National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.
Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.
Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.
Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.
“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa’s Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
“It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.
“Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”
Geoff Sharp says:
June 19, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:18 am
This morning, we had a heliocentric conjunction of Earth and Ceres, accompanied by new new region 1083 (positioned directly towards the alignment), and a CME within hours of said alignment.
“I am trying to keep my head down, but this statement is truly embarrassing. There are certainly many facets to planetary theory.”
Well I do hope you will be ok when I prove my claims, and disprove yours about Neptune/Uranus conjunctions always causing grand minma.
Vuk
Good to see your posts. I have done some more work on that subject of mutual interest-the Little Ice Age- and will be emailing you about it in the next few days for your comments.
Good to see you posting again Peter, you have been quiet these last few months. I was intending to send the same information to you as well as Vuk.
I am inclined to believe that we know far less about the climate than we think we do and it is useful to get some viewpoints that are not from the mainstream.
Tonyb
Leif Svalgaard
(re: another failed attack)
The fact is that the anomaly formula, as you may or may have not noticed, is of the same form as PF formula, with only one extra constant. The simplicity and mathematical elegance is the beauty of it.
I shall repeat, (perhaps you may care to read it) since it appears that logic has failed you:
Consider choices :
a- Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
b- Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle
Case a) Polar field is the seed of the next cycle:
If polar field has direct relationship with the next cycle, then the formula as described here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has to be subject to the same anomalies as the solar cycles (else cannot be PF/SSN amplitude correlation, and specifically no Rmax = 0.6286 DM).
The anomaly version of the formula has been proved as correct on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum, i.e. whole of the SS’s known records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
In that case anomaly would calculate PF to around 200. That is matter of simple logic.
Case b) Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle:
Your theory is defunct, case closed !
Either way, PF high or low in 1965, the formula is on the track.
If PF was low, than the formula is far superior to your method (Rmax = 0.6286 DM, valid for next cycle only, and that about 4-5 year in advance) while the formula can look ahead number of cycles.
Further more, if PF was high, no PF/SSN relationship, your theory is defunct, but formula is fine and the SSN version (same as the PF’s delayed by 3.5 years, together with the anomaly ) is again a good predictable tool for a number of cycles ahead.
Summary:
Case a) both methods good, but mine is superior.
Case b) your method defunct, mine equally successful as in the Case a).
I hope that is clear, so it is time you given your fruitless 2-3 year old ‘discrediting crusade’ that is getting nowhere.
Just be a wise man and accept the fact.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:04 am
your own predictions may still prove to be too high.
A lot depends on ‘counting methods’. You may want to correct your statements on http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50 that “The method of counting sunspots has changed from how it was done in the past. During the last Grand Minimum Rudolf Wolf devised a counting method based on solid principles that now is under threat with our current method of counting specks.”
This is incorrect on several counts. You can show some integrity by correcting your statement to conform to the following facts:
1) The last Grand Minimum which I take to be 1800-1820. Wolf was born in 1816.
2) Sold Principles: Wolf used the geomagnetic record to calibrate the sunspot count, so this is correct, but a but his method of only counting ‘good spots’ is not on solid ground as the visibility depends too much on the seeing and personal bias. He even advocated counting the biggest spots twice. The notion of counting every spot regardless of its size [i.e. including specks] was devised in 1882 by Wolf’s assistant Wolfer, and is free from bias, but necessitates the infamous constant k = 0.6, which Wolfer applied to in the wrong place of the formula R = k (10*g + s). It should have been R = 10*g + k*s. One could expand that to R = q(10*g + k*s) to compensate for telescope, person, etc., but the main problem is that k is in the wrong place.
3) Thus the method is not under threat.
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The fact is that the anomaly formula, as you may or may have not noticed, is of the same form as PF formula, with only one extra constant.
Repeating your nonsense, does not make it any better. So, tell us what the final formula would be, and plot the result.
tonyb says:
………..
Likewise, some interesting facts.
Email with pdf file on the way.
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:36 pm
In that case anomaly would calculate PF to around 200. That is matter of simple logic.
Explain the simple logic, and do the calculation right here and now.
If polar field has direct relationship with the next cycle, then the formula as described here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
But in that case the result of the formula would not be the polar fields.
Leif Svalgaard says:
So, tell us what the final formula would be, and plot the result.
All I need to say is in the previous post,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/17/nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation/#comment-413489
if you care to reed it. Any further information and plots you require is available on my website, which you do occasionally visit.
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“So, tell us what the final formula would be, and plot the result.”
All I need to say is in the previous post
This is what we call a ‘cop out’. Surely you can take a few minutes to explain the simple logic and show us exactly how you ‘calculate’ the PF=200 for 1963.
@Peter Taylor says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:44 am
The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3,000,000,000 amperes.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_sheet
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The anomaly version of the formula has been proved as correct on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum, i.e. whole of the SS’s known records.
A typical sign of the pseudo-scientist is the repeated claim of ‘correct matches’ even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. Here are your polar fields [pink, scaled to match sunspot number in recent cycles – the 0.63], the signed sunspot number [green, alternating in sign and shifted 4 years], and your anomaly formula [blue, with anomalies marked with a red circle]. So let’s examine your claim:
You say that at A the red circle explain the mismatch. This will not do at B, so in this case your claim [‘every single’] is already false. In addition the sign is now wrong. For case C the cycle is very small, yest nowhere near any red circle, so again your claim is false. At D we had one of the largest cycles ever, yet you predict a teeny, tiny cycle and that as far way from a red circle as one can get. For several cycles around E, your are half a cycle off in phase. So, it is not true that the anomaly formula “is correct on every single occasion“, rather it fails more often than it is right. Perhaps you need another anomaly formula to take care of the anomalies not covered by the first, and perhaps another one after that, etc. Worth investigating, don’t you think?
Ulric Lyons says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm
The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3,000,000,000 amperes.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_sheet
As one of the discoverers of the HCS may I point out that the current density is extremely minute: 10^-10 A/m2
The link you refer to is fundamentally wrong:
“It has been noted that: ‘It is remarkable that the radial component of the spiral structure implies a current the continually flows towards the Sun.’
This is incorrect and thus not remarkable:
The current reverses direction every 11 years and is simply generated by the magnetic field. The current is not a Birkeland current. Here is a ‘vertical’ cut through the HCS at different phases of the solar cycle http://www.leif.org/research/HCS3.png
@Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“current density is extremely minute: 10^-10 A/m2”
as we can read for ourselves in the link, but that is only 1 m2.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Here are your polar fields …
Didn’t get the link correct:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-2.png
Ulric Lyons says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm
as we can read for ourselves in the link, but that is only 1 m2.
It is the current density that is important in interactions.
You can read more about the [correct] calculation of the current here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA083iA02p00717.pdf
Smith points out that:
‘Near the sun the current is principally azimuthal much like a ring current. However, as the interplanetary field wraps up to form the Archimedes spiral, the direction of flow in the current sheet must become progressively radial and, during during this phase of the solar cycle is away from the Sun. […] Evidently, the flow is away from the Sun during one-half solar cycle of 11 years and then inward for the next half cycle”.
In the next cycle away and inward are reversed, so the total time in any given direction is one full cycle or 11 years.
@Peter Taylor says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:44 am
I find a very good correlation between the solar wind speed, and short term temeperature change; http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
Anyone else notice that people get aggitated when the Earth does a SBC on the HCS ?
Ulric Lyons says:
June 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Anyone else notice that people get aggitated when the Earth does a SBC on the HCS ?
I was in the USSR in the 1970s and the director of an insane asylum told me that his inmates went berserk at such SBCs. In fact, he was trying to push the idea that he could predict solar conditions by watching his inmates. I don’t think he had much luck with that idea, but it certainly alternative ‘science’…
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:16 am
One may conclude that claiming PF was low in 1965 when there is no data to show it is the ‘rotten egg’ .[…]
There is no accurate and accepted value for polar fields in 1965
Polar magnetic fields of the Sun: 1960–1971
Solar Physics, Volume 25, Number 1 / July, 1972
DOI 10.1007/BF00155740, Pages 5-13
Robert Howard
Hale Observatories, Carnegie Institution of Washington, California Institute of Technology, 91101 Pasadena, Calif., U.S.A.
Received: 16 February 1972
Abstract Observations of the magnetic fields in the polar regions of the Sun are presented for the period 1960–1971. At the start of this interval the fields at the two poles were consistently of opposite sign and averaged around 1 G. Early in 1961 the field in the south decreased suddenly [compare with http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961-21-July-Magnetogram.png ]and the field in the north decreased in strength slowly over the next few years. By the mid-1960’s the fields at both poles were quite weak and irregular. […]
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm
This is incorrect on several counts. You can show some integrity by correcting your statement to conform to the following facts:
1) The last Grand Minimum which I take to be 1800-1820. Wolf was born in 1816.
Wolf reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749 using the geomagnetic record as his baseline as shown in your own papers, so his birth date has little to do with the arguement. My take on the history is during his lifetime while counting spots he used the K factor to align other observatories with his count which still had the geomagnetic check in place. During this time he did not count specks.
His successor Wolfer went his own way and began counting specks and small spots but stabilized the K factor at .6 in an attempt to align himself with Wolf’s count. This is where the modern system drifted higher and we probably agree on this point. But what Wolfer was unaware of was during grand minima where the speck count could be much higher the .6 K factor would not be sufficient to stop the values being overstated. The ratio of specks is where the problem lies.
The SIDC values are suffering this problem, and is only surfacing now because of the speck ratio. The Layman’s Count although not perfect attempts to redress this issue by eliminating the speck values from the SIDC count which should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.
Wolf’s method has been under threat since Wolfer, but during grand minima this is even more evident.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:26 am
Geoff Sharp says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:04 am
So 3 guys beat the average? As you know there are many others with high values for Sc24.
—————————–
There was only one high dynamo-prediction for SC24.
In the strictest sense of Pesnells categorization you are correct. I will let others view the results so they can make up their own mind.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_predictions.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Wolf reconstructed the sunspot record back to 1749 using the geomagnetic record as his baseline as shown in your own papers, so his birth date has little to do with the argument.
This is not an argument. Your page says “During the last Grand Minimum Rudolf Wolf devised a counting method…”
This is factually incorrect, as he was hardly born then.
This is where the modern system drifted higher and we probably agree on this point. But what Wolfer was unaware of was during grand minima where the speck count could be much higher the .6 K factor would not be sufficient to stop the values being overstated. The ratio of specks is where the problem lies.
If by ‘modern’ you mean after 1882 we agree, otherwise not. This is not a new problem. And both Wolf and Wolfer were well aware of this. All of their papers and observations are [of course] on my Website. You might be able to follow the discussion in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-LXXXVI.pdf The operative phrase is this one: “dass diese Faktoren [the K-values] mit der Grösse der Relativzahlen also der Häufigkeit der Sonnenflecken veränderlich seien” [they came to the conclusion ‘that those factors would be changing with the value of the Relative numbers, i.e. with the frequency of the spots [read size of the cycle]’]
The SIDC values are suffering this problem, and is only surfacing now because of the speck ratio.
All values since 1882 are suffering from this problem.
During SC23 the sunspot number reported by ALL observers is too low because we are losing the smaller spots and specks due to L&P.
The Layman’s Count although not perfect attempts to redress this issue by eliminating the speck values from the SIDC count which should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.
You are redressing the wrong problem. If we assume that L&P was also operating during Dalton [as it very likely was during Maunder], then the SSN for the Dalton cycles should be increased [as they should for SC23] to better reflect true solar activity [as measured by the Sun’s magnetic field, TSI, MgII, F10.7, cosmic rays, etc]
Wolf’s method has been under threat since Wolfer
Wolfer’s method is the better method. It is the only reasonable one that is free from human bias.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm
“There was only one high dynamo-prediction for SC24.”
In the strictest sense of Pesnells categorization you are correct.
Of course I’m correct. I was there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Surely you can take a few minutes to explain the simple logic and show us exactly how you ‘calculate’ the PF=200 for 1963.
That is explained clearly in the article I wrote in 2003 (published in Jan 2004)
“The graph depicts anomalies within solar periodic activity with an immediately
recognisable minimum between 1650-1700, coinciding with the Maunder Minimum.
Further relevant dates are at or near the equation’s zero value:
1809 – Dalton minimum;
1913 – another minimum but not so pronounced;
1860 and 1969 are the years of two cycles with suppressed amplitudes, 30% – 50% lower
than in the neighbouring peaks.”
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf (page2).
(same formula for PF and SC with amplitude and phase are in appropriate relationship)
You fail to understand basic fact that polarity change is an electro-magnetic property, while formula features drive to the oscillating system based on the planetary orbital properties. Orbits do not have polarity assignation or meaning !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFabs.gif
Its time you stop wasting your and mine time.
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:40 pm
1860 and 1969 are the years of two cycles with suppressed amplitudes, 30% – 50% lower than in the neighbouring peaks.
This is backwards arithmetic. You peek at the observations and see how much you are wrong, then claim that you calculate what to observe.
Orbits do not have polarity assignation or meaning !
But polar fields and solar cycles do. So, we can agree that orbits are irrelevant for this.
Its time you stop wasting your and mine time.
Easy: stop hawking your nonsense and learn from my posts. An educators time is never wasted.
You have not explained the failings that I pointed out:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-2.png
Here are your polar fields [pink, scaled to match sunspot number in recent cycles – the 0.63], the signed sunspot number [green, alternating in sign and shifted 4 years], and your anomaly formula [blue, with anomalies marked with a red circle]. So let’s examine your claim:
You say that at A the red circle explain the mismatch. This will not do at B, so in this case your claim [‘every single’] is already false. In addition the sign is now wrong. For case C the cycle is very small, yet nowhere near any red circle, so again your claim is false. At D we had one of the largest cycles ever, yet you predict a teeny, tiny cycle and that as far way from a red circle as one can get. For several cycles around E, your are half a cycle off in phase. So, it is not true that the anomaly formula “is correct on every single occasion“, rather it fails more often than it is right. Perhaps you need another anomaly formula to take care of the anomalies not covered by the first, and perhaps another one after that, etc. Worth investigating, don’t you think?
vukcevic says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Orbits do not have polarity assignation or meaning !
So, now you don’t pretend to calculate the polar fields any longer, just the magnitude. We have down that road before. It does not change any of the failings:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-3.png
Here are your polar fields [pink, scaled to match sunspot number in recent cycles – the 0.63], the sunspot number [green, shifted 4 years], and your anomaly formula [blue, with anomalies marked with a red circle]. So let’s examine your claim:
You say that at A the red circle explain the mismatch. This will not do at B, so in this case your claim [‘every single’] is already false. For case C the cycle is very small, yet nowhere near any red circle, so again your claim is false. At D we had one of the largest cycles ever, yet you predict a teeny, tiny cycle and that as far way from a red circle as one can get. For several cycles around E, your are half a cycle off in phase. So, it is not true that the anomaly formula “is correct on every single occasion“, rather it fails more often than it is right. Perhaps you need another anomaly formula to take care of the anomalies not covered by the first, and perhaps another one after that, etc. Worth investigating, don’t you think?