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.
Geoff Sharp says:
May 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Carl’s graph and the subsequent research that followed on from it, show good correlation with solar cycle modulation and grand minima over the entire Holocene.
We have been over this repeatedly, but there is no such correlation, only wishful thinking. A correlation can be quantified. So where/what is the quantity? What ‘number’ or correlation coefficient between time series are you claiming?
Doug Proctor says:
May 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Please do not ascribe views to me that I have not stated. To clear up the record, short cycles tend to be strong cycles, long cycles tend to be weak or are followed by weak cycles. If Solar Cycle 24 was to be weak and eight years long, that would be highly unusual. I continue to predict that this cycle will be 12 years long and that there will not be a solar polar magnetic reversal at maximum.
I am predicting 2.0 degrees decline for the US-Canadian border. Others (paper in press) are predicting 0.9 for the planet as a whole. Everyone is predicting 1.5 degrees for northwest, maritime Europe. The tropics will hardly feel a thing.
Mike Jonas and Sunspot your support is appreciated. Thanks. Now back to the science.
Two important points here:
– Sunspot 11 year cycle record is far too volatile to be tracked by a simple formula. Estimates of the SSN are subject to individual interpretations and variability of telescope selection (as discussed on here on numerous occasions).
– Polar fields 22 year Hale’s magnetic cycle, in contrast is result of instrumental measurements, less prone to subjective interpretations, and more importantly far les volatile despite level of noise.
If one of the above solar cycles is taking a shape of a higher regularity and predictability, then there is reason to believe that there is a harmony between two.
Babcock-Leighton hypothesis is probably correct stating that polar fields are generated from sunspot remnants, but sunspot splitting, neutralising etc. and in particular randomness of 1/1000 of flux finally making it, it is plainly wrong. If that was correct than regularity of polar field would be far lower than one for the SSN, the reality is the other way around.
Hathaway’s hypothesis of sunspot ‘reincarnation’ was long way of the mark to start off, his predictability method dismally failed.
Schatten’s percolation dynamo is in conflict with basic physics, on solar magnetic field he states : ” Like sign attract, and unlike fields repel, essentially the opposite behaviour of magnetic fields in a vacuum, or subadiabatic atmosphere.”. This is an obvious non-starter.
In my view there are two papers that come close to reality:
Evolution of polar fields by Wang , Lean and Sheeley- from Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Lab, Washington
and
Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field by Solanki, Baumann, Schmitt & Schüssler – from Max Planck Institut.
Both concentrate on the meridional flow, and their results are impressive, despite attempts by some to invalidate their findings. Links to the papers (and on personal note high agreement with my results) can be found here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
Since the days of Rudolf Wolf (1816–1893) the planetary effect was often considered as primary cause. Once magnetic cycle was discovered, planetary effect was readily discarded, forgetting that there is strong and continuous electro-magnetic coupling between the sun and planets. Space research is discovering further aspects of the irrefutable electro-magnetic links (example: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ ).
Many reputable scientists from NASA and elsewhere are concentrating on solar not just magnetic but electro-magnetic activity.
Once solar science is able to move away from the outdated ideas and fixations of primacy of magnetic field, from blinkered monochrome magnetic image, to the magnetic and electric duality of the real world, progress will be rapid.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
since we have NOT seen the paper, we cannot really comment, can we. You can always hope.
In fact you are one of the priviledged few who has a preprint copy of Ed’s paper:
Ed Fix says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:45 am
After I wrote the earliest version of this paper, I sent it to a few people (including Leif Svalgaard) for comments or suggestions. David was the only one who responded with any sort of constructive comments. Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.
Try searching your inbox. Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 1:06 am
Once solar science is able to move away from the outdated ideas and fixations of primacy of magnetic field, from blinkered monochrome magnetic image, to the magnetic and electric duality of the real world, progress will be rapid.
As I said, you are firmly in the Electric Universe camp.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.
I get fringe proposals all the time. I don’t remember Ed’s though. A date might be helpful.
Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
Copyright has nothing to do with citing or revealing something. And I abhor the notion that science should be done as occultism. If you have something, put it on the table.
So here I sit, the lone ranger scout..
Why is it that so many of the tech. docs I read, open with the following statement?
“””..variations in the physical properties of the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM) modify the heliosphere..”””
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions of the Heliosphere:
Effect of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
1st cause..variations in the physical properties surrounding the heliosphere bubble will “shape it and size it.”
Sun and its cycle are responding to EXTERNAL FORCE(S) first.
Play nice now..
Basic ignorant question here. Are these supposed ‘electric effects’ some manifestation of the tiny tidal movements within the sun from the motion of the planets or are they something else additional?
==================
We have quite a few PT enthusiasts around here.
I am just wondering if ANY ONE of them have taken the time to gobble up as much current info on the outer planets. Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and friends. You’ll find the environment of their orbits is quite unique with a higher density of more pure interstellar material. Their dipoles and rotation are unique in and of themselves among this group..
This groups orbital parameters should be quite interesting in a few years and will change if the density within their orbit increases, might cause some dragon.. Oh yeah I can see now how ephemeris could be mucked up.. eeeeekkkkkk
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.
I did find it among the 9793 emails in my inbox. Paper dated 2-July-2008.
Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
I was not impressed by the write-up. Nor with the result. Ed advises: “the graph you’re looking for is Fig. 5 on page 6”. I reveal that one here: http://www.leif.org/research/Ed-Fix-Simulation.png
Seems not to be something to write home about. And no different from so many other attempts that discover that the phase is wrong in 1810 and 1910 and therefore reverse the sign without justification [other than it makes the fit better]. Vuk does the same. Curiously Ed assumes tidal forces [no electric forces] and Vuk assumes electric forces [no tidal forces]. Their curve fitting leads to the same kind of fit, showing that this is just what it is: curve-fitting.
One more thought..about rotation rates of change.
Leif, could you comment on solar rotation and rates of change? ..
Carla says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:41 am
1st cause..variations in the physical properties surrounding the heliosphere bubble will “shape it and size it.”
Sun and its cycle are responding to EXTERNAL FORCE(S) first.
Apart from the dubious nature of this statement, those external forces vary on time scales of tens of thousands of years, not from one year to the next, so can hardly be responsible for the changes we see around us right now.
Carla says:
May 10, 2011 at 6:33 am
One more thought..about rotation rates of change.
Leif, could you comment on solar rotation and rates of change? ..
What is there to comment? There seems to be a weak [anti-]correlation between solar rotation and solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf in the sense that ‘the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation’. The rotation we are talking about is the surface rotation which may have very little to do [probably nothing] with the rotation of the sun as a whole.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:40 am
I abhor the notion that science should be done as occultism. If you have something, put it on the table.
I agree. I was just relaying from Ed what Elsevier had told him. Journals are on a course to nowhere with their outdated attitudes regarding IP IMO.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
Don’t reveal too much here though, Elsevier have the copyright.
Ed uses a standard trick in this kind of ‘investigation’. Take a sine wave. Construct another one with a slightly longer period. After many cycles the two waves will have slid by each other several times and there is no correlation between them. Top panel of
http://www.leif.org/research/Ed-Fix-Simulation2.png
Now reverse the phase of the second wave where it is too much out of phase with the first [yellow wave on the lower panel]. All the sudden there is a respectable correlation R^2 = 0.4212.
Leif’s knowledge is like a force of nature. There is a disturbance in this force of nature. I’m trying to figure out if the disturbance is in the core, in the dynamo, in the coronasphere, in the earth’s magnetism, in the music of the planetary spheres, at the heliopause, or external to that.
And there’s the metaphor.
===============
Y’all might like to see what the Hockey stick team says about global v regional cooling during the Maunder.
“We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. ”
Science 7 December 2001:
Vol. 294 no. 5549 pp. 2149-2152
DOI: 10.1126/science.1064363
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:16 am
I agree. I was just relaying from Ed what Elsevier had told him.
I got the graph from Ed long before Elsevier did. What people send to me I share unless they expressly tell me not to.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 6:20 am
I did find it among the 9793 emails in my inbox. Paper dated 2-July-2008.
Well maybe that explains the poorer correlation. It’s a very early version. More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
Ed: “Svalgaard didn’t respond at all.”
BTW, Ed’s email to me starts out:
“I have read your paper, “A PREDICTION FOR THE 24TH SOLAR CYCLE”, which predicts a peak of 67-81 for the next (current) solar sunspot cycle. I believe that prediction may be as much as an order of magnitude too high.”,
so I assumed that Ed’s prediction is for a maximum of a tenth of mine; that would be a sunspot number of the order of 7-8. Reinforcing my general impression of his efforts. David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
“While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:22 am
Well maybe that explains the poorer correlation. It’s a very early version. More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.
More tweaking, you mean. Curve fitting can always be improved, even to the point of a perfect match, eventually.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:33 am
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:22 am
More development has taken place since he ‘put it on the table’ for you to look at.
More tweaking, you mean.
Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:18 am
Ed uses a standard trick in this kind of ‘investigation’. Take a sine wave. Construct another one with a slightly longer period. After many cycles the two waves will have slid by each other several times and there is no correlation between them. Top panel of
http://www.leif.org/research/Ed-Fix-Simulation2.png
Now reverse the phase of the second wave where it is too much out of phase with the first [yellow wave on the lower panel]. All the sudden there is a respectable correlation R^2 = 0.4212.
This is what is so intriguing about the VEJ relationships with solar activity, they go a little out of phase, then the phasing comes back together. Over several hundred years the alignments of the planets and the solar cycles never go completely out of phase and “slide past one another”.
By accusing planetary-solar investigators of ‘tricks’ you reduce your own credibility. You have Ed’s paper, I don’t so I can’t confirm or deny what he has done to generate his curve. I wish you’d refrain from insinuating that others are playing ‘tricks’ though.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:44 am
Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.
You mean, the one doing the tweaking, of course. But such is the nature of curve fitting, it can always be improved. The old epicycle remedy.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:31 am
David Hathaway had already given a reasonable reply to Ed, with which I concur:
“While Jupiter produces excursions with a period near that of the sunspot cycle (first noted in the literature in the mid-1800s) it very quickly gets out of phase with the more chaotic sunspot cycle.”
Poor Leif and David Hathaway, can’t hold more than two variables in mind simultaneously.
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:50 am
This is what is so intriguing about the VEJ relationships with solar activity, they go a little out of phase, then the phasing comes back together. Over several hundred years the alignments of the planets and the solar cycles never go completely out of phase and “slide past one another”.
We only have three hundred years and during that time the phase has reversed twice already, so not so intriguing.
By accusing planetary-solar investigators of ‘tricks’ you reduce your own credibility.
‘Accusation’ is a strong word. The one fooled first into such a trick is always the author himself. Ed describes his procedure thus: “I did something which might seem at first to be making the data fit the model” but later justified it by the fact that the fit did get better.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:52 am
tallbloke says:
May 10, 2011 at 7:44 am
Well sure, one persons refinement is anothers tweaking. Especially if they are prejudiced.
You mean, the one doing the tweaking, of course.
I can see why your prejudice might lead you to think that was what I meant. 😉
The old epicycle remedy.
Depends whether rational and plausible reasons are found for the tweaks I guess.
Easy to fool yourself once you tread into that territory though I agree.