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
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.