Below I have the latest solar cycle progression the NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Sunspots look to be on a course for a peak well below the forecast red line.
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux remains anemic.
And the magnetic personality of the sun (The Ap planetary index) isn’t ramping up, just bumping along.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Not really anything to do with reference frames. My speed in the reference frame of a flying aircraft is zero, but may be 1000 km/s in the frame of the ground.
Occupational hazard in astronomy. 1000 km/hour.
I’ve run across a number of MSM type articles claiming that we might see the worst solar flares in decades, perhaps equivalent to the monster back in the 1800’s, wreaking havoc on our electrical/computer/satellite infrastructure during the peak of this solar cycle. Knowing that sun spot counts and solar activity has been so much less than typically expected, I’m at a little bit of a loss… and keep wondering if there is something I’m missing. Some other aspect to this current cycle that makes a monster flare more probable?
I mean, folks, is there any reasonable scientific reason why we might expect notably severe CME’s or flares during this cycle as compared to any of the past 11 yr. cycle peaks this past century? Or are those stories nothing but sensationalism & FUD? (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) Let me note in advance that I would imagine a super flare is still possible, but would have thought that the less the sun spot activity, the less likely a monster flare also….
Also, along these lines & for the fun of it – would anyone in the know tell me if a monster flare would damage unplugged and turned off computers? How about vehicle engine/ignition wiring and any engine onboard computer chips in a turned off vehicle?
Thanks in advance for replies to either of these questions/issues!
It’s just an impression, but I think it is premature to suggest the current short down-trend is taking the curve any where in particular.
The earlier swings in the chart as shown all seem to be of approximately the same amplitude and duration, so I would suggest this current downward blip (as well as its predecessor upward movement) are typical, and that this one will likely up-turn soon and continue like those earlier ones did. Can I be wrong? Certainly.
I would also point out that the earlier swings are smallest near the minima, largest near the maxima, and pretty “average” (like now?) in the halfway period (partway up or down the slope).
So, I would expect to see a sharp – but limited – upswing, based on the data on the chart. Looking at the Sun right now, that is a tough prediction, isn’t it? (Hey! It is the guys who buy in at the bottom of the market who make the big profits when it surges…)
The Penticton F10.7 flux (adjusted) is showing a recent disconnect with sunspot area, darkness and number.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/dsn_flux.png
Lief,
Just to get back on those equations you thoughtfully linked.
I started to work with them, but they seem not to consider all the forces (I could agree that tidal forces alone may not be much when considered in isolation).
However, differential forces on individual elements of the Sun’s mass due to the Sun’s rotation about its axis combined with its orbital rotation and differential accelerations associated with changes in the orbit due to the planetary influence may be significant. So, I started to consider the problem as a discrete computer model of the entire system (Sun and Planets — with Sun broken down into many individual elements of varied mass) that would interact iteratively (one unit of time after another) and move/flow accordingly. Its fun to think about, but there are complexities for someone with my limited background in fluid flow. All in all, it’s beyond what I can put together in a few hours (more like days — I’m slow). I’ll continue until I run into a wall.
In any case, I presume someone else has already created such a Sun, Solar System simulation. Thus, I would add nothing new. I was interested in results from a computer model like that.
Just an update to indicate I did not ignore your reply.
Why is the sunspot prediction still so high?
ENSO shows neutral to slightly positive and yet, here at the leading edge of North America, you’d never know it. GCRs may trump ENSO.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm
The reason why so many people speculate on a mechanism is the correlations ARE good.
If the correlation WERE good, there would not be any controversy and mainstream science would be all over this, but, alas, they are not.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
The LSC continues to show SC24 tracking with SC5. At the time of writing the Sun is blank.
The LSC is uncalibrated, wishful thinking and cannot with reason be said to track SC5 which is not well determined to begin with.
Rational Debate says:
August 10, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Or are those stories nothing but sensationalism
Although influence from a [super rare] super flare can be severe, those stories are just sensationalism.
Steve Garcia says:
August 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I would also point out that the earlier swings are smallest near the minima, largest near the maxima
Small cycles have shown just ‘swings’ before, e.g. SC14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
Geoff Sharp says:
August 10, 2011 at 5:39 pm
The Penticton F10.7 flux (adjusted) is showing a recent disconnect with sunspot area, darkness and number.
Over such a short period, the daily SSN and F10.7 can easily show a disconnect, no matter which time interval you choose, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-1991.pgn
Now, there is a real disconnect on a longer time scale, where the sunspot number compared with F10.7 is too low compared with earlier cycles, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Canadian%20F107%20flux%20and%20SSN.png
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-Yearly-1951-Now.png
Allen63 says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:26 pm
However, differential forces on individual elements of the Sun’s mass due to the Sun’s rotation about its axis combined with its orbital rotation and differential accelerations associated with changes in the orbit due to the planetary influence may be significant.
People have been looking into that at lot, and we always find that the forces from non-planetary origin [e.g. flows in the solar interior] are millions of times larger than the planetary ‘forces’ [which are really not there, except for tidal forces].
This has always been the stumbling block. Another one is that the various ‘mechanisms’ that people consider always stop short of specifying how they actually create or change solar activity. They claims that there is a coincidence between this or that period. but never explain how the mechanism works. This is in contrast to modern solar dynamo theories where we actually integrate the combined system of Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations using real physics.
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-1991.png
Dr. Svalgaard,
Tides could be explained under Newton, instantaneous gravity and freefall. The precession of Mercury couldn’t. Extended bodies and heterogeneous mass distributions have different implications under general relativity, from Dixon’s paper on the dynamics of extended bodies:
“Now if the external field, i.e., that due to all bodies other than the one under consideration varies sufficiently gradually over a spacelike section of the body, we might expect that the contributions from the higher order moments would be negligible. This speculation is based upon the Newtonian result […] In general relativity, however, there is no natural way of separating the external and self-fields. As a result, the above speculation is difficult to formulate in more precise terms unless the self-field of the body is negligible. In this case the body is called a ‘test body’ ”
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.full.pdf
If the solar dynamo itself generates heterogeneity, that in itself has gravitational “self-field” implications and the resulting gravity waves (mass density waves), can interact within the sun and couple to the planets. I doubt the actual energy being produced by the sun varies due to planetary influence, since the fusion itself takes place in too localized a percentage of the solar volume, it takes millennia to reach the surface anyway. But the gravity waves in the outer 2% of the solar mass (most of the volume) and their coupling the the planets and their internally generated magnetic fields is the best explanation for the solar variability relevant to the climate. Any argument that solar dynamics internally have an oscillation with a period that happens to be about the same length as orbital oscillations, only reduces the forces required to result in coupling, and increases the likelihood that these oscillators would become coupled. Small forces over hundreds of millions of years can add up, but in this case they wouldn’t have to accumulate, they would just have to add and subtract in coupled oscillation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm
The LSC is uncalibrated, wishful thinking and cannot with reason be said to track SC5 which is not well determined to begin with.
I am bored with your discreditation of the LSC, but we both know the LSC aligns itself with your efforts to rejig the modern sunspot record. But a point of interest, your prediction for SC24 at 72. You often compare SC14 with the likely outcome of SC24, SC14 was pre 1945 so the Waldmeier factor of around 22% is not built in. So when comparing your prediction with SC14 do we add 22% to the SC14 values or reduce your forecast by 22%?
africangenesis says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:55 pm
If the solar dynamo itself generates heterogeneity, that in itself has gravitational “self-field” implications and the resulting gravity waves (mass density waves), can interact within the sun and couple to the planets.
1) we have searched very hard for gravity waves [‘g-modes’] but none have been found [that people can agree on – there are always the odd claims that something has been found at the limit of detectability]. If these couple to the planets then the positions of the planets [calculated by JPL without those effects being considered] would not agree as well with the actual positions found by sending spacecrafts to the planets [we can measure those with 1m – 10 cm precision] as they do. And those would be coupled to the planets, not from the planets.
2) For the [weak] strength of gravity inside the Sun and for the large length scales, we do not need to consider the subtleties of self-field and test particles [conversely you can treat each atom of the sun as a test particle]. The subtleties arise only for vanishing small distances [where the Newtonian forces go to infinity – depending inversely on the distances].
But the gravity waves in the outer 2% of the solar mass (most of the volume) and their coupling to the planets and their internally generated magnetic fields is the best explanation for the solar variability relevant to the climate.
First it is not established that solar variability is relevant to significant climate change on time scales of centuries or shorter, second one might question the use of ‘best’. There exist very good theories for solar activity that do not require planets.
Any argument that solar dynamics internally have an oscillation with a period that happens to be about the same length as orbital oscillations
There are no such oscillations we know of. Hydrodynamical equilibrium to a perturbation of the Sun relaxes in about 20 minutes.
africangenesis says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:55 pm
gravity waves (mass density waves), can interact within the sun and couple to the planets.
Here are some speculations about gravity waves [usually called g-modes]:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/701/1/686/pdf/0004-637X_701_1_686.pdf
Note that all this is highly speculative. We still have to observe any [convincing] g-modes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 8:20 am
Pamela Gray says:
August 10, 2011 at 7:40 am
If the “Galaxy Car” were to suddenly halt, the “ping pong ball Sun” would suddenly move forward and hit the windshield. So, while the “Galaxy Car” is still moving, is that what you mean by the ping pong ball Sun being in free fall?
How would you stop the Galaxy Car? By applying some force on it. If you apply the same force on the ping pong ball, it would also stop and not impinge on the windshield. Only if the forces are different would there be an effect.
Your understanding of Newtonian mechanics and kinetics and properties is woefully inadequate.
This is as bad as your “The Sun is perfectly elastic as it would reform a sphere after an impact” argument. In that case, you are ignoring the non-reverting internal redistribution which would take place.
In this case you are ignoring the density gradient in the Sun. Force equals mass times acceleration as Newton told us. Therefore the mass divided by the force equals the acceleration. The Sun is much denser near the core than near the surface. This means that the changes in acceleration imposed on volumes at different depths in the Sun by the changing relative positions of all the many separate gravitational masses tugging outwards on it (a completely different situation to an astronaut in freefall around a single gravitational mass – your favourite canard), have a different magnitude of effect in terms of changing the acceleration of specific volumes of matter at various levels in the Sun. This causes pressure changes within the solar body which is reacting against the resulting tendency to deformation by maintaining sphericity under its own gravitation. This in turn sets up the ‘suitable flows’ which overturn convection cells and release extra potential energy created by the consequently enhanced rates of fusion described by Wolff and Patrone.
This is why the Wolff and Patrone mechanism is non-trivial. It’s also why the extra energy release they derive depends on the changing distance from the Solar core to the centre of mass of the solar system, (the barycentre). Although the barycentre has no mass and cannot directly affect the Sun (another of you favourite canards), mathematically it nonetheless represents the summation of all the external gravitational forces acting on the solar body.
Read and learn, though I fear this is too technical for your level of comprehension of Newtonian kinematics:
Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246
DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y
A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone
Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/
I’ll copy this to my Newton thread where I’m collecting your specious kinematic arguments for the amusement of engineers who understand this stuff.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/spin-orbit-coupling-between-newton-and-his-grave/
tallbloke says:
August 10, 2011 at 10:41 pm
In this case you are ignoring the density gradient in the Sun. […]This means that the changes in acceleration imposed on the Sun by the changing relative positions of all the many separate gravitational masses tugging outwards on it (a completely different situation to an astronaut in freefall around a single gravitational mass – your favourite canard), have a different magnitude of effect in terms of changing the acceleration of specific volumes of matter at various levels in the Sun.
What you are trying to say is that a hammer falls faster than a feather. It does not: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Physicists often use and mix language loosely from different paradigms because they all know them and no confusion arises.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
David Reese says:
August 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm
The astronaut feels nothing because the constant [magnitude] gravitational field is always aligned with the astronauts free fall direction. The same can’t be said about the sun.
The sun falls under the influence of the gravitational ‘field’ and thus freely. Nothing else there to make it change direction or speed. Definition: ‘free fall’ is movement when the only forces present are gravitational.
This would be true if the planets stayed in the same position relative to the Sun. A static cosmos. This is where le Verrier went wrong too. Leif is still making the same error 152 years later.
F=MA. The direction of the force (gravity) changes as the planets move, the mass is constant, therefore the acceleration imposed on the Sun must change. Differential inertial forces are set up within the Sun as the acceleration of the Sun changes, because the mass per unit volume of the solar material varies with the density gradient ; QED.
See my previous reply above for the effect those differential intertial forces must have.
Leif is making the classic error of thinking that because the Sun is ‘weightless in freefall’, that the mass ‘doesn’t matter’. It does.
tallbloke says:
August 10, 2011 at 1:07 pm
When is the next TSI measuring device going up Leif?
The replacement for SORCE fell into the Pacific ocean upon launch, but the PICARD mission now in orbit also measures TSI: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2198
Ah, yes, along with the co2 tax generator, my how we laughed, little knowing SORCE would pack up early. So are the data going to be available online anytime soon?
wow
Hey Leif, whats up with the TSI readings on your running TSI Sorce 2008-now page? http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png It seems to have dropped radically.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 10:47 pm
tallbloke says:
August 10, 2011 at 10:41 pm
In this case you are ignoring the density gradient in the Sun. […]This means that the changes in acceleration imposed on the Sun by the changing relative positions of all the many separate gravitational masses tugging outwards on it (a completely different situation to an astronaut in freefall around a single gravitational mass – your favourite canard), have a different magnitude of effect in terms of changing the acceleration of specific volumes of matter at various levels in the Sun.
What you are trying to say is that a hammer falls faster than a feather. It does not:
My my, a veritable squadron of canards being deployed. Tell me leif, if an equal sideways perturbing force were applied to the hammer and feather as they dropped, which would deviate further from its trajectory over a given time period before inertia in both was fully overcome?
tallbloke says:
August 11, 2011 at 12:42 am
My my, a veritable squadron of canards being deployed. Tell me leif, if an equal sideways perturbing force were applied to the hammer and feather as they dropped, which would deviate further from its trajectory over a given time period before inertia in both was fully overcome?
No. Bad analogy. Written in too much haste, I’m packing to go away for a few days. If the perturbing force is a gravitational force the inertia in both objects is overcome at the same rate.
Problem is that we are dealing with a mix of gravitational and electromagnetic force. Something causes the Dicke bulge at the solar equator. What is it? Hmmmm, I’ll think for a few days. Sorry Leif.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm
The reason why so many people speculate on a mechanism is the correlations ARE good.
———————————
If the correlation WERE good, there would not be any controversy and mainstream science would be all over this, but, alas, they are not.
All you have produced is handwaving when trying to discredit the very good correlations between planet induced solar modulation. I have provided detailed data for 3200 years that you have not as yet rebuked.
Here is some more convincing data just off the press, the evidence is building daily. Extra detail is coming to hand which correlates very well with the sunspot record and is in keeping with the latest Wolff and Patrone research.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/powerwave2.png
pkatt says:
August 11, 2011 at 12:19 am
Hey Leif, whats up with the TSI readings on your running TSI Sorce 2008-now page? http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png It seems to have dropped radically.
Big sunspots are dark. We just had some, hence TSI is lower. Happens every time there are big spots, note these dips in the past: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
tallbloke says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:18 am
No. Bad analogy. Written in too much haste, I’m packing to go away for a few days. If the perturbing force is a gravitational force the inertia in both objects is overcome at the same rate.
Problem is that we are dealing with a mix of gravitational and electromagnetic force. Something causes the Dicke bulge at the solar equator. What is it? Hmmmm, I’ll think for a few days. Sorry Leif.
A repenting sinner is always welcome back in to flock.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 11, 2011 at 1:19 am
I have provided detailed data for 3200 years that you have not as yet rebuked.
To my recollection, I have done that repeatedly.
Latest Solar Cycle Numbers: the doldrums continue
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I think, there are real connections to be recognizable in the solar system, which have to be explained by the authorities, and not rejected from an orthodox understanding of physics.
The hierarchy is that that what determines what has to be the object of science, and not some authorities in the sciences community have to determine was has to be or not to be (science).
Determining is not a scientific method; it is a political method (s. AGW), and all words which are used to explain, why xyz has no reality, is SPAM.
One of the most asked questions in this time of global warming is the question, whether the global temperatures will arise, keep warm, or will fall in this century. It seems that this question now can be answered.
Since J.A. Eddy in 1976 has shown that there is evidence that 14C tree ring data indicate a period of roughly 1000 years with a maximum between about 1100 and 1250 AD and a minimum between 1650 and 1700 AD, which was in a remarkable agreement with the warm and cold periods in the last millennium, a mechanism for this frequency is still missed. But now there is evidence that by using well known solar system geometries a remarkable correlation factor can be shown with well known global temperature proxies and the origin of the ~1000 year period.
A few people, like the pioneer Theodor Landscheidt, have analyzed celestial cycles of the known celestial bodies and compared with warm and cold global eras. Landscheidt has given some correct climate predictions out of the solar system geometry, but there were no high fidelity simulations of global temperature proxies for the era of 3000 BCE to 3000 CE.
In June 2002 Chad Trujillo and Michael E. Brown have discovered the plutino Quaoar and this object takes about 286 years around the sun. In February 2010 I was thinking about a cycle in the solar system that is in harmony with the 14C period J. A. Eddy has shown, and I have discovered that the synodic period of the couple Pluto/Quaoar is about twice J.A Eddy’s 14C period of 1000 years, precise 913.5 years. A calculation from NASA ephemerides of the absolute heliocentric aspects have shown then that alike the tide on earth the conjunctions and oppositions are related to the warm times, but the square aspects like the nip tide on earth are related to cold times. The whole real cycle measure 1827 years. Using the published sidereal periods, the cycle p in years is: p = 1/((1/247.68)-(1/285.97)) = 1849.8 years. Because of the very eccentric path of Pluto, the synodic path exhibits mostly three maxima and three minima and fits well with the low frequency temperate proxies not only with the 14C from J.A. Eddy but with all well known temperature proxies.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
But this phenomena is not only visible in the functions of the terrestrial global temperature proxies of the last millennium, it is also present in the phase shift of the ‘doldrum’ sun spot tops.
The logic is this. There is an average frequency of the sun spot oscillation of 1/11.196 y^-1 for the time known since 1600 AD. The real occurrence of the top sun spot number in time differs over the time range as well as prior the cycle of exact 11.196 y but also later for some years. In other words the occurring frequency sometimes is increased and sometimes decreased.
There is a correlation visible between these shifted frequencies and the terrestrial temperature proxies in that way that an increasing frequency is connected to an increasing global temperature and a decreasing frequency – as today – is connected to a decreasing global temperature. Moreover, the simple added heliocentric tide aspects of some more of 4 celestial couples inclusive the couple Pluto/Quaoar is strongly correlated with both, the global temperature proxy per example the curve from E. Zorita, and the added tide functions.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ssn_shift_ghi4.gif
The function of the phase shift of the sun spots is recognizable also in temperature proxies reconstructed by C. Loehle, A. Moberg, Buentgen et al, or the measured data from Hadcrut3:
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/sunspot_shift_vs_temps.gif
The pattern which can related to heliocentric tide geometries is not a simple function, because of the eccentricity of the bodies. But as it is visible in case of some 3 more couples as the fundamental couple Pluto/Quaoar the existing temperature reconstructions of the last millennium fit well with only four couples.
If the sun spots number maximize in the beginning of the year 2014, as it is suggested by the prophets, then there is a seeming delay of 13.8 -11.196 y = 2.6 years to the average clock of the sun. But because of the increased frequency of the last 40 years, connected to a warmer terrestrial climate, this is first only a relaxation to the center clock of the sun.
However, evidence is given by geometric facts without any logical contradiction. There is no valid argument that if there is a celestial pattern based on solar system geometries, this should not be valid tomorrow.
The rejection of the solar tide functions, using the Newtonian physics, make the visible correlations not untrue, and it is not out of the question that a possible other physical explanation can be found.
more: http://volker-doormann.org/climate_code_s.htm
I think it would be a new x-gate if new scientific work would be dull flattened by orthodox authorities again who know always what NOT is, and spend arguments on this over and over and over.
In Febrary 2010 i wrote: “The climatic cycles on earth is indicated by the planets. A short main cycle amounts to 2 X 913 years, which does not run monotonous, but precisely. After this cycle we are in a time of warm climate since 1997, then it is cooling down until 2063 and rise up again to the year 2138 on a still warmer climate than now. After that the earth climate cools until 2704. This cycle is also to be found in the work of Gerard Bond et al., ‘Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene’ (Science , December 2001), back until 10000 BCE.”
It is not a trick; it is simple science.
V.
M. Simon says:
August 9, 2011 at 11:28 pm
“As the sun is in free fall it does not feel any forces or accelerations, so the theory fails right there.”
“It has been a long time since I took physics but I see no reason why a body in free fall can’t experience gravitational acceleration. After all the Earth is in free fall and yet it is accelerated by the sun.
Where is my error in thinking? Or am I misunderstanding the problem?”
The term ‘free fall’ is taken from the experience jumping out of an aircraft and there is no acceleration measurable, but the term says nothing about movements. Since Physics has secluded from all, but not from forces, it’s hard to discuss physics. Forces are defined as the product acceleration and mass. That means that without any acceleration there is no force.
But also without forces there are movement of mass is possible from it’s angular momentum with its dimension of [V A s^2]. Angular momentum has the same dimension as the Planck constant h. A frequenting [1/sec] mass [1/sec] is energy [V A s] or [eV]. Jupiter takes about 62% of the total angular momentum of the solar system, and the relation of the power is about 3:2.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/angular_1.gif
The gravitation force F [V A s m^-1] on the surface of the sun is the product an acceleration and mass. Each mass on the surface of the sun can experience acceleration from a mass as force.
I think you are right, but there is no acceleration to the earth by the sun and so no force for its path. Nevertheless there is a gravitational force from the mass of the sun, we know as tide effect.
BTW. The tide effect seems more relevant to a stream about 60° far from the meridian where the couples of planets are in the zenith, and this holds as long as the couple is standing together or in opposition. This can take some 100 years for the distant objects.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_tide2.jpg
Ching Che Hung has done a graet paper on this.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/hung_plot.gif
The real gravitational interactions must be examind seperate to the angular momentum of the bodies and its physics. And I think this holds also to the motion of each mass particle in and/or on the sun.
Volker