Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.
A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).
But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:
Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.
But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.
Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony
=================================
Climate Regime Shifts
The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”
[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.
[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,
see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.
[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.
[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
Climate Regime Shifts
[last update: 2010/07/04]
|
“The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
|
|
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.” [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions” [http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998. [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift, see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
|
|
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
|
|
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area. [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even. [http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
|
|
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
|
Tenuc says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:07 am
Presumably the same thing will happen in the southern hemisphere as SC24 develops and we approach the cycle maximum, whatever that may bring.
Yes, we just have not much activity in the south yet.
BTW, the SDO images are amazing, link now bookmarked, thanks.
You can change the date to see other images, or just http://sdowww.lmsal.com/suntoday.html for the latest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 8:19 am
Tenuc:
If, as you say, the Run to the Poles is a remnant of the current cycle, does this mean that the weaker than normal poloidal field is direct result of the weaker than normal toroidal field, or are cause and effect the other way round?
Both ! If there is less toroidal filed you get less polar fields, and with less polar fields , the next cycle will have less toroidal field. Taken literally, this would mean that cycles would get ever smaller [or bigger for the case of more field]. However, there is enough randomness in the system that such a streak of ever-smaller [or bigger] cycles is quickly broken. The poloidal field is only 1/1000 of the toroidal field and corresponds to the field from only a handful of sunspots, compared to the thousands generated in each cycle.
The whole shebang must be in a finely poised condition near it’s boundary conditions. Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’ (clearly not random at all) then. I foresee there will be a complementary co-existence between dynamology and planetology. One needs the perturbances and the other needs the energy.
A bit like us really. 😉
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The whole shebang must be in a finely poised condition near it’s boundary conditions.
We don’t think so. On the contrary [just like Earth’s climate] the Sun has lots of negative feedbacks that maintain its balance. Here is an abstract of a talk to be given in two weeks:
Nathan Schwadron Email: nschwadron@Mac.com
Principal Author Affiliation : Boston University
Magnetic Flux Balance In the Unusual Extended Solar Minimum Between Solar Cycle 23 and 24
Abstract: The source of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere remains an unresolved issue. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are a source of magnetic flux, but it is unclear why the levels of open magnetic flux return to a similar floor in subsequent solar minima. The current solar minimum, which is anomalously long, gives a rare insight into the long-term evolution of open magnetic flux when the CME rate is relatively steady and low. We show that the precipitous drop of open magnetic flux to levels lower than have ever been observed directly shows that there is a persistent loss of open magnetic flux through disconnection, the reconnection between open magnetic field lines relatively near the Sun (beneath the Alfven point). Here we argue that the levels of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere represent a balance between new flux created by CMEs, magnetic flux interchange and flux lost through reconnection near the Sun. This magnetic flux balance is a fundamental property that regulates the plasma and radiation environment of our solar system.
Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’
Except that there are no such external disturbances, except inconsequential tides. Other stars have giant planets [or companions] close by and there we know that the tides regulate stellar activity. It just doesn’t work for the Sun [masses too small, distances cubed too large]. None of the other ‘explanations’ I have seen here [magnetic effects, electric currents, angular momentum transfer, orbital resonances, astrological emanations, lightspeed waves all over the Galaxy, variations of size of the heliosphere, little green men] are physically viable. It is not that we just don’t know how these operate, it is that they cannot operate.
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that the solar dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s], including the polarity changes that we observe and all the rest. And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that the solar dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s],
Just so that you don’t get any wrong ideas [or some of usual suspects do], the above should read:
“But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that a dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s,”
@tallbloke says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:55 am
“A correspondent recently showed me a very interesting graph which had a nice logical breakdown showing 5 overlapping 55 year cycles within the VEJ alignments producing peaks and troughs every 11 years. ”
Three times that period (c.60728 days) is a usefull analogue for a solar cycle, despite it being an odd number of cycles (7.5 Hale), it is a good synodic return of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune, and is close to 14 Jupiter orbits. This makes SC9 the most recent analogue;
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl9.html
Ulric Lyons says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm
This makes SC9 the most recent analogue
analogue to what?
@Leif Svalgaard says:
“This makes SC9 the most recent analogue
analogue to what?”
9+15?
Ulric:
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
And is a very large cycle, on par with what Hathaway used to predict. Now, the way science works is that if you make a prediction and it turns out wrong, your theory is wrong. so, Ulrich predicts a very large SC24. If SC24 stays low, his theory is falsified, right?
Since you predict a very small cycle, you cannot go along with SC9 being what SC24 will end up being, right?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
the Sun has lots of negative feedbacks that maintain its balance.
Including the disalignment of the planets according to my way of seeing it.
Nathan Schwadron Email: nschwadron@Mac.com:
Abstract: The source of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere remains an unresolved issue. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are a source of magnetic flux, but it is unclear why the levels of open magnetic flux return to a similar floor in subsequent solar minima.
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
The current solar minimum, which is anomalously long, gives a rare insight into the long-term evolution of open magnetic flux when the CME rate is relatively steady and low. We show that the precipitous drop of open magnetic flux to levels lower than have ever been observed directly shows that there is a persistent loss of open magnetic flux through disconnection, the reconnection between open magnetic field lines relatively near the Sun (beneath the Alfven point).
I’m uncertain of the terminology here. Is this equivalent to the Alfven radius around 0.3Au? If so, Mercury is within it, and has a reconnection rate around 10 times that of Earth to it’s relatively strong magnetosphere. Maybe Mercury could be a grounding point for some of the Sun’s open flux, beaming it away from it’s pointy magnetotail, Tesla death ray stylee. 😉
Here we argue that the levels of open magnetic flux in the heliosphere represent a balance between new flux created by CMEs, magnetic flux interchange and flux lost through reconnection near the Sun. This magnetic flux balance is a fundamental property that regulates the plasma and radiation environment of our solar system.
Connected thinking, I like it. I’d just add, “And is maybe modulated by the alignments of the attractors circulating around in it”.
tallbloke:
Plenty of room for small externally induced solar disturbances to make a difference to this ‘randomness’ (which is obviously not random, as we can see it’s cyclicities).
Leif:
Except that there are no such external disturbances, except inconsequential tides.
As I’ve been saying, the disturbance could be caused by planetary alignments simply by them happening, creating a more conducive pathway for energy to leave the sun more easily. No power needed on the planets part. Plus I don’t think we yet know enough about the sun to dismiss the planetary tides as inconsequential. Both the tides and the electromagnetic effect could be involved. We might as well agree to disagree about tides for now. You say “No”, I say “we just don’t know”.
But it seems that you embrace the basic idea that [a] dynamo is the process responsible for generation of the solar cycle and by extension the Earth’s field and even Jupiter’s], including the polarity changes that we observe and all the rest. And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
Well since the Earth’s ‘dynamo’ reverses polarity on a semi chaotic cyclic basis on much longer timescales than the sun, I don’t see why the Sun’s dynamo effect should have fried us through a magnetic connection so strong as to overcome the Earth’s magnetospheric protection. The energy leaving the sun falls off with the cube of the distance, and interacts with the rest of the interplanetary electromagnetic soup on it’s way to us. I’m not sure what you are driving at here, but it’s a great discussion anyway, so thanks.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:06 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm
SC 9 has a very long upswing, which does fit with the very slow start to the current cycle. Two times the 55 years fits the low cycles at the start of the C19th, C20th, and now the early C21st?
And is a very large cycle, on par with what Hathaway used to predict. Now, the way science works is that if you make a prediction and it turns out wrong, your theory is wrong. so, Ulrich predicts a very large SC24. If SC24 stays low, his theory is falsified, right?
Since you predict a very small cycle, you cannot go along with SC9 being what SC24 will end up being, right?
Wrong. There could be similarities and dissimilarities too. So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes. I have some ideas to pursue which might make some progress there though. It’s early days, so stop trying to strangle the baby in it’s cot, you mean old man. 🙂
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
CMEs are closed flux and is associated with solar activity. What is not clear is why the sun has a constant, and non-zero open flux when all activity has gone away.
I’m uncertain of the terminology here. Is this equivalent to the Alfven radius around 0.3Au?
I don’t know what the Alfven radius is. The Alfven point is at 10 solar radii, so 0.05 AU.
Maybe Mercury could be a grounding point for some of the Sun’s open flux, beaming it away from it’s pointy magnetotail, Tesla death ray stylee. 😉
Mercury is tiny and intercepts only 1 billionth of the Sun’s energy [radiation, solar, wind, magnetic, whatever], so has no effect on th mighty Sun/.
Connected thinking, I like it. I’d just add, “And is maybe modulated by the alignments of the attractors circulating around in it”.
The ‘attractors’ do not modulate upstream, no matter what their alignments are,
As I’ve been saying, the disturbance could be caused by planetary alignments simply by them happening, creating a more conducive pathway for energy to leave the sun more easily.
This is astrology where the mere location of a planet is important.
No power needed on the planets part
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.
Plus I don’t think we yet know enough about the sun to dismiss the planetary tides as inconsequential.
You may not know enough, but tidal theory does not depend on knowledge about the Sun as long as the Sun is deformable which as a gas it is.
You say “No”, I say “we just don’t know”.
You say “I don’t know”. Which very likely is the case [so I’ll not dispute that], but ignorance is not a valid argument.
I don’t see why the Sun’s dynamo effect should have fried us through a magnetic connection so strong as to overcome the Earth’s magnetospheric protection.
Again, just because you don’t see or know, does not mean that the rest of world is the same state of ignorance. The answer here is one of energy, there is not enough.
The energy leaving the sun falls off with the cube of the distance
The square, not the cube. Tidal forces go with the cube. What I’m driving at is that you accept that a dynamo is driving solar magnetism, and also the Earth’s magnetic field, plus the headlight on my old bicycle.
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Go explain that to nobrainer and his flock.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Is he saying “despite the number x the power of CME’s being different” or what?
CMEs are closed flux and is associated with solar activity. What is not clear is why the sun has a constant, and non-zero open flux when all activity has gone away.
Logic would dictate there is power coming from somewhere. The fact that we don’t know where yet means there is room for other possibilities. Which is good from my point of view.
No power needed on the planets part
1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.
Irrelevant to the argument. If the planets alignments modulate solar activity through providing a bigger grounding point for the sun to hit, the amount of energy released by the sun from it’s store of fuel material is what is at issue. All that is required in energy terms from the planets is their motion, which according to Newton and Einstein, is a given. Does my finger have to supply energy to a Van der Graph generator to get a spark to jump to it?
What I’m driving at is that you accept that a dynamo is driving solar magnetism, and also the Earth’s magnetic field, plus the headlight on my old bicycle.
And I add that the planetary positions and alignments modulate the activity levels in the ‘field coils’ of those dynamos, as evidenced by the correlations between them.
Dynamologists play with as many inexact analogies as Planetologists do. So stop giving yourself airs an graces.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm
So far, the planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Go explain that to nobrainer and his flock.
Let me rephrase. “So far, my take on planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
If Geoff Sharp turns out to be right, great. If he turns out to be wrong, no problem, there are other avenues of planetary correlations and potential explanations for them to explore. It’s early days, and late at night CA time. Get a nightcap and chill out. I’m off to work.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:26 am
Logic would dictate there is power coming from somewhere. The fact that we don’t know where yet means there is room for other possibilities.
Ignorance is not an argument for presence.
“1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics say that you can’t get something for nothing.”
Irrelevant to the argument. If the planets alignments modulate solar activity through providing a bigger grounding point for the sun to hit
The planets make extremely small targets [billionths of the the surface]. This ‘grounding point’ nonsense is just that. A bullet hitting a target does not react back on the shooter.
And I add that the planetary positions and alignments modulate the activity levels in the ‘field coils’ of those dynamos, as evidenced by the correlations between them.
So, activity is dynamo driven. But you get no modulation upstream. The correlations are make-believe.
Dynamologists play with as many inexact analogies as Planetologists do. So stop giving yourself airs an graces.
You are yourself a dynamologist [sic] but not a good one. And there are no analogies in the dynamo. Only physics and numbers. There are reasonable assumptions as well because we do not know all the numbers yet, but we will soon [SDO].
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:31 am
If Geoff Sharp turns out to be right, great. If he turns out to be wrong, no problem,
It is called falsification.
Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
Yes or no is fine.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 1:25 am
Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
You need to move your finger close enough. Wagging it half mile away isn’t going to do anything.
Trying to get a straight answer from 5000 miles away isn’t working too well either.
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 3:08 am
Trying to get a straight answer from 5000 miles away isn’t working too well either.
What nonsense is that? I gave you the correct answer.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:38 am
The planets make extremely small targets [billionths of the the surface]. This ‘grounding point’ nonsense is just that.
The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the biggest object in the solar system. Including the Sun. I’m surprised a world famous solar physicist wasn’t already aware of that.
I’ll be glad when that mean Mr Hyde has gone to bed. Hopefully I’ll find myself talking to that nice Dr Jeckyll later on.
The magnetic permeability and conductivity is the key to the amount of magnetic coupling available from the sun out to the boundaries of the heliopause, in basic electrodynamics the total magnetic conductance is dependent upon the amount of coupling felt in the line with the path relevant to the strength of the fields.
If you add more inductive objects in line they will increase the total magnetic conductance along that line, and they will all effect a focus mechanism, as the magnetosphere tails line up.
“”Does my finger need to supply power to a van der graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?
You need to move your finger close enough. Wagging it half mile away isn’t going to do anything.”” It will if your finger is much closer than any other object, it could ground to. Lightning has been recorded to strike miles from where it is generated in the cloud.
All I have been saying is that synod conjunctions allows the magnetic conductivity out from the sun in the direction of the conjunction to decrease in proportion to the magnetic permeability of the bodies lining up, that should by standard electromagnetic theory, allow increased magnetic conduction to flex in strength in response to the decreased resistance at there passing.
The increase in homopolar generator effects drives the global circulation in pulses at every passing. Ask the magneto in your lawn mower if the spark plug pulls the current out of the rotor, or is it H fields converted to E fields in the coil, that charges the capacitor, that then discharges as the points open as the magnet is centered in the coil, and the only way for the collapsing H fields driving the E fields back to ground is through the spark plug?
In the earth’s homopolar generator circuit varying LOD is the buffering of the inductive effect, the ions driven from the seas into the atmosphere is the capacitive effect, and precipitation is the discharge path back to earth ground.
Correction: MOD assist?
All I have been saying is that synod conjunctions allows the magnetic [resistance to] conductivity out from the sun in the direction of the conjunction to decrease in proportion to the magnetic permeability of the bodies lining up, that should by standard electromagnetic theory, allow increased magnetic conduction to flex in strength in response to the decreased resistance at their passing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:24 am
Those two are just you claiming there is such a cycle.
There is no 17yr cycle in anything solar.
Surely you must wonder why the torsional oscillation flows look to be 17 years long. There must be some kind of driver in the background, the overlap is inconsequential. All solar activity is linked to these flows.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/comb2.gif
tallbloke says:
July 14, 2010 at 12:31 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
Let me rephrase. “So far, my take on planetary motion theory is seeing good results on timings, but not yet on amplitudes.
Rog, the amplitude is the strength of my argument, the alignments can be measured easily which shows us how strong each result will be. Using this information the upcoming grand minimum cannot be Maunder like.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
And that you are just looking for minor perturbations of the system to nudge it this way or that. This, if true, may represent progress. And if so, it boils down to a signal-to-noise problem. And as far as I can see, whatever signal one might postulate or believe in has drowned in the noise, otherwise we would not even be discussing this.
I think this statement is on the money, the dynamo is an observed reality. But what drives it and upsets it, is what counts.
Uranus, Neptune & Jupiter are together with Saturn opposite for every solar slowdown (there is one other lineup before the MWP that also works), the lineup and timing distinguishes the degree of slowdown. I am still waiting for Ulrich or anyone else to disprove this. Sure there are times of weak solar activity when Angular Momentum is weak, but they don’t compare with the real deal, like the slowdown we are entering now.
On the climate front I am not sold on the solar wind argument yet, it does not seem to vary in speed all that much over a cycle. Whats in that wind might be a different story. At present the solar wind is low but not all that different to the up slope of SC23, after Sc23 max the solar wind took off, while the Earth cooled?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Sc23wind_rz_medium.png