Watch sunspot group 1158 form from nothing

Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“All you need to realize is that you can have break ups, break aparts, and all that, before the final breakdown. Then you can have your cake and eat it, and satisfy normal standard usage, all at the same time, and have no need to waste any more words on this.”
You are still wrong, here are examples of papers that refer to final breakup/break-up…
“presumably as the result of the Northern hemisphere winter vortex
final breakup in late spring.”
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6587/1/03-0405.pdf
“through vortex erosion events and dilution after the vortex final break-up,”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP.561..559G
“The vertical scale for temperature is reversed. (b) date of the Arctic vortex final break-up”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l95h1l012m604482/
Just admit that there are some inconsistencies in “standard meteorological lingo” and let’s move on.

Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm
“Just The Facts says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
I never said that the name did or should reference causality.
Just The Facts says:
February 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“In breakup and breakdown, there is really no direction implied.”
What? Clearly there are directions implied in “breakup and breakdown”. You can chose to ignore them, but they’re still there.”
——————–
Just to set the record straight…”
You are conflating causality with direction. I am still considering causality, however I am quite confident that up and down connote direction in the English language…

Leif Svalgaard says: February 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm
“done with the rhetoric… and ready to be substantive…”
Yes, let’s move on. Here is a summary of Solar Influences and associated energy flows:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/Solarpaper/flowc.gif
Are you in agreement with the influences noted and associated magnitudes?

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“There are no inconsistency in standard usage, just some people being sloppy. Accept that, and you can move on [prediction: you won’t, prove me wrong].”
“Usually not when used in breakup/breakdown. Another thing for you to accept and another chance for you to move on [prediction: you won’t, prove me wrong].”
Tabled without resolution for expediency’s sake.

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm
“It helps to know a bit about the data. The first 8 hours the data is missing and the simulation is stuck on its prior value, so no wonder it looks stable [from ACE]:
Yep, it appears that ACE was knocked off line on 19th and resumed on the 20th. Interestingly, the ACE Interplanetary Magnetic Field plots seem to have data;
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html
and the ground based k-indexes show stability during the time in question:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/k-index.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html
I am not sure what to make of the Costello Geomagnetic Activity Index:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rpc/costello/pkp_15m_7d.html
Hopefully it’s a communication issue so we’ll get a look at all of the original data in the coming days. It is difficult to analyze these phenomena if we cannot effectively measure them, e.g. if the satellites get knocked out when there’s a large event.

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Refusing to learn is poor strategy…
Somehow you’ve made it this far using such an approach, so one never knows…

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“The 8 hour missing data are off the right-hand edge…”
? The chart runs through 51 days, 31 days in Jan and 20 days in Feb, which means that the plot shows data for both of the days in questions, i.e. Feb 19th and 20th.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/browse/mag_brws_plts.html

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“The problem is that these statistical methods depend on ‘normal’ variability of the field and the field on the 19th was extraordinarily quite. I first thought that was instrumental failure, but the data from another satellite [WIND] shows otherwise: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/ no doubt this interval will be studied closely.”
For clarity, are you saying you think that the NICT Magnet Field animations for Feb 19th and 20th are accurate, still in question or some combination thereof?
This also offers a good segue, let’s dig into magnetic fields. To get started, let’s talk about the aa index, as many of the papers I’ve found rely on it and I know you’ve got issues with it, i.e.:
IHV: A NEW LONG-TERM GEOMAGNETIC INDEX
Leif Svalgaard1, Edward W. Cliver2, and Philippe Le Sager3
“The long time series of the aa index (Mayaud, 1972) is commonly used to investigate geomagnetic activity and the Sun-Earth connection. The validity of any analysis based on aa rests on the assumed constancy of the calibration of this index over time. Svalgaard et al. (2003) have presented evidence of the non-constancy of the aa calibration. The present paper seeks to explain and elaborate on the methodology of that study.”
“When we use the IHV index to reconstruct the aa index – the standard index used for long-term studies of geomagnetic variability – for the last 100 years, we find that the reconstructed aa lies above the observed aa before 1957, with the greatest discrepancy (~5-10 nT) occurring for the first two decades of the 20th century. Thus any claim based on the rise of aa (as observed and reported by ISGI (Service International des Indices Geomagnetique)) since 1900 may be inaccurate. Implications of the non-constant calibration of the aa index were addressed in Svalgaard et al. (2003).”
http://www.leif.org/research/IHV%20-%20a%20new%20long-term%20geomagnetic%20index.pdf
Are you are confident in the validty of the aa index after 1957? How has your paper been received, has it withstood scrutiny to date?
Based upon your aa/IHV index research has Cliver lost confidence in his paper “Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.25, 1998)” and his finding that;
“During the past ~120 years, Earth’s surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation with aa minimum values suggests the existence of a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar irradiance that underlies the 11-year cyclic component. Extrapolating the aa-temperature correlations to Maunder Minimum geomagnetic conditions implies that solar forcing can account for ~50% or more of the estimated ~0.7-1.5°C increase in global surface temperature since the second half of the 17th century.”?
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Cliver.pdf

Leif Svalgaard says: February 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm
No. I’m saying that the chart has many problems and is confusing. For example, in the top row one may based on some of the boxes get the idea that what is shown is the quantity and its variation. Yet in some boxes only one number is given [in other a delta is also given]. If the solar number given is the quantity, them that is not too interesting, because for an influence you need a variation, a delta [otherwise you just have a tiny constant influence which is very hard to observe].
I agree here, not sure why there’s a delta for some and not others, nor why they’ve tried to make all the arrows one directional. Regardless, I am particularly focused on energy sources, amount of energy and variance. For TSI, they say 1368 W/M2, +-1.3, whereas Kopp and Lean, in their paper “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance” found that:
“The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view-limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM’s lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate-relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates. ”
Do you have a reliable reference for extraterrestrial energy sources, amount of energy and variance?
He is talking about the stratosphere which is not where our climate comes from.
I have number papers that address potential stratospheric influences, particularly in terms of vortices, but to maintain focus I am going stick to the big picture (energy inputs) and geomagnetism for now.
“Another glaring problem is that the various arrows should have a thickness proportional to the amount of energy [or ‘influence’ if one wants to stay vague and non-committal] involved.”
That’s a good idea. Maybe when we’re done we can put something like that together.