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
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.