The sun seems not to be in cooperative mood again this month. It has gone blank again.
And from SWPC, the brief upticks of April were not repeated in May:
More info at the WUWT solar page
The sun seems not to be in cooperative mood again this month. It has gone blank again.
And from SWPC, the brief upticks of April were not repeated in May:
More info at the WUWT solar page
Who would have thought it. It’s the sun that drives climate. Amazing.
It should be low 70’s in June. Today, low 60’s. But that’s the UK for you weather does not obey the UK Met Office who again forecast record summer temperatures, but did not mention bar-b-qs.
Old SOL entering another “Death Throws” period? It’s no wonder tyhe Aussie Govn’t is keen on a “carbon” tax.
Don’t they tell us that the sun has nothing to do with climate.
Does this mean it’s worse than we thought? Are we all doomed?
Sorry? Spaceweather.com is reporting solar spot 1234 at the moment. It might be tiny but its there.And we only had 1 day so far without any spots. Compared to last year and before we’re doing good. Eh, the sun is doing good.
One month doth not make a cycle
Maybe, like before, your mentioning it will get it going again.
Unprecedented!
I said on WUWT a couple of months ago that the uptick would not last. I was right. I’m not going to try to predict what’s coming next though, because the Sun is in a thoroughly unpredictable state. Pretty much anything could happen, and probably will.
“tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 4:37 am
I’m not going to try to predict what’s coming next though, because the Sun is in a thoroughly unpredictable state.”
I wish, really wish, people “GET” this!!!
I wonder just how much solar science will be changed by this period of quiescence? We have a lot of eyes on the prize this time, and I can’t help but wonder what sort of new perspective will emerge once the masses of data are poured over. I guess a lot of folks have been waiting a lifetime for this.
Small spots were never seen in the old days.
see, if my name was Mann or Jones, I would say “based on the evidence, it is clear that this solar cycle is now over and we are headed directly to the next minimum!”
IF my name were Mann or Jones. It isn’t.
Daily sunspot graph here:
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.JPG
I don’t claim to have any knowledge about how the sun behaves, but eyeballing the graph it seems too early to draw conclusions. Yes, the sun is taking a breather, but it has done that before in this cycle and still recovered to around the (latest) predicted level.
[PS. Hopefully I have got the graph right, but it isn’t peer-reviewed]
I suggest we send a rocket to the sun full of neuclear weapons to bring back CO2 caused AGW, otherwise there are going to be a lot of embarresed climate scientists and we might have to get rid of green taxes.
Patrick Davis says:
June 13, 2011 at 4:41 am
Translation: If temperatures start climbing in the next few months it doesn’t mean that the sun is not the main driver.
I wish, really wish, people “GET” this!!!
I think I now get it – it goes something like this: There is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate except when there isn’t, i.e. when the sun is “in a thoroughly unpredictable state”.
John Finn says:
June 13, 2011 at 5:20 am
I think I now get it – it goes something like this: There is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate except when there isn’t, i.e. when the sun is “in a thoroughly unpredictable state”.
Heh. Hi John. I could say the same about co2 levels….
I’ve had another try at getting over the relationship between solar activity and El Nino. See what you think:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-timing-of-el-nino-in-relation-to-the-solar-cycle/
nope – you don’t get it Mr Finn. You confuse translation with interpretation.
TB is simply saying that predicting solar activity for this cycle is going to be very difficult – nothing more.
I guess it’s time for breakfast, because that picture of the blank Sun looks like a fried egg to me.☺
John Finn & Tallbloke
“The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, which acts to damp high frequencies. Using a phenomenological approach, Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate was 1.5 times as sensitive to 22 year cyclical forcing relative to 11 year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertial induced a lag of approximately 2.2 years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
LIke always, lag a little less than 1/4 of the forcing cycle time.
“Translation: If temperatures start climbing in the next few months it doesn’t mean that the sun is not the main driver.”
Pretty poor translation. TB didnt say anything about temperatures or about the sun driving anything. More like a telling response to a verbal Rorschach.
Its looking more and more like David Archibald was right. I hope this will be acknowledged. It’s actually very, scary the transition to ice age apparently occurs very rapidly 20 years.
wws says: June 13, 2011 at 5:00 am
see, if my name was Mann or Jones, I would say “based on the evidence, it is clear that this solar cycle is now over …
If I were Mann or Jones, I’d draw a line where I think the solar activity is, then I’d use a highly sophisticated technique called: “multiplying the value by a number big enough to make them match”, then I’d claim the science clearly shows that we can predict solar activity (because there’s a rough resemblance between my calculation and the result it is supposed to match). Then I’d claim that “anyone who disagrees with the fundamental solar science is a denialist and must be in the pay of big oil”.
In the meantime the great British Public is being softend up to learn to live with the oncoming ‘controlled power cuts’ because of the increased activity of that same darn Sun expected at the next maximum, or, not mentioned but the real agenda, because of the ludicrous energy policies of the current Government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/controlled-power-cuts-likely-as-sun-storm-threatens-national-grid-2296748.html
Can somebody explain to me how come the graph of sun spots reaches above 40 SS while watching the sun for the last year or so the maximum number was around 20, and that was on a “stormy” week.
The current count in the last few months is around 1- 10 – and very tiny spots at that.
i am sure that prior to digital era these spots were never seen – let alone counted.
Actually, there probably are a fair number of sunspots, but they are all (except 1234) on the side of the sun that is not facing us. The sunspot number may be 16 today, but ten days ago before they started rotating out of sight it was 122. Some of them will likely be back in a week or two.
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 5:31 am
Heh. Hi John. I could say the same about co2 levels….
I’ve had another try at getting over the relationship between solar activity and El Nino. See what you think:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-timing-of-el-nino-in-relation-to-the-solar-cycle/
Actually, I’m quite open to the idea that solar activity causes ‘shifts’ in global weather patterns – including ENSO. However, that is not the same as a steady rising or falling temperature trend over several decades. This tends to imply a change in the energy balance, i.e. the earth is receiving more than it is losing (warming) or it is losing more than it is receiving (cooling) . Of course, solar activity can be responsible for such changes, but in the absence of any trend over the past 50 or so years and a falling trend over the past 20 years, I am sceptical that the sun is responsible for late 20th century warming.
Maybe if we put all the warmists in a row, and the blow really hard, it might help.
If we stay ENSO-neutral for awhile, which looks to be the most likely case, it should be interesting to see where we are with UAH in a few more months. I have a suspicion it’ll be back in the .2-.3C anomaly range we bounced around in from 2002-2007, which ought to be unsatisfactory to both ends of the AGW-skeptic debate.
BTW if I was a current alarmist in newspaper, media, TV, scientist, organization etc. purposely pushing an agenda that you now know is false, beware of future litigation if you have been shown to be responsible for financial loss etc against the people.
According to my straight line extrapolation, the Sun’s F 10.7 radio flux will go to zero in… your guesed it…2012!
OOPs
/sarc off
That picture has a hypnotic quality …
Actually, there probably are a fair number of sunspots, but they are all (except 1234) on the side of the sun that is not facing us. The sunspot number may be 16 today, but ten days ago before they started rotating out of sight it was 122. Some of them will likely be back in a week or two.
If we can’t see a sunspot does it matter? Does the historic count include spots that had rotated behind the sun – by say not deleting them from the count until three weeks had passed?
There is one thing more interesting than the SUNSPOT COUNT. That would be the NOAA’s predictions of the sunspot number. Am I alone in sensing that the NOAA response to the sunspot number is always in error to the high side?
I think a good control systems engineer ought to chime in on this. (I am a hacker) It seems that the NOAA’s response follows the data but is late and error to one side, typical of an over-damped response. In the vernacular, the NOAA is hesitating making any large changes in its predictions to place the prediction in a lower error state. A low gain response.
Why?
We can gauge the actual graph by knowing that the NOAA prediction is low gain and over damped. In other words, using the NOAA as a transfer function itself… It seems predictable. The last control system work I did was 22 years ago. I could be wrong but my gut says I’m on the right track.
Based on this observation, I predict substantially lower sunspot numbers in 2 years compared with the NOAA prediction.
Hmmm. In view of what is taking place right now, is the “predicted value,” red line in the graph about “sunspot number progression,” still as high as indicated around 2013-14, or should it be flattened some? How often is the curve adjusted? Looks like it should be 20 points lower.
@lgl (June 13, 2011 at 5:47 am), who was addressing John Finn & tallbloke
There’s no lag and there’s no damping of high-frequencies — quite the contrary: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/#comment-678688 .
Eyal Porat, Re: minimum spot size…
That occurred to me as well. Looking at the Maunder minimum data, one must think that the instruments may have limited the count. In fact, one must assume that the count was always skewed low. I doubt the observers would arbitrarily add spots to their count. But I do believe that they’d miss a few.
I bet we are counting many more spots nowadays then previously. AND now we have the chorus, the chorus that roots for every little spot… (I wonder what their motives are?)
I propose recalibrating the sunspot count historically to remove ignorance bias. Maybe we can use Michael Mann’s tree-ring data to adjust the sunspot number. :’)
Maybe we should shoot a rocket full of diet coke into the sun. All that co2 suddenly released will surely cause solar warming and get the sun spots back on track.
Eyal Porat : “The current count in the last few months is around 1- 10 – and very tiny spots at that” and Jean Parisot : “If we can’t see a sunspot does it matter? Does the historic count include spots that had rotated behind the sun”
My understanding is that the sunspot number is simply the number of visible sunspots plus 10 times the number of sunspot groups. So, for example, on June 3 there were 38 spots in 8 groups, for a sunspot number of 118.
I have graphed sunspot number in http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.JPG
Data from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/SRS.html
John Finn – sceptical that the sun . . . .
Well that depends on how you define responsible surely. Firstly, if you’re talking about trend in TSI only and a very simple mechanism then actually, you don’t need a rising trend to have rising temps. You just need the imbalance caused by the initial rising trend in the early 20thC to be followed by a sustained period of higher than average cycles. That way the climate system faces each new solar cycle with ‘left over’ energy from the last. Secondly, one might assume that this increasing warmth (from solar activity) would affect the relative strength of positive ENSO events, icemelt/albedo or perhaps increase atmospheric water vapour content. Or perhaps these feedbacks are only reserved for CO2. And finally, I don’t think any of the ‘sun wot did it’ folk think that the mechanism is anything like as simple or direct as you (or I) have described.
This has been a sluggish solar cycle but 2011 is far more active than 2010 and 2012 will be more active still on the way to solarmmax in 2013. Some very active regions about to emerge from the eastern limb of the sun. Expect solar activity to pick up in the next week.
Since the invention and widespread dissemination of the telescope, I’d suggest that the recording of sunspots has been pretty accurate. Even the cheap 50mm/2″ diameter telescopes available from the likes of Tasco, can project a big enough solar disc to count even the smallest sunspot.
I’d certainly say that we’ve 200 years of good sunspot counts, probably even 300 years worth. Something that the keen amateur, gentleman astromomers of old were very good at.
keith at hastings uk says:
June 13, 2011 at 4:56 am
“Small spots were never seen in the old days.”
I think the men that started logging sunspots in the seventeenth century were able to see small sunspots with their crude telescopes. But they were viewing the sun from Europe not space. We observe more sunspots because we never have a cloudy day. Perhaps sometimes they did miss the smallest of the small too -but its not like it was just one guy looking. They really did good science as a whole.
Hansen, et al.: El Sol is a Denier of Global Warming!
John Finn, good morning, you say : “However, that is not the same as a steady rising or falling temperature trend over several decades. This tends to imply a change in the energy balance, i.e. the earth is receiving more than it is losing (warming) or it is losing more than it is receiving (cooling) .”
So where does this “energy” come from? Hello!
Really though… there is no such thing as an “energy balance” on this ever moving, spinning, wobbling, churning, wet, windy, gassy -orbiting -rock we live on and you can’t know what a “decade” or two even looks like down to a fraction of a degree for very small time scales of “several decades” in the past. (500 yrs ago, or 10s of thousands of yrs ago) There is no data resolution that small to look at from geology. For all you know, “rising or falling temperature trends over several decades” happens all the time; even during ice ages; so you can’t claim “unusual” either. We haven’t even reached the natural temperature “high” of the recent past (that had nothing to do with C02 “driving” it) 100,000 yrs ago this planet was much warmer and sea level high stands were almost 20ft higher then now. And 18-12 thousand years ago North America was recovered from ice three miles high. All that ice melted.
Laura Gonzales says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:03 am
Its looking more and more like David Archibald was right. I hope this will be acknowledged. It’s actually very, scary the transition to ice age apparently occurs very rapidly 20 years.
———
We already are in an ice age, we just happen to be in an interglacial period of an ice age. The sun is more active now than at any time in past 3 or 4 years, heading to solar max in 2013. True, the sun is “sluggish” but no need to be scared, really.
Mike Jonas. Nice job on the graph at http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.JPG
My memory tells me that originally the solar observers projected the disk of the sun onto a piece of paper and drew circles around the spots, as they saw them. On a sunny day, without filters, this must have been blindingly difficult. I’d love to know more about this. Seems that the sunspot count began as a curiosity then later became a serious pursuit.
John Finn says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:19 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 5:31 am
I’ve had another try at getting over the relationship between solar activity and El Nino. See what you think:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-timing-of-el-nino-in-relation-to-the-solar-cycle/
Actually, I’m quite open to the idea that solar activity causes ‘shifts’ in global weather patterns – including ENSO. However, that is not the same as a steady rising or falling temperature trend over several decades. This tends to imply a change in the energy balance, i.e. the earth is receiving more than it is losing (warming) or it is losing more than it is receiving (cooling) . Of course, solar activity can be responsible for such changes, but in the absence of any trend over the past 50 or so years and a falling trend over the past 20 years, I am sceptical that the sun is responsible for late 20th century warming.
There hasn’t been a steady rising or falling temperature trend over several decades. There was a series of upward step changes following the redistribution of oceanic heat in El Nino events.
There has been a change in energy balance from pos to neg since 2004.
The Sun affects climate in many many ways. One of them is to cause the ocean to accumulate heat on multidecadal timescales if it is above average activity over an extended period. Which in the later C20th, it was, all the way to 2003.
The original method of counting the spots has changed due to the improvement of capturing the solar image, so the original Wolf method, devised by Rudolf Wolf back in the 17th century , the time of the Dalton Minimum, would not have picked up the tiny spots of today.
To see what his count would have been today you can visit this lovely site which explains the whole concept and methods of the count and gives the original ‘Wolf’ count daily too.
The Wolf count, as of today, has 3 days of no spots.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Eyal Porat : “The current count in the last few months is around 1- 10 – and very tiny spots at that” and Jean Parisot : “If we can’t see a sunspot does it matter? Does the historic count include spots that had rotated behind the sun”
My understanding is that the sunspot number is simply the number of visible sunspots plus 10 times the number of sunspot groups. So, for example, on June 3 there were 38 spots in 8 groups, for a sunspot number of 118.
I have graphed sunspot number in http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/SunspotGraph.JPG
Data from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/SRS.html
Jay Curtis : “How often is the curve adjusted?”
There have been a number of posts on WUWT on this. Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/nasas-hathaway-issues-new-solar-cycle-prediction/ or http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/nasas-hathaway-issues-new-solar-cycle-prediction/ or http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/nasas-sunspot-prediction-roller-coaster/
Well, I have no idea if this guy’s theory is good but, I love the ‘Layman’s Sunspot Count”.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The whole sc24 will be like this. And it will be very, very long. Next minimum not before 2020/21.
It will get much colder than in 1960s/70s. Sea level and atmospheric CO2 will decrease, sea ice and glaciers will increase. There will be food problems worldwide.
Can it be that modern people in Western countries, lacking any firmly established system of beliefs, are falling back to their ancient Celtic and Germanic instincts? Their lemming-like striving for cruel mass sacrifices intended to propitiate the unpredictable forces of Nature, their worship of trees and animals, their intense and fearful interest in seismic events, in weather changes, and in the condition of the Sun… There is something decidedly druidic in it all.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
As of this post, the link shows two small spots for 1234. SSNs will go up and down over the months. Anybody looking at SSN and 10.7 charts knew the values would go up and down. The 13-month average is better compared to the official prediction. See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/README3 for smoothing calculation details. Hathaway has a new prediction this month. See http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml.
Jay Curtis says: June 13, 2011 at 6:58 am
Jay here are some of the past predictions:
http://i55.tinypic.com/iyontj.jpg blink comparison
http://i53.tinypic.com/23stdzk.jpg static, sans April 2011, which is exactly the same line as Sept 2010
lgl says:
June 13, 2011 at 5:47 am (Edit)
John Finn & Tallbloke
“The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, which acts to damp high frequencies. Using a phenomenological approach, Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate was 1.5 times as sensitive to 22 year cyclical forcing relative to 11 year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertial induced a lag of approximately 2.2 years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
LIke always, lag a little less than 1/4 of the forcing cycle time.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:02 am (Edit)
@lgl (June 13, 2011 at 5:47 am), who was addressing John Finn & tallbloke
There’s no lag and there’s no damping of high-frequencies — quite the contrary: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/#comment-678688 .
You are both partially correct. There are some solar effects on the climate which take time to manifest, e.g. the bigger El Nino’s,which don’t start until solar minimum, releasing a chunk of the heat absorbed into the ocean during the higher part of the solar cycle and (take note John Finn) hidden from the surface record in the sub-surface Pacific Warm Pool. There are other solar effects which are almost instantaneous; e.g. the small el-nino events which quickly follow sharp temporary downturns in solar activity levels near the peak of the solar cycle.
All but one EL Nino event in the last 60 years has *started* (i.e. when SOI rises above zero), *after* the peak of the solar cycle. The one that started before the peak was just after a brief sharp downturn in activity shortly before the actual peak SSN occurred in 1958
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ssn-soi-split.jpg
Undoubtedly there is some way to count sunspots by staring at tree rings. Where’s Michael Mann when you really need him? /sarc
R. Gates says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:32 am
“We already are in an ice age, we just happen to be in an interglacial period of an ice age. The sun is more active now than at any time in past 3 or 4 years, heading to solar max in 2013. True, the sun is “sluggish” but no need to be scared, really.”
Let me get this straight. According to R.Gates:
I should be afraid of a harmless non-toxic trace gas in the atmosphere that makes plants grow better and use less water as its concentration increases. A gas which for most of the earth’s history has been in concentrations ten times that of today. A gas which might also help extend growing seasons in higher latitudes through warmer nights and milder winters.
But as far as unusual activity in the huge blazing violent fusion inferno in the sky called the sun, activity that correlates with cold periods in recent history where people were starving because the unusual cold was killing crops, I shouldn’t worry about that.
Really? That’s your story and you’re sticking with it?
Amazing.
The red “prediction” line represents the smoothed average of sunspots. If the actual count continues to bounce up to the “prediction” line, then fall back, bounce up, and fall back, then the smoothed average for these months will come in somewhere below the “prediction” line.
(BTW, it still takes several minutes between logging in, and the system allowing me to actually make a comment.)
Laura Gonzales says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:03 am
“Its looking more and more like David Archibald was right. I hope this will be acknowledged. It’s actually very, scary the transition to ice age apparently occurs very rapidly 20 years.”
Technically we’ve been in an ice age for 3 million years. The current ice age is characterized by cyclical advances and retreats of glaciers where they advance and dominate for about 100,000 years and then retreat for 10,000 years. They have been in retreat for about 10,000 years now and are due to begin their advance.
The reason the transition can be so rapid is that the global ocean has a shallow warm surface layer with an average temperature of 16C while the bulk of it (90% of its volume) is a rather constant 3C. Any significant perturbation towards a colder global average temperature right now can drain that shallow surface layer of its stored warmth and turn the whole ocean, instead of just the lower 90% of it, into an ice bath. Land surface temperatures of course ultimately follow ocean surface temperature upwards and downwards in characteristic way where land surface temperatures get higher than ocean temperature in the summer and colder in the winter. The relationship between land and ocean surface temperatures is called “continentality” and was so named hundreds of years ago.
Interestingly it isn’t colder winters which make glaciers advance. It’s colder summers that do the trick. Once the permafrost starts moving towards lower latitudes because the summer isn’t warm enough to melt it the effect snowballs because permafrost breeds more permafrost through snow and ice reflecting the warming rays of the sun. So watch out for lower average summer temperatures in higher latitudes as that will be the mark the beginning of the undoing of our civilization. As long average summer temperatures in higher latitudes rise thank your lucky stars because that’s a very, very good thing.
There may have been a once in millions-of-years mode change.
In any case, I had prematurely stated, last week, that the the rainy season in the southern part of Norcal was over. As it turned out, the cold front on Saturday dropped trace of rainfall. But going forward, it does appear the Pacific High may finally be moving poleward, bringing the dry season. We’ll see.
re: Adam Gallon 6/13 7:27
The problem with the old counts was not the quality of the instrument but the lack of a rigorous procedure and constant regular observation & recording (which started with Wolf and Schwabe in the early 19th century).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioscope
Well, there is still some minor amounts of rain today in San Mateo.
Dave Springer said:
Oh no, I am sure you’re wrong. R Gates tells us that it is the acceleration of the hydrological cycle because of anthropogenic stepping on the CO2 gas pedal that causes the problems and that in consequence, higher summer temperatures are worse than lower summer temperatures and that they drive the oceans, or something.
Jean Parisot says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:48 am
“If we can’t see a sunspot does it matter?”
IMO the hidden spots don’t matter much except that because we know about them, we can be pretty certain that the instantaneous SSN today of 16 is not representative of the sun’s condition. We should expect that when the daily numbers are eventually averaged, we’ll see a Sun Spot Number for June 2011 a lot higher than 16. If we didn’t know about them, we’d assume that our single sample was typical of the present state of the sun.
I could be wrong about that BTW. I am not a practicing sun-spot-ologist.
A
Paul
I can’t find the evidence.
I have produced a graph showing rather low (for many may be too low and unacceptable) (non) correlation between CET and SSN.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-SSN.htm
Since as far as I know this is first time that such graph has been constructed, any comments on purely technical grounds (the basic principle employed, error in the approach etc) are welcome and will be taken into account if justifiable.
To any of the climate experts (regularly posting here) if they so whish, I will make available the excel file for a thorough reassessment.
In southern Ontario, Canada we are experiencing cold October weather in June, cloudy and rain every day. This is almost identical to the summer of 2009. The summer and winter of 2010 was great due to El Niño, agricultural yields for 2011 are expected to be half of 2010’s output. We better pray CO2 can mitigate the lack of solar activity as the last El Nino was contingent on the last solar max.
@Dave Springer says: June 13, 2011 at 8:42 am
You have stated the scary parts that keep R. Gates head in the sand.
Fit_Nick says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:41 am
the original Wolf method, devised by Rudolf Wolf back in the 17th century , the time of the Dalton Minimum, […]
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Rudolf Wolf [1816-1893] did not observed during the Dalton Minimum. Here is Wolf’s reconstruction of the sunspot number at that time: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png He had that cycle to be medium, not a Grand Minimum cycle. His successor Wolfer in 1902 decreased the size of cycle 5 by about a factor of two, thus in effect creating the Dalton minimum. The Layman’s sunspot count lacks calibration and is junk and certainly does not represent what Wolf thought cycle 5 was like [apart from the fact that Wolf was not even born and thus did not observe the cycle, so the claim that LSC ‘restores’ Wolf’s method is false].
———————–
Sunspot cycles proceed in ‘spurts’. These are particularly visible in weak cycles, e.g. cycle 14 and [now] cycle 24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC-14-and-24.png
The yellow curve is the daily sunspot number, the pink is the 27-day mean, and the black the yearly mean. So, we might expect similar spurts this time around.
The behavior of this Solar Cycle has yet to change: It’s all bark and no bite. The spots are too wimpy far too often.
I tried posting the news about the Northern Polar Coronal Hole showing signs of re-forming several times this past week. That was a hint. It’s now rotating off the limb in STEREO AHEAD.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:50 am
Sunspot cycles proceed in ‘spurts’. These are particularly visible in weak cycles, e.g. cycle 14 and [now] cycle 24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC-14-and-24.png
The yellow curve is the daily sunspot number, the pink is the 27-day mean, and the black the yearly mean. So, we might expect similar spurts this time around.
Hi Leif, please could you tell us more about the way f10.7 radio flux has been calibrated to the sunspot number in your graph. Does it use the downward curve you calculated for the relationship that I saw recently. If so, could you link that for us again.
Thanks
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:55 am
Hi Leif, please could you tell us more about the way f10.7 radio flux has been calibrated to the sunspot number in your graph.
In order not to open another can of worms, the F10.7 flux was only calibrated using data from cycle 24, i.e. from 2009 on. I’ll keep this graph up to date going forward.
Dave Springer says:
June 13, 2011 at 8:42 am
The reason the transition can be so rapid is that the global ocean has a shallow warm surface layer with an average temperature of 16C while the bulk of it (90% of its volume) is a rather constant 3C. Any significant perturbation towards a colder global average temperature right now can drain that shallow surface layer of its stored warmth and turn the whole ocean, instead of just the lower 90% of it, into an ice bath.
Well, not quite. The dropoff in temperature from the underside of the mixed surface layer to the thermocline is fairly linear, so there is a lot of energy stored in the top 700M of ocean, considering the top 2m has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere, and a hyperactive late C20th sun stored plenty of extra energy there. Plenty to keep the atmosphere warm for a good while even if the sun stays this quiet for two cycles. Sure we will see some cold winters, but I don’t think we’re in rapid glaciation territory. For another thing, the orbital/orientation cycles aren’t anywhere near the right stage for glaciation.
If the Sun stays at this level of activity, I forecast a drop of 0.3-0.5C in SST over the next 20 years, allowing for a few more biggish volcanoes.
Is this the Livingston & Penn effect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
REPLY: No there will be more sunspots this year, the L&P effect is gradual…don’t expect it to drop of in contrast until around 2015-2017 – Anthony
vukcevic says: “I have produced a graph showing rather low (for many may be too low and unacceptable) (non) correlation between CET and SSN. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-SSN.htm Since as far as I know this is first time that such graph has been constructed, any comments on purely technical grounds (the basic principle employed, error in the approach etc) are welcome and will be taken into account if justifiable.”
It’s wiggle matching, so it’s problematic. Have you tried taking the derivative of the SSN and plotting it against CET?
BTW, thanks, Leif.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Rudolf Wolf [1816-1893] did not observed during the Dalton Minimum. ”
Thanks for correcting my error as he applied his method to the observations off that time and also your perspective on the Layman’s sunspot count too.
Just as well i don’t count spots, as i may put a few more… or less in, depending how i look at things at the time?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:55 am
Hi Leif, please could you tell us more about the way f10.7 radio flux has been calibrated to the sunspot number in your graph.
In order not to open another can of worms, the F10.7 flux was only calibrated using data from cycle 24, i.e. from 2009 on. I’ll keep this graph up to date going forward.
Ah, OK. So what is the numerical relationship between the F10.7 calibration for cycle 24 and previous cycles please?
I won’t start worm counting, promise.
Thanks for the graph, and keeping us updated, Leif! It’s really cool seeing the similarities between 14 and 24. Looks like a pretty broad cycle too.
Because the sun rotates with just the same speed now, as it did then. Those ‘spurts’ are just the same active regions rotating in and out of view?
The way I have it, the flux came unhinged from the spot area sometime around April, 2009:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
Why does the flux continue upward while the spot area runs level?
@ John Marshall
But that’s the UK for you weather does not obey the UK Met Office who again forecast record summer temperatures, but did not mention bar-b-qs.
The Met Office stopped doing seasonal forecasts more than a year ago. Where did you find this forecast?
jorgekafkazar says: June 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
It’s wiggle matching, so it’s problematic. Have you tried taking the derivative of the SSN and plotting it against CET?
……….
Yes I have, with delta =11 years, visual matching appear to be slightly better, but the correlation is lower. For period 1710 to 1960 R^2 = 0.2678, but if extended to 1710 – 2000 is even less R^2 = 0.1566.
tallbloke says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Ah, OK. So what is the numerical relationship between the F10.7 calibration for cycle 24 and previous cycles please?
I think we have gone over that ground many times. But up to second order they are:
before 1996: SSN = -7.8954E-04 F^2 + 1.3101E+00 F – 7.7957E+01
1996-2008: SSN = -7.5501E-04 F^2 + 1.1995E+00 F – 7.4518E+01
2009-Now: SSN = -7.9905E-03 F^2 + 2.7103E+00 F – 1.4826E+02
These are for monthly means. I don’t have them handy for daily means [and what would you do with those, anyway?]. The ones on the plot for SC24 are for daily means:
SSN daily = -3.32018E-03 F^2 + 1.89378E+00 F – 1.13883E+02
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Because the sun rotates with just the same speed now, as it did then. Those ‘spurts’ are just the same active regions rotating in and out of view?
No, as the spurts last many rotations. Within each spurt there is 27-day modulation.
rbateman says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Why does the flux continue upward while the spot area runs level?
The spots are harder to see and are smaller, so their area is smaller.
Vuk at June 13, 2011 at 10:17 am
Vuk – while you’re on the CET you might do one for CET vs previous solar cycle length using the DMI data. You should find a much better correlation.
@Dave Springer says:
June 13, 2011 at 8:42 am
“Interestingly it isn’t colder winters which make glaciers advance. It’s colder summers that do the trick…… So watch out for lower average summer temperatures in higher latitudes as that will be the mark the beginning of the undoing of our civilization.”
then why was there not more glacial advance in the early 1900`s than the early 1700`s:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETt.htm
1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths. 1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200’s. 1670-80’s: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen. 1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms. 1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years. 1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions
Fit_Nick says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Thanks for correcting my error as he applied his method to the observations off that time and also your perspective on the Layman’s sunspot count too.
Yes and remember it is just his perspective.
Anything is possible says:
June 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Is this the Livingston & Penn effect?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
REPLY: No there will be more sunspots this year, the L&P effect is gradual…don’t expect it to drop of in contrast until around 2015-2017 – Anthony
The contrast should drop off around SC24/SC25 minimum but is still experiencing a rise in contrast since SC23/SC24 minimum before reducing again. This is the normal state of affairs but the overall contrast is weaker because of the weakness of SC24.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunspot_darkness.png
@tallbloke (June 13, 2011 at 8:06 am)
There’s no lag.
lgl wrote (June 13, 2011 at 9:45 am) “Paul I can’t find the evidence.”
Of what? Must be some misunderstanding.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yes and remember it is just his perspective.
Actually Wolf’s, as Wolf had cycle 5 to be about twice as strong as you think it was.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“Is this the Livingston & Penn effect?”
The contrast should drop off around SC24/SC25 minimum but is still experiencing a rise in contrast since SC23/SC24 minimum before reducing again.
Here is our poster from the Solar Physics Division [of the AAS] meeting in Las Cruces today: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Poster.jpg
The L&P effect is doing fine. Right on track.
@ geo says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:25 am
If it steadies around the +0.2 to +0.3 range during neutral ENSO that certainly would dampen AGW proponents spirits but in terms of Skeptics I think that it may highlight the issue again about the validity of the downward adjustments of historical observations. The 1961 to 1990 reference period was straddling a cooler climate cycle. Maybe 0.2 to 0.3 referenced to that period is about the long term average if we take longer term raw rather than adjusted data? Or are you thinking it will stabilise at the 0.2 to 0.3 level referenced to the new reference period of 1970-2000?
Looking at the latest data point, it seems to be a bit low (or if you prefer, behind) for the predicted curve, but it’s still reasonably on track. This is a down-tick amongst lots of up and down ticks over a larger trend that seems to be going upward.
The Australian government keeps telling us that “time is running out”. What they really mean is they need to get those Carbon Tax dollars rolling in before the earth starts cooling on it’s own accord.
Paul
Of what? Must be some misunderstanding.
Of no lag between TSI and temperature.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:02 pm
@tallbloke (June 13, 2011 at 8:06 am)
There’s no lag.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but since you don’t engage with mine, or provide explanation of your own, we just get the usual lack of mutual understanding.
“Sunspot says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:36 pm”
Would that be because of a Russian prediction of a 30 year cold period, similar to the ~1940 – ~1975 cold, starting around about 2015?
@lgl (June 14, 2011 at 1:05 am) & tallbloke (June 14, 2011 at 1:24 am)
One possible explanation for the ongoing disagreement / “misunderstanding”:
A different definition of lag.
For example, if your definition of lag is strictly temporal and mine is spatiotemporal, or if you are thinking in 0th derivatives and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd derivatives.
Worst case “misunderstanding” would be if you are thinking in 0th temporal derivative (1 dimension) and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd spatiotemporal derivatives (12 dimensions).
I’d bet on the latter.
At a minimum, the study of phase relations requires the application of complex numbers. And there’s no need to limit such a conceptual framework to 2 temporal dimensions. The effect is always instantaneously “somewhere” spatiotemporally as a wave travels across space & time. The notion of a lag is an artificial & seriously misleading construct that arises by narrowing focus to a string of spatiotemporally biased samples. The “temporal chaos people” totally don’t get this.
tallbloke, once you start framing semi-annually & interannually-spatiotemporally, your solar-SOI promotions might start gaining some traction. You might remember Cheetham’s graph. I’m sure you remember Tisdale’s Steps. You might also recall Warren White’s ideas. There’s a connection with LeMouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot’s seminal 2010 findings. The thing interfering with human ability to connect the dots is maladaptive 0th derivative temporal notions of lags that promote fantasies about temporal chaos and overlook the spatiotemporal order of the interannual global-wave mixer:
1) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Ocean_currents_1943_%28borderless%293.png
2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/15/interannual-terrestrial-oscillations/
Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) inform us about GLOBAL CONSTRAINTS and the timescales at which they operate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/on-the-amopdo-dataset/#comment-678688
There’s a connection with terrestrial polar motion. For now I’ll just say this: It looks like it wasn’t the Chandler wobble that reversed phase early in the 20th century, but rather the…
= = = = = =
Leif,
I found the poster educational. Thanks.
The concluding text line from the poster was, “We do not understand the physical mechanism behind these changes or the effect, if any, it will have on the Earth environment.”
Question: That line made me curious about what ideas you solar scientists have germinating after hours in the dim lighting of the bars where solar scientist hang out. What nascent thoughts you guys/gals have to bracket the range of potential candidate mechanisms.
John
Paul Vaughan says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:11 am
@lgl (June 14, 2011 at 1:05 am) & tallbloke (June 14, 2011 at 1:24 am)
you are thinking in 0th temporal derivative (1 dimension) and I am thinking in 0th, 1st, & 2nd spatiotemporal derivatives (12 dimensions).
Wow, 12 dimensions. Impressive.
The effect is always instantaneously “somewhere” spatiotemporally as a wave travels across space & time. The notion of a lag is an artificial & seriously misleading construct
You know, I always thought the ankle bone must be connected to the leg bone rather than the lag bone, and this confirms it!
I’ll just say this: It looks like it wasn’t the Chandler wobble that reversed phase early in the 20th century, but rather the…
Dammit, looks like they got him before he could divulge the secret.
Not to worry, laggards can find the “secret” X on one of vukcevic’s CET graphs (but CET is just an indicator of something else…)
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Yes and remember it is just his perspective.
—————-
Actually Wolf’s, as Wolf had cycle 5 to be about twice as strong as you think it was.
Wolf’s reconstruction is backed up with the GSN and proxy records. You as usual are out on a limb. (or is that different universe?)
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:50 am
The Layman’s sunspot count lacks calibration and is junk and certainly does not represent what Wolf thought cycle 5 was like [apart from the fact that Wolf was not even born and thus did not observe the cycle, so the claim that LSC ‘restores’ Wolf’s method is false].
Your political desperation exceeds your scientific endeavour. So strong is this desperation you argue against solid logic that even your own papers agree with. The calibration for the LSC is a minimum spot size that Wolf could view through his 37mm handheld toy telescope that he carried to make life easier. The resolution of this meager scientific tool is easily reproduced today, making it simple to recreate what Wolf would have seen. He wanted to see a visible penumbra with a distinguishable dark umbra which cannot be seen when a spot is under the 333 pixel threshold set by the Layman’s method.
John Whitman says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:10 am
What nascent thoughts you guys/gals have to bracket the range of potential candidate mechanisms.
At this point the L&P finding has the nature of numerology in the sense that we do not a mechanism to explain it [or even make it plausible]. We cannot just extrapolate into the future. We can, of course, [as we do] say that IF it continues, then such and such. The main obstacle is that we do not know how a sunspot forms. Once we have one we can simulate or model its development and account for many of its properties. At the other end of the spectrum, we have reasonable theories about how to generate magnetic fields from which spots form, but we are missing how to link the generation of the field and the decay of the spot.
A century ago, all solar astronomers [the field was not yet physics] knew [because they could directly see it] that a sunspot forms by the coalescence of smaller spots. Then half a century ago came the [considered successful] theories of Babcock, Leighton, and Parker that stipulated that a spot formed when a big ‘rope’ of magnetic flux generated at depth rose to the surface and broke through to form a bipolar spot group. The observations that spots forms by coalescence of smaller spots and pores were somehow forgotten. Today, beautiful movies from Hinode and HMI [SDO] remind us all about what we had forgotten, with an additional twist: like magnetic polarity small elements are assembling into bigger and bigger entities which we call sunspots [rather than doing what naive thought would dictate: repel each other] .
Central to the issue is whether sunspots are shallow surface phenomena [as would be suggested by the coalescence] or deep-rooted visitors from the bottom of the convection zone. Several solar physicists are now reconsidering this problem [e.g. Brandenburg: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502275 and Schatten: http://www.leif.org/research/Modeling%20a%20Shallow%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf ] and suggesting that sunspots are surface phenomena. This is also supported by helioseismology. I’m quoting from Brandenburg’s paper: “local helioseismology suggests a picture quite compatible with sunspots being a shallow surface phenomenon (Kosovichev, Duvall, & Scherrer 2000, Kosovichev 2002). The actual sunspot formation might then be the result of convective collapse of magnetic fibrils (Zwaan 1978, Spruit & Zweibel 1979), possibly facilitated by negative turbulent magnetic pressure effects (Kleeorin, Mond, & Rogachevskii 1996) or by an instability (Kitchatinov & Mazur 2000) causing the vertical flux to concentrate into a tube. It should be noted that the picture of shallow sunspots does not necessarily contradict the idea of strong flux tubes rising to the surface. In fact, as the tube rises to the surface, it must eventually undergo catastrophic expansion (Moreno-Insertis, Caligari, & Schussler 1995). This would detach the forming active region and its sunspots from its roots (Schrijver & Title 1999, Schussler 2005), which might then be compatible with the shallow sunspot picture from local sunspot helioseismology.”
The L&P effect [if real] might then be the result of a change in the process that causes ‘the convective collapse of magnetic fibrils’. We don’t know at this point. I guess that progress must wait for more observations [helioseismology] and general acceptance of the L&P data [so the effect must persist] to make it attractive for people to seriously look into this, i.e. to move the L&P from the fringe into the mainstream.
Paul
“I’d bet on the latter.”
Yes,the latter it is. I’m talking energy=integral og power. You’re talking SCL’. What the he.. is that? Not energy nor power. If temperature correlates with SCL’ it’s not because of the TSI variation. Then there is something causing both the temperature variation and SCL’ variation.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:46 am
Wolf’s reconstruction is backed up with the GSN and proxy records. You as usual are out on a limb. (or is that different universe?)
Wolf’s reconstruction is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
Wolf’s numbers are the blue curve. They are about twice of what Wolfer later gave in 1902 and Hoyt & Schatten in 1996 gave in this real universe. So are not backed up at all.
He wanted to see a visible penumbra with a distinguishable dark umbra which cannot be seen when a spot is under the 333 pixel threshold set by the Layman’s method.
He did not observe at all during the Dalton Minimum and there being a penumbra was not a criterion at all. The real criterion was that there was a black umbra, rather than the grey area that a pore has and that spot could be seen with average seeing, not requiring the rare moments of superb seeing that allow the smallest spots to be seen. [he couldn’t see those pores anyway with the 37 mm]. Wolf’s scale was set by his 80mm main telescope, not by the portable ones that he only started using in the 1860s.
lgl says:
June 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
Paul
“I’d bet on the latter.”
Yes,the latter it is. I’m talking energy=integral of power. You’re talking SCL’. What the he.. is that?
If I understand Paul’s notation and acronym conventions, it is the rate of change of solar cycle length, i.e. the first derivative of SCL
The underlying driver would be the electromagnetic soup the Sun and Earth move through, modulated by planetary alignments and the solar response to them. We already know that solar activity relates to these motions, and so do changes in the Earth’s length of day. And so does Earth’s surface temperature. This formed the basis of my first ever blog post.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/planetary-solar-climate-connection-found/
The “The notion of a lag is” not “an artificial & seriously misleading construct”, but simply a shorthand for the myriad reverberations, interactions and oscillations between the causing phenomenon and the effect identified as being causally linked to it further along the chain. Paul is correct in saying that; “The effect is always instantaneously “somewhere” spatiotemporally as a wave travels across space & time”, but it is not always helpful to clarity to invoke a description of the individual links in the chain of events when we want to discuss the linkages between the phenomena we quantify, even if we knew them all, which we don’t. Yet.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:17 am
The underlying driver would be the electromagnetic soup the Sun and Earth move through, modulated by planetary alignments and the solar response to them. We already know that solar activity relates to these motions
No, we don’t KNOW that. You surmise that.
Tallbloke
I know, but TSI is power, energy determines the temperature of water, but what unit or whatever you call it is SCL’, year/year? and how can it affect temperature?
We already know that solar activity relates to these motions
No, we don’t KNOW that. You surmise that.
It is my understanding that there is an observed correlation greater than that expected by chance. It doesn’t mean that one causes the other. However, humans have used just such an observation to make useful predictions about a great many things. If something happens every X years in nature, then odds are that it will happen once more X years from now, regardless if you know the true cause or not.
ferd berple says:
June 14, 2011 at 1:25 pm
“”We already know that solar activity relates to these motions””
“No, we don’t KNOW that. You surmise that.”
It is my understanding that there is an observed correlation greater than that expected by chance.
Even if so, that does not mean that we ‘know’ that solar activity is caused by these motions.
And the correlations are not good at all. If they were, there would no discussion about this.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Even if so, that does not mean that we ‘know’ that solar activity is caused by these motions.
True.
And the correlations are not good at all. If they were, there would no discussion about this.
I don’t ‘know’ why this one is so good, but it is.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I don’t ‘know’ why this one is so good, but it is.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
Looks like complete failure around 1800, so, not so good.
allbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I don’t ‘know’ why this one is so good, but it is.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
I think you should compare with this version of solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series.png
Then is does look so good either. That may, of course, be cause for your dismissal of my work 🙂
[will be presented at IUGG General Assembly in Melbourne on July 6th, 2011]
doesn’t look so good
Tallbloke – I have played with the SSN and SOI data (1876+), and can’t find the correlation you describe. That doesn’t prove it’s not there, of course. And maybe I have misunderstood you.
Now I’ve got the data, if you have some specific criteria, not too complex for MS Excel, I could try them out.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:17 am
“We already know that solar activity relates to these motions, and so do changes in the Earth’s length of day. And so does Earth’s surface temperature.”
I am thoroughly satisfied with that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/suns-magnetics-coming-alive-again/#comment-386726
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 9:44 am
He did not observe at all during the Dalton Minimum and there being a penumbra was not a criterion at all. The real criterion was that there was a black umbra, rather than the grey area that a pore has and that spot could be seen with average seeing, not requiring the rare moments of superb seeing that allow the smallest spots to be seen. [he couldn’t see those pores anyway with the 37 mm]. Wolf’s scale was set by his 80mm main telescope, not by the portable ones that he only started using in the 1860s.
He didn’t need to view spots during the Dalton to determine a threshold size, this is just another distraction you employ. Wolf of course had access to the smaller telescopes that were used before his 80mm telescope to set his threshold. It is not hard to imagine he did this to keep the record somewhat homogenous. It stands to reason that if Wolf couldn’t see his threshold size spot thru the 37mm telescope the record would be inaccurate. His 1.5 K factor would have been useless.
So perhaps you might drop your spurious claims of ” not calibrated” and just accept that the LSC is well and truly in the ballpark of the Wolf method and does a reasonable job of removing the notorious “Waldmeier step” that is polluting the modern record which you yourself agree needs to be rectified.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm
So perhaps you might drop your spurious claims of ” not calibrated” and just accept that the LSC is well and truly in the ballpark of the Wolf method and does a reasonable job of removing the notorious “Waldmeier step” that is polluting the modern record which you yourself agree needs to be rectified.
You are not responding to the data shown. Wolf had SC5 max at 77. If we take into account the Waldmeier step, that on the modern scale would amount to 77*1.2 = 92. If you claim that LSC matches Wolf and that SC24 is like SC5, then the LSC should be 92 at SC24 max. Your idea with the penumbra is simply wrong. That was not the criterion. So, to calibrate the LSC to Wolf’s standard you must match the Rmax(24) = 92. I look forward to you doing that, in which case I’ll admit that you have at least a crude calibration matching Wolf. What you do now is just junk.
Schwabe observed with a 2.5 foot telescope at magnification x40 and Wolf tried in the beginning to align himslef with Schwabe, but soon found that with the 4-foot x64 Fraunhofer he had to multiply Schwabe’s count by 5/4 to match the variation of the magnetic needle that Wolf used as quality control for his own observations. He said [I, page 31] about Schwabe’s data: ‘Er machte seine Beobachtungen mit einem 2.5 fussigen Fernrohre mit 40facher Vergrosserung; grossere Fernrohren und statkere Vergrosserungen zeigte ihm dann naturlich noch oft feine Punkte und grauen Poren, die er mit jenem nicht wahrnahmm und consequent auch nicht in seiner Ubersicht berucksichtigste [he made his observations with a 2.5 foot telescope at 40x magnification; larger telescopes and sronger magnification showed him naturally often fine points and gray pores, that he did not see with the 2.5 footer and consequently also not reported in his summary report]. Wolf tried to emulated that to be close to Schwabe. Anyway all this is irrelevant because Wolf did not observe during SC5 [he wasn’t born yet].
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:46 am
Wolf’s reconstruction is backed up with the GSN and proxy records. You as usual are out on a limb. (or is that different universe?)
We have to take small steps. The first one is crucial: Wolf’s reconstruction is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
Do you agree and acknowledge that this is an accurate representation of the data as has come down to us from Wolf, Wolfer, and H&S ? You must respond to this question in order to carry on with a meaningful discussion.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm
You must respond to this question in order to carry on with a meaningful discussion.
A meaningful discussion has not been possible with you in the past. You have still not responded to my challenge on my website, perhaps you could start there and we can continue.
You are not responding to the data shown
Your data is not relevant. The LSC comparison is based on the SIDC values of SC5. Wolf and Wolfer’s method is inherent in the SIDC count. Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5. The point you are missing is that the Wolf method of counting excludes small spots and specks. The current specks/spots percentage is higher than usual which skews the record to higher values. By adopting a Wolf like threshold this eliminates the skewing and by then discounting the inherent Waldmeier factor the LSC matches the SIDC method/counting of SC5/6.
There is no other modern count that can compare apples in this fashion. With the chance of solar grand minimum being very high a fair comparison method is required if we want to compare with past grand minima.
Your unsubstantiated calls of “junk science” are falling on deaf ears.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm
So perhaps you might drop your spurious claims of ” not calibrated” and just accept that the LSC is well and truly in the ballpark of the Wolf method and does a reasonable job of removing the notorious “Waldmeier step” that is polluting the modern record which you yourself agree needs to be rectified.
You are not responding to the data shown. Wolf had SC5 max at 77. If we take into account the Waldmeier step, that on the modern scale would amount to 77*1.2 = 92. If you claim that LSC matches Wolf and that SC24 is like SC5, then the LSC should be 92 at SC24 max.
There are a couple of reasons confusion is arising here.
1) Geoff’s method calibrates to Wolf, because he says the Waldmeier step should be removed. Leif wants to deal with the Waldmeier step by increasing everything else to match the incorrect data. This is the wrong way to go IMO.
2) Geoff thinks the potential solar grand minimum will be somewhat like the Dalton, and so thinks SC24 might be like SC5. I say it’s too early to judge, and anyway, that’s not how the Sun works. It doesn’t take discrete steps based on the Schwabe cycle, so there is no reason that SC24 should be like SC5 IMO.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:55 pm
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I don’t ‘know’ why this one is so good, but it is.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
Looks like complete failure around 1800, so, not so good.
The Sun itself had a failure around 1800 when it plunged into the Dalton minimum. The divergence from the curve I generated shows that something non-linear happens when the Sun goes into a major minimum. Recent measurements such as those made by Livingstone and Penn and your radically changing F10.7 flux to sunspot number ratio confirm this.
I think you should compare with this version of solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Sunspot-Series.png
Then is does look so good either. That may, of course, be cause for your dismissal of my work 🙂
On the contrary, my correllation improves further with the removal of the Waldmeier step and your increases to the sunspot record prior to 1825. Aren’t those early ones somewhat speculative, because there is insufficient magnetic data and direct obs anyway?
[will be presented at IUGG General Assembly in Melbourne on July 6th, 2011]
Congratulations. I hope the audience doesn’t blindly accept it all uncritically in their shell shock of recent bombshell solar news. 😉
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm
2) Geoff thinks the potential solar grand minimum will be somewhat like the Dalton, and so thinks SC24 might be like SC5. I say it’s too early to judge, and anyway, that’s not how the Sun works. It doesn’t take discrete steps based on the Schwabe cycle, so there is no reason that SC24 should be like SC5 IMO.
Not quite correct. The Dalton minimum had two fairly low cycles followed by another weak cycle. My prediction based on solar path changes and the accompanying AM and torque disruptions shows the current grand minimum is shorter in length but perhaps SC24 maybe lower than SC5 based on the amount of disruption. There is no reliance on previous Schwabe cycles (altho I have used previous cycles in graphical presentations as a guide) and the predicted cycle strength is based on the strength of the two solar forces that I learned to quantify (which is still not grasped by Leif). Just as the solar system can never return to a previous position exactly the solar cycles also follow suit. We must also appreciate the forces can act on a cycle differently depending on the timing….1830 is a recent example.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:55 pm
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I don’t ‘know’ why this one is so good, but it is.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
Looks like complete failure around 1800, so, not so good.
Your graph is interesting Rog but I am not sure if the blue line is just an artifact or short term alignment. I have posted some questions for you on a recent article HERE.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm
You have still not responded to my challenge on my website, perhaps you could start there and we can continue.
Why should I? I’m not the one pushing an agenda.
Your data is not relevant. The LSC comparison is based on the SIDC values of SC5.
SIDC values are not the ones given by Wolf. And you should answer whether you accept my plot as accurate. Why is that so hard? A simple Yes or No will do.
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5.
Not really, they are all almost the same. Actually went up a tiny bit with time, from 70 to 75 to 77 for Rmax(5).
The point you are missing is that the Wolf method of counting excludes small spots and specks.
I think I actually was the one who told you that. But never mind. The later observers calibrate to Wolf by multiplying by 0.6.
The current specks/spots percentage is higher than usual which skews the record to higher values.
Just the opposite. As L&P so clearly shows, we are losing the smaller spots [the distribution is cut off at the 1500 Gauss level].
LSC matches the SIDC method/counting of SC5/6.
So, now instead of emulating Wolf, you are emulating SIDC.
if we want to compare with past grand minima.
The Dalton was not a Grand Minimum in the first place. And there are objective ways to calibrate the sunspot number [cosmic rays, geomagnetic variations]. And cycle 5 was quite normal until Wolfer made it small. Here is how Wolf described what he called the 19th period [1800-1811]:
“Already 1801 and 1802 Herschel, Fritsch, Flaugergues, Arago, etc saw rich groups; in 1803 and 1804 this richness was extraordinary; Flaugergues can not recall seeing the Sun in 1802 and 1803 without spots, on the contrary the Sun was covered by many and large spots; Fritsch saw in those same years often more than 50 both small and large major spots at the same time; Eimbeke says that he never saw as many and as persistent spots as in 1803; Huth says that he had never seen so many or so large spots as in February and March 1804, etc. Still by 1805 Huth, Bode, Flaugergues, etc talk about large spots.” Only by 1807 did spot activity begin to decrease towards the minimum in 1810. So there is your ‘Grand Minimum’ as told by Wolf.
“junk science”
I don’t think I have ever called LSC ‘science’.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm
1) Geoff’s method calibrates to Wolf, because he says the Waldmeier step should be removed. Leif wants to deal with the Waldmeier step by increasing everything else to match the incorrect data. This is the wrong way to go IMO.
When there is a jump in calibration, you can either increase the old or decrease the new. It makes no difference to the science. There is, however, a compelling reason for keep the new and increasing the old, namely practicality: many operational systems have software that uses the modern sunspot counts. Increasing the old would not create problems, but reducing the new would wreak havoc. As simple as that. So, you think it is better to force all that software [some has even turned into non-changeable firmware] to be changed.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm
shows that something non-linear happens when the Sun goes into a major minimum. Recent measurements such as those made by Livingstone and Penn and your radically changing F10.7 flux to sunspot number ratio confirm this.
First, the Dalton was not a major minimum [it was on par with 1900 where your curve does go down. And by that argument the coming minima should also show a gross disagreement. Bottom line: the fit is not so good.
On the contrary, my correllation improves further with the removal of the Waldmeier step and your increases to the sunspot record prior to 1825.
My New Numbers show the mid 1800s to be on par with second half of 20th, but your curves show different Bz. Bottom line: fit not so good.
Aren’t those early ones somewhat speculative, because there is insufficient magnetic data and direct obs anyway?
There were good coverage with geomagnetic data 1780-1805 [it is cycle 5 and 6 that have poor coverage] and there is good cosmic ray data that shows the very high activity in the last half of the 1700s.
Congratulations. I hope the audience doesn’t blindly accept it all uncritically in their shell shock of recent bombshell solar news.
They will accept it on its merit.
Watch out for a head long rush to impose green taxes before the climate cooling implications become obvious and the news gets out to the general public. At least this new tax revenue will be warm comfort in the face of headwinds from unsteady control of the official AGW message. The whispers will forewarn politicos that something is up and they better make their final push.
= = =
Leif,
Thanks for your very comprehensive reply. It is sincerely appreciated.
It might be awhile before I can conceptualize and visualize “the convective collapse of magnetic fibrils”.
Quite challenging task for me . . . . but I will work on it.
John
Leif
And the correlations are not good at all. If they were, there would be no discussion about this.
If the correlations were not good, there would be no discussion about this.
http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM.png from Semi
1. Coincidence
2. Planetary motions drives solar cycle
3. Solar cycle determines planetary positions.
4. Something drives both solar cycle and planetary positions.
Which one?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 15, 2011 at 7:35 am
So, you think it is better to force all that software [some has even turned into non-changeable firmware] to be changed.
If you want to call it a sunspot count, yes. Better to call it Svalgaards geomag reconstruction of solar magnetism otherwise.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2011 at 10:29 pm
shows that something non-linear happens when the Sun goes into a major minimum. Recent measurements such as those made by Livingstone and Penn and your radically changing F10.7 flux to sunspot number ratio confirm this.
First, the Dalton was not a major minimum [it was on par with 1900 where your curve does go down. And by that argument the coming minima should also show a gross disagreement. Bottom line: the fit is not so good
And then further down your reply you admit there is no good data for cycles 5 and 6. i.e. the Dalton Minimum. So your assertion that Dalton was like 1900 is, well, just an assertion. Secondly, we will have to wait and see if there is a major excursion from the curve, but I note that the curve is on the downswing anyway, so it may not be so obvious near the start of the downturn.
On the contrary, my correllation improves further with the removal of the Waldmeier step and your increases to the sunspot record prior to 1825.
My New Numbers show the mid 1800s to be on par with second half of 20th, but your curves show different Bz. Bottom line: fit not so good.
Your new numbers are your new numbers. I’ll stick with SIDC and a Waldmeier correction for now thanks.
@lgl has to be 2 or 4, but don’t expect a coherent answer from his nibs. He’d rather eat his own eyeballs than look at these correlations properly.
lgl says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Which one?
Extend is back to 1600 AD and ask again.
tallbloke says:
June 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm
If you want to call it a sunspot count, yes.
The programs won’t change because to change what you call the thing they work with. You have to supply a number to the program. and that number better not be on a changed scale.
And then further down your reply you admit there is no good data for cycles 5 and 6. i.e. the Dalton Minimum.
The fit must to the data we have, good or bad.
Your new numbers are your new numbers. I’ll stick with SIDC and a Waldmeier correction for now thanks.
But did you apply the Waldmeier correction for your plot. I don’t think so from the looks of it. And you become a victim of Leif’s law: the data that fit must be the better ones.
But did you apply the Waldmeier correction for your plot. I don’t think so from the looks of it. And you become a victim of Leif’s law: the data that fit must be the better ones.
Anyone looking at the plot can see that once the Waldmeier correction has been made, the fit will improve. Your upward adjustments to the earlier record are much more than 20% and so until I get a satisfactory explanation I’ll adjust his count down rather then use your ‘new numbers’ to adjust everything else up. Incidentally, once that is done, the divergence downwards from ~1993 will become obvious too, showing the descent into the anomalous minimum your colleague’s ‘three lines of evidence’ indicate. I created the graph before the waldmeier correction was known to me, so there is no application of ‘Leif’s law’ here, and your attempted slur fails.
Regarding Waldmeier, are you sure his numbers need a 20% downward correction across the board? Is it possible he made less of an overcount when there were less spots to overcount during cycle 20?
tallbloke says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Anyone looking at the plot can see that once the Waldmeier correction has been made, the fit will improve.
No, if you correct SSN down by 20% for 1950-2000, you make the fit worse. Right now you split the discrepancies with some values higher and some lower. If you adjust SSN down the values all fall below your blue curve, so wore fit. You can repair that somewhat by adjusting your blue curve down too, but then you make the fit worse for the earlier years. I don’t fancy reading off your values. you have the data, compute a goodness of fit [e.g. the RMS value of the discrepancies or the correlation coefficient. Then make the Waldmeier adjust and do it again. Report the results.
Your upward adjustments to the earlier record are much more than 20% and so until I get a satisfactory explanation I’ll adjust his count down rather then use your numbers to adjust everything else up.
As far as the fit is concerned it makes absolutely no difference if you multiply all SSN before 1945 by 1.2 or divide all SSNs after 1945 by 1.2.
The earlier adjustments are indeed much larger than 20%. This is the result of many years of analysis, starting with: http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf then http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202007%20SH54B-02.pdf then http://www.leif.org/research/SSN%20Validation-Reconstruction%20%28Cliver%29.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SH13A-1109-F2007.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Spring%202008%20SP23A-07.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf then
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-12Jan.pdf and finally our talk at IUGG [which you’ll have in a few weeks]. Here is the first and last pages:
http://www.leif.org/research/IUGG-preview.pdf
As you can see there has been some evolution, but now we are close to the finish line and ready for formal publication. Note that Ken Schatten [creator of Group Sunspot Number is a coauthor and agrees with our adjustments]. We are having a workshop at Sunspot, NM, in September to get all this straightened up. All the producers of sunspots numbers [e.g. SIDC, NOAA] agree that correction is needed and are sending representatives. So expect something to come from the workshop.
Regarding Waldmeier, are you sure his numbers need a 20% downward correction across the board? Is it possible he made less of an overcount when there were less spots to overcount during cycle 20?
Starting in 1970 his count may be a tad [a few percent] too small which is compensated by SIDC after 1980 being a tad too high, until about 2000 where SIDC is undercounting some 12% until to day. All these fine adjustments are so small that they hardly matter much for the big picture. There are similar periods in the far past where the calibration also changes up and down by a few percent; again not important in the big picture.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:26 am
you have the data, compute a goodness of fit [e.g. the RMS value of the discrepancies or the correlation coefficient. Then make the Waldmeier adjust and do it again. Report the results.
I’ll try to make the time to do that.
Leif
When there are sun spots they match. I know you have some solar activity data for the period without sun spots but I can’t find it, link please. Anyway, if they don’t match 1650-1700 you know what I am going to say. http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM-1600.png ( I think the red is some unreliable C14 stuff)
lgl says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:42 am
When there are sun spots they match. I know you have some solar activity data for the period without sun spots but I can’t find it, link please. Anyway, if they don’t match 1650-1700 you know what I am going to say. http://virakkraft.com/EMB-AM-1600.png ( I think the red is some unreliable C14 stuff)
A main problem is that there is no justification for using a signed sunspot curve [except to improve the fit]. The next problem is to account for the times with no visible sunspots, or more generally for the varying amplitude of the solar cycles. This is separate from the problem that there is no transfer of orbital angular momentum to/from the Sun’s rotational angular momentum [as Shirley points out in http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf ]. So, I would ascribe whatever match you eyeball to coincidence.
tallbloke says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:05 am
I’ll try to make the time to do that.
You can also directly use my best guess of the ‘New Sunspot Number’
http://www.leif.org/research/The-New-Sunspot-Series.xml
Use column L
lgl says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:42 am
I know you have some solar activity data for the period without sun spots but I can’t find it, link please.
Here is McCracken and Beer’s 10Be based data: http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF.xml
The data has been converted to magnetic field in the Heliosphere near the Earth [this should not matter as far as the relative wiggles are concerned]. We believe that they have a calibration error around 1948 so give both series.
Here is McCracken and Beer’s 10Be based data: http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF.xml
Sorry: http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF.xls
Thanks Leif, I’ll dig out the relevant files and give it a go. Who knows, we might have a better agreement than you thought. I hope so.
tallbloke says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:54 am
Thanks Leif, I’ll dig out the relevant files and give it a go. Who knows, we might have a better agreement than you thought. I hope so.
If the data fits better, the data must be good 🙂 Leif’s law in action.
Leif
Thanks for the data.
Good to see none of the problems you listed are real.
The ‘real’ solar cycle is 22 years so that’s the one to use.
There are more planets, which can cause amplitude and phase variation.
No AM transfer is something you can’t prove (and I can’t prove there is 🙂
lgl says:
June 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The ‘real’ solar cycle is 22 years so that’s the one to use.
No, that is a myth. Each cycle is a unit in itself. That the polarities change between cycles does not connect the two cycles and make them into ‘one’
No AM transfer is something you can’t prove (and I can’t prove there is 🙂
According to the known laws of physics there is no such transfer. Shirley [who is a strong believer in planetary influence] has shown that so clearly: http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
Leif
No, that is a myth.
Strange. Magnetic fields are caused by something moving relative to something else. Part1 of the Sun moves faster than part2 for 11 years, then part2 moves faster than part1 for 11 years. That’s one 22 year cycle. http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
lgl says:
June 18, 2011 at 11:07 am
Strange. Magnetic fields are caused by something moving relative to something else. Part1 of the Sun moves faster than part2 for 11 years, then part2 moves faster than part1 for 11 years. That’s one 22 year cycle. http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf
That is not the way it works. It is the other way around: the magnetic field from the sunspots are slowing down the rotation, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
The paper you cite has this conclusion: “Thereby, in our opinion, the solar magnetic cycle may be generated due to the interaction between torsion waves and the relic field inside the Sun, rather than to the dynamo mechanism.”
This is very speculative and considered to be ‘fringe’ science by most solar physicists.
Leif
Where in your paper is the evidence for “the sunspots are slowing down the rotation” ?
lgl says:
June 18, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Where in your paper is the evidence for “the sunspots are slowing down the rotation” ?
There are good theoretical reasons for that. Our paper is an observational test of the theories and confirms the general conclusion:
The interaction between differential rotation and magnetic fields in the solar convection zone was discussed by Brun (2004), who describes the three-dimensional numerical simulations of compressible convection under the influence of rotation and magnetic fields in spherical shells. One consequence of the model is that the Maxwell stresses can oppose the Reynolds stresses and in this way contribute to the transport of the angular momentum towards the solar poles. This leads to a reduced differential rotation. So, when magnetic fields are weaker, one can expect a more pronounced differential rotation yielding a higher rotation velocity at low latitudes on the average. The Maxwell stresses are associated with the correlations of the fluctuating magnetic field components which arise from tilts and twists within magnetic structures (Brun, Miesch & Toomre 2004). They originate from the reaction on the flow through the Lorentz forces (e.g. Sturrock 1994; Parker 1996; Mestel 2003).”
Figure 2 is the important one.
Our paper ends with: “A dependence of the solar rotation velocity measured by magnetic tracers and solar activity and interplanetary magnetic field was found. An interplay between the Reynolds and the Maxwell stresses is proposed for the interpretation. As stated by R¨udiger & Hollerbach (2004), the more magnetic the Sun is, more rigid is its rotation”
Leif
Like I suspected, just speculations. There are “observational tests” of planetary influence too, like http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4795/1/Wilson_Carter_Waite_Author%27s_version.pdf but it doesn’t prove anything.
lgl says:
June 19, 2011 at 3:50 am
Like I suspected, just speculations.
The difference is that there is real physics behind it. Physics that explains how it works and why it works.
After you have defined what is real physics.
I can’t quite grasp what it is about the reduced magnetic field from the Sun spots causing the decreased rotation. Is it because previous rotations were wound so tight (which would explain all the sunspots of previous cycles) that the whole system is now unwinding, thus slowing down? I am reminded of the process of making rope, which when twisted tight enough and then both ends brought together, immediately coils around itself and then transitions to a relaxed yet still twisted state with no more rotational movement, or the slightly different process of the twisting of a child’s swing till it can twist no more, then when released, unwinds to it’s original resting state so to speak. The physics of making rope and the physics of twisting a swing (again, two different processes but both ending in a rested state) I can understand. Is it similar?
According to the known laws of physics there is no such transfer. Shirley [who is a strong believer in planetary influence] has shown that so clearly: http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
The paper considers the sun in free fall. The sun is not in free fall. As it both rotates and orbits the barycenter, the gravitational forces on individual particles within the sun change as they move closer to, and away from the barycenter. While the mass of the sun remains constant, the weight of different portions of the sun is constantly changing. The effect being maximized as the sun moves away from the barycenter.
So, for example, when the barycenter coincides with the center of the sun, a particle at the center will be weightless. But as the barycenter moves away from the center this same particle will now have weight in the direction of the barycenter and will try and move in that direction. When this happens to a particle that is not at the exact center of the sun, it will try and move in relation to the center, which is the torque missing in the above reference paper.
lgl says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:13 am
After you have defined what is real physics.
Real physics is the corpus of knowledge that is encoded in three sets of physical ‘laws’
Maxwell’s equations, Einstein’s special and general relativity [and the still good enough for most purposes Newtonian predecessor], and Quantum Mechanics. For the problem at hand Maxwell and Newton suffice.
Pamela Gray says:
June 19, 2011 at 6:18 am
I can’t quite grasp what it is about the reduced magnetic field from the Sun spots causing the decreased rotation.
It is the other way around. The stronger magnetic field [or actually just more of it, i.e. many sunspots] slows down the rotation at the lower latitudes [8 to 30 degrees] where the spots are. Brun explains how it works: http://lcd-www.colorado.edu/sabrun/StellarConvection_26April08.pdf
ferd berple says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:01 am
The paper considers the sun in free fall. The sun is not in free fall.
Free fall means that a body is moving solely under the influences of gravity [for the Sun that includes the combined gravitational influence from all the planets and beyond].
But as the barycenter moves away from the center this same particle will now have weight in the direction of the barycenter and will try and move in that direction.
The Earth and the Moon also move around their common barycenter, which since the Moon’s orbit is quite eccentric would mean in your view that my weight should vary with the lunar distance. No such change in weight occurs [we can measure my weight with a spring balance which stiffness would not vary with the lunar distance].
But, please, this has been discussed so many times at WUWT that you might benefit from digging up those discussions, so we don’t have to repeat them for the umpteenth time. The barycenter does have mass and thus do not attract the Sun or different parts of it differently. You can be sure that Shirley knows all of this, even if you don’t.
ferd berple says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:01 am
The barycenter does NOT have mass and thus does not attract the Sun or different parts of it differently.
Sorry for the typo
ferd berple says:
June 19, 2011 at 8:01 am
But as the barycenter moves away from the center this same particle will now have weight in the direction of the barycenter and will try and move in that direction.
Consider two stars with identical masses orbiting each other in a very eccentric orbit [meaning that the orbit is a very elongated ellipse]. The barycenter is always exactly halfway between the two stars. Seen from either star the barycenter moves back and forth a lot as the distance between the stars change. In your view that will now try to move the stars towards each other [“in the direction of the barycenter] especially when the barycenter is at its closest. This will result in the orbits getting smaller and smaller with eventual collapse of the system which does not happen in fact. [Actually it will happen eventually according to General Relativity because the bodies emit gravitational waves that carry energy away from the system. This however for ordinary systems happens so slowly that it cannot be observed. However in some systems the orbits are already so small that gravitation is so strong that the emission of gravitational waves does become noticeable and the two stars are spiraling towards a collision http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro2201/psr1913.htm – in 300 million years from now for that system]
Leif
The stronger magnetic field [or actually just more of it, i.e. many sunspots] slows down the rotation at the lower latitudes
Here you are saying the rotational cycle is 11 years, not 22 years as stated here http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf fig1 & 3.
lgl says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:12 am
Here you are saying the rotational cycle is 11 years, not 22 years as stated here http://www.solarstation.ru/TL/PDF/tl_22.pdf fig1 & 3.
I’m saying that it is very difficult to determine the rotation rate from the old data. We undertook a very thorough re-analysis of the Greenwich photographic observations 1878-1981 [Fig 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf ] and do not confirm the result of the paper you cite. There is no significant 22-yr variation in the data. The only clear signal is a general dependence on solar activity as a whole [Fig. 2], which confirms the predictions by Brun and others. It is generally accepted that magnetic activity near the surface controls the variations of the surface rotation rate.
lgl says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:12 am
Here you are saying the rotational cycle is 11 years
There is an 11-yr substructure in solar rotation. A good indicator for solar rotation is the rotation of the interplanetary field which is dragged out by the solar wind. The IMF is an indicator of large-scale solar rotation. Many years ago we looked carefully at the long-term variation of the rotation:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
Although I have not formally brought that paper up to day with almost 40 years of new data, I monitor the IMF polarity carefully and continuously. Here is the complete list up to today: http://www.leif.org/research/spolar.txt The newer data shows just the same as the 1975 paper, namely that in every 11-yr cycle we have slightly faster rotation in the first half of the cycle and a slightly slower rotation in the last half of each cycle. In addition, at each solar max, there is a part of the sun that rotates even slower than the rest. There is not 22-yr variation in this.
I would ascribe your picking of papers to confirmation bias: you find the ones you like. How come you didn’t find mine?
Leif
There are more studies finding a 22 year variation so try again. Findings are not myths just because you have not been able to reproduce them.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.2869v1.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/234030887517155p/
And yes, I was looking for a 22 years cycle so my search contained “22 years”. Remember to include ” there is no 22 years variation” in your papers so I can find yours too 🙂
lgl says:
June 20, 2011 at 8:17 am
There are more studies finding a 22 year variation so try again. Findings are not myths just because you have not been able to reproduce them. http://www.springerlink.com/content/234030887517155p/
These guys are colleagues of mine. That they find power at 3*11, 2*11, 1*11, 0.5*11, and 0.33*11 simply shows that the fundamental period is 11 years.
Actually a sunspot cycle is not really 11 years. From the time when the first spots of a cycle is born until the last spot of that cycle dies is 17 years, so for many years you have spots from two cycles simultaneously on the disk. No 22-yr cycles there. In any event the real problem is not the 22-yr cycle but the nonphysical sleight of hand of assigning a sign to the cycles.
Leif
Do you know the amplitudes of those 11 yr multiples?
Maybe that 17 years actually is 22 years, just no visible spots the last 5 years. I read somewhere some streams moving from equator to the pol in 22 years.
Reversed polarity means the relative motion of part1and part2 reversed, so a sign is perfectly physical.
lgl says:
I read somewhere some streams moving from equator to the pol in 22 years.
Which means that every solar cycle with have two of those streams [which they actually do]
Reversed polarity means the relative motion of part1and part2 reversed, so a sign is perfectly physical.
Since every cycle has two streams there is nothing that distinguishes one cycle from the next, and both streaming toward the equator [there is also a short polar stream at the beginning of each cycle, but it has no spots]. During part of the life of a stream it has sunspots, at the beginning and end it has no spots. So, for several years, you’ll have on the disk spots that belong to two different cycles, so you must count some of them negative and some of them positive. Do you do that? or just lump them all together? Putting a sign on the cycle is something that crops up now and then. And it is the wrong thing to do every time. But since it is important to you, I figure that any argument or analysis I do will have no effect whatsoever.
Leif
.. there is nothing that distinguishes one cycle from the next except the polarity you mean.
so you must count some of them negative and some of them positive, or as belonging to two different cycles, one ‘positive’ and one ‘negative’ any argument or analysis which explains the reversed polarity will have some effect.