Guest post by David Archibald
Dr Svalgaard has an interesting annotation on his chart of solar parameters – “Welcome to solar max”:
Graphic source: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Could it be? It seems that Solar Cycle 24 had only just begun, with solar minimum only two and a half years ago in December 2008.
The first place to confirm that is the solar polar magnetic field strength, with data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory:
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum. The northern field has reversed. There are only three prior reversals in the instrument record. Another parameter that would confirm solar maximum is the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle, also from the WSO site.
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has taken a couple of years to reach solar maximum from its current level.
If the Sun is anywhere near solar maximum, the significance of that is that it would be the first time in the record that a short cycle was also a weak cycle, though Usoskin et al in 2009 proposed a short, asymmetric cycle in the late 18th century at the beginning of the Dalton Minimum: http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/arlt2.pdf
Interestingly, Ed Fix (paper in press) generated a solar model (based on forces that dare not speak their name) which predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long:
The green line is the solar cycle record with alternate cycles reversed. The red line is the model output. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated.
This model has the next solar maximum in 2013 and minimum only four years later in 2017. This outcome is possible based on the Sun’s behaviour to date.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’
Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm
is is useless to continue here at WUWT.
“Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.”
lol.
From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
“One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). “
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:20 am
From Wolff and Patrone’s paper:
“One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE.
What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block. If I am in an airplane at 30,000 feet I have more potential energy than at 10,000 feet. Descending gently from 30,000 to 10,000 feet changes my PE, but that has no effect on me as such as there is no coupling between me and the PE. Thus no mechanism to extract that PE. Should I crash into the ground, a coupling exists in the back reaction of the ground on me, but the W&P paper is silent on what their coupling would be and thus they have no mechanism.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:30 am
What is missing is how to transfer some of PE from the orbit to the convection cell. This is the stumbling block.
Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:50 am
Ah good, I now see what it is about W&P’s paper you don’t understand.
I’ll try to work out a way of explaining it and post it on my blog.
I understand their paper perfectly well. It will be worth your time to try to explain it so you can see where the problem lies.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:55 am
I understand their paper perfectly well.
No, you don’t.
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
“I understand their paper perfectly well.”
No, you don’t.
The paper is well-written and clear enough. There is no difficulty understanding it. Otherwise it would have been caught in peer-review, wouldn’t it? That is what peer-review is about. Not about whether the results are ‘correct’.
Well clearly the peer reviewers understood it.
The example you gave shows that you don’t.
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:27 am
The example you gave shows that you don’t.
Perhaps you do not understand my example. Try to work out what is wrong with it and put that on your blog.
The problem is your understanding of Wolff and Patrone, not my understanding of your example, which shows that you think they are talking about gravitational potential energy with their ‘PE’ quantity.
They are not.
This is where you are going wrong in understanding the mechanism they have identified. They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy (assisted by a suitable flow) on the hemisphere facing the barycentre in amounts non-linearly proportionate to the distance of the stellar core from the system barycentre. This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential (because the exchange in places of the two masses under consideration would cancel the changes in that). It is because the distance between stellar core and system barycentre varies with the motions of the gas giant planets (predominantly) that the mechanism could potentially explain the correlations we have found between solar motion wrt to the centre of mass of the solar system and variation in levels of solar activity.
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells
Very clever misuse of ‘potential’ here. They calculate the potential energy and have not identified how to change that into kinetic energy, i.e. no coupling between the two, i.e. no mechanism.
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:54 am
They are talking about the potential change in the Kinetic energy of massive elements in overturning convective cells preferentially releasing energy […] This would occur due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, nothing directly to do with their gravitational potential
Contrast the above ‘understanding’ with what W&P actually claim:
“If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. […] The exchange releases potential energy …”
Wolff and Patrone:
The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only inthe hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength andspatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy ofa few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions.
Nice try Leif. Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?
tallbloke says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:32 am
Are you going to accept gravitational potential energy is a red herring you made a mistake over?
It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.
Leif Svalgaard says:
It is clear that W&P are talking about how to convert that red herring into kinetic energy for a ‘few’ convective cells. It is also clear that they have not explained how.
And in spite of your enthusiasm W&P note: “Clearly, Figures 6 and 8 are not strong enough to prove that planet-caused events have noticeably affected the Sun.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:58 am
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 1:55 am
Geoff is correct in assuming that there is
‘modulating factor’ and ‘disrupting factor’
————————–
Like adding another epicycle when the first one doesn’t do the trick.
You obviously do not understand the principles involved. It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
There is no challenge in something ‘not even wrong’
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 10:32 am
Geoff Sharp says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
It is not surprising you ducked the challenge.
——————————
There is no challenge in something ‘not even wrong’
A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website. There is a special forum area set up where you can prove to us you have a basic knowledge of the theory (in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/216
Geoff Sharp says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm
A weak answer Dr. Svalgaard. I have issued a direct challenge to you on my website.
so what? I think the shoe is on the other foot: convince me.
in particular the 2 forces involved, the modulation and disruptive forces)
since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity. So you are welcome to quote me on that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm
since no forces are involved and have not been described with viable physics or quantified by you, what is there to understand? And I freely admit that it all sounds like nonsense to me and trying to understand nonsense does not seem a worthwhile activity.
We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm
We can only assume you do not understand the principles involved. If so, any further criticism of Angular Momentum Theory (AMT) in the future would undermine your credibility.
As far as I can see there are no principles involved other than your hand waving. The AMT is in the ‘not even wrong’ category as it violates physical law: “there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar system barycentre; and the spin–orbit coupling hypothesis […] must be discarded, http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRS.pdf . If that undermines my credibility in the astrology department, then this is something I have no problems at all living with.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm
There is no point arguing….you have no credibility.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm
There is no point arguing….you have no credibility.
I don’t think you are presenting arguments of any kinds, just trying to play the ad-hom no-credibility card. But guess what. It doesn’t work here.
P. Solar says:
May 9, 2011 at 1:11 am
“There is no intention to provide a physical explanation. This is at the level that science calls “observation”. You see effect, then later you try to explain it. Many climatologists work in opposition to science, they start with the explanation then spend 30 years trying to observe it”
Can I Tweet this? you know for twits!! NO!!!!! I can’t that was such a brilliant remark that breaks boundaries on the blog-o-sphere.