UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard provides us a magnetic movie (SDO HMI) which I’ve also converted and added below. It’s a real treat too.
This is truly an impressive animation from the folks at the Solar Dynamics Observatory. I’ve converted it to YouTube so more people can watch it. It shows the 5 day time lapse formation of massive sunspot group 1158 from nothing. What’s neat is how the perspective is maintained. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. Less than a week ago, sunspot 1158 didn’t exist. Now it is wider than the planet Jupiter and unleashing the strongest solar flares since December 13th, 2006, including an X-class solar flare that we covered here first on WUWT. Video below.
Solar Magnetics Movie
The HMI (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager) on the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) caught massive sunspot group 1158 in the process of forming from nothing. It is quite an impressive animation. Animation courtesy of Dr. Phil Scherrer at Stanford via Dr. Leif Svalgaard who writes:
“What to note is how the magnetic field ‘bubbled’ up in a very mixed state [black=negative, white=positive polarity]. Then the two polarities separate and move to areas of like polarity: white to white and black to black, in the process assembling sunspots. Watch also how the incessant convection ‘eats’ away at the boundaries of large, mature spots [late in the clip].”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 5:12 am
“You can get plots and listings here: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html“
That’s a good analysis/graphing tool, I’ve added it under Solar Wind on the WUWT Solar Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
What are your thought’s on the WUWT Solar Reference Page? Do you see any significant gaps/missing plots/graphics/etc.? Are the graph titles/headers all correct? Does the order of the page make sense?
“There is also this: http://www.solen.info/solar/poes/poes.html“
That’s good as well. I’ve added it to the draft Geomagnetism page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnatism/
Password is: WUWT
Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
What are your thought’s on the WUWT Solar Reference Page? Do you see any significant gaps/missing plots/graphics/etc.? Are the graph titles/headers all correct? Does the order of the page make sense?
I suggest replacing the Oulu cosmic ray page with:
http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
Order is not too bad. Perhaps too many SDO corona images.
Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/ace_rtsw_data.html
This one is on my screen all the time:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Which plots from this page would you add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages?
Fix spelling of Geomagnatic
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
add to Solar of Geomagnetic pages
This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“Fix spelling of Geomagnatic”
Yes, if it weren’t for spellcheck my writing might read like a 4th grader’s, and my handwriting is much worse…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 10:58 am
Adding UAH [and RSS for good measure] doesn’t make any difference:
http://www.leif.org/research/Aa-and-Temps.png
I tend to agree, I don’t see much correlation, but it is hard to see with all the GISS garbage behind it. It might be more convincing without it and blown up to just the satellite era.
Just for clarity, I do not think it is likely that a clear correlation between temperature and the aa index has been overlooked by the many thousands of scientists who have been studying Earth’s climate system for many years. Linear relationships are reasonably easy to find, and if it was just sitting out there, someone probably would have found it by now. However, Earth’s climate system’s immense number of variables, tremendous complexity and constantly evolving nature makes multivariate analysis seem like an understatement. For example, and intended only as baseless conjecture, we might find that there is a solar influence on Earth’s climate system, whereby when there is a strong El Nino, a weak AMO, the NAO is in a strong positive phase, the solar cycle is at its peak, the moon is Waxing Gibbous, it is late February, the Northern Polar vortex is in a weakened state, being disturbed by a moderate Rossby wavetrain, when a large CME impacts, with fields aligned, and the combination of all of these variables, and an array of others, results in the breakdown of the vortex 6 days later. My point being that I am just trying to understand all of the ways the sun might influence Earth’s climate system. I am agnostic to particular hypotheses, I just want the facts.
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 6:18 pm
My point being that I am just trying to understand all of the ways the sun might influence Earth’s climate system. I am agnostic to particular hypotheses, I just want the facts.
It doesn’t look that way. The fact is that no significant correlation has been found, and no viable hypotheses have been put forward. It looks to me that you start with the premise [worth your left arm, IIRC] that there MUST be some influence, and then hunt for every goofy and shaky correlation that people have pushed, excusing failures as due to complexity. The NULL-hypothesis is that there is no influence. As far as I am concerned, the NULL-hypothesis still stands. That said, there is, of course, solar influences at a very low level [e.g. the 0.1C that changes in TSI produce], so the NULL-hypothesis should be amended by ‘significant’. Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this]. As sometimes [rarely] in science, there may be a surprise or two, but until they have surfaced, we should stick with the NULL-hypothesis.
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Here is a good article
http://www.lanl.gov/history/admin/files/Journeys_of_a_Spacecraft.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm (Edit)
I suggest replacing the Oulu cosmic ray page with:
http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
Done.
Perhaps too many SDO corona images.
I didn’t build that part. If you where to remove a few images what would you remove?
This one is on my screen all the time: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html
Done.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 5:03 pm
This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Done
Just The Facts says:
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 25, 2011 at 5:12 am
<i Instead of suggesting crappy papers, pick what you consider to be the absolute best, strongest, most compelling one and let us discuss that one.
This is premature. At present I am still working to understand and document all of the potential climactic variables, thus it is logical to explore and research each potential variable.
You just cannot let it go, it seems.
That seems to be a trait we share…
The troll-characterization is accurate. Read the Wiki link I provided and ponder it, and perhaps you can improve your conduct accordingly.
Here is a lesson in Troll 101:
Regardless of your perceived grievance, the label of Troll doesn’t apply.
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Regardless of your perceived grievance, the label of Troll doesn’t apply.
Here is why the label applies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
“a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 11:48 pm
:Instead of suggesting crappy papers…”
This is premature. At present I am still working to understand and document all of the potential climactic variables, thus it is logical to explore and research each potential variable.
How about Jupiter shine? or Z-pinches from the electric universe? or:
Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:
Multi-million year climate data through proxies have recently been published that
point to a clear trend of temperature differentials through time. In the past theories have been used to explain the broad ice ages by orbital forcing using Newtonian physics. The Damhsa (Gaelic for Dance) Theory is formulated by analyzing climate data and applying the General Relativity Theory and orbital forcing to the time series and proposes a solution to the variable data. This solution is gravitational waves. New theories on the inflation of the universe predict gravitational waves also. This change is extremely slow and not perceptible to human scale time but can explain the complex interactions of large-scale climate change and time. The climate fluctuations in time can be explained by gravitational waves of the expanding universe. The Earth’s position in space changes as the effects of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein. Recent climate data shows wave patterns of a non-linear nature, which would correspond with a large mass in space, such as Earth, exhibiting the effects of gravitational waves by slight changes in the position of Earth to the Sun, which would slowly affect climate over large timescales. Oscillating gravitational waves are the signature of the universe expanding. [SORCE meeting, 2008].
You should up front filter out the low-quality papers, rather than wasting our time defending them, hoping to save your left arm.
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“Perhaps too many SDO corona images.”
I didn’t build that part. If you where to remove a few images what would you remove?
304, 1600, 171, 335
Just The Facts says:
February 25, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“This plot of the solar polar fields combines Mt. Wilson and Stanford and gives a bit longer perspective: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png”
Done
The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …
Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 8:22 am
The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …
Confused, I added it to the solar page, under the Wilcox Solar Polar field graph, and called it “Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined – 1966 to Present”.
Are you saying that you also think it should also be on the Geomagnetism page under magnetometers? If so, do you think I should also add the Wilcox graph there as well?
Just The Facts says:
February 26, 2011 at 10:33 am
“The alternate text says ‘Boulder USGS Magnetometer’ …”
Confused
<img class=”alignnone” title=”Boulder USGS Magnetometer” src=”http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png” alt=”” width=”632″ height=”506″>
Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 10:48 am
Got it, corrected.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 8:18 am
304, 1600, 171, 335
Removed, along with the associated table/key. Thank you for your help.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The fact is that no significant correlation has been found, and no viable hypotheses have been put forward.
We can argue about what constitutes a viable hypotheses later. First I would like to understand all of the potential extraterrestrial (solar for now) energy sources and how they interact with Earth’s climate system.
It looks to me that you start with the premise [worth your left arm, IIRC] that there MUST be some influence, and then hunt for every goofy and shaky correlation that people have pushed, excusing failures as due to complexity.
For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.
The NULL-hypothesis is that there is no influence. As far as I am concerned, the NULL-hypothesis still stands. That said, there is, of course, solar influences at a very low level [e.g. the 0.1C that changes in TSI produce], so the NULL-hypothesis should be amended by ‘significant’.
What about gravity? The sun’s gravity is major player in Earth’s Tides;
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8r.html
and its Thermohaline Circulation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
during the 18 year Saros Cycle and 54 year Triple Saros;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle
Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this].
They weren’t us.
As sometimes [rarely] in science, there may be a surprise or two, but until they have surfaced, we should stick with the NULL-hypothesis.
You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.
Just The Facts says:
February 26, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Leif Svalgaard says: February 25, 2011 at 6:51 pm
We can argue about what constitutes a viable hypotheses later.
I don’t argue about this. I decide what convinces me.
For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.
This you cannot do, as logic does not enter if you do not have a mechanism in mind.
What about gravity? The sun’s gravity is major player in Earth’s Tides
All this is cyclical and thus not climate-related anymore than the day-night or winter-summer cycles are.
“Thousands of people have been looking at all aspects of this and found nothing convincing [if they had, we would not be discussing this].”
They weren’t us.
What makes you think you can do better?
You stick to the null hypothesis, I’ll stick to the imagine every possibility approach, and let’s see if there any surprises in between.
Suit yourself. Don’t forget that if you are looking for 95% significance, by chance you’ll find one approach out of twenty to be significant.
How about Jupiter shine?
Sure, easily disproven: “The intensity of moonlight varies greatly depending on the lunar cycle but even the full moon typically provides only about 0.2 lux illumination, so the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
and given that “The average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,403 kilometers (238,857 miles).”;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29
versus “when Jupiter and Earth are closest, Jupiter is 390,682,810 miles (628,743,036 km) from Earth. ”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_far_from_Earth_is_Jupiter#ixzz1F6epGlny
or Z-pinches from the electric universe?
Too theoretical. No measurements.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=959&sid=cd6a59a5aadf35a757653485683f9963
or:
Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:
That’s just garbage…
You should up front filter out the low-quality papers, rather than wasting our time defending them, hoping to save your left arm.
I agree and do, however there was merit in posting Landscheidt, similar to how I took the time to eliminate Moon and Jupiter shine. However, I have yet to see any indication that the Vortice references I cited above are “low-quality papers”.
Just The Facts says:
February 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
“How about Jupiter shine?”
Sure, easily disproven: “The intensity of moonlight varies greatly depending on the lunar cycle but even the full moon typically provides only about 0.2 lux illumination, so the full moon is about 500,000 times fainter than the sun.”
So, you discount because of energy considerations. This is the main argument that I tried to make [but resigned that I probably wouldn’t get through]:
Leif Svalgaard says: February 19, 2011 at 7:52 am
“Which energies are not involved and can you demonstrate that they are not?”
too many ‘nots’ for my taste. But I can try to explain [may not succeed]. The energy involved in the upwards travelling waves are many, many orders of magnitude larger than the energy in anything coming down from above. Basically because of the difference in density of a factor north of a million.
or Z-pinches from the electric universe?
Too theoretical. No measurements.
Actually, garbage. No theory.
I agree and do, however there was merit in posting Landscheidt, similar to how I took the time to eliminate Moon and Jupiter shine.
You should have elimiated Landscheidt too, before even posting it. BTW, there are people that peddle Jupitershine, e.g. Vuk.
However, I have yet to see any indication that the Vortice references I cited above are “low-quality papers”.
Energy considerations take care of those. Plus that statistics is poor: how many breakdowns have been observed? That makes such papers low-quality.
Just The Facts says:
February 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
“Applying Relativity to Earth Climate Data” The Damhsa Theory Signs of the
Inflationary Universe, Sheila A. Lynch:”
That’s just garbage…
You have not provided any peer-reviewed papers refuting this…
Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm
“For the sake of this exploration, yes, I try to imagine every possibility, and then find logical reasons to eliminate as many of them as possible.”
This you cannot do, as logic does not enter if you do not have a mechanism in mind.
Yes I can, it is just a matter of filtering imagination with reason. Lack of mechanism is logical basis for eliminating an imagined influence.
All this is cyclical and thus not climate-related anymore than the day-night or winter-summer cycles are.
They are all significant variables in Earth’s climate system, and Saros cycles differ in that their longer time scales of 18 and 54 years makes our short historical record ill suited to measure and analyze them.
What makes you think you can do better?
I said we, and would be more confident if Tinsley was involved, but we do have better access to research and data than ever before, and tools now exist to rapidly search and review it to find relevant facts.
Leif Svalgaard says: February 26, 2011 at 3:15 pm
So, you discount because of energy considerations. This is the main argument that I tried to make [but resigned that I probably wouldn’t get through]:
You share responsibility for the many tangents, but I agree that we should refocus.
You should have elimiated Landscheidt too, before even posting it. BTW, there are people that peddle Jupitershine, e.g. Vuk.
You are wrong on this point. It is important to eliminate variables, and some of the people who are reading this thread might have had misconceptions about Landscheidt and Jupitershine. Hopefully we’ve helped to clear them up, mission accomplished, let’s move on.
Plus that statistics is poor: how many breakdowns have been observed? That makes such papers low-quality.
I agree, but this applies to every study on the matter. One of the vortex studies I posted above from the American Meteorological Society Online Journal “The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex” by Charles D. Camp and Ka-Kit Tung of the Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington is “A statistical analysis of 51 years of NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data”:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS3883.1 (Abstract and Full text)
51 years, it’s not even one Triple Saros long…