Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Santa brought us a new Sunspot prediction to be added to NASA’s incredibly high series of at least five ill-fated predictions starting in 2006. NASA’s latest peak Sunspot Number for Solar Cycle #24 (SC24) is down 60% from their original, but it still seems a bit too high, judging by David Archibald’s recent WUWT posting that analogizes SC24 and SC25 to SC5 and SC6 which peaked around 50, during the cold period (Dalton minimum) of the early 1800’s.
According to Yogi Berra “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Team leader Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of NASA’s National Center for Atmospheric Research and Solar physicist Dr. David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center have most likely learned that lesson well, having predicted, back in March 2006, that SC24 would start by the end of 2006 or early 2007 and would peak 30% to 50% higher than SC23, which would yield counts of 156 to 180. The latest prediction is 64 (I love their precision :^) but I predict it will have to be reduced further, kind of like an after-Christmas sale :^)
[NOTE added 28 Dec 9:45PM. See clarification comment by: John from CA, December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm. I was mistaken in conflating NASA with NOAA in the graphic and discussion, wrongly assuming they coordinated their Sunspot predictions. The base chart, as labeled, is from NOAA but the predictions are from Dikpati and/or Hathaway at NASA, but later ones, on a NASA website, may be personal, not official. Thanks John from CA and sorry for my ignorance of government organization. Ira]
My graphic traces the downward progression of NASA Sunspot predictions, superimposed over NASA’s NOAA’s latest chart of actual Sunspot Numbers. SC23 is shown from its peak in 2000 to its demise in 2009, along with the rise of SC24 up to the latest November 2010 data. The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January. [Click graphic for larger version].
As indicated, SC23 peaked at a count of 120 around January 2000. It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it). Some direct quotes [emphasis added]:
“The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” [Dikpati] says… Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun…
Hathaway … explains: “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”…
“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!
All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”
When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Did Dikpati and Hathaway honestly believed they had cracked the Sunspot code that had eluded science for two centuries? In hindsight, we all know they were wrong in their heady predictions of a “doozy”. (A doozy, according to Webster is “an extraordinary one of its kind”. NASA expected SC24 to be extraordinarily intense. But it is shaping up to be extraordinarily weak, so they at least get credit for using the correct word :^)
But, were they being honest? Well, Hathaway had long been aware of the relationship between Sunspot counts and climate, writing:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Is it possible that their prediction was skewed to the high side by the prevalent opinion, in the Inconvenient Truth year of 2006, that Global Warming was “settled science”. Could it be that they felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell?
It seems to me that NASA has a long history of delayed Sunspot predictions, particularly when the trend was downward. They seem to have waited until the actual counts forced them to do so.
Have a look at the graphic. SC23 SC24 [thanks Steeptown December 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm] was supposed to start by early 2007, but it did not. Yet, it took them until October 2008 to revise their prediction of a later start and lower peak (137) and then they dropped it further in January 2009 (predicting a peak of 104 to occur in early 2012).
I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots, yet it was clear to me, nearly two years ago, that 104 was way too high so I predicted a peak of 80 and moved the date of that peak to mid-2013. NASA eventually reduced their peak to 90, and just this month down to 64, and they moved the peak date to mid-2013. My latest prediction is 60, to occur in early 2014, but I believe I may still be a bit too high.
With apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don’t know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
It is now day 2 of 2011 and Leif attacks are in full swing.
Here’s the big conspiracy, Keep Leif preoccupied with a couple +- missing sunspots and old telescope resolutions, so that he doesn’t have time to see a bigger picture.
My agenda for the month is to find “TURBULENCE” in the interstellar medium.
I think were going to have to throw out all those old ideas about some homogenous interstellar medium surrounding our solar system.
Maybe even adjust the way we predict solar cycles. hahahah
Let’s see now, got some old theory from 1951 von Weizs¨acker and guess what?
Dynamical Evolution of a Supernova Driven Turbulent Interstellar Medium
Dieter Breitschwerdt and Miguel A. de Avillez
..Although turbulence is recognized to play an important role in steady-state multiphase models, it is largely treated as an additional pressure source,
ignoring its dynamical importance.
A fundamentally different and more physical approach to model the structure and
evolution of the ISM goes back to the ideas of von Weizs¨acker (1951) who suggested
that the ISM is essentially a highly turbulent and compressible medium. Indeed, high
resolution observations of the ISM show structures on all scales down to the smallest
resolvable ones, implying a dynamical coupling over a wide range of scales, which is a
main characteristic of a turbulent flow with Reynolds numbers of the order of 10 to the5th
− 10 to the7th (cf. Elmegreen & Scalo 2004). Another characteristic of widespread ISM turbulence
is its enhanced mixing of fluid elements, which, unlike thermal conduction, is largely
independent of strong temperature gradients and magnetic fields. Recently, the dynamical
importance of turbulence in the ISM and in star formation in molecular clouds has been
recognized by several groups using different numerical approaches (e.g. Korpi et al. 1999,
V´azquez-Semadeni et al. 2000, Avillez & Breitschwerdt 2004).
Physically the generation of 3D turbulence is intimately related to vortex stretching
and its subsequent enhancement, in contrast to 2D where vorticity is conserved. A natural
way to generate vorticity is shear flow in which transverse momentum is exchanged
between neighbouring fluid elements. This typically occurs when a flow is decelerated
at a surface (giving rise to a boundary layer) like wind gushing down a street along
the wall of a high building, or in case of the ISM, colliding gas flows, like e.g hot gas
breaking out of an SNR or superbubble (SB). Various sources of turbulence for the ISM
have been identified: stellar (jets, winds, Hii regions, SN explosions), galactic rotation,
self-gravity, fluid instabilities (e.g. Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz), thermal instability,
MHD waves (e.g. due to cosmic ray streaming instability), with SNe representing
energetically the most importance source (see e.g. MacLow & Klessen 2004).
We will show in the following sections that the new approach of a turbulent SN driven
ISM can reproduce many key observations (Avillez 2000, Avillez & Breitschwerdt 2004,
2005a,b, henceforth AB04, AB05a, AB05b), such as a low volume filling factor of the
HIM, large pressure fluctuations in the ISM, observed Ovi absorption column densities
by Copernicus and FUSE, and WNM gas in thermally unstable temperature ranges.
..3.2. The myth of pressure equilibrium
It has been often argued that there should exist global pressure equilibrium between the
various stable phases. This hypothesis would be correct, if there would be sufficient time
for relaxation for the various processes responsible for mass and energy exchange like
collisional heating, radiative cooling, condensation and evaporation etc.. However, due
to the large Reynolds number of the flow, turbulent mixing is the dominant exchange
process, and a fortiori this occurs supersonically in a compressible medium. Hence there
is in general not enough time to establish pressure equilibrium by pressure waves propagating
back and forth. There exists though a global dynamical equilibrium, depending on
the boundary conditions (e.g. SN rate, gravitational and external radiation field), which
results in an “average pressure”, however with huge fluctuations as can be seen in Fig. 1.
The fact that the dynamical evolution of the ISM is indeed governed by turbulence may
be appreciated by noting that in Fig. 1 structures occur on all scales. This may on the
other hand cast some doubt on the results, as surely structures will occur below the resolution
limit.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0610/0610666v1.pdf
Whitesnake and Here I GO Again. But carry on guys, we all can check back later and see how your doing. lol Frisch team doing a good job, but still needs to talk to these guys as I don’t see them on the ref. list.
How about C14 in tree rings, is that a better proxy.
The following figure shows the longest-term data available representing the solar activity. “Three independent indices… The observed annual mean sunspot numbers (scale at right) also follows the 11-year solar activity cycle after 1700. The curve extending from 1000 to 1900 is a proxy sunspot number index derived from measurements of carbon-14 in tree rings. Increased carbon-14 is plotted downward (scale at left-inside), so increased solar activity and larger proxy sunspot numbers correspond to reduced amounts of radiocarbon in the Earth’s atmosphere. Open circles are an index of the occurrence of auroras in the Northern Hemisphere (scale at left-outside). (Courtesy of John A. Eddy.)” [Professor Kenneth R. Lang, Tufts University
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/C14sun.jpg
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm
Robuk says:
January 2, 2011 at 9:16 am
Estimates of the secular increase in total irradiance since the late 17th century Maunder sunspot minimum range from ~0.05 to 0.5%. Values in the middle of this range are sufficient to force the intermediate-complexity Zebiak-Cane model […] This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium.
The ‘middle of this range’ would be (0.05+0.5)/2= 0.275% out of 1361 W/m2 would be 3.7 W/m2. This would indeed produce a 0.275/4=0.07% change in temperature or 0.2C. According to the climate model [you seem to believe in them, right?] referred to there might be an amplification of this, so it comes down to whether or not the solar input was indeed 3.7 W/m2 smaller during the Maunder Minimum. And that seems highly unlikely, but if you were to postulate that, then you could, of course, base your belief on that.
Pops says:
January 2, 2011 at 9:28 am
Now, though, I can sleep easy knowing that our climate will hardly change if that big ball of fire in the sky suddenly went cold on us
As Freeman Dyson said “it is not about how smart I am, but how stupid some other people are”.
Robuk says:
January 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
How about C14 in tree rings, is that a better proxy.
14C is also dependent on circulation and global 14C cycle. you might consult
http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
“irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on
10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today. We conclude that the link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium.”
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 4:36 am
The 10Be record is backed up by the 14C records very closely and is now seen as a good proxy record for solar output.
No, there is growing acceptance of the role of climate and volcanic influence on the deposition of the radionuclides. The complicates the interpretation of the proxies.
I have also used the planet positions to confirm both records over much of the Holocene.
The astrologer speaks.
It is now day 2 of 2011 and Leif attacks are in full swing.
Here’s the big conspiracy, Keep Leif preoccupied with a couple +- missing sunspots and old telescope resolutions, so that he doesn’t have time to see a bigger picture.
My agenda for the month is to find “TURBULENCE” in the interstellar medium.
I think were going to have to throw out all those old ideas about some homogenous interstellar medium surrounding our solar system.
Maybe even adjust the way we predict solar cycles. hahahah
Let’s see now, got some old theory from 1951 von Weizs¨acker and guess what?
Dynamical Evolution of a Supernova Driven Turbulent Interstellar Medium
Dieter Breitschwerdt and Miguel A. de Avillez
..Although turbulence is recognized to play an important role in steady-state multiphase models, it is largely treated as an additional pressure source,
ignoring its dynamical importance.
A fundamentally different and more physical approach to model the structure and
evolution of the ISM goes back to the ideas of von Weizs¨acker (1951) who suggested
that the ISM is essentially a highly turbulent and compressible medium. Indeed, high
resolution observations of the ISM show structures on all scales down to the smallest
resolvable ones, implying a dynamical coupling over a wide range of scales, which is a
main characteristic of a turbulent flow with Reynolds numbers of the order of ..
Another characteristic of widespread ISM turbulence
is its enhanced mixing of fluid elements, which, unlike thermal conduction, is largely
independent of strong temperature gradients and magnetic fields. Recently, the dynamical
importance of turbulence in the ISM and in star formation in molecular clouds has been
recognized by several groups using different numerical approaches (e.g. Korpi et al. 1999,
V´azquez-Semadeni et al. 2000, Avillez & Breitschwerdt 2004).
to be continued..
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 4:36 am
The 10Be record is backed up by the 14C records very closely and is now seen as a good proxy record for solar output.
From http://www.leif.org/EOS/1003-4989.pdf
“seen in the production calculations. These and other features suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.
And http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JA014532.shtml
“Voyager measurements of the galactic proton and Helium nuclei spectra beyond the heliospheric termination shock and out to ~110 AU seem to imply lower interstellar cosmic ray intensities of these nuclei than previously estimated. Using new interstellar spectra that are in much better agreement with these Voyager measurements we have calculated the production of 10Be in the Earth’s polar atmosphere. This maximum possible 10Be production is only 1.47 ± 0.05 times the production occurring at recent times of minimum solar 11 year modulation between 1954 and 2009. This implies that the 10Be concentrations measured in polar ice cores at the times of the recent Spoerer and Maunder minima, which were between 1.6–2.0 times those measured recently at the times of minimum solar modulation, are most likely not solely related to changes in solar heliospheric modulation between these time periods, but other effects such as local and regional climate near the measuring sites may play a significant role in the differences in the relative 10Be concentration measurements at the two times.”
Oh good heavens people, and you Pops. The solar influence we are discussing has to do with it’s influence on CHANGE in temperature, and in particular the rising trend we have experienced (which is now pretty flat), not the %$@ur momisugly# fact that the Sun provides on overall steady beam of irradiation heat. The best calculations we have so far that match reasonable mechanisms is that a fluctuation of temperature up or down of around 0.2 C can be attributed to the vagaries of solar cycles. Apparently, only people with brains will understand that the Sun heats our planet with a fairly constant beam, in addition to this small fluctuation it produces. However, this influence on temperature CHANGE is a cyclic influence that eventually averages out to 0 over a long enough period of time. A CONTINUING rising temperature, or a CONTINUING flat temperature, or a CONTINUING falling temperature must be so because of factors not related to this cyclic solar influence.
There are those that believe that this fairly small solar variation in cycles influences Jet Stream position via solar teleconnection at the Stratosphere. But the mechanisms don’t hold up to scrutiny, in particular what is known about pressure-related teleconnections between the Stratosphere and the Troposphere.
So far, the viable studies indicate that initial changes in the Troposphere are communicated to the Stratosphere, which then propagates this signal back down to the Troposphere, eventually resulting in regional and global weather pattern variation changes (IE oscillations in major atmospheric pressure and oceanic systems). And these studies point to sufficient oscillating energy in these INTRINSIC systems to make measurable changes in pressure systems down here at head level. Extrinsic solar and anthropogenic CO2 additions do not have that kind of energy unless you load up with “a priori pet scenarios and theories” into your climate model. Observations and data bust solar and CO2 theories all to hell and back.
Leif,
If you want an accurate temperature trend of the natural global climate from 1880 to 2010 you don`t position your weather stations in a fields in 1880 then slowly move them to airports and cities where it is known to be warmer, Likewise you dont count sunspots in the 16 to early 1700`s with small magnification hand held telescopes and then compare that count with a large 1850`s telescope which you then compare with the modern count, if you want to compare the 1850`s with the 20th century using the 1850`s scope that`s fine, but you can`t compare the 1600 or late 1700`s with the 20th century using a powerful 1850`s scope, you can only do that by using the original or copy of the 1600`s scope, you don`t want to do that because it will lower the modern count when directly compared with the Maunda.
The reason the warmers don`t want to use rural only stations is because they will see virtually no temperature trend over the 20th century.
The reason you don`t want to use the original early scopes is because in will reinforce the sun climate link by lowering the modern count and you don`t want that do you Leif.
Robuk says:
January 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
Likewise you dont count sunspots in the 16 to early 1700`s with small magnification hand held telescopes
This is a typical 17th century telescope:
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/13/1348/RJCS000Z/posters/the-large-astronomical-telescope-of-johannes-hevelius-1611-1687.jpg
1850`s telescope which you then compare with the modern count
made with that same 1850s telescope
reinforce the sun climate link by lowering the modern count
the sun is lowering the modern count all by itself. with a bit of luck we might get a another Maunder [although I’ll not count on it].
Pamela Gray says:
January 2, 2011 at 11:30 am
Oh good heavens people, and you Pops.
Pops is a perfect illustration of Dyson’s dictum.
My apologies to Mr Watts – delete if you so wish.
Pamela, Pamela (and you too Leaf), calm down. Sit back from that red-hot keyboard and chill-out. Of course, you won’t be anywhere near as chilled as the dozen or so OAPs in the UK who will die tonight (or the 30,000+ who will freeze to death this winter) because of government policies that have made fuel so expensive that only pop-tarts and football players can now afford to keep warm – along with politicians and gravy-sipping climate scientists of course. But no matter, let the old folk die. What is more important is that the gravy-train keeps on rolling. The community of gravy-sippers (a 97% majority so I’ve been told) has, for the past decade or so, been telling us that we, the people (not the gravy-sippers or politicians) have so ruined our world that we are destined to be drowned in a boiling sea as it rises inexorably above our heads. The science is settled, they declared; no doubt, they confirmed; a consensus, they assured us. So confident were they that they made no mention [I’ll repeat that little bit – no mention] of colder winters being caused by rising temperatures, no mention at all until new research suddenly discovered this strange phenomenon after the fact. Yes, the gravy-sippers assured us, we are in a warming world and we are all going to die unless we give them billions more Dollars, Pounds, Euros, Yen (you get the picture) in order that they can make more studies, more calculations, more prophesies of doom that will require yet more money to resolve.
So, thanks to the gravy-sippers, our glorious leaders (warm and power-crazed to a man and/or woman) told us to throw away our woolly gloves and instead buy Bermuda shorts; install gas boilers that only function safely when it’s so warm that you don’t need them; recycle our sledges because snow is a thing of the past and children will never again see it except in Jimmy Stewart movies; give all our spare cash to the WWF to save polar bears that have apparently now found the Arctic so warm that they’ve migrated to the Antarctic.
Better still, our leaders, at the behest of the gravy-sippers, declared that huge, power-generating windmills be planted across the length and breadth of the land in order that they could stand motionless and cold on those cold, wind-less days when their power was needed the most, making no mention of the fact that those wonderful windmills actually consume power on cold, wind-less days – good job we have at least one coal-fired power station still standing.
Get the picture, Pamela (and Leaf)? No? Well, I’ll tell you. Speaking for myself, I am sick and tired of you, the gravy-sippers, telling me one thing while I can see another. Anyone who has been on this planet for a few decades will tell you that they remember what the gravy-sippers were telling them a few decades ago – YOU’RE GOING TO FREEZE! That gravy-train went off the rails a tad so; a new meme was thought up – YOU’RE GOING TO FRY!
Give me a break. I will continue to prod the likes of you (and I’ve no idea who you are so don’t take it personally) and Leaf as long as gravy-sippers continue to cock their snooty noses and wave dismissive hands at those who will be taxed into a frozen grave because of the gravy-sippers’ insatiable desire for gravy. Get in the real world. Try telling an 89-year-old WW2 veteran that you have calculated this or that to, and I quote, “(0.05+0.5)/2= 0.275% out of 1361 W/m2 would be 3.7 W/m2 This would indeed produce a 0.275/4=0.07% change in temperature or 0.2C,” end quote; and that because you are a world-renowned gravy-sipper you must be believed so shiver without complaint until you die. Instead, try telling that 89-year-old WW2 veteran that the foolish prognostications of the gravy-sipping community have so polluted the waters of scientific knowledge that the scientific community is a laughing-stock, and that the only people who have yet to realise it are those in the scientific community – and our glorious leaders, of course. But no, you would never do that; you don’t have the integrity – only the gravy stains.
Pops says:
January 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm
only the gravy stains.
With gravy dripping onto the keyboard I’ll tell you that I too prefer global warming, bring it on, the more the better. Warm is better than cold. And could human-kind contribute, let’s do what we can. Perhaps we can stave off the next ice age. You seem to blame the sun for the cold [it’s got to be somebody’s fault, right?], personally I do not. The politicians are elected, so must reflect what the people want, right? A people has the government it deserves [at least in the parts of the world where people think they have democracy]. Perhaps Dyson’s dictum applies to the voters, too.
Pops: Thank you for your service in WWII.
Leif: You believe variations in TSI over periods of multiple high and low Solar Cycles may justify 0.1ºC-0.2ºC change in average Earth temperatures. Have you expressed an opinion on the Svensmark theory that Solar magnetic activity affects cosmic rays striking the Earth and that affects albedo and thus average Earth temps? I believe that could explain an additional 0.1ºC-0.2ºC, or more, for a total of around 0.2ºC-0.4ºC, or more.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Have you expressed an opinion on the Svensmark theory that Solar magnetic activity affects cosmic rays striking the Earth and that affects albedo and thus average Earth temps? I believe that could explain an additional 0.1ºC-0.2ºC, or more, for a total of around 0.2ºC-0.4ºC, or more.
Yes, I have, for what it is worth. Cosmic rays vary a lot more due to the variation of the Earth’s magnetic field [over centuries and millennia] than due to the Sun’s magnetic field and we don’t see that variation in the temperature. So, unless you make the special pleading that the kind of cosmic rays that influence the climate are not affected by the Earth’s magnetic field, there is little basis for the theory. Very energetic cosmic rays are not modulated by the Earth’s field, but are also not modulated by the Sun. Perhaps there is a special point where the Earth just doesn’t modulate, but the Sun just does. I find such a special condition unlikely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 2, 2011 at 8:40 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 4:31 am
If I am right about one aspect (when the 150mm telescope was used) then one of those positions will disappear. The information is out there and you certainly don’t have all the detail.
———————————
The 150mm was never used to determine the sunspot number, Waldmeier is VERY clear on this.
The German ‘Sonne’ association publishes k-factors [and telescope details] for all its members. Here is a plot for the year 2000 [other years are very similar]: http://www.leif.org/research/k-Factor-Aperture.png
You would never make a good investigator, you are way too trusting. There are snippets of information coming from the inside from very qualified people, that all is not as written in the old boys club journals. What I am hearing is making absolute sense, someone will write a book one day that will expose the truth.
Your graph on the K factor is fairly useless. It covers a range of about 0.4 to 0.9 across the apertures covering 60mm to 160mm. This is purely a group of stats based on the observer and their local conditions and does not address the argument. To be done properly all telescopes need to be in the same position with the same observer. Next time your in Melbourne come over and look through my telescopes, that should change your outlook. My range is 70mm to 110mm.
December was an interesting month. If my maths are right the SIDC/NOAA comparison factor coming in at 0.65. SIDC over counting?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Cosmic rays vary a lot more due to the variation of the Earth’s magnetic field [over centuries and millennia] than due to the Sun’s magnetic field
Forgot this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
The big swings are due to the variation of the Earth’s field, the liitle wiggles are due to the Sun.
Pops says: {January 2, 2011 at 4:14 pm}
” Try telling an 89-year-old WW2 veteran that you have calculated this or that to, and I quote, “(0.05+0.5)/2= 0.275% out of 1361 W/m2 would be 3.7 W/m2 This would indeed produce a 0.275/4=0.07% change in temperature or 0.2C,” end quote; and that because you are a world-renowned gravy-sipper you must be believed so shiver without complaint until you die”
Because you have never taken the time or had the discipline to learn enough to become a PhD do not embarrass yourself with such an ignorant rant.
Dr S once said on this blog that becoming a scientist is very hard work. Indeed it is. It is why I have such respect for scientific PhDs, especially those who maintain a public website where their findings and publications are there to be read, analyzed and contested if need be.
Is Dr S correct? I do not know for sure, only time will tell. But I have absolute respect for the time and effort he has put in to attain the knowledge that he presents here.
Your call from authority, that of being a WWII vet, falls on this 9 year vet’s deaf ears because it gives you no special place in this discussion. While I agree with the political stance you have, that our elected officials and others that ride the public gravy train don’t understand or care about the common citizen, your anger is misplaced here to those two people.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm
There are snippets of information coming from the inside from very qualified people, that all is not as written in the old boys club journals. What I am hearing is making absolute sense, someone will write a book one day that will expose the truth.
Unsubstantiated and un-sourced ‘snippets’ have no value. Your conspiracy theories may be fun, but extremely unlikely.
Your graph on the K factor is fairly useless. It covers a range of about 0.4 to 0.9 across the apertures covering 60mm to 160mm.
It would increase your credibility if you took a better look. It covers from 40mm through 254mm
To be done properly all telescopes need to be in the same position with the same observer.
No, because, the seeing and observers are different from place to place. The plot shows that when compiling [as SIDC and NOAA do] a count from dozens of observers at dozens of places, the differences introduced by the variations are important. The argument is that seeing/observer are the determining factors, and that Locarno and Waldmeier have the same count.
December was an interesting month. If my maths are right the SIDC/NOAA comparison factor coming in at 0.65. SIDC over counting?
On December 14, the k-factor was 0.48, on the 7th it was 0.49, etc, so, no.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm
December was an interesting month. If my maths are right the SIDC/NOAA comparison factor coming in at 0.65. SIDC over counting?
They may simply be clawing their way back to normal from before the downwards jump in 2001:
http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-vs-SIDC.png
They are aware of their undercounting, so are perhaps finally doing something about it.
Ooops retraction Frisch team is on the team. Lots of my other favs too.
Report from Sessions 1 and 3, including the Local Bubble
Debate
..3 After We Consider the Effects of SWCX, Is There Reason to Believe that the LB
Actually Exists? — the Local Bubble vs Solar Wind Charge Exchange Debate
..2. If one concludes that the LB does not exist, then one must find some other material to
fill the space within the Local Cavity and provide pressure to balance the warm clouds
and the overlying material. Suggestions for solving this problem include:
(a) Diffuse material having a high magnetic field could provide sufficient magnetic pressure
to support the overlaying material. Andersson & Potter (2006) found that the
magnetic field strength in the plane of the sky is 8+5−3 uG, creating a magnetic pressure
of PB/k 18,000 K cm−3 on sightlines terminating within about 200 pc of the
Sun. However, in his conference presentation, Steve Spangler reported a LB sight
line (toward pulsar J0437-4715, located 170 pc from the Sun), for which the interstellar
magnetic field strength is 0.7 uG. The magnetic pressure along that sight line
would be far too small to balance the pressure of the adjacent gas.
(b) Photoionized gas with a temperature of T 20,000 K could fill the space, but such
gas may be disallowed by observations.
(c) We also considered turbulent pressure and ram pressure. We abandoned turbulent
pressure because it does not provide enough support (Redfield & Linsky 2004), but
ram pressure could provide significant support (de Avillez 2007).
3. Is the Local Bubble expanding? Probably not. If anything, the Loop I Bubble is expanding
into the Local Bubble.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.2444v1.pdf
I thought the variations in the galactic magnetic field were similar to that last graphic Leif had.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Forgot this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
The big swings are due to the variation of the Earth’s field, the liitle wiggles are due to the Sun.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm
This is purely a group of stats based on the observer and their local conditions and does not address the argument. To be done properly all telescopes need to be in the same position with the same observer.
Let me say this again: the argument is whether Locarno and Zurich see the same spots [or more precisely: has the same count]. As we have seen again and again, they do. Telescope, seeing, and observer are irrelevant against that simple fact.
Carla says:
January 2, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I thought the variations in the galactic magnetic field were similar to that last graphic Leif had.
Too bad for your theory then, as those variations are due to the Earth.
There is a lot of info ( 8 pages) about the Reduction Factor in the Solar Astronomy Handbook (by Sonne). It covers a wide range: relationship between the k-factor and the atmosphere, apture, k-factor for groups (kg) and spots (kf),….
I can recommend the book!
Just a small quote:
“In practice, maximum sunspot visibility is reached with a 4-inch instrument so that there is no point in aquiring a larger instrument for determining the Wolf number.”
So you can’t see more spots with an 150mm than with an 100mm.
Jcarels says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:49 am
I can recommend the book!
Me too. It is a bible.
So you can’t see more spots with an 150mm than with an 100mm.
The magnificationm, the seeing, and the inherent lower size for what we will call a sunspot [if it is too small it is destroyed by the granulation] set the limit, not the aperture. This has been known for a hundred+ years.
Jcarels says:
January 3, 2011 at 1:49 am
Just a small quote:
“In practice, maximum sunspot visibility is reached with a 4-inch instrument so that there is no point in aquiring a larger instrument for determining the Wolf number.”
So you can’t see more spots with an 150mm than with an 100mm.
I would agree, but the Wolf telescope is not 100mm.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 2, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Carla says:
January 2, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I thought the variations in the galactic magnetic field were similar to that last graphic Leif had.
Too bad for your theory then, as those variations are due to the Earth.
~
Not exactly what I was thinking.
If Earth’s field strengthens and weakens with the solar field and the solar field strenghtens and weakens with the local galactic field (main and local galactic fields) my theory remains viable.
So, if one of the observers was looking back towards the plane and he sees 8 units gauss +- and the other observer is looking forward of the apex direction of the solar system and he sees .7 units gauss it might imply a declining intersellar main field as the solar system climbs above the galactic plane.
My theory being that solar cycle variation is dependent on galactic locations. More and more we find that Fluffy is not so Fluffy. Or that the interstellar local neighborhood is not homogenous throughout as previously thought.
For instance..
“””It now appears that a large mass fraction, e.g. 50% of the warm gas between 500 and 5000 K, is in the thermally unstable regime. In addition, while the MM is distributed into clouds, often having a fractal structure, the CNM is rather filamentary, the WNM and DIG are extended sheets, and the HIM is tenuous with a volume filling factor near the solar circle of roughly 20%, instead of 50% or higher as was believed previously.”””
http://www-astro.physik.tu-berlin.de/node/268