the Earth why not for the sun too?
Your question is a bit ambiguous, but since Vukcevic formula correlates better to the PF than the SS cycle, then I would assume in this ‘chicken and egg’, the PF is the egg from which SS are hatched, laying another egg, but that would be the flawed Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo.
– Babcock-Leighton dynamo replaced in 1960s by mean-field dynamo theory
– mean-field dynamo theory has fundamental problems
– revival of Babcock-Leighton-type models in early 1990s
– Babcock-Leighton model produces excessively strong polar surface magnetic fields
– physical mechanism responsible for the regeneration of the poloidal component of the solar magnetic field has not yet been identified with confidence (Charbonneau 2005)
– strong cycles last shorter than weak cycles, but diffusion time should be proportional to cycle strength.
Hey, that sounds like a real muddle. I take a simple view of it, it based on what we know. The 90 degree phase between PF and SS cycle is just a bidirectional flux-emf relationship, the whole thing is modulated by the two big magnetic bullies of the solar system.
See end graph on : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
I need a glass of vine.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:47 am
The Boulder number (reported daily on SpaceWeather.com) is usually about 25% higher than the second official index, the “International Sunspot Number,” published daily by the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium. Both the Boulder and the International numbers are calculated from the same basic formula, but they incorporate data from different observatories. http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html
Howzat?
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm
But hey, its just an academic issue, interesting but with no purpose really, apart from predicting damaging solar flares.
This has immense practical importance. Prediction of the sunspot number [even a yearly average] is very useful, because the SSN level determines the heating of the thermosphere, and thereby atmospheric density there and atmospheric drag on satellites determining their lifetimes. NASA used our prediction [not the wrong official one] during the previous cycle to decide not to de-orbit the Hubble telescope, with the result that we got a lot more science out of it.
But you are evading the issue which is the impending falsification of your prediction and the ensuing abandonment of your ideas.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Your comment about magnetic anomaly, again is a bit of the target, but lets don’t waste time on that.
Correction of your wrong ideas is not a waste of time.
If we assume that the circulation causes GMF, then we have electric currents, which then are the real source of GMF. If for the Earth why not for the sun too?
As I said, you have a learning deficiency. How many times have I not said that movement of a conductor across an existing magnetic field induces electrical currents that can reverse/amplify the magnetic field. This is the case for both the Sun the Earth ans almost all cosmical magnetic fields.
Your question is a bit ambiguous ???
I said: If so, explain, in your own words, how the 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [from with we infer the solar polar field polarity] works. I just gave you a link to the explanation.
I’m waiting.
the flawed Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo.
The B-L dynamo is the basis for all dynamo theories. The details differ, because we learn over time.
Hey, that sounds like a real muddle. I take a simple view of it, it based on what we know.
‘We know’? As far as I can see, you don’t shoe evidence of knowing much.
The 90 degree phase between PF and SS cycle is just a bidirectional flux-emf relationship, the whole thing is modulated by the two big magnetic bullies of the solar system.
And this may be ‘simple’, but it is more like ‘simplistic’ or from a ‘simpleton’, especially since the correlation doesn’t work and is useless as predictor.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html
Howzat?
What’s your question?
The link explains how it is done.
comments for Dr.L.S.
After glass of two of Californian Merlot, not easy to tell which one is which. I’ll go for a better fit for the available data, the rest is adaptable as required. No need for recalculation, it is the labelling which needs to be adapted. Perhaps a grant for resolving pi/3 & 2pi/3 quandary?
Green looks pretty good to me, far better then anything Svalgaard, Hathaway & co. can come up with.
Anyway why are you bothered so much ?
I see you looked at :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET3.htm among your choice selection.
Generally good agreement there, either summer or winter (frequently both), except for one or two volcanoes and 1950’s (probably atmospheric nuclear probes). Perhaps the integrated SSN would do a better fit.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2010 at 3:01 pm
No need for recalculation, it is the labelling which needs to be adapted. Perhaps a grant for resolving pi/3 & 2pi/3 quandary?
Just being a bit less sloppy will do. So what is the correct labelling on both plots?
Anyway why are you bothered so much ?
I was also correcting my children when they misbehaved [to same meager effect as here]. Not bothered. Just want you to get it straight. You have still not deigned to respond to my query: “If so, explain, in your own words, how the 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity [from with we infer the solar polar field polarity] works. I just gave you a link to the explanation.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“ensuing abandonment of your ideas”
Visa versa.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2010 at 1:58 pm
0.75 x 77 = 57.75 I thought your graph looked a bit dodgy.
I hope some of you here have read my posts on “very cold winters in the last 1500 yrs” and have begun to realise that these events are astronomically forced, and many can be mapped out with uncanny ease. The examples I have given (829, 1010, 1784, 1963) share virtually the same heliocentric Jovian configuration. There are other Jovian configurations with distibution of the bodies in also in well defined magnetic angles, that also produce very cold winters, such as 1740. The interaction of the Inferior Planets (inner), against the Superior Planets, results in wide swings of solar activity, so visible just months after most cold winters, incuding the last two. The timing of these solar changes relative to the seasons, is pivotal as to whether or not the N.H. gets a cold winter. Which is why configurational repeats need to be in a whole number of Earth years to produce the same result. The solar signal changes fast.
I am only showing the tip of the iceberg of what I have discovered about these relationships, but I am assured I have an overwelming volume of highly repeatable correlations, that map Holocene tempertaure history very well, year by year. In a way that has been done many times in the past, Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brae, Newton, Copernicus and several Greeks of some some antiquity, and probably the Babylonians, all understood the Sun is very sensitive to where the Planets are, and that has an immediate effect on our weather and hence climate, week by week. Once these insights are fully apreciated, it will be apparent that we will have a truly scientific forecast system, and a new way of looking at the Sun
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm
0.75 x 77 = 57.75 I thought your graph looked a bit dodgy.
I plot what they report…
The 25% in your link is obviously not correct…
Ulric Lyons says:
May 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm
0.75 x 77 = 57.75 I thought your graph looked a bit dodgy.
I plot what they report…
The 25% in your link is obviously not correct…
Here are the mean values for the last three years
SIDC SWPC
mean SSN mean SNN ratio
2008 2.852 4.648 1.62973352 63%
2009 3.219 5.129 1.593351973 59%
2010 13.426 23.233 1.730448384 73%
A better number would be around 65% higher for how much higher SWPC currently are than SIDC.