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
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?