My eyeball pattern recognition software says the curve is too high by 25 units. If you trend the SWPC behavior over time , they routinely have been overestimating the flux.
I don’t think they are doing a good job with their predictions, having to lower them over and over and over again. This uptick represented here is contingent on what appears, to me, to be an outlier. Based on averaged data, I bet the curve drops in actuality over the next 2 years.
If this is to be a Dalton minimum, the next few months must see a return to 25 numbers. Agree?
Nov 2008 to June 2011: 2 1/2 years, getting to the “certainty” of a 3-year prediction?
Eyal Porat
May 10, 2011 10:55 am
The uptick was very short and the sun has returned to its almost slumber.
I follow it everyday, and it seems it is not going to wake up any time soon.
It’s actually quite worrying – considering the Dalton Minimum consequences and the connection some see in its activity (or more accurately inactivity) now.
CRS, Dr.P.H.
May 10, 2011 10:58 am
Hmmm…does this mean that the solar minimum marches on?
geoff
May 10, 2011 10:59 am
Overall solar activity remains very low. The blip in activity could just be that, a blip. AP index remains very low. We will soon know (if we are not already getting clues) how much impact solar activity has on the climate, just by observing what is happening around us.
R. Shearer
May 10, 2011 11:12 am
Was that the 4th corrected prediction or will it be the 5th prediction made 6 months after the “real” data is in?
I am not particularly surprised to see that their current prediction (top graph) is more or less where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
ShrNfr
May 10, 2011 11:23 am
The Oulu Cosmic ray station seems to be getting neutron counts at about the rate of the previous solar minimum in 1997. We may live in interesting times.
Anything is possible
May 10, 2011 11:24 am
FWIW, I think the Solar Max. will be a long and messy one, bumping along at its’ current level for the next 3 years or so, with occasional bursts of increased activity.
Time to throw that neat-looking smoothed curve out the window. Even when all the data is in sometime around 2018-19. solar scientists will be quibbling for years over exactly when the Solar Maximum of Cycle 24 actually occurred.
Just my two cents……
Stonyground
May 10, 2011 11:37 am
Sorry to be slightly OT but I keep hearing on the radio news that last month was the hottest April on record. This would appear to be about the UK only as they were interviewing some local farmers. The farmers’ comments appeared to be more concerned with lack of rain so I wondered if it was the driest on record and that this had been changed to hottest to fit in with some GW narrative. I am a gardener so I spent quite a bit of time outdoors last month and it seemed pretty typically April to me, we had to take some plants indoors to avoid a late frost. I would have expected a hottest April on record to be more like June.
Looks like, by looking at past cycles, the longer the numbers do not crash in the near term, the better the chances of going higher.
noaaprogrammer
May 10, 2011 11:50 am
In the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. it has been the coolest April since 1955.
Bill Marsh
May 10, 2011 11:51 am
Wasn’t Bob Tisdale saying something about us having already reached Solar max because the Northern magnetic field has reversed? If so, this was a really short cycle.
Dave
May 10, 2011 11:53 am
The solar minimum has been quite strong here in the Northeast… we’ve hardly seen the sun for months! However, if you look real hard between the all too frequent raindrops, you can sometimes catch a glimpse.
Sorry… couldn’t resist
High today of 42 deg F, snow last night (7″-10″ at higher elevations), cold rain today, winds 15-20mph and winter is still upon us. Latitude 44.34°N and Longitude 106.72°W (Elevation 4650′) 5/10/11. Mountain snow pack at 150% of “normal”. We could use some global warming around here. The absolutes of this are not that unusual for this time of year but the duration and lack of any significant number of intermittent warmer days is. Have not seen this extensive a duration of winter weather with such little let up since 1994-1995.
You say the sun has something to do with temperature? I thought with all the additional CO2 we need not worry about such a minor variable?
scott
May 10, 2011 12:21 pm
This graph clearly shows a cool spring here in the bay area.
This graph is probably the most informative from NOAA that I’ve seen.
Stonyground says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:37 am …radio news that last month was the hottest April on record.
Yes it was UK. I was puzzled by the same info, so I produced this graph: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/April.htm
make of it whatever you whish.
Adam Gallon
May 10, 2011 12:21 pm
The UK has been warmer & drier than usual, has had 150% more sunshine than the norm for April. The reduction in cloud is the cause of our pleasant warmth, nights have been quite chilly. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2011/april.html
Persisant high pressure and the “Spanish Plume” syphoning warm air up over the country, as we’ve been snadwiched between low pressure over the Atlantic and high over Europe.
Mind you, to balance things out, it’s been snowing in Poland!
Bill Marsh says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:51 am
……………..
Here is what the resultant polar field is at the moment, some time to go to reversal. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
GW
May 10, 2011 12:54 pm
What’s ironic is that the present (of this writing) sunspot count is 93, yet looking at the solar images there are around 20 specks. I know there is a formula for calculating the official sunspot number, but I question the justification for it. The other thing is that for a count of 93 shouldn’t we be seeing at least moderate to high levels of activity ? After all, the SPWC is forecasting very low to low activity.
I’m wondering if at solar max, when it eventually arrives, if we’re going to see monthly sunspot numbers around 100, like some of the earlier higher forecasts, but of the smallest and most feeble spots possible, coupled with other weak activity. Meanwhile there will be those that say “see, we had a very active cycle after all, i.e. no new Dalton-like minimum.”
Latitude
May 10, 2011 1:11 pm
Where in the past has it even spiked that high, and stayed there?
Their predicted values are going to be way off.
Stonyground
May 10, 2011 1:25 pm
Thank you for those concise responses. Now best get back to the Sun, I don’t want to derail the thread.
Jim G
May 10, 2011 1:36 pm
GW says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“What’s ironic is that the present (of this writing) sunspot count is 93, yet looking at the solar images there are around 20 specks. I know there is a formula for calculating the official sunspot number, but I question the justification for it. The other thing is that for a count of 93 shouldn’t we be seeing at least moderate to high levels of activity ? After all, the SPWC is forecasting very low to low activity.”
Can anyone tell us if the “formula” has been changed and if so how and when, as this has been brought up before but I do not recall any specifics being trotted out?
April in the UK [alright, at least in South London] was exceptional.
My near neighbour – Frosted Earth, who has a Met Station – told me yesterday that it had been much the warmest, driest and sunniest April he has rccorded in over40 years in the Chipstead Valley – beating 2007’s marvellous April into a cocked hat – “by 5-0 in a Cup Final”.
All Brits luuuurve footie. Probably.
He also notes a near dawn temperature of -3.7C about 25 F] about 3 May, again locally – in London, but Chipstead Valley is a real frost trap.
Our lodgers aver that the start to the month of May in Hungary [to yesterday, 9th] has been pretty grim – cold and wet.
Plainly it’s global climate disruption at work: – when I was a kid, we called it weather, even if the UK doesn’t seem to get hit by extreme values of anything in weather (for which I am very grateful!].
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm …incoming Leif!!
Dr. Svalgaard, what say ye?
Prediction does not look too bad now, does it? 🙂
But it is still a bit on the high side [the max at 90]. Such extreme swings are common during small cycles, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SC-14-and-24.png [the green curve is F10.7 scaled to match the SSN over the time shown]. The maximum may well drag out over several years]. The polar fields are reversing, the North is already there and the South perhaps in a year’s time. Such difference is not unusual as the polar reversal [e.g. also happened in 1957-58 http://www.leif.org/ESO/Babcock-1959.pdf ] has a rather random component [the Sun is messy].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm Such difference is not unusual as the polar reversal [e.g. also happened in 1957-58 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock-1959.pdf ] is better. The polar fields have an annula variation due the the Earth not being in the sun’s equatorial plane, so we alternatively see the North pole better [in September] and the South pole better [in March]: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
The difference [bottom, green curve] takes out this wobble and shows what you could call the Solar Dipole. But the dipole is a somewhat artificial [but often useful] concept as the two poles do not vary in synch.
“””vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Stonyground says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:37 am
…radio news that last month was the hottest April on record.
Yes it was UK. I was puzzled by the same info, so I produced this graph: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/April.htm
make of it whatever you whish.”””
Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat island” analysis of the modern times.
The oceans had hot spots of +5C last year. Note that they don’t even put a temperature on the extreme cold spots: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The oceans are giving up the accumulated heat. When the heat is not replenished, due to the quiet Sun, Global temperatures will plummet.
vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:16 am where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004) […]
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.
rbateman
May 10, 2011 4:36 pm
While there was an uptick in spot area in March, it was not sustained through April, as the spot area went back down, while the flux remained elevated.
The relevant data is here: ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2011.txt
So, the total spot area has gone from a boulder patch to a few rocks and assorted pebbles.
SSam
May 10, 2011 5:27 pm
Like the extra-tropical cyclones… specks have been getting full spot alert status.
I’m waiting to see what comes from the Livingston and Penn data as this diminutive cycle moves forward.
Everyone where I live in Leeds (Yorkshire) is confident that this was the pleasantest April we have ever experienced (I’m 64). In fact people were joking ”This is our Summer – enjoy it while it lasts.” Blossom, trees and and flowers were well in advance of normal. Instead of April showers we got April drought. This was definitely not a Leeds and Bradford Airport Heat Island Effect! I was sitting out in the sunshine sunbathing several days running.
All part of weather’s rich tapestry. April last year and early May were much colder. I remember we were having a General Election in early May last year and the political commentators standing in Parliament Square and Whitehall with their microphones were blue nosed, muffled up in scarves and shivering.
It was a truly exceptional April where I live and very welcome because the “barbecue summers” predicted by the UK Met Office for the last few years never materialised, sadly!
Eyal Pora, geoff, rbateman have commented that the uptick in activity apears short-lived.
This is my graph of the daily sunspot number .. http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.jpg
.. calculated from data in http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/SRS.html
Yes there was a blip, but the SSN appears to be holding up at around 60-70.
[No guarantee that I have got the data right]
rbateman : is there a description for the data you posted?
Mike Jonas says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm Yes there was a blip, but the SSN appears to be holding up at around 60-70.
Looks good to me.
Here is my take on it
Mon SIDC NOAA F10.7
Feb. 29 53 93
Mar. 56 81 114
Apr. 54 82 113
May. 42 70 106 (so far)
The small area is rather a larger area in March than expected.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.
Plainly not true. It is on my website: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
and elsewhere, Despite being prominent in the original paper, I posted on number of occasions on phase shift in 1810’s, quick google search found more than 10 postings with above graph clearly showing formula and the phase shift. http://www.google.co.uk/#q=http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=cS3KTbeYN8mHhQf6sOCoAg&start=0&sa=N&fp=2b2363fffcc0d23
Further more it was explained to you in detail on number of occasions (including wuwt), here is an example of a detailed elaboration: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talkanything&action=display&thread=258
You recently accused me of being ‘economical with truth’, this time you come close to it again. Some people could call such posting ‘trolling’, or worse.
Once you said: 6 Jul 2009 … Leif Svalgaard (16:46:54) “a thief thinks that everybody steals”. wattsupwiththat.com/…/ncar-solar-cycle-linked-to-global-climate/
Yet another futile attempt to discredit, this time by accusing me of something which plainly is not true. One more reason to apologise.
Since I published polar field formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Dr. Svalgaard persued a vendetta here and elsewhere against my posting, which I think is pointless waste of his widely recognised talents.
In view of Dr.S accusation of me attempting to ‘hide the decline’ I wish to repost
‘vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:16 am’
with alternative link as:
I am not particularly surprised to see that their current prediction (top graph) is more or less where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
Jcarels
May 11, 2011 1:55 am
My personal count:
Month Re Beck CV
March: 83 850 82
April: 84 619 63
May (so far): 81 244 35
Wolfnumber stays the same because of the number of groups. Not many spots inside the groups.
Beck and CV numbers drop because the groups visible are very small and weak.
(Bxo, Cri,…)
As you can see the Beck and especially the CV numbers show the true solar activity better (for now): that is LOW!
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:53 am “Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.”
Plainly not true. It is on my website
It seems that you have quickly changed the Figure at http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm because I outed you on hiding [in that post] that the correlation fails. To [finally] get the truth out is always good.
Carla
May 11, 2011 5:14 am
Here’s a nifty study of rotation rates of stars using a “3-D MHD anelastic
spherical harmonic (ASH) code.” “Case D5 is part of a much larger family of simulations that we have conducted exploring convection and dynamo action in younger suns. The properties of this broad
family are summarized in Figure 2a. Indicated here are 26 simulations at rotation rates ranging from..”
I would think this would be right up your alley Dr. Svalgaard..do you think any of the PT folks read this kinda stuff..rotation rates of other stellar systems..of course where and what these stars may be embedded is not part of this study..
Global-scale Magnetism (and Cycles) in Dynamo Simulations of
Stellar Convection Zones
Benjamin P. Brown1,2, Matthew K. Browning3, Allan Sacha Brun4, Mark S.
Miesch5 and Juri Toomre6
Abstract.
Young solar-type stars rotate rapidly and are very magnetically active.
The magnetic fields at their surfaces likely originate in their convective envelopeswhere
convection and rotation can drive strong dynamo action. Here we explore simulations
of global-scale stellar convection in rapidly rotating suns using the 3-D MHD anelastic
spherical harmonic (ASH) code. The magnetic fields built in these dynamos are organized
on global-scales into wreath-like structures that span the convection zone. We
explore one case rotates five times faster than the Sun in detail. This dynamo simulation,
called case D5, has repeated quasi-cyclic reversals of global-scale polarity. We
compare this case D5 to the broader family of simulations we have been able to explore
and discuss how future simulations and observations can advance our understanding of
stellar dynamos and magnetism.
1. Introduction
..Observations of young, rapidly rotating stars indicate that they have strong magnetic
fields at their surfaces. There are clearly observed correlations between rotation
and activity which appear to hold generally for stars on the lower main sequence (e.g.,Pizzolato et al. 2003). Many of these stars show cycles of activity as well, though here
the dependence on rotation rate, stellar mass and other fundamental parameters is less
clear (e.g., Saar & Brandenburg 1999; Ol´ah et al. 2009).
At present even from a theoretical perspective we do not understand how the stellar dynamo process depends in detail on rotation.
Motivated by this rich observational landscape, we have explored the effects of
more rapid rotation on 3-D convection and dynamo action in simulations of stellar
convection zones..
30 Dec. 2010 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.0171v1.pdf
Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
No, the location has nothing to do with it. We observe that age-related rotation rate in all stars, no matter where where they a located.
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am do you think any of the PT folks read this kinda stuff..rotation rates of other stellar systems..
Dunno. They would if they could find support for their ideas, otherwise they will just ignore it. Now that we are detecting many planets around other stars and we can observe the stellar magnetic cycles as well, one could try to test the PT by seeing if the stellar cycles show any correlation with planets. So far, no such correlations have been found, but the PT folks can always blame the data [not enough, bad, irrelevant] or claim that the solar system is special in some way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:56 am
It seems that you have quickly changed the Figure at http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm because I outed you on hiding [in that post] that the correlation fails. To [finally] get the truth out is always good.
You do talk rubbish. Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
This is 1800-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
And this is 1600-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Still confused?
Time to ‘Calm down dear’, it is your birthday after all, haven’t you anything better to do?
You are pointlessly banging your head at brick wall; you’ve been at it for some years now. This is only one of small hobbies of mine, just a little side line. While you are world renowned solar science expert, I hardly know anything about it, just stumbled on something http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which offers far better value for money than your 0.7Rmax, or whatever it is. Things do move on in science either by design or serendipity.
Happy birthday!
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
This is 1800-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
and now you changed it back [having been found out]. I hardly know anything about it
Precisely.
Carla
May 11, 2011 7:02 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:44 am
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am
Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
No, the location has nothing to do with it. We observe that age-related rotation rate in all stars, no matter where where they a located.
~
Left field visualize exercise for Dr. Leif..
Medium size older star hits expanding magnetic shell boundary layer. Duration of passage 66 years. Medium size older star enters expanding denser, faster, cooler region.
location, location, location whether old or young.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 am and now you changed it back [having been found out].
WRONG AGAIN!
You need a rest !
here is record of your viewing:
Host Name c-24-5-150-53.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
IP Address 24.5.150.53 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region California
City Petaluma
Date Time Type WebPage
10th May 2011 22:42:36 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
11th May 2011 00:13:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
11th May 2011 12:46:53 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:51:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:54:10 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 14:55:02 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line). http://www.leif.org/researchVuk-Failing-9.png
The formulae changed, the red and blue curves changed.
When you make snide comments like “No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists”, you better be squeaky clean and honest yourself.
Since this layman could not get an anwer, Google supplied the Mcgraw-Hill Science and Technology definition as follows “A measure of sunspot activity, computed from the formula R = k(10g + f), where R is the relative sunspot number, f the number of individual spots, g the number of groups of spots, and k a factor that varies with the observer (his or her personal equation), the seeing, and the observatory (location and instrumentation). Also known as sunspot number; sunspot relative number; Wolf number; Wolf-Wolfer number; Zurich number. ”
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/relative-sunspot-number#ixzz1M3ZeCvLe
Steve Keohane
May 11, 2011 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly. See here: http://i55.tinypic.com/iyontj.jpg
I changed the latest red prediction line to orange, and one can plainly see it is exactly the same line as published last nine months ago.
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.
Steve Keohane
May 11, 2011 9:31 am
Leif Svalgaard says: May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Steve Keohane says: May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
No, Hathaway’s are better because they are updated every month, just like a weather forecast based on yesterday’s observations is better than one based on data a month ago. I’m at a loss why people criticize Hathaway for making predictions based on current data rather than using stale data of years ago.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:00 am Only wrong label pasted.
Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
You changed the formula for the blue curve to match the old one from 2003, but forgot to recalculate the curve. The formula for the red curve also changes [as does the curve] and is in places even invalid. It is better just to be honest and stick to the truth instead of trying to plaster over the problems by continually changing history. Living under communist regime should have told you that.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
No, I suggest that you are being dishonest by pasting in formulae from your 2003 paper that you have since changed. On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art? Four curves, as you just revised history again.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
Not to speak about the original Figure from your paper [at the bottom].
You were obviously grabbing plot while I was online getting the label corrected. Since you are so proficient I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical. Since you have nothing better to do why not as your birthday treat now plot everything yourself , to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
And your 2003 paper has:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724)).
As I said sticking to the truth is the better policy [however hard it may seem].
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical.
The formulae you doctored to be identical, but you didn’t notice that the curves are not, and furthermore do not agree with your 2003 paper. Time to stop your charade.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph, yet again.
Jim G
May 11, 2011 12:00 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
“May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.”
Leif and Steve,
Thank you both.
Jim
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it and then abandon your nonsense. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted. Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
All your effort is pathetic waste of time, since formula works and it is far better that anything you or anyone else has come up with, up to date.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
I shall ignore your abusive innuendo (you have used number of times before), which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
Very sad to come from someone whose contribution science is undoubtedly great.
Well enjoy rest of your birthday, my formula must be causing you headache considering number of hits from you today on my website, on the special day when you should enjoy life with family and friends.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
Entry Page Date: 11th May 2011
Visit Length: 7 hours 8 mins 14 secs
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm I just gave you Excel entries, plot it
Will do. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted.
Ah, but you claim not to ‘adjust’ at all. And you adjust in a dishonest way by trying to paste the old formulae on the new graph. One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
Polar formula is plainly wrong at it predicts a constant solar cycle length [from max to max] of 10.8 years, except once every 100 years when the formula breaks down completely. which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
If you behave decently, I’m sure you’ll not be banned. Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
A little script and/or just leaning on the keyboard takes care of many entries with no effort [except on your part to worry about them and count them].
GW says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun, http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80
There are five groups [one near them limb]. If they just had one spot each the sunspot number would be R = 10*5+5 = 55. And they have many more [some tiny] spots, so you actually get 25 more spots for R = 80.
Ralph
May 11, 2011 12:50 pm
>>>CET
>>>Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat
>>>island” analysis of the modern times.
Yes. Remember that the CET is composed from four monitoring stations. Two of those are still quite rural, while the other two are at Blackpool airport and Manchester International airport.
The Manchester station is a bit of a worry, as it is right next to the aircraft test bay, where they run up engines to test them. As I understand these temperature guages, any maximum temperature becomes the day’s maximum, so it you get a nice waft of hot exhaust for five minutes, that becomes the day’s max temperature.
.
Jcarels
May 11, 2011 1:26 pm
Don’t compare the sunspot number (made at 11 May 2011 00:30 UT) with a picture taken almost 24 hours later. THAT is ridiculous! And when you compare the SSN with a picture please use an SDO image. Soho has a low resolution.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
Yet makes big difference: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-10.png
E.g. SC25 overestimated by more than factor of two and SC14 by almost factor of three. Not too good for prediction, is it?
I have also placed this version underneath your 2003 version, so you can see they are the same. Bottom line: you cannot claim that you did not make any adjustments unlike ‘some renown solar scientists’ and you should not ask for apology for having been found out. Behave yourself now and be suitable humble. And get your plots and formulae cleaned up to regain a shred of credibility.
GW
May 11, 2011 2:47 pm
Jcarels says:
May 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Don’t compare the sunspot number (made at 11 May 2011 00:30 UT) with a picture taken almost 24 hours later. THAT is ridiculous! And when you compare the SSN with a picture please use an SDO image. Soho has a low resolution.
So you are saying that they announce the sunspot number at the start of the day, and the number remains the same for the entire 24 hour period, regardless of how it may change during the course of the day ?
Leif Svalgaard says: (all over the place)
…………….
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
What you plotted is periodicity, not amplitude which on purpose you are mixing up; amplitude is the RED LINE in here . http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
You got very good agreement for the periodicity, you just proved case for me.
Since you failed to do amplitude (red line), which determines non-smoothed cycles maxima, it would be nice if you can do that as well. In case you chicken out, readers can see amplitude calculation, shown as the red line and the red formula label: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Perhaps I should say thank you for proving superiority (above anything else available) of my calculations, and at same time giving it even valuable publicity.
If famous Dr. Svalgaard could not fundamentally fault anything of consequence (neither could Dr. Hathaway some years ago, except the 1800 phase shift; he would have done well if took note of SC24 extrapolation), the formula is here to stay.
Well done. Hope it was worth sacrificing your birthday.
And remember before next spiel: blue line is periodicity, the RED line is amplitude!
rbateman
May 11, 2011 6:57 pm
Mike Jonas says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm
the description for the data I posted is: ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/DPDformat.txt
where the data table we are talking about is the first paragraph on the page.
The project of Debrecen Photoheliographic Data
is a continuation of the work of Greenwich Royal Observatory which began photographing and measuring areas of sunspots and faculae in 1874.
It is a counterpoint to the # of sunspots, where if the total spot area declines and the sunspot number stays the same, you know that the spots are smaller.
Carla
May 12, 2011 5:20 am
Golly gee a CME, thought I was feeling it yesterday..but seriously..another comet gone into the corona of the sun. Here’s the report from http://www.spaceweather.com ..
“””AURORA WATCH: A coronal mass ejection launched from the sun’s eastern limb on May 9th could deliver a glancing blow to Earth’s magnetic field today. NOAA forecasters estimate a 40% chance of geomagnetic activity if and when the CME arrives. High-latitude sky watchers, be alert for auroras.
COMET AND CME: A comet dove into the sun on May 11th and seemed to trigger a massive eruption–emphasis on seemed. Watch the movie, then scroll down for further discussion. http://www.spaceweather.com/images2011/12may11/cme.gif
A comet goes in; a CME comes out. Coincidence? Probably, yes, the sequence was coincidental. The comet disintegrated as much as a million kilometers above the stellar surface. There’s no known way that the wispy, vaporous remains of a relatively lightweight comet could cause a billion-ton cloud of hot plasma to fly away from the sun at 400 km/s (the observed speed of the CME). Moreover, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory photographed the eruption that did propel the CME into space. There’s no comet in the field of view of this must-see movie.
Bonus: The bright comet pictured above had a dim companion. Can you find it?”””
Huh, comet seemly stimulates a region in the corona above an already ripe surface region..
Mr Green Genes
May 12, 2011 5:43 am
Can the mods or Anthony please create a private electronic playroom where Dr Svalgaard and Vukcevic can go to beat each other up?
[nope . . many here find them interesting and knowledgeable much of the time . . but you are not obliged to watch them if you find it tedious . . kb]
Mr Green Genes says: Can the mods or Anthony please create a private electronic playroom where Dr Svalgaard and Vukcevic can go to beat each other up?
Although I understand little of it, and often don’t even pay a lot of attention, I personally very much like seeing their debates like they are – right out in the open. The way science SHOULD be done. I would hate to see such debates locked up in private discussions – we have too much of that already.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 7:10 am
Mr Green Genes says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:43 am
🙂 Stay low, and don’t do anything stupid like volunteer for special missions.
I think the Leif – Vuk discussion is very informative and entertaining. I happen to think the planets – barycenter – sun -moon – earth climate connections and resonances are the key to earth climate prediction and Leif’s very knowledgeable and detailed challenge to Vuk and this type of approach in general is extremely useful- especially with such an open exchange.
My thanks to both participants. – Keep it up.
Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
Lean on F5. I just did, as you can see. What you plotted is periodicity, not amplitude which on purpose you are mixing up; amplitude is the RED LINE in here . http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Your Figure 1 in the 2003 paper and the blue curve you just showed is amplitude and phase. The red curve fails to show amplitude, e.g. for cycle 20 or cycle 10, and many others. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
again, you are dishonest, not showing the results from the 2003 paper while claiming that you made no adjustments. Your upbringing in communist regime may have something to do with it: lying is OK if it serves a purpose. the RED line is amplitude! and so wrong it clearly is. But that is not the point, which is your mendacity.
rbateman says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 pm where if the total spot area declines and the sunspot number stays the same, you know that the spots are smaller.
As L&P will have it.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:20 am Huh, comet seemly stimulates a region in the corona above an already ripe surface region..
The material in the tail of a comet would fit in a small suitcase, and the rest of the comet evaporated long before it could have any effect.
Norman Page says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:16 am I think the Leif – Vuk discussion is very informative and entertaining.
Entertainment there certainly is. It is fun to see his antics trying to wiggle out of being caught.
How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
rbateman
May 12, 2011 11:48 am
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:31 am
How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
It used to be 3 millionths of the total area of the Suns visible surface was the dividing line between a sunspot and a pore.
I don’t know what they are doing now.
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:31 am How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
Basically, it should be visible at medium seeing with a refractor of aperture 80 mm and magnification 64 times [Rudolf Wolf’s definition] and appear black [not grey]. This is actually a very small spot. Here are some of those small spots visible today: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2011/loc-d20110512.JPG
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
Thank you. One last dumb question. Does the location north/south tell us much about the sun, spot or cycle. i.e. spot 94 is very far south.
Message to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
You are a pain. Fig 3 does if you bother to look. You have been told that at least one dozen times during last 3+ years (for last time: periodicity blue –amplitude red) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
You proved nothing, just getting paranoid.
Sunspot formula isn’t what bothers you, it is this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
since it puts your next cycle prediction out of business.
You consider ‘Sunspot formula’ as a weak link so you are trying to use back door to discredit me as the autor of polar formula.
Well you failed. Go and do something useful!
Insults from you are nothing new, but I am surprised that you trying to bring my web page down.
Here is today’s records of hits from your computer
———————–
Number of Entries: 345
Entry Page Time:12th May 2011 18:43:39
Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over one day
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
…………………
UK time, which is UTC+1
Not something to be expected from scientist of word stature.
So kindly leave my website alone.
I shall ignore all your further remarks be it science, polite or uncivilised!
Note to everyone else :One more single hit on my webpage from Dr.Svalgaard I am closing it down.
If you wish a copy request and I shall email it.
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm i.e. spot 94 is very far south.
Actually not as you can see at the upper right-hand listing. Its latitude is 19 degrees south. The solar image [and hence the drawing] is rotated in the sky by 21.8 degrees [changes from day to day], so on the image it looks like 94 is way to the south, but it isn’t.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm If you whish a copy request and I shall email it.
So you join the people that ‘disappear’ their past failures.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:13 pm Now I have closed my web page, if interested details of attack are here Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
“Lean on F5. I just did, as you can see.”
Just proving to you that ‘leaning on F5’ can be very effective.
Carla
May 12, 2011 1:30 pm
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:10 am
Mr Green Genes says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:43 am
🙂 Stay low, and don’t do anything stupid like volunteer for special missions…
~
hahahahaha
Check this out..don’t tell Vuks and Leif though..oops but first..
Not without the acronym.
CNM Cold Neutral Medium
“””CNM components with N(Ho) <∼
10¹⁸ cm⁻² and densities ∼20 cm⁻³, similar to values found by Welty et al.
towards 23Ori, would have thicknesses of <0.02 pc and if
at rest in the LSR would perturb the heliosphereboundary conditions
on timescales of ∼100 yr."""
Hmm..looking more and more like an atmosphere out there in the Very Local Interstellar Medium. Maybe should just finish this article..
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm would have thicknesses of <0.02 pc and if at rest in the LSR would perturb the heliosphere boundary conditions on timescales of ∼100 yr.
Remember that influences cannot travel upstream against the solar wind tsunami.
Jcarels
May 12, 2011 1:50 pm
SSN will also decline because of the L&P effect, just not as fast as the area number. Less spots (f) in a single group, and the “normal” small (A type or higher) groups will be invisible. So also less groups to count. Complex groups will be rare.
That is if the L&P effect continues off course. We’ll have to wait and see.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 1:53 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
A number in millionths of the Solar disc area would be greatly appreciated.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 1:59 pm
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Interesting. At one time, galaxies looked like homogenous clouds. Upon further examination, however, the nature of the beast changed remarkably.
The universe never fails to reveal marvelous variance, upon closer scrutiny.
Why should interstellar space be any different?
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm A number in millionths of the Solar disc area would be greatly appreciated.
The area is not used for calculating the SSN. A firm lower limit would be area=zero 🙂
NOAA reports areas in steps of 10 millionth. Perhaps 3 millionth would be a reasonable number, but the real issue is how dark the spot is. Lots of the specks you see on SDI/HMI images would not qualify as ‘spots’ if we were to maintain a comparable definition as the historical record.
Jcarels says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm
……………
L&P up to now has been just a reverse image of the sunspot count. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pma.htm
I think there is far less to it than it is claimed, it just may be a feature of the solar slow down http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which is widely expected, despite some predictions of ‘strong’ SC25.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 3:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The area is not used for calculating the SSN. A firm lower limit would be area=zero 🙂
NOAA reports areas in steps of 10 millionth.
The total area as computed by NOAA is crude, but is not the issue. Perhaps 3 millionth would be a reasonable number, but the real issue is how dark the spot is. Lots of the specks you see on SDI/HMI images would not qualify as ‘spots’ if we were to maintain a comparable definition as the historical record.
That is an issue. The way it appears to me is that there is no effort to maintain such, and it’s a disconnect. 3 millionths is reasonable, along with some sort of definable intensity below the solar surface brightness threshold. It is for this reason that I have stopped bothering with SSN. It fails to tell the story adequately, and should the day come where the L&P gains full effect, the spots will simply vanish. What will that look like? A precipitous drop, and hands will be full trying to explain why it was not so. Once again, credibility and believeability will suffer….needlessly.
Carla
May 12, 2011 3:46 pm
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Interesting. At one time, galaxies looked like homogenous clouds. Upon further examination, however, the nature of the beast changed remarkably.
The universe never fails to reveal marvelous variance, upon closer scrutiny.
Why should interstellar space be any different?
~
No reason why they should be any different..cept for that proportion and size difference.
So we can hit one of these cold little devils approx. decade width every 100 or so years or not.. lol..quite alot going on inside this opened ended warm cavity..
Do any of our experts know how many corotating regions the sun has out to the corona. Or can’t we refer to aspects of differential rotation as corotation? Or how many corotating rings out to Oort? Yep its messy, warped and dented..
“”We can tell how quickly the surface of the Sun is rotating by observing the motion of structures, such as sunspots, on the Sun’s visible surface. The regions of the Sun near its equator rotate once every 25 days. The Sun’s rotation rate decreases with increasing latitude, so that its rotation rate is slowest near its poles. At its poles the Sun rotates once every 36 days!”””
The interior of the Sun does not spin the same way as does its surface. Scientists believe that the inner regions of the Sun, including the Sun’s core and radiative zone, do rotate more like a solid body. The outer parts of the Sun, from the convective zone outward, rotate at different rates that vary with latitude. The boundary between the inner parts of the Sun that spin together as a whole and the outer parts that spin at different rates is called the “tachocline”.”” http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/differential_rotation.html
rbateman – thanks for the link.
—
Regarding the Leif – vuk acrimonious debate : Just for once I hope I have got things hopelessly wrong, but from my reading of the interchange, both have some very serious explaining to do.
vukcevic – Information posted by Leif appears to show that your web pages which were supposedly unchanged had in fact been changed and the changes had then been denied. What you choose to do about this is of course entirely up to you, but without a detailed itemisation of events I’m going to find it hard not to put your analysis into the same folder as CRU/UEA (of Climategate fame).
Leif – It appears that you have conducted an Overload attack on vukcevic’s website (also known as Denial of Service attack or DoS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack). I’m appalled. This is so totally unacceptable, and so far away from proper scientific debate, that I’m dumbstruck. Again, what you choose to do about this is of course entirely up to you, but to my simple mind a full apology is required.
Like I said, I hope I have got things hopelessly wrong, in which case the one apologising will be me.
Mike Jonas says:
May 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm Leif – It appears that you have conducted an Overload attack on vukcevic’s website (also known as Denial of Service attack or DoS
I don’t think that a few hundred requests over a period of minutes constitute a DoS attack. In any event, it was just to prove that F5 can be very efficient to catch attempts to hide something, in spite of Vuk’s attempt to disparage me with ‘economy with accuracy’: Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
It gets worse, of course, with the attempt of framing it as an ‘attack’. I have very little tolerance with people that do what Vuk did. He has had many chances to just back off and admit the truth [and hopefully not continue with this kind of manipulation in the future]. He could always [as he has done in the past] just say that the changes were due trying to correct figures marred by sloppiness and lack of attention. This would have been perfectly acceptable, as we are all human. But, no, the whole affair was an attempt to claim superior results by dishonest means, and that shouldn’t happen.
Carla
May 12, 2011 5:09 pm
Hypothetically thinking and this is for our PT friends here..and would definitely affect the topic here of “solar cycle,” to what degreee I’m not sure.
Here we go..
Taken somewhat from my current read lol.
Let’s take for instance we have a model of certain perameters of some nearby local interstellar space that include a moderately substantial increase in density. At this point I would like to remind the PT friends about the magnetic dipole positions of Neptune, Uranus, Pluto and Saturn.
Moderately substantial increase in density. Maybe a good thing that they don’t include the Interstellar Magnetic Field in this model, our PT friends. Not to mention the kind of solar cycle that would be trying to happen plowing through a mess like that..
Have a look at the model on page 10 figure 3. Dashed lines on left side indicate orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I think their magnetic dipole configurations are telling a story or two.
Heliospheric Response to Different Possible Interstellar Environments
Hans-Reinhard M¨uller1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. hans.mueller@dartmouth.edu
Priscilla C. Frisch
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. frisch@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Vladimir Florinski and Gary P. Zank
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521. vladimir.florinski@ucr.edu, gary.zank@ucr.edu http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607600v1.pdf
I’m starting to get a bad attitude about magnetic field reversals partial or full..eeek
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm The way it appears to me is that there is no effort to maintain such, and it’s a disconnect.
We have other ways of keeping track of solar activity [e.g. F10.7 or magnetic field]. The reason we should [and do] bother with the sunspot number is that we need to understand its defects so we can interpret the old data. and hands will be full trying to explain why it was not so. Once again, credibility and believeability will suffer….needlessly.
Lots of people with agendas will be scrambling to cover their backsides, but we know how to deal with that.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm So we can hit one of these cold little devils approx. decade width every 100 or so years or not.. lol..quite alot going on inside this opened ended warm cavity..
The article concludes: “In general, passage through interstellar clouds will lead to variations in the heliosphere boundary conditions over timescales possibly as short as 1000 years.” and “the Sun has entered the interstellar cloud component at the LIC velocity sometime within the past 40,000 yr, and will exit it sometime within the next 4000 yr.” We are talking thousands of years here. Do any of our experts know how many corotating regions the sun has out to the corona. Or can’t we refer to aspects of differential rotation as corotation? Or how many corotating rings out to Oort?
I don’t think you have an idea of what ‘a corotating region’ is, so pay attention: The regions do not rotate at all, rather it is the Earth that runs into such a region every 2-4 weeks. The regions are rooted in a rotating sun and it looks like they are rotating, but they are not. It is like water from a garden hose sprinkler that also looks like it is rotating, while actually just flying straight out from the rotating sprinkler: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VbUd5GLpL._SL500_AA300_.jpg http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F49VDS?ie=UTF8&tag=milehighmist-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000F49VDS
rbateman
May 12, 2011 7:18 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 6:38 pm
We have other ways of keeping track of solar activity [e.g. F10.7 or magnetic field]. The reason we should [and do] bother with the sunspot number is that we need to understand its defects so we can interpret the old data.
Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data?
Like you say, we have F10.7 flux and magnetic fields for solar activity, so the sunspot has outlived its usefulness.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data?
Code cannot do that. Humans may be able to. Like you say, we have F10.7 flux and magnetic fields for solar activity, so the sunspot has outlived its usefulness.
The reason we still keep it around is to be able to understand the old data. For that reason I think we should keep the SSN around until after the next Maunder-type minimum, perhaps hundreds of years in the future.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 8:16 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data? Code cannot do that. Humans may be able to.
I agree.
Do you presently see any prospect that the studies in solar activity processes may one day unlock the means for man to be able to harness fusion as a power source?
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:16 pm Do you presently see any prospect that the studies in solar activity processes may one day unlock the means for man to be able to harness fusion as a power source?
I think it will be the other way around: laboratory studies of reconnection [and perhaps near-Earth spacecraft data] will teach us how to control plasma with magnetic fields. Such control seems needed for fusion, but this is just my speculation. Sometimes, real progress comes from a completely unexpected direction, and hence unpredictable.
rbateman
May 12, 2011 9:10 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm
How hard a concept is magnetic reconnection to understand, i.e. – would a politician appreciate it? Fission is messy as well as fossil fuels appear finite, and unless a way is found to continue at present power consumption growth, the world will begin fighting big wars over supplies. World leaders seldom get along for extended periods.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm How hard a concept is magnetic reconnection to understand, i.e. – would a politician appreciate it?
It is not difficult to understand at the conceptual level and there are beautiful laboratory experiments that explore the process http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf section 2C addresses the fusion problem.
Mike Jonas says:
May 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
………………
Hi Mr. Jonas
Some points from the paper:
Formula (as any reasonable person would see) has two lines, blue and red. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
-Blue is periodicity, and has little to do with amplitude (SSNmax), as it is blindly obvious for cycles between 1900 and 1925. This just determines that the frequency of oscillations (defining period of repetition) is in the right ball park. This has phase shift in the original formula of 2pi/3 but as it happens 2pi/4 (pi/2) does just as good job as the frequency of oscillation is concerned. The fact that this in certain degree defines max amplitude is coincidental.
– Red line presents an amplitude envelope (term commonly used in the analog signal processing), this is what points, in general terms only, to what max amplitude may be.
– There is a phase shift of 90 degrees (Sin to Cos around 1800)
All these points are in the paper, and none have been changed (except Saturn orbit period which was slightly out in the original paper – taken of an internet astronomy page).
In the paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf they are treated separately (periodicity page 1, amplitude envelope page 3)
What is claimed:
That non-smoothed sunspot number may reach or somewhat exceed 80, as it did happen with other cycles in relation to the amplitude envelope (red lin). None of the cycles are exactly ending on the red line, so only a fool would claim precise number, particularly with non-smoothed monthly numbers. To make that clear I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak. http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
2003 publication does not show extrapolation beyond 2003, at the time I was not even aware there is any interest in the prediction of SC24.
So in that respect nothing has changed.
One has to question reasons why a scientist or word ‘renome’ would mount such a vicious personal attack on an solar science ‘nobody’, it is still a puzzle to me. Only reason I can think is the polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which was derived from sunspot formula. To be honest I would not put much money on accuracy of sunspot formula, but the polar fields formula has really exceeded all my expectations in its accuracy to date.
This is not result of some superior knowledge, just recognising process of signal modulation and realising that there are astronomic numbers to fit the scenario.
Re: DoS
As you can see from here http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
there were around 200 hits in ~7 minutes, however there were more than 300 (page recording records detail only up to 200), which would make it somewhat longer, hardly a finger slip. What is attitude of web authorities, and in particular of server operators of the perpetuator, it is not known to me, and hardly matters, but it does show intensity of ‘extreme dislike’ of the formula and unrelenting attacks on the author, not only here but elsewhere.
In that respect nothing has changed.
Page removal was only for about ½ hour, and it was kind of a test for response which was totally expected.
Sunspots are of interest only if there is effect on the climate, if it is shown that there isn’t, than solar science will be of less interest to wider audience. I am preparing a much longer paper, and may be out in month or two, which is currently my main interest. Of course personal attacks are not pleasant, but important thing is that formula has survived onslaught, changed or not, the rest doesn’t bother me in the least, I shall be arroun for a while.
It has belatedly occurred to me (after all the attacks by Dr. S) that in the graph of solar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
many readers including Dr. S automatically assume that blue line represents SSNmax. That is not so.
– Blue line is periodicity, and has little to do with amplitude (SSNmax), which is more than obvious for cycles between 1900 and 1925. Blue line just determines the frequency of oscillations (or period of repetition). The fact that it in a certain degree defines max amplitude is coincidental, but strengthens formula’s relevance.
– Red line is the peak amplitude envelope (term commonly used in the analogue signal processing), it (in general terms only) shows what non smoothed monthly SSNmax amplitude may be.
Extrapolation of red line shows that non-smoothed sunspot number may reach or somewhat exceed 80, as it did happen with other cycles in relation to the amplitude envelope. None of the cycles are exactly ending on the red line, so precise number is not something that can be predicted, particularly with non-smoothed monthly numbers.
This also shows, further away is the SSNmax lower it is going to be.
(This distinction between two is clearly made in the original paper.)
To make that clear on the above graph I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak.
To me as the author, all this is plainly obvious, but it apparently did not resonate with readers.
Therefore I will when prediction are concerned show graph with a truncated and less prominent periodicity signal (blue line) as in here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Thank you all for your patience.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm All these points are in the paper, and none have been changed
Whatever your interpretation is doesn’t matter or if your findings are correct or not. What does matter is that you pasted in the old version of the formulae on the new graph trying to justify that you have made no adjustments. THIS is the sin and this is what you tried to cover up, including trying to ‘disappear’ the evidence. Mike is quite correct to place you in the Climategate folder.
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:19 am In order not to repeat it twice, my answer to your phoney ‘moralising’ […]
Asking you to be honest can hardly be phoney…
Leif, vukcevic – As I see it, there are two issues here:
1. Did vukcevic change a formula while claiming that the formula did not change.
2. How does the sun behave.
The answer to #1 has no direct bearing on #2. But the issue has certainly added an edge to the debate.
Re issue #1: As I had not archived any of vukcevic’s material, I can’t prove anything one way or the other. There do appear to be different formulae still up on vukcevic’s websites:
blue : Y = 100 abs[Sin(2π/3+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Sin2π(t-1941)/19.859]
red : Y = 60*[2+COS(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5*SIN2π(t-1941)/287.6] http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined1650.gif
blue : Y1 = 100 abs[Cos(2π/4+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Cos2π(t-1941)/19.859]
red : Y2 = 60*[2+Cos(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5Cos2π(t-1941)/287.6] http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
blue : Y1 = 100 abs[Cos(2π/4+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Cos2π(t-1941)/19.859] (periodicity)
red : Y2 = 60 abs[2+Cos(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5*Cos2π(t-1941)/287.6] (amplitude) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm (both dated 2003)
Y = ±A[Cos(π/3+2π(t-1940.5-3)/(2*11.862) + Cos2π(t-1940.5-3)/19.859] (publ. 7 Jan 2004) (this is a different formula – the “polar formula”) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
[I hope I have transcribed them all correctly]
The different formulae and their graphs look like what Leif showed as undeclared changes. Did Leif get them from the same web page at different times, or from different web pages? I don’t know, but I have no good reason to disbelieve Leif.
Re issue #2: Any formulae like vukcevic’s can be interesting, and may lead to new understanding, but to my mind they prove nothing unless (a) the correlation holds up really well over a long period, and in particular over a period after they were first formulated, and/or (b) there is a physical explanation to go with them.
Over a few sunspot cycles, the sun’s behaviour is easy to graph visually well with an abstract formula such as vukcevic’s. Others have been cited here too. But it is too easy to keep fiddling the formulae as new data becomes available, so that the formulae retain a good match (the IPCC comes to mind). Have vukcevic and others done this with the sunspot cycle? Again, I don’t know.
What I do know is that Anthony has provided a brilliant forum in which issues such as this get an open airing.
I have been told that a couple of major papers are currently in the pipeline (sorry no details, but I’m told publication July/August), and I’m hoping they will take our knowledge and understanding a lot further. I’m quite sure they will get reported on WUWT when they are published.
Hi Mr. Jonas
Only thing which is different is 2pi/3 to 2pi/4 in blue periodicity formula. As explained in my previous post this is not dealing with amplitude envelope.
2pi/3 and 2pi/4 is a phase shift between two signals and this does not alter significantly meaning to physical aspects, just moves whole thing a bit sideways.
The amplitude envelope is red and determines where peak may be, and those changes with time of occurrence.
I tried visually to scan the formulae in your post, they appear to be Ok (I really would need to print them along each other to check)
My presentation is a bit more than sloppy, so when I updat the sunspot values on the graph, I re-pasted formulae in it and got obviously muddled up, grossly on the red, which if plotted it would be ridiculously wrong.
But I am not particularly concerned about any of this, somewhere in those numbers must be a correct set, else excel would not graph it, that is why I posted the excel entries.
If there is some meaning to whole thing, someone will get it right eventualy, only two important numbers in whole thing are: 2xJupiter orbit and 1xJupiter-Saturn conjunction period, the rest is just curve fitting.
2pi/3, or 2pi/4 or 1941 or 1940.5 (as probably more appropriate) with one or the other of pi-s, can’t remember which, does not bother me duly.
When I said no change here, I meant that in principle same thing has continued, unlike Dr. Hathaway’s and Dr. Dikpati’s who are changing whole theory as I understand, rather than an existing minor adjustment, anyway that was on periodicity, not on the amplitude, which is important here.
This has been too mush of a distraction over last two days, currently I am working on a climate paper, which to me is far more important, so it is time to move on.
Thanks for support and constructive comments, if you have inclination do sort it out you are welcome to do so.
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm I re-pasted formulae in it and got obviously muddled up, grossly on the red, which if plotted it would be ridiculously wrong.
and yet you claim that you changed nothing. Pasting the old formula on the new graph is gross deceit. Trying to cover it up makes it worse.
Pasting the old formula on the new graph is gross …… Trying to cover it up makes it worse.
It is a new graph because more sunspots were added since 2003, and the old graph didn’t have forward extrapolation.
It was not old formula pasted, but a formula which was riddled with errors, eventually corrected. That was nothing of a kind, just erroneous presentation.
Jupiter, Saturn, 1941, same numbers are there, as before.
I still maintain nothing has changed.
Why bother if you think there is no planetary effect.
Or perhaps you realised it is time to catch up with the real world of astronomy.
If so, here it is have a go and do improve, explain and contribute to the understanding: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Write a paper, put your name on it, I don’t mind to be demoted to references, or even not mentioned at all.
Or on the other hand you can carry on with your pointless innuendo You done your name huge disservice; had more than 500 hits on: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
many from very prominent scientific institution.
[Vuk – please calm down. You have made your response and it is pointless to keep making it over and over. There are 4 comments from you in the spam bin which I will not post because they repeat your previous comments or start to cross the line from ‘appropriate, measured response’ ~jove, mod]
Thanks Jove. I suppose I have overdone it. It is good that posts with certain words (although they were directed at me, rather than from me) are binned into spam immediately.
Have a nice weekend.
My eyeball pattern recognition software says the curve is too high by 25 units. If you trend the SWPC behavior over time , they routinely have been overestimating the flux.
I don’t think they are doing a good job with their predictions, having to lower them over and over and over again. This uptick represented here is contingent on what appears, to me, to be an outlier. Based on averaged data, I bet the curve drops in actuality over the next 2 years.
If this is to be a Dalton minimum, the next few months must see a return to 25 numbers. Agree?
Nov 2008 to June 2011: 2 1/2 years, getting to the “certainty” of a 3-year prediction?
The uptick was very short and the sun has returned to its almost slumber.
I follow it everyday, and it seems it is not going to wake up any time soon.
It’s actually quite worrying – considering the Dalton Minimum consequences and the connection some see in its activity (or more accurately inactivity) now.
Hmmm…does this mean that the solar minimum marches on?
Overall solar activity remains very low. The blip in activity could just be that, a blip. AP index remains very low. We will soon know (if we are not already getting clues) how much impact solar activity has on the climate, just by observing what is happening around us.
Was that the 4th corrected prediction or will it be the 5th prediction made 6 months after the “real” data is in?
I am not particularly surprised to see that their current prediction (top graph) is more or less where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
The Oulu Cosmic ray station seems to be getting neutron counts at about the rate of the previous solar minimum in 1997. We may live in interesting times.
FWIW, I think the Solar Max. will be a long and messy one, bumping along at its’ current level for the next 3 years or so, with occasional bursts of increased activity.
Time to throw that neat-looking smoothed curve out the window. Even when all the data is in sometime around 2018-19. solar scientists will be quibbling for years over exactly when the Solar Maximum of Cycle 24 actually occurred.
Just my two cents……
Sorry to be slightly OT but I keep hearing on the radio news that last month was the hottest April on record. This would appear to be about the UK only as they were interviewing some local farmers. The farmers’ comments appeared to be more concerned with lack of rain so I wondered if it was the driest on record and that this had been changed to hottest to fit in with some GW narrative. I am a gardener so I spent quite a bit of time outdoors last month and it seemed pretty typically April to me, we had to take some plants indoors to avoid a late frost. I would have expected a hottest April on record to be more like June.
Looks like, by looking at past cycles, the longer the numbers do not crash in the near term, the better the chances of going higher.
In the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. it has been the coolest April since 1955.
Wasn’t Bob Tisdale saying something about us having already reached Solar max because the Northern magnetic field has reversed? If so, this was a really short cycle.
The solar minimum has been quite strong here in the Northeast… we’ve hardly seen the sun for months! However, if you look real hard between the all too frequent raindrops, you can sometimes catch a glimpse.
Sorry… couldn’t resist
Watching to see what happens over the next couple months…
Stonyground says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:37 am
Sorry to be slightly OT […]
They are talking about the CET (Central England Temperature) dataset.
Main page is here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Downloads here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The ranked monthly datasets are here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/mly_cet_min_sort.txt (Minimum)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt (Mean)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/mly_cet_max_sort.txt (Maximum)
It appears that April 2011 was indeed the hottest ever April in the CET record by a little over half a degree Celsius.
High today of 42 deg F, snow last night (7″-10″ at higher elevations), cold rain today, winds 15-20mph and winter is still upon us. Latitude 44.34°N and Longitude 106.72°W (Elevation 4650′) 5/10/11. Mountain snow pack at 150% of “normal”. We could use some global warming around here. The absolutes of this are not that unusual for this time of year but the duration and lack of any significant number of intermittent warmer days is. Have not seen this extensive a duration of winter weather with such little let up since 1994-1995.
You say the sun has something to do with temperature? I thought with all the additional CO2 we need not worry about such a minor variable?
This graph clearly shows a cool spring here in the bay area.
This graph is probably the most informative from NOAA that I’ve seen.
Stonyground says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:37 am
…radio news that last month was the hottest April on record.
Yes it was UK. I was puzzled by the same info, so I produced this graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/April.htm
make of it whatever you whish.
The UK has been warmer & drier than usual, has had 150% more sunshine than the norm for April. The reduction in cloud is the cause of our pleasant warmth, nights have been quite chilly.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2011/april.html
Persisant high pressure and the “Spanish Plume” syphoning warm air up over the country, as we’ve been snadwiched between low pressure over the Atlantic and high over Europe.
Mind you, to balance things out, it’s been snowing in Poland!
Bill Marsh says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:51 am
……………..
Here is what the resultant polar field is at the moment, some time to go to reversal.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
What’s ironic is that the present (of this writing) sunspot count is 93, yet looking at the solar images there are around 20 specks. I know there is a formula for calculating the official sunspot number, but I question the justification for it. The other thing is that for a count of 93 shouldn’t we be seeing at least moderate to high levels of activity ? After all, the SPWC is forecasting very low to low activity.
I’m wondering if at solar max, when it eventually arrives, if we’re going to see monthly sunspot numbers around 100, like some of the earlier higher forecasts, but of the smallest and most feeble spots possible, coupled with other weak activity. Meanwhile there will be those that say “see, we had a very active cycle after all, i.e. no new Dalton-like minimum.”
Where in the past has it even spiked that high, and stayed there?
Their predicted values are going to be way off.
Thank you for those concise responses. Now best get back to the Sun, I don’t want to derail the thread.
GW says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“What’s ironic is that the present (of this writing) sunspot count is 93, yet looking at the solar images there are around 20 specks. I know there is a formula for calculating the official sunspot number, but I question the justification for it. The other thing is that for a count of 93 shouldn’t we be seeing at least moderate to high levels of activity ? After all, the SPWC is forecasting very low to low activity.”
Can anyone tell us if the “formula” has been changed and if so how and when, as this has been brought up before but I do not recall any specifics being trotted out?
It would be interesting to see the author(s) revisit this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/
…and update charts with new data where possible.
…incoming Leif!!
Dr. Svalgaard, what say ye?
April in the UK [alright, at least in South London] was exceptional.
My near neighbour – Frosted Earth, who has a Met Station – told me yesterday that it had been much the warmest, driest and sunniest April he has rccorded in over40 years in the Chipstead Valley – beating 2007’s marvellous April into a cocked hat – “by 5-0 in a Cup Final”.
All Brits luuuurve footie. Probably.
He also notes a near dawn temperature of -3.7C about 25 F] about 3 May, again locally – in London, but Chipstead Valley is a real frost trap.
Our lodgers aver that the start to the month of May in Hungary [to yesterday, 9th] has been pretty grim – cold and wet.
Plainly it’s global climate disruption at work: – when I was a kid, we called it weather, even if the UK doesn’t seem to get hit by extreme values of anything in weather (for which I am very grateful!].
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm
…incoming Leif!!
Dr. Svalgaard, what say ye?
Prediction does not look too bad now, does it? 🙂
But it is still a bit on the high side [the max at 90]. Such extreme swings are common during small cycles, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SC-14-and-24.png [the green curve is F10.7 scaled to match the SSN over the time shown]. The maximum may well drag out over several years]. The polar fields are reversing, the North is already there and the South perhaps in a year’s time. Such difference is not unusual as the polar reversal [e.g. also happened in 1957-58 http://www.leif.org/ESO/Babcock-1959.pdf ] has a rather random component [the Sun is messy].
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Such difference is not unusual as the polar reversal [e.g. also happened in 1957-58 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock-1959.pdf ] is better. The polar fields have an annula variation due the the Earth not being in the sun’s equatorial plane, so we alternatively see the North pole better [in September] and the South pole better [in March]: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
The difference [bottom, green curve] takes out this wobble and shows what you could call the Solar Dipole. But the dipole is a somewhat artificial [but often useful] concept as the two poles do not vary in synch.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:57 pm
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Babcock1959.pdf
“””vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Stonyground says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:37 am
…radio news that last month was the hottest April on record.
Yes it was UK. I was puzzled by the same info, so I produced this graph:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/April.htm
make of it whatever you whish.”””
Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat island” analysis of the modern times.
The oceans had hot spots of +5C last year. Note that they don’t even put a temperature on the extreme cold spots:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The oceans are giving up the accumulated heat. When the heat is not replenished, due to the quiet Sun, Global temperatures will plummet.
vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:16 am
where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004) […]
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.
While there was an uptick in spot area in March, it was not sustained through April, as the spot area went back down, while the flux remained elevated.
The relevant data is here:
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2011.txt
So, the total spot area has gone from a boulder patch to a few rocks and assorted pebbles.
Like the extra-tropical cyclones… specks have been getting full spot alert status.
I’m waiting to see what comes from the Livingston and Penn data as this diminutive cycle moves forward.
Everyone where I live in Leeds (Yorkshire) is confident that this was the pleasantest April we have ever experienced (I’m 64). In fact people were joking ”This is our Summer – enjoy it while it lasts.” Blossom, trees and and flowers were well in advance of normal. Instead of April showers we got April drought. This was definitely not a Leeds and Bradford Airport Heat Island Effect! I was sitting out in the sunshine sunbathing several days running.
All part of weather’s rich tapestry. April last year and early May were much colder. I remember we were having a General Election in early May last year and the political commentators standing in Parliament Square and Whitehall with their microphones were blue nosed, muffled up in scarves and shivering.
It was a truly exceptional April where I live and very welcome because the “barbecue summers” predicted by the UK Met Office for the last few years never materialised, sadly!
Eyal Pora, geoff, rbateman have commented that the uptick in activity apears short-lived.
This is my graph of the daily sunspot number ..
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.jpg
.. calculated from data in
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/SRS.html
Yes there was a blip, but the SSN appears to be holding up at around 60-70.
[No guarantee that I have got the data right]
rbateman : is there a description for the data you posted?
Mike Jonas says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Yes there was a blip, but the SSN appears to be holding up at around 60-70.
Looks good to me.
Here is my take on it
Mon SIDC NOAA F10.7
Feb. 29 53 93
Mar. 56 81 114
Apr. 54 82 113
May. 42 70 106 (so far)
The small area is rather a larger area in March than expected.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.
Plainly not true. It is on my website:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
and elsewhere, Despite being prominent in the original paper, I posted on number of occasions on phase shift in 1810’s, quick google search found more than 10 postings with above graph clearly showing formula and the phase shift.
http://www.google.co.uk/#q=http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=cS3KTbeYN8mHhQf6sOCoAg&start=0&sa=N&fp=2b2363fffcc0d23
Further more it was explained to you in detail on number of occasions (including wuwt), here is an example of a detailed elaboration: http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talkanything&action=display&thread=258
You recently accused me of being ‘economical with truth’, this time you come close to it again. Some people could call such posting ‘trolling’, or worse.
Once you said: 6 Jul 2009 … Leif Svalgaard (16:46:54) “a thief thinks that everybody steals”. wattsupwiththat.com/…/ncar-solar-cycle-linked-to-global-climate/
Yet another futile attempt to discredit, this time by accusing me of something which plainly is not true. One more reason to apologise.
Since I published polar field formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Dr. Svalgaard persued a vendetta here and elsewhere against my posting, which I think is pointless waste of his widely recognised talents.
In view of Dr.S accusation of me attempting to ‘hide the decline’ I wish to repost
‘vukcevic says:
May 10, 2011 at 11:16 am’
with alternative link as:
I am not particularly surprised to see that their current prediction (top graph) is more or less where my extrapolation was in 2003 (published Jan 2004) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists.
My personal count:
Month Re Beck CV
March: 83 850 82
April: 84 619 63
May (so far): 81 244 35
Wolfnumber stays the same because of the number of groups. Not many spots inside the groups.
Beck and CV numbers drop because the groups visible are very small and weak.
(Bxo, Cri,…)
As you can see the Beck and especially the CV numbers show the true solar activity better (for now): that is LOW!
Should have typed: Lower than in March and April.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:53 am
“Except that you are hiding that [as you said in 2004] ‘Prior to 1813 a 90 degree phase shift is required’ and ‘For the period prior to 1800 correlation fails’.”
Plainly not true. It is on my website
It seems that you have quickly changed the Figure at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm because I outed you on hiding [in that post] that the correlation fails. To [finally] get the truth out is always good.
Here’s a nifty study of rotation rates of stars using a “3-D MHD anelastic
spherical harmonic (ASH) code.” “Case D5 is part of a much larger family of simulations that we have conducted exploring convection and dynamo action in younger suns. The properties of this broad
family are summarized in Figure 2a. Indicated here are 26 simulations at rotation rates ranging from..”
I would think this would be right up your alley Dr. Svalgaard..do you think any of the PT folks read this kinda stuff..rotation rates of other stellar systems..of course where and what these stars may be embedded is not part of this study..
Global-scale Magnetism (and Cycles) in Dynamo Simulations of
Stellar Convection Zones
Benjamin P. Brown1,2, Matthew K. Browning3, Allan Sacha Brun4, Mark S.
Miesch5 and Juri Toomre6
Abstract.
Young solar-type stars rotate rapidly and are very magnetically active.
The magnetic fields at their surfaces likely originate in their convective envelopeswhere
convection and rotation can drive strong dynamo action. Here we explore simulations
of global-scale stellar convection in rapidly rotating suns using the 3-D MHD anelastic
spherical harmonic (ASH) code. The magnetic fields built in these dynamos are organized
on global-scales into wreath-like structures that span the convection zone. We
explore one case rotates five times faster than the Sun in detail. This dynamo simulation,
called case D5, has repeated quasi-cyclic reversals of global-scale polarity. We
compare this case D5 to the broader family of simulations we have been able to explore
and discuss how future simulations and observations can advance our understanding of
stellar dynamos and magnetism.
1. Introduction
..Observations of young, rapidly rotating stars indicate that they have strong magnetic
fields at their surfaces. There are clearly observed correlations between rotation
and activity which appear to hold generally for stars on the lower main sequence (e.g.,Pizzolato et al. 2003). Many of these stars show cycles of activity as well, though here
the dependence on rotation rate, stellar mass and other fundamental parameters is less
clear (e.g., Saar & Brandenburg 1999; Ol´ah et al. 2009).
At present even from a theoretical perspective we do not understand how the stellar dynamo process depends in detail on rotation.
Motivated by this rich observational landscape, we have explored the effects of
more rapid rotation on 3-D convection and dynamo action in simulations of stellar
convection zones..
30 Dec. 2010
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.0171v1.pdf
Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am
Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
No, the location has nothing to do with it. We observe that age-related rotation rate in all stars, no matter where where they a located.
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am
do you think any of the PT folks read this kinda stuff..rotation rates of other stellar systems..
Dunno. They would if they could find support for their ideas, otherwise they will just ignore it. Now that we are detecting many planets around other stars and we can observe the stellar magnetic cycles as well, one could try to test the PT by seeing if the stellar cycles show any correlation with planets. So far, no such correlations have been found, but the PT folks can always blame the data [not enough, bad, irrelevant] or claim that the solar system is special in some way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:56 am
It seems that you have quickly changed the Figure at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm because I outed you on hiding [in that post] that the correlation fails. To [finally] get the truth out is always good.
You do talk rubbish. Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
This is 1800-2011
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
And this is 1600-2011
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Still confused?
Time to ‘Calm down dear’, it is your birthday after all, haven’t you anything better to do?
You are pointlessly banging your head at brick wall; you’ve been at it for some years now. This is only one of small hobbies of mine, just a little side line. While you are world renowned solar science expert, I hardly know anything about it, just stumbled on something http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which offers far better value for money than your 0.7Rmax, or whatever it is. Things do move on in science either by design or serendipity.
Happy birthday!
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
This is 1800-2011 http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
and now you changed it back [having been found out].
I hardly know anything about it
Precisely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:44 am
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 5:14 am
Hmm..we know Ol Sol has had different rotation rates in its past. I’m going with age..and location, location, location determines rotation rate..
No, the location has nothing to do with it. We observe that age-related rotation rate in all stars, no matter where where they a located.
~
Left field visualize exercise for Dr. Leif..
Medium size older star hits expanding magnetic shell boundary layer. Duration of passage 66 years. Medium size older star enters expanding denser, faster, cooler region.
location, location, location whether old or young.
Carla says:
May 11, 2011 at 7:02 am
location, location, location whether old or young.
No evidence for any of that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 am
and now you changed it back [having been found out].
WRONG AGAIN!
You need a rest !
here is record of your viewing:
Host Name c-24-5-150-53.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
IP Address 24.5.150.53 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region California
City Petaluma
Date Time Type WebPage
10th May 2011 22:42:36 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
11th May 2011 00:13:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
11th May 2011 12:46:53 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:51:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:54:10 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 14:55:02 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
P.S. to above, UK time record (UTC+1)
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
http://www.leif.org/researchVuk-Failing-9.png
The formulae changed, the red and blue curves changed.
When you make snide comments like “No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists”, you better be squeaky clean and honest yourself.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
Since this layman could not get an anwer, Google supplied the Mcgraw-Hill Science and Technology definition as follows “A measure of sunspot activity, computed from the formula R = k(10g + f), where R is the relative sunspot number, f the number of individual spots, g the number of groups of spots, and k a factor that varies with the observer (his or her personal equation), the seeing, and the observatory (location and instrumentation). Also known as sunspot number; sunspot relative number; Wolf number; Wolf-Wolfer number; Zurich number. ”
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/relative-sunspot-number#ixzz1M3ZeCvLe
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly. See here: http://i55.tinypic.com/iyontj.jpg
I changed the latest red prediction line to orange, and one can plainly see it is exactly the same line as published last nine months ago.
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Steve Keohane says: May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
No, Hathaway’s are better because they are updated every month, just like a weather forecast based on yesterday’s observations is better than one based on data a month ago. I’m at a loss why people criticize Hathaway for making predictions based on current data rather than using stale data of years ago.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:56 am
…………….
Only wrong label pasted.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:00 am
Only wrong label pasted.
Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
You changed the formula for the blue curve to match the old one from 2003, but forgot to recalculate the curve. The formula for the red curve also changes [as does the curve] and is in places even invalid. It is better just to be honest and stick to the truth instead of trying to plaster over the problems by continually changing history. Living under communist regime should have told you that.
I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
No, I suggest that you are being dishonest by pasting in formulae from your 2003 paper that you have since changed. On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
Not to speak about the original Figure from your paper [at the bottom].
You were obviously grabbing plot while I was online getting the label corrected. Since you are so proficient I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical. Since you have nothing better to do why not as your birthday treat now plot everything yourself , to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
And your 2003 paper has:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724)).
As I said sticking to the truth is the better policy [however hard it may seem].
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical.
The formulae you doctored to be identical, but you didn’t notice that the curves are not, and furthermore do not agree with your 2003 paper. Time to stop your charade.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph, yet again.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.”
Leif and Steve,
Thank you both.
Jim
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it and then abandon your nonsense. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted. Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
All your effort is pathetic waste of time, since formula works and it is far better that anything you or anyone else has come up with, up to date.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
I shall ignore your abusive innuendo (you have used number of times before), which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
Very sad to come from someone whose contribution science is undoubtedly great.
Well enjoy rest of your birthday, my formula must be causing you headache considering number of hits from you today on my website, on the special day when you should enjoy life with family and friends.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
Entry Page Date: 11th May 2011
Visit Length: 7 hours 8 mins 14 secs
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun,
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80, as reported by
http://www.solarham.com/
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it
Will do.
2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted.
Ah, but you claim not to ‘adjust’ at all. And you adjust in a dishonest way by trying to paste the old formulae on the new graph.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
Polar formula is plainly wrong at it predicts a constant solar cycle length [from max to max] of 10.8 years, except once every 100 years when the formula breaks down completely.
which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
If you behave decently, I’m sure you’ll not be banned.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
A little script and/or just leaning on the keyboard takes care of many entries with no effort [except on your part to worry about them and count them].
GW says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm
It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun,
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80
There are five groups [one near them limb]. If they just had one spot each the sunspot number would be R = 10*5+5 = 55. And they have many more [some tiny] spots, so you actually get 25 more spots for R = 80.
>>>CET
>>>Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat
>>>island” analysis of the modern times.
Yes. Remember that the CET is composed from four monitoring stations. Two of those are still quite rural, while the other two are at Blackpool airport and Manchester International airport.
The Manchester station is a bit of a worry, as it is right next to the aircraft test bay, where they run up engines to test them. As I understand these temperature guages, any maximum temperature becomes the day’s maximum, so it you get a nice waft of hot exhaust for five minutes, that becomes the day’s max temperature.
.
Don’t compare the sunspot number (made at 11 May 2011 00:30 UT) with a picture taken almost 24 hours later. THAT is ridiculous! And when you compare the SSN with a picture please use an SDO image. Soho has a low resolution.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
Yet makes big difference:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-10.png
E.g. SC25 overestimated by more than factor of two and SC14 by almost factor of three. Not too good for prediction, is it?
I have also placed this version underneath your 2003 version, so you can see they are the same. Bottom line: you cannot claim that you did not make any adjustments unlike ‘some renown solar scientists’ and you should not ask for apology for having been found out. Behave yourself now and be suitable humble. And get your plots and formulae cleaned up to regain a shred of credibility.
Jcarels says:
May 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Don’t compare the sunspot number (made at 11 May 2011 00:30 UT) with a picture taken almost 24 hours later. THAT is ridiculous! And when you compare the SSN with a picture please use an SDO image. Soho has a low resolution.
So you are saying that they announce the sunspot number at the start of the day, and the number remains the same for the entire 24 hour period, regardless of how it may change during the course of the day ?
Leif Svalgaard says: (all over the place)
…………….
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
What you plotted is periodicity, not amplitude which on purpose you are mixing up; amplitude is the RED LINE in here .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
You got very good agreement for the periodicity, you just proved case for me.
Since you failed to do amplitude (red line), which determines non-smoothed cycles maxima, it would be nice if you can do that as well. In case you chicken out, readers can see amplitude calculation, shown as the red line and the red formula label:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Perhaps I should say thank you for proving superiority (above anything else available) of my calculations, and at same time giving it even valuable publicity.
If famous Dr. Svalgaard could not fundamentally fault anything of consequence (neither could Dr. Hathaway some years ago, except the 1800 phase shift; he would have done well if took note of SC24 extrapolation), the formula is here to stay.
Well done. Hope it was worth sacrificing your birthday.
And remember before next spiel: blue line is periodicity, the RED line is amplitude!
Mike Jonas says:
May 10, 2011 at 10:38 pm
the description for the data I posted is:
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/DPDformat.txt
where the data table we are talking about is the first paragraph on the page.
The project of Debrecen Photoheliographic Data
is a continuation of the work of Greenwich Royal Observatory which began photographing and measuring areas of sunspots and faculae in 1874.
It is a counterpoint to the # of sunspots, where if the total spot area declines and the sunspot number stays the same, you know that the spots are smaller.
Golly gee a CME, thought I was feeling it yesterday..but seriously..another comet gone into the corona of the sun. Here’s the report from http://www.spaceweather.com ..
“””AURORA WATCH: A coronal mass ejection launched from the sun’s eastern limb on May 9th could deliver a glancing blow to Earth’s magnetic field today. NOAA forecasters estimate a 40% chance of geomagnetic activity if and when the CME arrives. High-latitude sky watchers, be alert for auroras.
COMET AND CME: A comet dove into the sun on May 11th and seemed to trigger a massive eruption–emphasis on seemed. Watch the movie, then scroll down for further discussion.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2011/12may11/cme.gif
A comet goes in; a CME comes out. Coincidence? Probably, yes, the sequence was coincidental. The comet disintegrated as much as a million kilometers above the stellar surface. There’s no known way that the wispy, vaporous remains of a relatively lightweight comet could cause a billion-ton cloud of hot plasma to fly away from the sun at 400 km/s (the observed speed of the CME). Moreover, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory photographed the eruption that did propel the CME into space. There’s no comet in the field of view of this must-see movie.
Bonus: The bright comet pictured above had a dim companion. Can you find it?”””
Huh, comet seemly stimulates a region in the corona above an already ripe surface region..
Can the mods or Anthony please create a private electronic playroom where Dr Svalgaard and Vukcevic can go to beat each other up?
[nope . . many here find them interesting and knowledgeable much of the time . . but you are not obliged to watch them if you find it tedious . . kb]
Mr Green Genes says:
Can the mods or Anthony please create a private electronic playroom where Dr Svalgaard and Vukcevic can go to beat each other up?
Although I understand little of it, and often don’t even pay a lot of attention, I personally very much like seeing their debates like they are – right out in the open. The way science SHOULD be done. I would hate to see such debates locked up in private discussions – we have too much of that already.
Mr Green Genes says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:43 am
🙂 Stay low, and don’t do anything stupid like volunteer for special missions.
I think the Leif – Vuk discussion is very informative and entertaining. I happen to think the planets – barycenter – sun -moon – earth climate connections and resonances are the key to earth climate prediction and Leif’s very knowledgeable and detailed challenge to Vuk and this type of approach in general is extremely useful- especially with such an open exchange.
My thanks to both participants. – Keep it up.
Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
Lean on F5. I just did, as you can see.
What you plotted is periodicity, not amplitude which on purpose you are mixing up; amplitude is the RED LINE in here .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Your Figure 1 in the 2003 paper and the blue curve you just showed is amplitude and phase. The red curve fails to show amplitude, e.g. for cycle 20 or cycle 10, and many others.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
again, you are dishonest, not showing the results from the 2003 paper while claiming that you made no adjustments. Your upbringing in communist regime may have something to do with it: lying is OK if it serves a purpose.
the RED line is amplitude! and so wrong it clearly is. But that is not the point, which is your mendacity.
rbateman says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 pm
where if the total spot area declines and the sunspot number stays the same, you know that the spots are smaller.
As L&P will have it.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:20 am
Huh, comet seemly stimulates a region in the corona above an already ripe surface region..
The material in the tail of a comet would fit in a small suitcase, and the rest of the comet evaporated long before it could have any effect.
Norman Page says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:16 am
I think the Leif – Vuk discussion is very informative and entertaining.
Entertainment there certainly is. It is fun to see his antics trying to wiggle out of being caught.
How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:31 am
How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
It used to be 3 millionths of the total area of the Suns visible surface was the dividing line between a sunspot and a pore.
I don’t know what they are doing now.
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:31 am
How big does a “spot” have to be before it is a countable spot?
Basically, it should be visible at medium seeing with a refractor of aperture 80 mm and magnification 64 times [Rudolf Wolf’s definition] and appear black [not grey]. This is actually a very small spot. Here are some of those small spots visible today: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2011/loc-d20110512.JPG
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
Thank you. One last dumb question. Does the location north/south tell us much about the sun, spot or cycle. i.e. spot 94 is very far south.
Message to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
You are a pain. Fig 3 does if you bother to look. You have been told that at least one dozen times during last 3+ years (for last time: periodicity blue –amplitude red)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
You proved nothing, just getting paranoid.
Sunspot formula isn’t what bothers you, it is this
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
since it puts your next cycle prediction out of business.
You consider ‘Sunspot formula’ as a weak link so you are trying to use back door to discredit me as the autor of polar formula.
Well you failed. Go and do something useful!
Insults from you are nothing new, but I am surprised that you trying to bring my web page down.
Here is today’s records of hits from your computer
———————–
Number of Entries: 345
Entry Page Time:12th May 2011 18:43:39
Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over one day
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
…………………
UK time, which is UTC+1
Not something to be expected from scientist of word stature.
So kindly leave my website alone.
I shall ignore all your further remarks be it science, polite or uncivilised!
Note to everyone else :One more single hit on my webpage from Dr.Svalgaard I am closing it down.
If you wish a copy request and I shall email it.
Now I have closed my web page, if interested details of attack are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
mkelly says:
May 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm
i.e. spot 94 is very far south.
Actually not as you can see at the upper right-hand listing. Its latitude is 19 degrees south. The solar image [and hence the drawing] is rotated in the sky by 21.8 degrees [changes from day to day], so on the image it looks like 94 is way to the south, but it isn’t.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm
If you whish a copy request and I shall email it.
So you join the people that ‘disappear’ their past failures.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Now I have closed my web page, if interested details of attack are here
Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
“Lean on F5. I just did, as you can see.”
Just proving to you that ‘leaning on F5’ can be very effective.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:10 am
Mr Green Genes says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:43 am
🙂 Stay low, and don’t do anything stupid like volunteer for special missions…
~
hahahahaha
Check this out..don’t tell Vuks and Leif though..oops but first..
Not without the acronym.
CNM Cold Neutral Medium
“””CNM components with N(Ho) <∼
10¹⁸ cm⁻² and densities ∼20 cm⁻³, similar to values found by Welty et al.
towards 23Ori, would have thicknesses of <0.02 pc and if
at rest in the LSR would perturb the heliosphereboundary conditions
on timescales of ∼100 yr."""
Hmm..looking more and more like an atmosphere out there in the Very Local Interstellar Medium. Maybe should just finish this article..
Word just made a mess of those math symbols..
link better..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607600v1.pdf
Pg. 5
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
would have thicknesses of <0.02 pc and if at rest in the LSR would perturb the heliosphere boundary conditions on timescales of ∼100 yr.
Remember that influences cannot travel upstream against the solar wind tsunami.
SSN will also decline because of the L&P effect, just not as fast as the area number. Less spots (f) in a single group, and the “normal” small (A type or higher) groups will be invisible. So also less groups to count. Complex groups will be rare.
That is if the L&P effect continues off course. We’ll have to wait and see.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
A number in millionths of the Solar disc area would be greatly appreciated.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Interesting. At one time, galaxies looked like homogenous clouds. Upon further examination, however, the nature of the beast changed remarkably.
The universe never fails to reveal marvelous variance, upon closer scrutiny.
Why should interstellar space be any different?
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm
A number in millionths of the Solar disc area would be greatly appreciated.
The area is not used for calculating the SSN. A firm lower limit would be area=zero 🙂
NOAA reports areas in steps of 10 millionth. Perhaps 3 millionth would be a reasonable number, but the real issue is how dark the spot is. Lots of the specks you see on SDI/HMI images would not qualify as ‘spots’ if we were to maintain a comparable definition as the historical record.
Jcarels says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:50 pm
……………
L&P up to now has been just a reverse image of the sunspot count.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pma.htm
I think there is far less to it than it is claimed, it just may be a feature of the solar slow down
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which is widely expected, despite some predictions of ‘strong’ SC25.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm
The area is not used for calculating the SSN. A firm lower limit would be area=zero 🙂
NOAA reports areas in steps of 10 millionth.
The total area as computed by NOAA is crude, but is not the issue.
Perhaps 3 millionth would be a reasonable number, but the real issue is how dark the spot is. Lots of the specks you see on SDI/HMI images would not qualify as ‘spots’ if we were to maintain a comparable definition as the historical record.
That is an issue. The way it appears to me is that there is no effort to maintain such, and it’s a disconnect. 3 millionths is reasonable, along with some sort of definable intensity below the solar surface brightness threshold. It is for this reason that I have stopped bothering with SSN. It fails to tell the story adequately, and should the day come where the L&P gains full effect, the spots will simply vanish. What will that look like? A precipitous drop, and hands will be full trying to explain why it was not so. Once again, credibility and believeability will suffer….needlessly.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Interesting. At one time, galaxies looked like homogenous clouds. Upon further examination, however, the nature of the beast changed remarkably.
The universe never fails to reveal marvelous variance, upon closer scrutiny.
Why should interstellar space be any different?
~
No reason why they should be any different..cept for that proportion and size difference.
So we can hit one of these cold little devils approx. decade width every 100 or so years or not.. lol..quite alot going on inside this opened ended warm cavity..
Do any of our experts know how many corotating regions the sun has out to the corona. Or can’t we refer to aspects of differential rotation as corotation? Or how many corotating rings out to Oort? Yep its messy, warped and dented..
“”We can tell how quickly the surface of the Sun is rotating by observing the motion of structures, such as sunspots, on the Sun’s visible surface. The regions of the Sun near its equator rotate once every 25 days. The Sun’s rotation rate decreases with increasing latitude, so that its rotation rate is slowest near its poles. At its poles the Sun rotates once every 36 days!”””
The interior of the Sun does not spin the same way as does its surface. Scientists believe that the inner regions of the Sun, including the Sun’s core and radiative zone, do rotate more like a solid body. The outer parts of the Sun, from the convective zone outward, rotate at different rates that vary with latitude. The boundary between the inner parts of the Sun that spin together as a whole and the outer parts that spin at different rates is called the “tachocline”.””
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/differential_rotation.html
rbateman – thanks for the link.
—
Regarding the Leif – vuk acrimonious debate : Just for once I hope I have got things hopelessly wrong, but from my reading of the interchange, both have some very serious explaining to do.
vukcevic – Information posted by Leif appears to show that your web pages which were supposedly unchanged had in fact been changed and the changes had then been denied. What you choose to do about this is of course entirely up to you, but without a detailed itemisation of events I’m going to find it hard not to put your analysis into the same folder as CRU/UEA (of Climategate fame).
Leif – It appears that you have conducted an Overload attack on vukcevic’s website (also known as Denial of Service attack or DoS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack). I’m appalled. This is so totally unacceptable, and so far away from proper scientific debate, that I’m dumbstruck. Again, what you choose to do about this is of course entirely up to you, but to my simple mind a full apology is required.
Like I said, I hope I have got things hopelessly wrong, in which case the one apologising will be me.
Mike Jonas says:
May 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Leif – It appears that you have conducted an Overload attack on vukcevic’s website (also known as Denial of Service attack or DoS
I don’t think that a few hundred requests over a period of minutes constitute a DoS attack. In any event, it was just to prove that F5 can be very efficient to catch attempts to hide something, in spite of Vuk’s attempt to disparage me with ‘economy with accuracy’:
Vuk etc. says:
May 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Heh, ‘just leaning on the keyboard’, Chrome browser doesn’t work like that, a bit of ‘economy with accuracy’.
It gets worse, of course, with the attempt of framing it as an ‘attack’. I have very little tolerance with people that do what Vuk did. He has had many chances to just back off and admit the truth [and hopefully not continue with this kind of manipulation in the future]. He could always [as he has done in the past] just say that the changes were due trying to correct figures marred by sloppiness and lack of attention. This would have been perfectly acceptable, as we are all human. But, no, the whole affair was an attempt to claim superior results by dishonest means, and that shouldn’t happen.
Hypothetically thinking and this is for our PT friends here..and would definitely affect the topic here of “solar cycle,” to what degreee I’m not sure.
Here we go..
Taken somewhat from my current read lol.
Let’s take for instance we have a model of certain perameters of some nearby local interstellar space that include a moderately substantial increase in density. At this point I would like to remind the PT friends about the magnetic dipole positions of Neptune, Uranus, Pluto and Saturn.
Moderately substantial increase in density. Maybe a good thing that they don’t include the Interstellar Magnetic Field in this model, our PT friends. Not to mention the kind of solar cycle that would be trying to happen plowing through a mess like that..
Have a look at the model on page 10 figure 3. Dashed lines on left side indicate orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I think their magnetic dipole configurations are telling a story or two.
Heliospheric Response to Different Possible Interstellar Environments
Hans-Reinhard M¨uller1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.
hans.mueller@dartmouth.edu
Priscilla C. Frisch
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
frisch@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Vladimir Florinski and Gary P. Zank
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
vladimir.florinski@ucr.edu, gary.zank@ucr.edu
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0607/0607600v1.pdf
I’m starting to get a bad attitude about magnetic field reversals partial or full..eeek
Leif says : “it was just to prove that F5 can be very efficient to catch attempts to hide something”
Accepted. I apologise. With pleasure.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm
The way it appears to me is that there is no effort to maintain such, and it’s a disconnect.
We have other ways of keeping track of solar activity [e.g. F10.7 or magnetic field]. The reason we should [and do] bother with the sunspot number is that we need to understand its defects so we can interpret the old data.
and hands will be full trying to explain why it was not so. Once again, credibility and believeability will suffer….needlessly.
Lots of people with agendas will be scrambling to cover their backsides, but we know how to deal with that.
Carla says:
May 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm
So we can hit one of these cold little devils approx. decade width every 100 or so years or not.. lol..quite alot going on inside this opened ended warm cavity..
The article concludes: “In general, passage through interstellar clouds will lead to variations in the heliosphere boundary conditions over timescales possibly as short as 1000 years.” and “the Sun has entered the interstellar cloud component at the LIC velocity sometime within the past 40,000 yr, and will exit it sometime within the next 4000 yr.” We are talking thousands of years here.
Do any of our experts know how many corotating regions the sun has out to the corona. Or can’t we refer to aspects of differential rotation as corotation? Or how many corotating rings out to Oort?
I don’t think you have an idea of what ‘a corotating region’ is, so pay attention: The regions do not rotate at all, rather it is the Earth that runs into such a region every 2-4 weeks. The regions are rooted in a rotating sun and it looks like they are rotating, but they are not. It is like water from a garden hose sprinkler that also looks like it is rotating, while actually just flying straight out from the rotating sprinkler: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VbUd5GLpL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F49VDS?ie=UTF8&tag=milehighmist-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000F49VDS
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 6:38 pm
We have other ways of keeping track of solar activity [e.g. F10.7 or magnetic field]. The reason we should [and do] bother with the sunspot number is that we need to understand its defects so we can interpret the old data.
Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data?
Like you say, we have F10.7 flux and magnetic fields for solar activity, so the sunspot has outlived its usefulness.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data?
Code cannot do that. Humans may be able to.
Like you say, we have F10.7 flux and magnetic fields for solar activity, so the sunspot has outlived its usefulness.
The reason we still keep it around is to be able to understand the old data. For that reason I think we should keep the SSN around until after the next Maunder-type minimum, perhaps hundreds of years in the future.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Why not just use the proxies, plug it all into a computer model, and let the code do the interpreting of the old data?
Code cannot do that. Humans may be able to.
I agree.
Do you presently see any prospect that the studies in solar activity processes may one day unlock the means for man to be able to harness fusion as a power source?
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Do you presently see any prospect that the studies in solar activity processes may one day unlock the means for man to be able to harness fusion as a power source?
I think it will be the other way around: laboratory studies of reconnection [and perhaps near-Earth spacecraft data] will teach us how to control plasma with magnetic fields. Such control seems needed for fusion, but this is just my speculation. Sometimes, real progress comes from a completely unexpected direction, and hence unpredictable.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm
How hard a concept is magnetic reconnection to understand, i.e. – would a politician appreciate it? Fission is messy as well as fossil fuels appear finite, and unless a way is found to continue at present power consumption growth, the world will begin fighting big wars over supplies. World leaders seldom get along for extended periods.
rbateman says:
May 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm
How hard a concept is magnetic reconnection to understand, i.e. – would a politician appreciate it?
It is not difficult to understand at the conceptual level and there are beautiful laboratory experiments that explore the process http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf section 2C addresses the fusion problem.
Mike Jonas says:
May 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
………………
Hi Mr. Jonas
Some points from the paper:
Formula (as any reasonable person would see) has two lines, blue and red.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
-Blue is periodicity, and has little to do with amplitude (SSNmax), as it is blindly obvious for cycles between 1900 and 1925. This just determines that the frequency of oscillations (defining period of repetition) is in the right ball park. This has phase shift in the original formula of 2pi/3 but as it happens 2pi/4 (pi/2) does just as good job as the frequency of oscillation is concerned. The fact that this in certain degree defines max amplitude is coincidental.
– Red line presents an amplitude envelope (term commonly used in the analog signal processing), this is what points, in general terms only, to what max amplitude may be.
– There is a phase shift of 90 degrees (Sin to Cos around 1800)
All these points are in the paper, and none have been changed (except Saturn orbit period which was slightly out in the original paper – taken of an internet astronomy page).
In the paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf they are treated separately (periodicity page 1, amplitude envelope page 3)
What is claimed:
That non-smoothed sunspot number may reach or somewhat exceed 80, as it did happen with other cycles in relation to the amplitude envelope (red lin). None of the cycles are exactly ending on the red line, so only a fool would claim precise number, particularly with non-smoothed monthly numbers. To make that clear I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
2003 publication does not show extrapolation beyond 2003, at the time I was not even aware there is any interest in the prediction of SC24.
So in that respect nothing has changed.
One has to question reasons why a scientist or word ‘renome’ would mount such a vicious personal attack on an solar science ‘nobody’, it is still a puzzle to me. Only reason I can think is the polar formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which was derived from sunspot formula. To be honest I would not put much money on accuracy of sunspot formula, but the polar fields formula has really exceeded all my expectations in its accuracy to date.
This is not result of some superior knowledge, just recognising process of signal modulation and realising that there are astronomic numbers to fit the scenario.
Re: DoS
As you can see from here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
there were around 200 hits in ~7 minutes, however there were more than 300 (page recording records detail only up to 200), which would make it somewhat longer, hardly a finger slip. What is attitude of web authorities, and in particular of server operators of the perpetuator, it is not known to me, and hardly matters, but it does show intensity of ‘extreme dislike’ of the formula and unrelenting attacks on the author, not only here but elsewhere.
In that respect nothing has changed.
Page removal was only for about ½ hour, and it was kind of a test for response which was totally expected.
Sunspots are of interest only if there is effect on the climate, if it is shown that there isn’t, than solar science will be of less interest to wider audience. I am preparing a much longer paper, and may be out in month or two, which is currently my main interest. Of course personal attacks are not pleasant, but important thing is that formula has survived onslaught, changed or not, the rest doesn’t bother me in the least, I shall be arroun for a while.
Correction:
To make that clear I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
should be:
To make that clear I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
It has belatedly occurred to me (after all the attacks by Dr. S) that in the graph of solar formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
many readers including Dr. S automatically assume that blue line represents SSNmax. That is not so.
– Blue line is periodicity, and has little to do with amplitude (SSNmax), which is more than obvious for cycles between 1900 and 1925. Blue line just determines the frequency of oscillations (or period of repetition). The fact that it in a certain degree defines max amplitude is coincidental, but strengthens formula’s relevance.
– Red line is the peak amplitude envelope (term commonly used in the analogue signal processing), it (in general terms only) shows what non smoothed monthly SSNmax amplitude may be.
Extrapolation of red line shows that non-smoothed sunspot number may reach or somewhat exceed 80, as it did happen with other cycles in relation to the amplitude envelope. None of the cycles are exactly ending on the red line, so precise number is not something that can be predicted, particularly with non-smoothed monthly numbers.
This also shows, further away is the SSNmax lower it is going to be.
(This distinction between two is clearly made in the original paper.)
To make that clear on the above graph I drawn green line that intersect the red line at 80 and it does not coincide with blue’s line peak.
To me as the author, all this is plainly obvious, but it apparently did not resonate with readers.
Therefore I will when prediction are concerned show graph with a truncated and less prominent periodicity signal (blue line) as in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Thank you all for your patience.
vukcevic says:
May 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm
All these points are in the paper, and none have been changed
Whatever your interpretation is doesn’t matter or if your findings are correct or not. What does matter is that you pasted in the old version of the formulae on the new graph trying to justify that you have made no adjustments. THIS is the sin and this is what you tried to cover up, including trying to ‘disappear’ the evidence. Mike is quite correct to place you in the Climategate folder.
In order not to repeat it twice, my answer to your phoney ‘moralising’ with a useful counter-suggestion you can find here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/12/potential-agricultural-impact-of-the-eddy-minimum/#comment-659539
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:19 am
In order not to repeat it twice, my answer to your phoney ‘moralising’ […]
Asking you to be honest can hardly be phoney…
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm
…………..
Answer just posted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/12/potential-agricultural-impact-of-the-eddy-minimum/#comment-659667
Leif, vukcevic – As I see it, there are two issues here:
1. Did vukcevic change a formula while claiming that the formula did not change.
2. How does the sun behave.
The answer to #1 has no direct bearing on #2. But the issue has certainly added an edge to the debate.
Re issue #1: As I had not archived any of vukcevic’s material, I can’t prove anything one way or the other. There do appear to be different formulae still up on vukcevic’s websites:
blue : Y = 100 abs[Sin(2π/3+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Sin2π(t-1941)/19.859]
red : Y = 60*[2+COS(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5*SIN2π(t-1941)/287.6]
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined1650.gif
blue : Y1 = 100 abs[Cos(2π/4+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Cos2π(t-1941)/19.859]
red : Y2 = 60*[2+Cos(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5Cos2π(t-1941)/287.6]
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
blue : Y1 = 100 abs[Cos(2π/4+2π(t-1941)/(2*11.862)) + Cos2π(t-1941)/19.859] (periodicity)
red : Y2 = 60 abs[2+Cos(3π/2+2π(t-1941)/118) + 0.5*Cos2π(t-1941)/287.6] (amplitude)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm (both dated 2003)
Y = ±A[Cos(π/3+2π(t-1940.5-3)/(2*11.862) + Cos2π(t-1940.5-3)/19.859] (publ. 7 Jan 2004) (this is a different formula – the “polar formula”)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
[I hope I have transcribed them all correctly]
The different formulae and their graphs look like what Leif showed as undeclared changes. Did Leif get them from the same web page at different times, or from different web pages? I don’t know, but I have no good reason to disbelieve Leif.
Re issue #2: Any formulae like vukcevic’s can be interesting, and may lead to new understanding, but to my mind they prove nothing unless (a) the correlation holds up really well over a long period, and in particular over a period after they were first formulated, and/or (b) there is a physical explanation to go with them.
Over a few sunspot cycles, the sun’s behaviour is easy to graph visually well with an abstract formula such as vukcevic’s. Others have been cited here too. But it is too easy to keep fiddling the formulae as new data becomes available, so that the formulae retain a good match (the IPCC comes to mind). Have vukcevic and others done this with the sunspot cycle? Again, I don’t know.
What I do know is that Anthony has provided a brilliant forum in which issues such as this get an open airing.
I have been told that a couple of major papers are currently in the pipeline (sorry no details, but I’m told publication July/August), and I’m hoping they will take our knowledge and understanding a lot further. I’m quite sure they will get reported on WUWT when they are published.
Hi Mr. Jonas
Only thing which is different is 2pi/3 to 2pi/4 in blue periodicity formula. As explained in my previous post this is not dealing with amplitude envelope.
2pi/3 and 2pi/4 is a phase shift between two signals and this does not alter significantly meaning to physical aspects, just moves whole thing a bit sideways.
The amplitude envelope is red and determines where peak may be, and those changes with time of occurrence.
I tried visually to scan the formulae in your post, they appear to be Ok (I really would need to print them along each other to check)
My presentation is a bit more than sloppy, so when I updat the sunspot values on the graph, I re-pasted formulae in it and got obviously muddled up, grossly on the red, which if plotted it would be ridiculously wrong.
But I am not particularly concerned about any of this, somewhere in those numbers must be a correct set, else excel would not graph it, that is why I posted the excel entries.
If there is some meaning to whole thing, someone will get it right eventualy, only two important numbers in whole thing are: 2xJupiter orbit and 1xJupiter-Saturn conjunction period, the rest is just curve fitting.
2pi/3, or 2pi/4 or 1941 or 1940.5 (as probably more appropriate) with one or the other of pi-s, can’t remember which, does not bother me duly.
When I said no change here, I meant that in principle same thing has continued, unlike Dr. Hathaway’s and Dr. Dikpati’s who are changing whole theory as I understand, rather than an existing minor adjustment, anyway that was on periodicity, not on the amplitude, which is important here.
This has been too mush of a distraction over last two days, currently I am working on a climate paper, which to me is far more important, so it is time to move on.
Thanks for support and constructive comments, if you have inclination do sort it out you are welcome to do so.
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I re-pasted formulae in it and got obviously muddled up, grossly on the red, which if plotted it would be ridiculously wrong.
and yet you claim that you changed nothing. Pasting the old formula on the new graph is gross deceit. Trying to cover it up makes it worse.
Pasting the old formula on the new graph is gross …… Trying to cover it up makes it worse.
It is a new graph because more sunspots were added since 2003, and the old graph didn’t have forward extrapolation.
It was not old formula pasted, but a formula which was riddled with errors, eventually corrected. That was nothing of a kind, just erroneous presentation.
Jupiter, Saturn, 1941, same numbers are there, as before.
I still maintain nothing has changed.
Why bother if you think there is no planetary effect.
Or perhaps you realised it is time to catch up with the real world of astronomy.
If so, here it is have a go and do improve, explain and contribute to the understanding:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Write a paper, put your name on it, I don’t mind to be demoted to references, or even not mentioned at all.
Or on the other hand you can carry on with your pointless innuendo You done your name huge disservice; had more than 500 hits on:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
many from very prominent scientific institution.
[Vuk – please calm down. You have made your response and it is pointless to keep making it over and over. There are 4 comments from you in the spam bin which I will not post because they repeat your previous comments or start to cross the line from ‘appropriate, measured response’ ~jove, mod]
Thanks Jove. I suppose I have overdone it. It is good that posts with certain words (although they were directed at me, rather than from me) are binned into spam immediately.
Have a nice weekend.