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.”
Peter Taylor
For example, Hannes Alfven proposed a ‘back-current’ of electrons into the sun. In my understanding of electrons (and the solar wind is an electrical current) there always has to be a circuit for the current to flow – so what happens at the helio-pause? Do those electrons never return? And if they do, then may they not follow some complex magnetic field pathways back to the source?
Here is another view of what could be happening, but Dr. Svalgard will tell you it couldn’t.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
Now, you can try to regain some credibility…
What you calculated there is wrong!
This is what it looks like.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Thanks for the overview, Leif. This is very interesting indeed.
Now, you say that “the SSN is no longer a valid measure of solar activity” which one is tempted to accept considering L&P. I know you want to promote the F10.7 flux as a more relevant proxy for solar activity now that the SSN proxy is “going on vacation”.
But the question nagging me is: “Proxy for what?”. What is “solar activity” if you are not talking about its proxies? Is there a concise definition for “solar activity”? I am guessing “no”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Now, you can try to regain some credibility…
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-3.png
What you calculated there is wrong!
This is what it looks like.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Cool pic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 21, 2010 at 12:05 pm
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2010 at 11:14 am
It’s not independent of considerations of the comparability of the current method with the historical record though.
The current method has been used since 1882, so to a large extent ‘is’ the historical record.
As I asked on the other thread, will it be feasible to push your geomagnetic study back beyond the Dalton Minimum? 1882 doesn’t cover that, and if Dalton is the territory we are in now, the comparability with Wolf is needed, whichever way you try to slice and dice it.
So neither do sunspots make climate change or anything else. The people that claim so must ‘live with that’. If they accept this and do, then all is fine.
I’ll go with a consistent metric which measures apples against apples, not apples against pips.
vukcevic says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm
What you calculated there is wrong! This is what it looks like.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
These formulae are different from what you said earlier today:
vukcevic says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:33 am
Y = A abs [Cos 2pi(t-T0)/P1 + Cos (2pi/3 + 2pi(t-T0)/P2] …….SC
Y = abs [Cos 2pi(t-T0)/P1 + Cos 2pi( t-T0)/P2 ]…………………Anomaly
You have had a knack for changing the formulae at random [your usual excuse being sloppiness].
Here is a comparison between your various attempts:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-4.png
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:18 pm
But the question nagging me is: “Proxy for what?”. What is “solar activity” if you are not talking about its proxies? Is there a concise definition for “solar activity”? I am guessing “no”.
Proxy for the solar magnetic field. It is generally accepted that without that field, there wouldn’t be any of the various phenomena that we ascribe to the Sun. The magnetic field in turn manifests itself in the heating of the corona, solar wind, magnetic storms, UV variability, TSI variations, flares, microwave emission, etc. All of these are closely related and can be used as proxies for each other [some with less fidelity than others]. The ‘odd man out’ is the sunspot. Or rather the visibility of the spot. Take two spots [or specks if you like]: one at 1550 G and one at 1450 G. They represent almost the same amount of ‘activity’ and give rise to almost the same values of F10.7, UV, TSI, etc, yet the former has a sunspot number of 11 and the latter of zero [as we cannot see it].
vukcevic says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:29 pm
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm
As I asked on the other thread, will it be feasible to push your geomagnetic study back beyond the Dalton Minimum?
The geomagnetic data goes back to the 1740s [with some gaps]. From 1781 the coverage is almost complete. Wolf used that data in his calibration. You can see some of that old data on slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Two%20Centuries%20Space%20Weather.pdf
There is more and it can be analyzed better, but that is still to be finalized [I’m working on it].
1882 doesn’t cover that, and if Dalton is the territory we are in now, the comparability with Wolf is needed, whichever way you try to slice and dice it.
The way to gain comparability with Wolf, is to raise Wolf’s count to make them comparable with the modern [and better conceived and executed] data, in order to get a consistent metric so we can compare apples with apples. I have outlined the procedure and its justification in several places, e.g. here http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
For practical reasons it is not a good idea to lower modern values to Wolf’s level. We are better off increasing the old values to get to a consistent dataset. Now, there are several people out there that do not a consistent dataset, because the [wrong] existing data fits their own agenda better. You can tell me if you are one of those [I don’t need the usual “I’m just after the truth etc…” – the truth is as I present it, so there you have it].
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm
As I asked on the other thread, will it be feasible to push your geomagnetic study back beyond the Dalton Minimum?
Of special interest is the time going into the Dalton Minimum. We have an excellent series of data by Gilpin, see slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Two%20Centuries%20Space%20Weather.pdf
Of interest is that there is no sign on a ‘lost’ cycle between SC4 and SC5. Cosmic ray modulation at that time also show sign of SC4a:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
Cosmic ray modulation at that time also show sign of SC4a:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
Arghh: NO sign of SC4a.
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm
the comparability with Wolf is needed, whichever way you try to slice and dice it.
On http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50 you say:
“The NOAA method departing from the Wolfer method by not adjusting the raw count (NOAA do not multiply by 0.6).”
Since there is just a constant factor [0.6] no distortion arises from this. You could make your plot more informative [and scientific honest] by applying 0.6 to the NOAA data, so you will be comparing apples to apples, rather than to the oranges you trot out by not normalizing NOAA by 0.6.
“The SIDC using the Wolfer formula but still counting specks”
Wolfer counted specks [that is the defining difference with Wolf], so it is misleading to say ‘but still counting specks’. A correct statement [but rather empty] would be: “SIDC as Wolfer are both counting specks, as opposed to Wolf”.
You are also saying:
“It should be noted that NOAA runs an entirely different method of counting that in no way corresponds with the sunspot record.”
From what I know about what they do [and I know quite a lot about this] I would say that your statement in incorrect. The ‘no way’ is over the top. NOAA’s count is quite accurate. The few cases where you find zero counts that were not zero at the other institution is simply due to the time difference [8 hours] between the NOAA and SIDC. In that time the sunspot activity can [and does] change.
Hi Leif, thanks for these latest posts. It seems possible to me that the Earth climate and/or geomagnetic response to varying solar magnetism is non-linear anyway, so I’m happy for the chips to fall where they may. I just want a consistent dataset. You have worked on this more than just about anyone else and I have loads of respect for your scientific judgement about metrics, despite getting into slanging matches with you when you start with the insults.
It’s only very recently since the start of the satellite era and the ability to take measurements of the F10.7 solar magnetic flux directly. I assume you’ve been keeping a close eye on the relationship between this and Ap and aa? How well do they track each other at very low values such as we’ve seen over the last few years?
Now we have direct F10.7 measurements, counting “invisible spots” seems a bit daft to me. Why call a retriever a dalmation? Especially when you haven’t yet got around to “re-counting” historical sunspot numbers yet. It’s misleading. Better to simply count spots (or the lack of them) and note the changing relationship between them and magnetic fluxes at low values in my opinion.
Incidentally, what do you make of Wilie Soon’s graph showing good correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature in adjacent countries?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
Back on topic, there is for sure a relationship between long quiet minimums and larger solar storms occurring in the following cylce, but not only at maximum, it is possible that such an event could happen as early as this year. It is fair to say that the risk during C24 is higher than average. Those of us who study the effects of heliocentric planetary alignments with the Sun, will be indentifying multi-bodied planet alignments (particularly inner planets) as high risk times for storms (events sometimes occur 1 or 2 solar rotations after said alignments, essentially being primed by an initial alignment, and the storm occuring at a following configuration).
Has anyone else considered that the Tunguska event could be a strong magnetic re-connection event that caused a huge atmospheric blast?
RE: “Nasa warns solar flares from ‘huge space storm’ will cause devastation.”
I think this 'eye-catching' news headline may be promoting a false impression of the message that the NASA scientists were giving. One can also say that an eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption and a giant meteor impact 'will' [sometime in the future] cause cataclysmic devastation. As there is evidence that these events have happened in the past and are still possible the question is not 'if' but 'when.'
In the case of a super solar-flares, I do not believe that science can tell us the 'when' until just a few hours before the event is about to occur. It still remains to be seen if our power-utilities have made or are making adequate preparations to prevent a possible non-restorable system meltdown that might be caused by the excess electro-magnetic induction from such an event. I only note that there appears to be no official advice issued to the general public on how we should best react in the event of such a storm.
As I have stated before, the probability of *not* having a Carrington Event magnitude solar flare strike the Earth for any given year is on the order of 99.8 percent, based on reported geologic evidence there have been typically two such events per millennium. As these major events seem to occur at solar-max periods of the typical 11-year solar-cycle, then we would have a 97.8 probability of this *not* happening during any given solar-max. If a deep solar minimum, such as we have just had, makes such events three to five times more likely, (a speculation) then the probability of *nonoccurrence* may be reduced to something between 89 and 94 percent during the following solar-max. For many of you, this is about the same probability range that such an event will not happen during your whole remaining lifetime. Lesser events are more probable.
In one recent item from NASA, I do see there is a note that a solar-flare could cause your toilet to stop working as a result of a long-term power outage. That might mean more work for carpenters rebuilding the traditional out-door facilities.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:04 pm
“It should be noted that NOAA runs an entirely different method of counting that in no way corresponds with the sunspot record.”
————————————–
From what I know about what they do [and I know quite a lot about this] I would say that your statement in incorrect. The ‘no way’ is over the top. NOAA’s count is quite accurate. The few cases where you find zero counts that were not zero at the other institution is simply due to the time difference [8 hours] between the NOAA and SIDC. In that time the sunspot activity can [and does] change.
NOAA by not employing the Wolfer method cannot compare their count with the historical record. Their sunspot records are displayed on many sites including this one creating confusion and frustration. I think the public should be aware of the difference, I did not say they were inaccurate at measuring, only that their method is different.
The SIDC can be questioned with the accuracy of their count at times, certain stations do seem to have a reputation of finding spots where others cannot. May 21,22 & 26 is a good example, check the Continuum images for that date range and you will notice 2 images on the 26th (early and late) that are speck free. SIDC has a value of 12, NOAA zero, to arrive at a discounted value of 12 you would expect something to be showing, if it did it must have been very quick. On the 21st & 22nd for nearly the entire range there was a single 1 pixel speck, SIDC counted 7 for both days, NOAA zero. There were no official NOAA numbered regions on the specified dates. The timing argument I think is falling short.
This is one example of what I have been talking about, even with the .6 reduction the SIDC value is being overstated, there have been quite a few occasions where this has happened. These kind of errors are far less common if a threshold is set.
tallbloke says:
June 21, 2010 at 11:06 pm
It seems possible to me that the Earth climate and/or geomagnetic response to varying solar magnetism is non-linear anyway
They are both very linear [but perhaps you don’t really mean ‘non-linear’].
slanging matches with you when you start with the insults.
As always, I repay in the same coin.
How well do they track each other at very low values such as we’ve seen over the last few years?
They track equally well as always. No changes there.
Now we have direct F10.7 measurements, counting “invisible spots” seems a bit daft to me.
Nobody cares what the sunspot number is. What matters is what solar magnetism is doing [spots visible or not]. We can reconstruct F10.7 very accurately back to the 1840s and somewhat less accurately back to the 1740s.
It’s misleading.
Only if you ascribe a significance to sunspots that they don’t have. Then you just mislead yourself.
Better to simply count spots (or the lack of them) and note the changing relationship between them and magnetic fluxes at low values in my opinion.
Counting spots for the sake of spots is meaningless as you are convolving the count with the visibility.
Incidentally, what do you make of Wilie Soon’s graph
When the Sun shines it is warmer [IMHO], so I don’t make much more than that of it. Perhaps Soon has it a bit backwards: as Japan’s weather often comes from China perhaps lower temperatures in China just spells worse weather in Japan with less sunshine. I wouldn’t waste sleep over this issue [or get excited].
Leif Svalgaard says:
These formulae are different from what you said earlier today:
You do talk nonsense. The formulae have been there for 7.5 years.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
with a clear note about 90 degrees phase shift prior 1813.
You problem is that you are trying to fault it by fiddling around with numbers, phase switching and God knows what for nearly 3 years now. You do not need to recognize its physical validity, but should be a wise man and accept what is there is accurate.
If it cuts across your Rmax hypothesis that is hard luck.
You are doing far more damage to your reputation as a serious and honest scientist, by trying to distort the numbers etc.
You are welcome to discuss merits of the transfer mechanism (if there are any) etc, but I am not going to engage with your on account of low and devious attempts.
vukcevic says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
You do talk nonsense. The formulae have been there for 7.5 years.
If so, they have been wrong for 7.5 years.
on June 21, 2010 at 1:33 am you said:
Y = A abs [Cos 2pi(t-T0)/P1 + Cos (2pi/3 + 2pi(t-T0)/P2] …….SC
This is clearly not what your own graphs show:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-4.png
And even worse, the formula before 1800 is different from that after 1800.
100*ABS(COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(A555-1941)/(2*11.862))+COS(2*PI()*(A555-1941)/19.859))
100*ABS(SIN(2*PI()*(A555-1940.5)/19.859)+SIN(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A555-1940.5)/(2*11.862)))
100*ABS(COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A555-1941)/(2*11.862))+COS(2*PI()*(A555-1941)/19.859))
Leif Svalgaard says:
These formulae are different from what you said earlier today:
P.S. Your colleague Dr. Hathaway went through process of thorough checking long before you even heart of it.
Hathaway even reproduced graph, here is a copy:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaway's%20plot.gif
Hathaway’s comment:
Estimates of the possible gravitational forcing by Jupiter have shown that the effects
are many orders of magnitude smaller than the buoyancy forcing in the Sun’s convection zone. Electro-magnetic effects from Jupiter are virtually impossible due to the flow of the solar wind which carried that information outward, away from the Sun.
It is obvious that the plot at about 1810 gets totally out of phase with the sunspot.
As I said, it is time you accepted formula as it is and give up you pointless nonsense !
Link to Hathaway’s plot
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaway's-plot.gif
(I hope it works this time)
Link to Hathaway’s plot again
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
Leif Svalgaard says: June 22, 2010 at 9:36 am
“…………………..”
Give up you pointless nonsense !
Here is Dr. Hathaway’s plot of my formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
RE: Solar cycle
Friday, July 27, 2007 6:24 PM
From: “Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)” David.Hathaway@nasa.gov
Geoff Sharp says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:35 am
NOAA by not employing the Wolfer method cannot compare their count with the historical record. Their sunspot records are displayed on many sites including this one creating confusion and frustration. I think the public should be aware of the difference, I did not say they were inaccurate at measuring, only that their method is different.
No, their method is exactly the same [count everything you can see]. The only ‘difference’ is that they do not multiply by 0.6. Everybody knows that and there is no confusion. You sow confusion by claiming they use a different method. BTW, you should multiply NOLAA by 0.6 when you compare with the counts.
The SIDC can be questioned with the accuracy of their count at times. […] The timing argument I think is falling short.
You simply do not know enough about the procedure. NOAA has a set of criteria to be fulfilled before a spot or speck is elevated to a ‘region’, so spot count is not the same as region count. A speck may be counted even if no NOAA number is assigned to it.
This is one example of what I have been talking about, even with the .6 reduction the SIDC value is being overstated, there have been quite a few occasions where this has happened. These kind of errors are far less common if a threshold is set.
These are not ‘errors’, but ‘data’. SIDC values are not overstated. They are too low. In fact, part of the discrepancy between SIDC and F10.7 [but only a smallish part of it] is due to SIDC undercounting compared to everybody else starting in 2002.
Careful analysis of ‘competing’ sunspots counts [by amateurs – Laymen if you will] show this clearly:
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Undercounts.png
Blus is SIDC and read and pink are a composite of the following series:
http://www.vds-sonne.de/gem/res/results.html
SIDC: Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, Brussels
SONNE prov.: SONNE network, provisional sunspot numbers
SONNE def. : SONNE network, definitive sunspot numbers
AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers – Solar Division
AKS: Arbeitskreis Sonne des Kulturbundes e.V., Germany
BAA: The British Astronomical Association – Solar Section, UK
GFOES: G.F.O.E.S. Commission “Nombre de Wolf”, France
GSRSI: GruppoSole Ricerce Solari Italia, Italy
OAA: The Oriental Astronomical Association – Solar Division, Japan
RWG: Rudolf Wolf Gesellschaft – Solar Obs. Group of Swiss Astron. Society
TOS: Towarzystwo Obserwatorow Slonca – Solar Observers Society, Poland
VVS: Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde, Werkgroep Zon, Belgium
Getting the fact right is not hard. It just takes a willingness to do so.
vukcevic says:
June 22, 2010 at 9:43 am
P.S. Your colleague Dr. Hathaway went through process of thorough checking long before you even heart of it.
Hathaway even reproduced graph, here is a copy:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
Which one of your many different formulae did he use?
Hathaway’s comment:
Estimates of the possible gravitational forcing by Jupiter have shown that the effects
are many orders of magnitude smaller than the buoyancy forcing in the Sun’s convection zone. Electro-magnetic effects from Jupiter are virtually impossible due to the flow of the solar wind which carried that information outward, away from the Sun.
It is obvious that the plot at about 1810 gets totally out of phase with the sunspot.
You should have heeded Hathaway’s sage comments.
vukcevic says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:03 am
Here is Dr. Hathaway’s plot of my formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
And as everyone can immediately, it is an extremely poor fit. Which of your many formulae did Hathaway use? quote it here, now.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:10 am
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Hathaways-plot.gif
Which one of your many different formulae did he use?
You should have heeded Hathaway’s sage comments.
One published 7.5 years ago, I just posted link
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
if you care to look, but it is a bit painful to accept you can be wrong or maybe getting a ‘bit confused’.
Yes, indeed he is correct as far as he understands the events, but even his theory had a hiccup.
He accepted my formula as it is, checked it out, satisfied himself it is correct as it stands, and as wise man left it at that.
Perhaps something you could learn from, too.