Let’s hope he does get out of the wrong side of the bed.
The current sunspot count and 10.7 cm radio flux have increased in the latest NOAA SWPC graphs, shown below. but curiously, the Ap magnetic index remains low.
Current solar status:
Geomagnetic conditions:
From Spaceweather.com : X-FLARE: March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. Earth-orbiting satellites detected an X1.5-class explosion from behemoth sunspot 1166 around 2323 UT. A movie from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory shows a bright flash of UV radiation plus some material being hurled away from the blast site:
Movie formats: 4 MB gif, 1.2 MB iPad, 0.3 MB iPhone
A first look at coronagraph images from NASA’s STEREO-B spacecraft suggests that the explosion did propel a coronal mass ejection (CME) toward Earth. This conclusion is preliminary, however, so check back later for updates.
After four years without any X-flares, the sun has produced two of the powerful blasts in less than one month: Feb. 15th and March 9th. This continues the recent trend of increasing solar activity, and shows that Solar Cycle 24 is heating up. NOAA forecasters estimate a 5% chance of more X-flares during the next 24 hours.
Here’s sunspot group 1166 visible in this SDO image:
Here’s the X-ray flux, the flare was just barely and x-class:
Here’s the latest monthly data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC):
Note that the Ap Index did not show similar gains.
As always, complete solar coverage at WUWT’s solar reference page
Being we are nearing the middle of the solar minimum cycle, it is time to see just how a solar minimum conducts itself and take good notes.
so do we duck n cover yet:-)?
Chuck says:
March 10, 2011 at 6:50 am
Being we are nearing the middle of the solar minimum cycle, it is time to see just how a solar minimum conducts itself and take good notes.
Depends on what you mean by ‘minimum cycle’. Solar minimum was more than two years ago, so it is about time Sol wakes up. In fact, the north polar fields have already reversed [which they do near solar max].
Or is the sun just grumbling in its sleep before rolling over and going back to snoring? 🙂
Looks like Hathaway’s latest, adjusted, prediction in January for SSN of 58 at the maximum is likely. If one takes the ISES graph above and moves the prediction curve down to where it might likely join with reality, and one gets this:
http://i51.tinypic.com/20uqqh4.jpg
It takes a few days for coronal mass ejections to reach as far as the Earth.
Since it’s still rotating as fast as the Sun’s surface I predict it will miss us.
Just don’t send me bills for any damage if I’m wrong.
So, Leif, are you saying that the sun is now at or near the solar max? If so, what happens next? That does not sound good at all…and would appear to auger for a very quiet sun for a long time.
Could you clarify and expand, please.
Thanks!
This may well be further confirmation of a solar minimum.
I recall reading somewhere that CMEs increase during solar minimums. I had asked this of Leif S but he couldn’t confirm as there just isn’t (enough) evidence.
It will also be interesting to see how extreme weather events develop this month. More cyclones and earthquakes anyone?
@Dr. Svalgaard
Are we near the peak of this cycle, then? Will it match the predicted values or will it edge higher?
Leif, you were saying the north pole fields have already reversed. Any chance at all this is near 24’s maximum? The butterfly plots sure don’t look like it’s possible, but also I’ve never seen a weird formed one either. Wonder what they would have looked like back in the 1600’s.
BobW in NC says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:26 am
Could you clarify and expand, please.
Recycled from anothr thread:
“There is a fair amount of activity, so the Sun is out of the minimum phase. If this much activity is still only in the ascending phase, then maximum will be rather higher [not what we would expect fro the polar fields during the past minimum]. The polar fields at the North pole have already reversed, and the South polar fields have decreased considerably. The reversal is ‘usually’ [but has only been observed for about eight cycles] timed near maximum. So, these things together seem to justify a ‘welcome’ [although the maximum might be a protracted affair like in cycle 14 with wild swings up and down]. Since after the reversal there ‘usually’ are several more ‘surges’ of new polarity flux arriving in the polar caps, there is the possibility that the polar fields might build to be stronger’ than at the recent minimum, leading to the prediction that solar cycle 25 might not be an extremely low cycle, but of moderate size [a tad larger than SC24], a la cycle 15 after 14. This is, of course, only [well-founded] speculation, but makes life interesting.”
Sean Peake says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:32 am
Are we near the peak of this cycle, then? Will it match the predicted values or will it edge higher?
Too early to tell. Other weak cycles, e.g. cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png also had large swings up and down.
Given the stench of bad science that pervades AGWism, it won’t be long before the CO2 nutters claim that the Sun’s extended solar minimum is due to global warming.
Dear Leif Svalgaard,
Thank you for writing.
There are two minimums I observed in the last 300 years of SIDC data. One is the numeric minimums as the end of cycles that might stretch, if the sunspot cycles are robust such as 1934 to 1953, into the first year of following cycles.
However, Joseph D’Aleo points out that the first part of each century tends to begin with a two-cycle minimum, one being we are familiar with, the Dalton Minimum. Presently, this cycle is falling numerically in between the 1700 minimum and the 1798 to 1823 minimum.
If Mr. D’Aleo is correct in his Observations, this minimum will stretch out into 2030.
Chuck
I fear this ‘re-awakening’ may be old Sol having a grumble and a scratch before rolling over for another nap. Another two to six months should tell us.
I’m going to keep a close eye on solar windspeeds as we approach Jupiter perigree on the 19th.
Dr David Hathaway has reduced his forecast again.
The SC 24 will be very long. No maximum before 2014/15
BobW in NC says: what happens next?
Ancient astronomers established that the sun is under the influence of a diurnal cycle that ensures the solar disc returns to an inclination above the oriental visual horizon… based upon these historical observations astrophysicists have managed to develop a complex computer model that predicts the solar disc will then proceed to traverse the illuminated hemisphere until such time as it declines below the occidental horizon.
The astrophysicists have stressed their confidence in the predictive powers of their computer model. However, should additional funding be forthcoming they will establish a worldwide network of observatories to measure and validate their predictions. However, this is not easy to achieve in the modern urban environment so it is proposed that these observatories will be established on calm equatorial beaches that support unimpeded visual access to the either the oriental or occidental horizon.
If the GCR/cloud hypothesis has any merit and we’re near solar maximum for this cycle there’s trouble ahead both for the GHG warming hypothesis and for civilization. People are going to figure out real fast (if they don’t already know) that a warming is good for us and cooling is bad for us.
tallbloke says:
March 10, 2011 at 8:41 am
“I fear this ‘re-awakening’ may be old Sol having a grumble and a scratch before rolling over for another nap.”
Sol’s going on five billion years old. He’s just getting up in the middle of the night to take a leak. I can sympathize with that.
Fergal: Why would a flare continue to rotate as fast as the sun’s surface, once it had left the sun? For it to do that, it would have to be accelerating at an enormous rate.
(The further away from the sun a particle gets, the more miles it has to cover in order to traverse the same number of arc seconds.) This means that in terms of miles per hour, it has to continue to accelerate as it gets further from the sun. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?
Currently geomagnetic field is getting seriously shaken:
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
what is most interesting is that that Sun’s magnetic field, the AP index, is not budging, still staying at 5 or less, and solar winds remain very low. Flux has moved up considerably. Will the AP index similarly increase?
Please ignore – just wanting to follow comments
@Malaga View:
Ancient astronomers established that the sun is under the influence of a diurnal cycle that ensures the solar disc returns to an inclination above the oriental visual horizon…
it is proposed that… observatories will be established on calm equatorial beaches that support unimpeded visual access to the either the oriental or occidental horizon.”
Well played. Do you write grant proposals by any chance?
JamesS says: Do you write grant proposals by any chance?
No… but I do try to read NASA Press Releases….
Baa Humbug says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:26 am
It will also be interesting to see how extreme weather events develop this month. More cyclones and earthquakes anyone?
Please don’t suggest that. Where I am we have had about 10 tremors in the last 2 days, the first for some years. They are small <3 Richter, but the very shallow depth of 2Km is a bit worrying especially as they are centred at <5Km distance.
Looking back, do we see the monthly averaged SSN curves looking smooth like a Hathaway centerline? Up and down, up and down. Take your dramamine.
Feb and March has seen Sol begin a new level of activity that is producing many SC24 records. The L&P effect is no where to be found with most regions recording high contrast values as expected when approaching cycle max. SC24 is still on track to follow SC5 with SC25 expected to follow SC6, the northern hemisphere is edging toward reversal but when looking at the smoothed values there is some way to go. The southern hemisphere continues to show overall reluctance to fire up and the wimpy return from 1158 in the south (last months record breaking region) may be a warning sign that the south might struggle to perform a polarity reversal.
Geoff says:
March 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm
what is most interesting is that that Sun’s magnetic field, the AP index, is not budging, still staying at 5 or less
Geoff Sharp says:
March 10, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The L&P effect is nowhere to be found
The L&P effect is a weakening of the magnetic field….
warning sign that the south might struggle to perform a polarity reversal.
The southern polar fields have weakened a lot and is thus well on its way to a reversal.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“warning sign that the south might struggle to perform a polarity reversal.”
The southern polar fields have weakened a lot and is thus well on its way to a reversal.
Yes, this seems apparent from looking at the plots:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
which can both be found towards the bottom of WUWT’s increasingly robust Solar Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Sun’s polar fields in the early 1960s were HIGH
In the paper:
MODELING THE SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD AND IRRADIANCE SINCE 1713
Y.-M. Wang, J. L. Lean, and N. R. Sheeley, Jr.
Code 7670, E. O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5352;
The Astrophysical Journal, 625:522–538, 2005 May 20
# 2005. Copyright is not claimed for this article. Printed in U.S.A.
http://ihy2007.org/WHI/WHIDMAW_POSTERS/WHIVSWSM/MM_TSI_Wang_ApJ_2005.pdf
page 525 (5/17)
there is a reconstruction of the Sun’s polar fields.
I have copied and pasted an inset over the graph of my formula of polar field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2a.htm
It can be clearly seen that polar field in the early 1960’s was not low as Dr. Svalgaard maintains. (formula can be seen clearly here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm)
This should once for all resolve our perennial disagreement on the matter. I shall only consider Dr. Svalgaards pronouncements on this mater only if he can produce an alternative graphic representation of polar fields, supporting his view, from a source of an equal authority as the above.
Nice post Anthony.
As a side note, NASA just recently released a article entitled:
Researchers Crack the Mystery of the Missing Sunspots
Probably the only reason I bring this up is that with all the talk about the Sun starting to wake up, I think it’s just as important to inform the rest of us that most scientists predicted poorly on solar cycle 24. Except for one man, Dibyendu Nandi.
If you’re out there Nandi and listening, please chime in on this current issue here at WUWT.
I think we would all welcome your input here.
Where does Nandi go from here?
Just The Facts says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm
The southern polar fields have weakened a lot and is thus well on its way to a reversal.
——————
Yes, this seems apparent from looking at the plots:
Not so apparent if you look at the individual hemisphere graphs.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Leif: On March 7th at around 20:00 UT, there was recorded a surge in F10.7 exceeding 900 units for Penticon and well over 300 for Nobeyama. Can we tell where the surge originated? I don’t recall seeing anything in the data from previous years being that high, but memory is a tricky thing.
Thanks.
vukcevic says:
March 10, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Sun’s polar fields in the early 1960s were HIGH
there is a reconstruction of the Sun’s polar fields.
I’m talking about the measurements we have.
They are talking about a simulated field based on several assumptions, e.g. “Polar field reversals are maintained by varying the meridional flow speed between 11 and
20 m s1, with the poleward-directed surface flow being slower during low-amplitude cycles”
from a source of an equal authority as the above.
I am the authority on polar fields, if you need one.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Not so apparent if you look at the individual hemisphere graphs.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
Amazing how prejudice makes blind. It is clear from your graph that the last wiggle is only half the size of the several ones before that. Amazing.
rbateman says:
March 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Leif: On March 7th at around 20:00 UT, there was recorded a surge in F10.7 exceeding 900 units for Penticon and well over 300 for Nobeyama.
If you observe during or shortly after a large flare you often get a very large spike in the F10.7 flux. Previously, the spikes were removed manually, but due to ever-present lack of manpower, the data is raw [not filtered through a person] and the spikes are not removed. They should be in order that the record be compatible with the historical record. NOAA [and I] have removed the spike from our respective data bases.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html sez X-CLASS FLARE! (complete wit the surprise sign.
I’ve learned enough to read the graphs under the widgets.
Geoff Sharp says: March 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Not so apparent if you look at the individual hemisphere graphs.
But there are two poles…
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
You don’t see any apparent signs of a forthcoming polar field reversal in the chart above?
Just The Facts says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:15 pm
You don’t see any apparent signs of a forthcoming polar field reversal in the chart above?
The north is moving more rapidly than the south. The south will be the one to watch near cycle max, we may learn something new. If one pole fails to flip, it’s a new ball game.
Just The Facts says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:15 pm
But there are two poles…
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
You don’t see any apparent signs of a forthcoming polar field reversal in the chart above?
Geoff: “Not so apparent if you look at the individual hemisphere graphs.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif”
Amazing how prejudice makes blind. It is clear from your graph that the last wiggle is only half the size of the several ones before that. Amazing.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 10, 2011 at 7:38 pm
The south will be the one to watch near cycle max, we may learn something new. If one pole fails to flip, it’s a new ball game.
The south has already lost half of its strength [as shown so clearly in the link you provided]. There is no reason to believe it will not continue.
Edit note for Post:
just barely and x-class: an x-class
Leif
Per a conversation from a while ago;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/earthly-cloud-similarities-seen-solar-cmes/#comment-592638
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/earthly-cloud-similarities-seen-solar-cmes/#comment-592657
I am thinking that North and South versions might be valuable additions to the page, as they are somewhat obscured in the combined chart. Given the current conversation, would you reconsider your prior position?
Just The Facts says:
March 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Given the current conversation, would you reconsider your prior position?
What would that be?
I am thinking that North and South versions might be valuable additions to the page,
For the recent data, this page http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png also separates by hemisphere.
Well maybe it is time for the lazy so and so to get out of bed.
If of course these quick kicks are evidence it is or merely reflexive of a deeper slumber.
Frankly I do not want to freeze to death to prove AGW wrong: I would rather old Sol woke up and warmed us all up again.
Kindest Regards
Leif Svalgaard says: March 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm
What would that be?
Excluding these graphs;
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
from the WUWT Solar Reference Pages. I can either add them as graphics, or as links under the combined WSO graphic.
For the recent data, this page http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png also separates by hemisphere.
Added, thanks.
Latest geomagnetic storm is still going on 23 hours after it started.
Japan earthquake just a coincidence?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/gms.htm
Latest polar field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Leif,
I don’t understand why the latest monthly data graph from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) (ISES Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression – updated 2011 March 9) is still showing the prediction of a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 90 for the next sunspot cycle maximum .
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/nasa-revises-the-sunspot-prediction-down-again/
I thought that David Hathaway had made a revision with a predicted maximum of about 58? Why is the latest graph not adapted?
Is S903 (N11E85) reversed its polarity?
Just The Facts says:
March 10, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I can either add them as graphics, or as links under the combined WSO graphic.
Links would be fine.
Rik Gheysens says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:43 am
is still showing the prediction of a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 90 for the next sunspot cycle maximum .[…] I thought that David Hathaway had made a revision with a predicted maximum of about 58? Why is the latest graph not adapted?
Because Hathaway’s prediction is his own, private one. Not ‘official’ NASA or NOAA.
Peter_pan says:
March 11, 2011 at 3:50 am
Is S903 (N11E85) reversed its polarity?
Looks normal to me.
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:16 am
Latest geomagnetic storm is still going on 23 hours after it started.
Japan earthquake just a coincidence?
No, it’s not simple coincidence. Anything that put pressure against rock and then releases it assures that the cracks inflicted will result in movement. What is unclear is the actual mechanism by which tectonics are affected. Likewise, the rift that just opened in the Hawaiian volcano is not simple coincidence. These occurences are to be expected when solar activity changes state, and this particular episode is par for the course.
Call it a risk factor enhancement.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 10, 2011 at 5:37 pm
…..I am the authority on polar fields, if you need one.
That is not disputed and I will gladly acknowledge it.
However, even if rickety measurements in early 1960’s were taken as good, that does not mean that 50 years of the subsequent data, which correlates well with their theoretical conclusions:
http://ihy2007.org/WHI/WHIDMAW_POSTERS/WHIVSWSM/MM_TSI_Wang_ApJ_2005.pdf
…as well as with similar study by Solanki et al from Max Plank:
( http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html) …should be ignored.
It would be also unwise to reject my results, since they are in very close agreement with both studies, and in the highest correlation (R^2 = 0.93) with actual measurements since the time the continuous stream of data is available:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm .
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 12:18 am
Latest polar field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
~
Happy Friday
One more southern hemispheric “peculuiarity.”
Hydrogen collumn density distribution within the heliiosphere.
Check out the latitude distribution thru the heliosphere from upwind to downwind.
Squares in image are detections and diamonds and + are nondetection.
Page 24
Constraints on the Structure of the Heliospheric
Interface Based on Lyα Absorption Spectra
Brian E. Wood · Vladislav V. Izmodenov ·
Yury G. Malama
http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~izmod/Papers/2009/Wood_Izmodenov_Malama_2009SpaceSciRev.pdf
Maybe Dr. S can .. tell us why.. a higher concentration of interstellar Hydrogen streaming through the southern heliosphere at this time. Is “part of the distribution” somehow governed by the location n/s of the hydrogen wall?
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for March 10th, 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
Here’s the link to the high res downloadable avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110310.avi
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 5:25 am
Links would be fine.
Done.
Why is the Noaa sunspot number (137) so much higher than the sunspot number given in the second graph (the sunspot number graph)?
There is another strong geomagnetic disturbance under way:
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
Carla says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:59 am
Is “part of the distribution” somehow governed by the location n/s of the hydrogen wall?
There are only so few ‘sight lines’ that you cannot say much. What is clear is the the detections are simply governed by the hydrogen wall. However, none of this has any influence on the inner solar system.
David says:
March 11, 2011 at 9:22 am
Why is the Noaa sunspot number (137) so much higher than the sunspot number given in the second graph (the sunspot number graph)?
Because the International Sunspot Number by convention is only 60% of the actually ‘observed’ NOAA sunspot number.
Another major typo.
I said “I’ve learned enough to read the graphs under the widgets.” when the truth is I’ve NOT YET learned enough to read the graphs under the widgets.
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:02 am
It would be also unwise to reject my results, since they are in very close agreement with both studies, and in the highest correlation (R^2 = 0.93) with actual measurements since the time the continuous stream of data is available:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm .
You show two versions of your formula. They are different, and incomplete. If I add some missing parentheses [in red] to the one you have been pushing the longest time, I do not get at all anything that looks like your curve. This I have remarked on before. Time to be less sloppy and tell us what the ‘correct’ formula is. Here is what I [or rather Excel] get:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Polar-Fields-12.png\
Here is Magnetosphere Activity for March 11th, 2011, from the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology:
Here’s the link to the high res downloadable avi file:
http://www3.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/movie/2011/test_6.20110311.avi
Also, I added this animation;
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/substorm.gif
to the WUWT Geomagnetic Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/geomagnetism/
Just The Facts says: March 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm
“Also, I added this animation;
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/substorm.gif”
And removed immediately thereafter, when I realized that it was just a simulation loop, versus a real-time feed. Eventually I hope that NICT will offer such a real-time magnetosphere animation gif, but in the short-term, I just hope that they are all ok.
vukcevic says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:02 am
It would be also unwise to reject my results
If I change the -1940.5-3 in your formula by ‘-1947.5’ I get something that matches your plot. Then I can extend your plot to 1715 [it should be valid at all times – even during the Maunder Minimum, hmmm]. To compare with Wang et al. one can plot half and -half of your ‘polar field’ to apportion the dipole moment evenly between North and South, and finally overlay the result on Wang et al.’s [your authority]. The result is
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
As you can see, the formula breaks down around 1900 and around 1800, and gives the wrong sign between 1800 and 1900. So, you can see, it fails spectacularly.
Tallbloke said: “I’m going to keep a close eye on solar windspeeds as we approach Jupiter perigree on the 19th.”
He meant perihelion of course, not perigree nor perigee. Regarding perihelion, http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html notes that strange things happen around Jovian perihelion. For example, at the last perihelion, from May 10-12 the solar wind all but disappeared, and sunspots increased before perihelion and then decreased after it.
Of course, that may all be a coincidence. If the same occurs again will that be a coincidence? Anyway, I understand why Tallbloke will be keeping an eye on it.
Rich.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm
…………….
This is the Excel entry in the last cell (for 7th February 2011):
= -152*(COS(2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/23.724))
K is column for dates, and the current cell (K1626) reads 2011.1174
There are 2 x 4 parentheses excluding pi().
The rest you can do yourself.
No polarity switch is not a bother, since you can consider absolute (unsigned) values.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm
…………….
I like your second graph, an excellent match to Y.-M. Wang, J. L. Lean, and N. R. Sheeley, Jr.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
Considering they work for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington (the centre of known Universe), this being their second paper on the subject, and probably paid in hundreds of thousands of US$, and then here is me, hardly literate monenegrien ‘donkey riding, illicit brandy distilling, rock tossing burly peasant’, coming up with an even better match to the actual records (since 1967) than your the above aforementioned esteemed colleagues, and you bother about tiny – sign in 1900 (is gets ok on the next switch).
And again this is only a minor ornament in my pandora’s box of goodies, the NAP is the one to look for.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 3:44 am
This is the Excel entry in the last cell (for 7th February 2011):
= -152*(COS(2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/19.859)+COS(PI()/3+2*PI()*(K1626-1943.5)/23.724))
The formulae on your graphs both have a phase offset of 2*PI()/3 instead of what you now say PI()/3. It would be good if your graphs would show the correct formula. The high correlation comes about because you plot the signed quantity. The regain some credibility, perhaps you should update your graphs with the correct formula. Also calculate the correlation using the absolute values instead.
No polarity switch is not a bother, since you can consider absolute (unsigned) values.
Getting the sign correct should be a bother to you. Especially since it is the sign that is important for the correlation coefficient. Redo your plots and calculation without the sign and show us.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 4:16 am
here is me, hardly literate monenegrien
It shows.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2011 at 6:26 am
On my illicit montenegrien brandy I have a label ‘If you don’t like it , don’t buy it’. Same for the formula.
vukcevic says:
March 12, 2011 at 9:59 am
On my illicit montenegrien brandy I have a label ‘If you don’t like it , don’t buy it’. Same for the formula.
some things are not worth buying. At least you should correct the errors I have pointed out. People that download it for free get what they pay for, don’t they…
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm
…..
There was an error on the sunspot one (corrected), polar fields was OK, unless you were looking at an old one. Free samples are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Since you are in wine growing region, if you like to set up your own private brandy facility, I can advise. It takes 3 weeks from fresh grape to natural, clear, non-adulterated brandy. Very healthy non-addictive if consumed in small quantities before breakfast; good for colds, infections, rheumatic pain (applied externally) etc. Stuff made from corn, potatoes and similar is poor man’s cheep, liver damaging addictive substitute.
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 12:25 am
There was an error on the sunspot one (corrected), polar fields was OK, unless you were looking at an old one
Now, that you have admitted that the sign is wrong, one can recalculate the correlation using absolute values. The resulting R-squared is then only 0.51, nothing to write home about, given the very high autocorrelation of the data. Here is what you should do: carefully measure on the Wang et al. graph, what the values are for the polar fields since 1715, then correlate with what your corrected formula says. This will show you how poor the correlation is, and will, of course, be the reason that you will not do what I suggest. Perhaps better drown the sorrow with some of that home brew brandy.
Your KGB methods do not work. You don’t calculate correlations for rectified signals. Go back and learn the basics of harmonic oscillations.
Correct way of doing correlation is by taking into account the sign of a periodic function as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Doswidaniya tovarich Lavrentiy Pavlovich
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
Correct way of doing correlation is by taking into account the sign of a periodic function as shown here
Then correlate Wang et al. and your formula including the sign.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Then correlate Wang et al. and your formula including the sign.
Wang et al is only a model, close to reality, but still a model.
Only correlation that counts is one with the actual measured data, and that one is not only perfect, but highest for any in the field of the solar science.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
No amount of ‘fiddling’ you can think of would overturn 50+ years of data.
Perhaps next you may suggest correlation with the Mann’s hockey stick.
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Wang et al is only a model
is in sharp contrast to your glowing previous assessment:
vukcevic says:
March 10, 2011 at 3:55 pm
“Sun’s polar fields in the early 1960s were HIGH […]
from a source of an equal authority as the above.”
Leif Svalgaard says: March 14, 2011 at 4:11 am
………..
There is new competition in the field. And guess what? it agrees with your estimate that SC25 is going to be higher than the SC24.
Now you really have a problem to fend off onslaught from the current crop of astrologers.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/polar-field-1.png (graph title)
Tim Channon – solar polar fields vs model output using barycentric periods.
I have superimposed Tim’s graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TC-PF.gif
against the WSO graph
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
The match is incredibly close, it does not leave any doubt.
You know, I haven’t really been following the discussion here between Leif and Vuk too closely, but I’ve caught bits of it – and it strikes me as a great example of the way things should be done: There is criticism and direct response right out in the open for everyone to see – and those who understand and follow the discussion can draw their own conclusions from what is presented. Unless I missed it, I didn’t see a whole lot of hiding of data or process – it was shared, criticized, defended, and so forth, right out in plain view.
Ok, I caught some snarkiness, too. But I’d rather have that than secrecy.
Just my observations. Make what you will of it.
Hi Tony
I thought that everyone has abandoned this thread some time ago. Dr. S as a professional scientist is meticulous about the detail and accuracy. I am on the other end of the spectrum, and ‘do science’ for fun, and if something doesn’t fit exactly it doesn’t bother me too much. Dr. S and I have been ‘at it’ for some 2-3 years now, neither is prepared to give up, but by now we do understand each other well. It appears that the Scandinavian and Mediterranean humour are just as far apart. I think both of us should take a rest until the next solar thread.
vukcevic says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:27 am
I have superimposed Tim’s graph
against the WSO graph
The match is incredibly close, it does not leave any doubt.
Because of scattered light the first two years of the WSO observations. See http://www.leif.org/research/Reduction%20of%20Spatially%20Resolved%20Magnetic%20Field%20by%20Scattered%20Light.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Rotation%20of%20the%20Sun.pdf
We think that the published polar fields in 1976-77 are 10-15% too low, so there should not be a close fit, back then.
This reminds me of the situation with Dikpati. She also found a ‘stunning’ correlation including for cycle 20. I showed and David Hathaway agreed that the sunspot area data that she used from David’s website [now corrected] were wrong by up to 40% for cycle 20. Her stunning correlation was with the data that was wrong. Beware of correlations that are so incredibly close that there is no doubt [especially with faulty data]; they are without a doubt spurious.
vukcevic says:
March 13, 2011 at 11:56 pm
No amount of ‘fiddling’ you can think of would overturn 50+ years of data.
All the data we have suggest PF for minimum around ~1964 being low, and all the data we have show that sign of the PF in the 19th century was not reversed, so ho fiddling is needed, just acceptance of the facts.
vukcevic says:
March 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Dr. S and I have been ‘at it’ for some 2-3 years now, neither is prepared to give up
This is the wrong attitude on your part. You must give up once the data does not go your way.
a) I am an armchair revolutionary, and those do not give up on a first little obstacle. Predicting 1960’s is of little interest, 2010-25 is ‘name of the game’.
b) The ‘stunning correlation’ appears to be a just a future projection based on the frequency synthesis derived from the past record; no need for concern.
vukcevic says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:36 am
Leif Svalgaard says: March 14, 2011 at 4:11 am
………..
There is new competition in the field. And guess what? it agrees with your estimate that SC25 is going to be higher than the SC24.
Now you really have a problem to fend off onslaught from the current crop of astrologers.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/polar-field-1.png (graph title)
Tim Channon – solar polar fields vs model output using barycentric periods.
~
Astrology? Been thinking about the astrology of the first inner three planets and their relationship to the solar/interstellar reconnection/accrettion/absorbtion, interactions. Based on their locations as you propagate outward from the sun each planet has their own little like “ring current” of solar influence specific to their location they orbit in. They Earth in particular receives more interstellar hydrogen within its orbital influence than lets say Venus.
Cycle 25 higher than Cycle 24. Anything to do with sign and will the southern solar hemisphere be more active? hmmm
vuk, come now. One of the things that irritates us most often is when a model cannot backcast worth a tinker’s damn. If you want creds, show us how well your model works for all known cycles before advertising future predictions. Else you hide a hockeyschtick of your own.
Hi Ms. Grey
No secret, I just plot against the known data, the rest could be only guess and a waste of time, but since you whish to know, here we are, starting at 1600 and up to 2011.
Sunspot cycles:
1600-1750 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/1600-1700.gif
1700-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Polar fields
1967-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
The above agreement/correlations are as god as you will find anywhere else.
I have no data for anything else. If you do have actual numerical file I am happy to plot it. I do not base my equations on vague speculations, claims or ‘expert’ opinions (starting with Dr. Hathaway), but the available data, it is the best I can do.
As far as credibility is concerned it is not concern of mine. If you have any doubt, and you are so inclined you can go ahead and verify or not. If there is an error somewhere, and I am made aware of it, I will in due course make an attempt to correct it.
I whish you pleasant day and success in all your endeavours.
With kindest of regards (vukcevic)
Pamela Gray says:
March 15, 2011 at 5:25 am
vuk, come now. One of the things that irritates us most often is when a model cannot backcast worth a tinker’s damn. If you want creds, show us how well your model works for all known cycles before advertising future predictions.
Indeed, considering Vuk’s confidence in the Wang et al. reconstruction
“a source of an equal authority as the above.” and that “Correct way of doing correlation is by taking into account the sign”, it is instructive to see how well the model works for past cycles:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-6.png
The R-squared is an ‘impressive’ 0.0523, a bit far from “highest for any in the field of the solar science.”
So, I think we can safely dispose of the ‘agreement’ with Wang et al.
Carla,
I wouldn’t pay much attention to the posts you refered to. They are a ‘satire’.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 15, 2011 at 8:10 am
………….
It just show that all for- and hind- casting without data available is a nonsense. What a proper scientist would do is plot correlation between Wang et al and the available PF data from 1967 and 2011, and than do the same for my formula.
Instead you are presuming that Wang et al, Hathaway, Dikpati etc, the whole cabal of overpaid self opinionated, tea leaf reading solar scientists, assume to know what was happening at time for which no data is available, be it polar fields or solar plasma meridional transportation, I say as well balanced science as: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSC.jpg
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 am
Leif Svalgaard says: March 15, 2011 at 8:10 am
It just show that all for- and hind- casting without data available is a nonsense.
There is data:
1) the low polar fields around 1965 from Crimea, from eclipse photos, and from Mt Wilson [they did observe 1960-1966]
2) the sign of the polar fields in the 19th century is firmly established
Ignoring the data is no good.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 am
Leif Svalgaard says: March 15, 2011 at 8:10 am
It just show that all for- and hind- casting without data available is a nonsense.
At Mount Wilson, the observations continued through the early sixties. Here is a published magnetogram from July 1961: http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961.png
There was only a faint North polar fields and no clear South polar fields. According to your formula the fields should have been stronger than in 1976-1977, and they clearly were not: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-7.png
Accept the data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:13 am
Ignoring the data is no good.
Absolutely! So do a bit of proper science using the data then:
a) Correlate Wang et all against the polar fields data file
b) Correlate Vukcevic against the polar fields data file
c) Post the results
All the rest is chasing a straw in the wind at the best. People reading this blog aren’t naïve.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 9:04 am
you are presuming that Wang et al […] assume to know what was happening at time for which no data is available
I think it was you who claimed that Wang et al. were the authority on this…
Leif Svalgaard says: March 15, 2011 at 10:00 am Wrong!
I was suggesting that the ‘Wang et al’ guess is as good as yours.
Mine result is not a guess, it is solid maths and the Stanford University’s data.
So do a bit of proper science using the data then:
a) Correlate Wang et all against the polar fields data file
b) Correlate Vukcevic against the polar fields data file
c) Post the results
You are not trying to weasel outof it , are you? The rest is empty rhetoric.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 10:30 am
Leif Svalgaard says: March 15, 2011 at 10:00 am Wrong!
I was suggesting that the ‘Wang et al’ guess is as good as yours.
You were claiming Wang et al. were the final answer.
But as you can see, your formula falls flat:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-8.png
Leif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
Why is there an annual cycle?
Why a phase reversal of the annual cycle around sun spot max.?
Why varying amplitude ?
Leif Svalgaard says:March 15, 2011 at 10:51 am
………..
No amount of wriggling around with nonsense will get you out of the hole.
So do a bit of proper science using the data .
a) Plot and correlate Wang et all against the polar fields data file
b) Plot and correlate Vukcevic against the polar fields data file
c) Post the results
You are definitely weaselling out of it, that is plainly obvious.
When a scientist is not prepared to plot set of data (from your own Stanford University http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html ) but instead peddles nonsense where no data is available, he is putting his credibility on line.
I did say readers of the blog aren’t naïve.
lgl says:
March 15, 2011 at 11:15 am
Why is there an annual cycle?
Why a phase reversal of the annual cycle around sun spot max.?
Why varying amplitude ?
Because the solar axis is inclined 7 degrees towards the Earth’s orbit so we see more of the south pole when it is tipped towards us [as it is right now]. See:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Tipping is not enough, the polar fields are also concentrated very near the pole in a ‘topknot’ configuration. This in combination with us only observing the line-of-sight part of the field leads to a factor of two change in strength. Since the polar fields reverse at maximum, the annual cycle also reverses sign. And finally, there is a meridional circulation that carries magnetic flux from the sunspot zones towards the poles. Because a bipolar spot has a slight tilt towards the equator, the poleward part of the flux has a slightly better chance to actually get to the pole. The sunspot polarities change with the cycle, so the polar fields do too [actually causing the cycle changes in the first place – a chicken and egg thing]
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 11:27 am
When a scientist is not prepared to plot set of data (from your own Stanford University http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html ) but instead peddles nonsense where no data is available, he is putting his credibility on line.
I did say readers of the blog aren’t naïve.
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-8.png shows the data that can be compared. Wang et al. stopped in 1996. The Mt. Wilson data from 1961 is clear: no south polar fields. Scientists do not do cherry picking.
he is putting his credibility on line
What was that you said about credibility: “As far as credibility is concerned it is not concern of mine”. What I show you is the data we have. MWO and Crimea have been validated by their agreement with WSO. And as Pamela points out the formula must be valid at all times, if it is valid at all. Hence the importance of the sign, and we know the sign in the 19th century. Can’t get around that one.
I do feel a certain desperation in your ramblings as the formula crumbles. The final nail in its coffin would be if the next polar fields were to be equal or greater than the 2007-2008 fields, rather than only half as the formula predicts. Wouldn’t you agree that that would be a devastating blow you could not recover from?
Your whole line is a pantomime. Not only you are telling us that you know what it was in the past, where you have no data, but with the a’la Hathaway-Dikpati confidence predicting the future.
With the respect for your past scientific achievements, which are very considerable by any measure, and of the greatest value to the solar science, it would not be proper of me to pursue this particular argument at this particular time any longer.
I shall follow your (Stanford) University’s data, and no doubt we shall meet sooner than later and review the progress.
To all concerned (if anyone else is following this futile exchange) here is what my formula and the correlation with KNOWN data looks like:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
to all, I wish you the best of fortune.
PS. And here is what Wang et al and Solanki et al suggest:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
In the above link you will easily find links to their relevant papers.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Not only you are telling us that you know what it was in the past, where you have no data
I have pointed out to you that we do have data [especially about the sign of the polar fields in the 19th century], but you select to ignore data that doesn’t fit, and so, yes, no progress is possible.
it would not be proper of me to pursue this particular argument at this particular time any longer
I guess that the weight of data finally convinced you about the futility.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm
PS. And here is what Wang et al and Solanki et al suggest:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
In the above link you will easily find links to their relevant papers.
And you will see that the sign in your formula is wrong in the 19th century.
Thanks Leif
Vuk,
Add the 22 year cycle you now must be there to get it right and move on.
lgl says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Vuk, Add the 22 year cycle you know must be there to get it right and move on.
That is his problem: the formula does not admit a 22-year cycle, as the predicted polar fields fail to reverse about every 100 years.
Leif Svalgaard says: March 10, 2011 at 7:36 am
BobW in NC says: March 10, 2011 at 7:26 am
Could you clarify and expand, please.
Recycled from anothr thread:
—
Leif, I’m very late getting back to this thread and noticed BobW had already asked basically the same question. Hey, thanks for that perspective, must have missed it somewhere in the past posts.
Leif,
Where can I read and learn more about this? (Scanned up and down this thread, apologies if I missed it).
lgl says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Vuk,
Add the 22 year cycle you now must be there to get it right and move on.
No need lgl.
It is far simpler than that, as you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
AJB says:
March 17, 2011 at 5:51 am
[especially about the sign of the polar fields in the 19th century]
Where can I read and learn more about this?
There is a 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity that depends on the sign of the polar fields. The theory behind this effect is here http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf [section 9 near page 50]. More here http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/731/731index.htm and http://www.leif.org/EOS/95GL03086.pdf
Many thanks Leif.
AJB says:
March 17, 2011 at 9:24 am
Many thanks Leif.
Did it make sense? If the polar fields changed sign, the sense of the 22-yr variation would also change and that is not observed.
Vuk,
Two periods is not enough.
Leif Svalgaard says March 17, 2011 at 9:59 am
Gimme a chance, not read it all thoroughly yet 🙂 [In case of confusion I’m not the one with the posteriorally incarnated formula – nor do I want to get drawn into that food fight!].
The point I’m interested in is the pole switch at the maxima of Cycle 5 (a whole number of ~22 pairs plus two halves of ~11 back from where we are now = 9 x ~22 + ~11 = ~209). de Vreis? Now extend the trend at ends of this to that period (we now know the right hand side):
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/731/fig1.gif
Fields really weak at both ends? Maybe. A ‘skip’ of polarity switch (for whatever reason and however unlikely) at these points therefore still seems plausible without changing the sense of the intervening whole 22 year periods. Also, where did the decline into the Maunder and prior minima really start? Eddy’s Fig 5(a). Just saying …
Conclusions: None! – except that we really are living in interesting times.
One day I hope you’ll find time to write that book we’re all chaffing at the bit to read. Then hobbyists with day jobs wouldn’t have to keep blundering about talking rot and asking so many daft questions to try and piece the picture together. But that would spoil all the fun – good on you Leif and thanks again 🙂
AJB says:
March 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Fields really weak at both ends? Maybe.
The Figure suffers a bit from the difficulty of getting a full 22-yr cycle at both ends.
In the meantime we have gotten more data and it is now clear that there was a strong 22-yr cycle at the right-hand edge. See Figure 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
Also, where did the decline into the Maunder and prior minima really start? Eddy’s Fig 5(a). Just saying …
Difficult to say. Although I’m of the opinion that the solar cycle was vigorous through the Maunder Minimum [based on cosmic ray modulation, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-Sun-Berggren.png ], but that the spots were invisible [Livingston & Penn].
One day I hope you’ll find time to write that book we’re all chaffing at the bit to read.
Me too!
lgl says: March 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
………..
You missed Y = + – A [ Cos(…. etc)
There are two magnetic polarity (N & S) which may be responding individually (two separate meridional flows), etc. hence simultaneous bipolarity of the equation. Something to further contemplate on.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 4:18 am
You missed Y = + – A [ Cos(…. etc)
There are two magnetic polarity (N & S) which may be responding individually
Nonsense, for the sign of the dipole moment to reverse, both poles must reverse at the same time, not ‘individually’.
Dr.S.
Perhaps you should learn to read. Nowhere, now or before I used word ‘dipole’ in reference to solar polar fields, since I do not think there is one. I usually refer to ‘polar field’ as a singular (could be either S or N) or to ‘polar fields’ as plural for two entities.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Now :
for the sign of the dipole moment to reverse, both poles must reverse at the same time, not ‘individually’.
Before:
In fact, the north polar fields have already reversed [which they do near solar max].
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/sol-is-finally-waking-up/#comment-617468
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 9:21 am
Perhaps you should learn to read. Nowhere, now or before I used word ‘dipole’ in reference to solar polar fields
What you plot and your formula pretends to model is the difference between the North and South polar fields. This quantity [times the distance between the poles] is called the dipole moment of the Sun’s general magnetic field. Perhaps you should know what you plot.
Leif Svalgaard says:
In fact, the north polar fields have already reversed [which they do near solar max].
You do not understand how this works. The reversal process is a bit erratic, but once we are on the way to solar minimum both poles will have reversed and a new dipole established. The polarity of this new dipole determines that phase of the 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity.
Not necessarily, since they do reverse separately, it is possible there are two individual ‘dipoles’ (one in each hemisphere), as per the Paul Charbonneau’s paper. Stanford is measuring what is happening at approximately two heliographic poles, whether it is one, two or hundred dipoles around.
They also wisely do not refer to ‘dipole’ in their data web-page:
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
possibly strongly suggesting that word ‘dipole’ is misleading in this context.
But since you interfere in the lgl’s and mine exchange, perhaps you should tell us why the WSO is not updating their data page.
It wouldn’t be you sabotaging my access to data, since it is in such a good agreement with my formula, would you ?
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:14 am
Not necessarily, since they do reverse separately, it is possible there are two individual ‘dipoles’
There are thousands, each sunspot pair or ephemeral regions. The Sun’s general dipole moment is the difference between the North and the south polar fields.
They also wisely do not refer to ‘dipole’ in their data web-page
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/DipallR.gif
It wouldn’t be you sabotaging my access to data, since it is in such a good agreement with my formula, would you ?
What a low-life person you are. The updates are usually about a month behind.
Bacteria as the lowest form of life are the longest surviving, it is dinosaurs which go extinct.
I suggest a visit to a school of polite conversation.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 11:03 am
I suggest a visit to a school of polite conversation.
Accusing me of sabotage isn’t exactly polite:
“It wouldn’t be you sabotaging my access to data”
Perfectly justifiable action you may take to destroy your enemy, i.e. my formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which you failed to destroy by any other means, in many previous attempts. The formula is threatening your pride and joy ‘0.66Rmax’ (or whatever it is) prediction, so you declared open warfare on the formula. According to the Geneva Convention in the similar cases sabotage is acceptable legal action. During the Italo-German occupation of my homeland my father and other relatives were active saboteurs.
Vuk
You missed Y = + – A [ Cos(…. etc)
No I didn’t. +-A will not give you a 22 year average back to 1750.
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 11:55 am
Perfectly justifiable action you may take to destroy your enemy
Danish proverb: “thief thinks everybody steals” seems to be applicable to you.
Your formula has failed a long time ago as has been demonstrated abundantly. No need to fight it. Just to remind people from time to time of its failing.
lgl
Polar field formula is a good representation of the data availability period . It is also in a good agreement with the Wang and Solanki models, going back 2-3 cycles prior to the data period. It is observance from the last solar max to next, when level of activity may fall drastically, which may give us clear indication of what the polar fields are about. The idea of 1/1000 chance of the sunspot cycle magnetism accumulating in the polar regions, when compared to the actual measurements relative regularity of rise and fall in the PF, does not stand scrutiny as probability is understood in any other brunch of science. I am happy just to wait and see how it fares against forthcoming reversal, for time being appears to be on the track:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
A year or two ago Dr.S was ridiculing the idea that it could predict the reversal within a year or so, the length of time a reversal takes. Time will tell if he was right or wrong.
I certainly do not hide intention of the PF formula: its intention is to sabotage and eventually destroy dogma of the ‘solar science religion’ that the sun in an isolated entity from the rest of the planets, that it has an internal magnetic clock running at an 11 year tick, but the same solar science is unable to agree about, let alone convincingly explain the mechanism driving it.
My formula can be only beaten by the data, and that is not happening! No data file or a link to existence of such, for data prior to 1965 was ever produced despite all claims to the contrary.
No data, no beef, no contest!
vukcevic says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm
My formula can be only beaten by the data
It has been beaten many times. The polar fields in 1961-1965 were weak as both Mt Wilson and Crimea shows. The sign is wrong in the 19th century. The formula predicts always the same length of the solar cycle [except when it breaks down every century]. That you ignore this is typical of a non-scientist’s infatuation with his own brilliance.
formula can be only beaten by the data .
Where’s the beef ?
No data, no contest !
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:13 am
No data, no contest !
Running away from the data is bad science, but typical pseudo-science.
According to your formula the dipole moment in 1961 should have been -262 uT and stronger than in 1976-77. Yet data shows that there was no measurable South polar field and only a faint North polar field [below 1 G], e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-7.png
So, there you have it. The polar fields before SC20 didn’t build up to a strong field [Severny couldn’t even measure it although the same instrument measured the fields in 1976 quite well], hence the weak cycle that followed. Getting the sign wrong in the 19th century is another fatal blow: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-6.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-5.png
Hey Doc
a) that’s no polar field data, that’s a sketch (of god knows what). This is an example of good and valid data: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
b) You misinterpreted the formula, there is also + – sign, if you whish to venture in the area where there is no data.
No court of law would accept such evidence.
No data, hence accusation of failure of the formula to perform its function is NOT sustained.
Case dismissed !
vukcevic says:
March 19, 2011 at 9:34 am
a) that’s no polar field data, that’s a sketch (of god knows what).
That is a Mt Wilson magnetogram
http://www.leif.org/research/MWO-1961.png
b) You misinterpreted the formula, there is also + – sign, if you whish to venture in the area where there is no data.
This is just a [new] device to plaster over the failing of the formula, and you are wrong about the ‘no data’. We know quite well the polarity of the polar fields in the 19th century.
As you say about your antics: “No court of law would accept such evidence”
You forget yhat you are the plaintiff, the person who initiated a complaint, hence it is up to you to prove your claim beyond reasonable doubt. Your evidence is incomplete, based on assumptions, spurious claims and hear say, therefore unacceptable.
Your clam is clear case of deformation.
Case dismissed.
vukcevic says:
March 20, 2011 at 1:50 am
Your evidence is incomplete, based on assumptions, spurious claims and hear say, therefore unacceptable.
A measure of the the polar field strength is the bending of high latitude polar plumes. A higher polar field strength will bend the high latitude plumes more towards the solar equator. The bending of the polar plumes can be obtained by taking an average of the angle just above the photosphere at 60 degree latitude in the four quadrants seen at solar eclipses. In Figure 1b of http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf you can see that the bending angle in 1964 was 20 degrees while in 1954 it was 40 degrees. Hence the polar fields in 1964 were much weaker than in 1954, contrary to your formula.
Another estimate of the polar field strength is the degree of warping of the heliospheric current sheet. In Figure 1c you can see that the warping was much stronger in 1954 than in 1964, meaning that the polar fields were much weaker in 1964 than in 1954.
You can contrast this presentation of data to your rantings.
Looks to me you are short of credible evidence.
I only deal with a corroborated sequence of numbers, commonly known as reliable data.
vukcevic says:
March 20, 2011 at 5:38 am
I only deal with a corroborated sequence of numbers, commonly known as reliable data.
One has to deal with the data in whatever format they have. Ignoring data that doesn’t fit is bad science.