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.
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.