Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
A couple of people have noticed (as did I) that the sun is essentially blank.
There was one small sunspot sunspeck 1511 yesterday, giving a sunspot count of 13. Today there’s a a small cluster of spots near the SE limb:
Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg
While this quiet sun not unprecedented, given the expected solar maximum is only about 7 to 9 months away, it is interesting and lends credence to the idea that this is one of the quietest solar cycles in a very long time.
You can check the latest status and imagery on the WUWT Solar Reference Page
BTW in case anybody is wondering, the WUWT climate widget has had problems getting updated sunspot numbers posted, I’ve had to resort to manual updates until such time I can wade into the issue. So if the spot and 10.7CM numbers are wrong, you know why.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif,
A bit more on the dynamo http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO240004_Jerks.pdf
What happened 7000 BCE?
Dr. S.
Emailed the graph, with ‘tuning fork’ oscillations too.
I trust you will keep it to yourself until the article appears on my website. If not acceptable just delete the email.
psi says:
June 25, 2012 at 11:50 am
Assuming that this analysis is correct, it would raise some very interesting questions about the close connection between AGW theory and the defense of standard gradualist cosmology in the 20th (and now 21st) century.
Standard cosmology is not gradualist at all. It is widely accepted by mainstream scientists that the Universe is a very violent place.
Standard cosmology is not gradualist at all. It is widely accepted by mainstream scientists that the Universe is a very violent place.
Glad to hear it. But by “gradualist” I was referring to the popular “just so” story that the planets of our local system were all created at the same time via the same process of accretion via gravitational attraction of smaller constituent particles. This is most certainly a gradualist doctrine and, arguably, a hangover of Lyellian gradualism. Correct me if I am wrong in supposing that this has always been, and still is, the dominant belief among academic cosmologists. That “standard cosmology” acknowledges the importance of catastropic events in other contexts is all to its credit but has no bearing on the specific point I was making.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong to assume that the spectrum for the Earth’s magnetic field shown here (green line)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm
is the surface field, it is the assumed field at the boundary of the earth’s core and mantle, and as you can see it is closely synchronized with solar magnetic cycle.
You need to get your info updated. It may not be entirely productive that matters which we may not understand we just discard as ‘nonsense’.
—————————————————-
m.v. -”Sed ita a principio incohatum esse mundum, ut certis rebus certa signa praecurrerent.”
l.s. – nonsense in any language is still nonsense
—————————————————-
It is not nonsense, it is a counter quote by the very same Marcus Tullius Cicero, this time talking about nature rather than politics as you would have it.
Psi’s Scorecard:
LS: 2 pts for having the class to insult V in Latin.
MV: 2 pts for responding with an apt Latin quote.
V: 6 points for responding in witty Latin, and then defending MV by educating us in the Ciceronian source of the quotation, with an apt English zinger on the difference between politics and science (including an impressive excursus on the value of using the latest technology to collate data to discover unobserved patterns that may conflict with prevailing paradigms), something that English words like “nonsense,” when too readily pronounced on the tongue, tend to obscure.
Whereby the bystanders may reasonably conclude,
Dulce et decorum est pro theoria mori.
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I trust you will keep it to yourself until the article appears on my website.
The right thing to do is to keep it to yourself until published. This incessant pushing of unsubstantiated, spurious wiggle matching of physically unrelated things is a disservice to WUWT. As I said, push it onto tallbloke.
Billy Liar says:
June 25, 2012 at 12:06 pm
What happened 7000 BCE?
Just a larger than usual random jerk. Your question is akin to “what happened to him” when to see a professional basketball player.
rstritmatter says:
June 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm
V: 6 points for responding in witty Latin, and then defending MV by educating us in the Ciceronian source of the quotation, with an apt English zinger on the difference between politics and science
Cicero was not talking about politics, but about the personal qualities of Citalina. Here is the translation:
“How long, O Catiline, will you abuse our patience? And for how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?”
Another brick in the wall.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
spurious wiggle matching of physically unrelated things..
May be spurious, but compares well to the temperatures as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC.htm
Extracting information contained in reliable data moves science forward; talking about moving, I sense it is time for me to move on, I’ve posted far more than intended.
Thanks to Crispin in Waterloo & rstritmatter and anyone else with any relevant comments.
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Extracting information contained in reliable data moves science forward
What you do is not science and does not move anything forward. Information has meaning but spurious correlations [especially when poorly done – no units, no location data, no sources] do not.
I’ve posted far more than intended.
Your problem started with the very first posting.
rstritmatter says:
June 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Glad to hear it. But by “gradualist” I was referring to the popular “just so” story that the planets of our local system were all created at the same time via the same process of accretion via gravitational attraction of smaller constituent particles.
That is basically the way it works, but with some catastrophic twists, e.g. the Moon was probably formed by a collision of a Mars-sized object with the Earth, and several other moons show signs of similar violent formation.
Thanks for the clarification. But, of course, your phraseology begs the question. “That is the way it works” sounds like like you are lecturing to an 18 year old freshman on theology.
Hi Leif … I find it interesting that in this figure http://www.leif.org/research/core-secular-change.png
the most core secular change appears to occur in seismically and/or volcanically active areas.
Jon says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:26 am
the most core secular change appears to occur in seismically and/or volcanically active areas.
I’ll not discount that there is a connection, but the eye sometimes ‘see’ things that are not there. A more precise investigation is needed to confirm/deny any connection.
rstritmatter says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:44 am
sounds like you are lecturing to an 18 year old freshman on theology.
It was not meant that way, but there is a certain necessity here: the rocky planets [or with rocky cores] must have assembled from interstellar dust, so must have started from smaller particles that grew by accretion. The early solar system was a very violent place with lots of collisions and bombardments and probably even rearrangement of planetary orbits. The rest of the Universe is even more violent, so ‘gradualism’ is certainly not the current paradigm.
rstritmatter says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:44 am
…
Here is some on planetary migration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration
Leif says: I’ll not discount that there is a connection, but the eye sometimes ‘see’ things that are not there. A more precise investigation is needed to confirm/deny any connection.
_____________________________________
It would be an interesting study to do!
Jon says:
June 26, 2012 at 8:15 am
It would be an interesting study to do!
Go for it…
I have question for Leif Svalgaard
http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Table 2 page 9
Year IDV09 IDV HMF B Observed HMF B
2008.5 5.29 4.25 4.23
2009.5 5.04 4.13 4.05
2010.2 5.50 4.45 4.95
I need date years : 2011 and 2012 for my graph
Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=11690
thanks,
michele
Michele says:
June 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I need date years : 2011 and 2012 for my graph
My reply seems to have been lost [or moderated away], so here goes again:
2008.5 4.34 4.21
2009.5 4.11 3.93
2010.5 4.55 4.67
2011.5 5.42 5.25
2012.3 5.76 5.96
As always, the last few years are based on preliminary data and will change slightly as definitive data come in. The 1st column is the year, the 2nd is HMF [in nanoTesla] derived from IDV, and the 3rd is HMF observed by spacecraft.
Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
I’m afraid there is no such correlation. This topic has been looked into and no correlation found. A powerful method is the ‘superposed epoch analysis’ where a large number of ‘key times’ are selected. For HMF one can use as key times the passage of a ‘sector boundary’ [after which HMF is almost always significantly enhanced] or the sudden beginning of a geomagnetic storm [where HMF is also high]. We can get such key times for the last ~100 years [there are about 2000 of each kind]. Then you count the number of earthquakes on each day for an interval around the key times. If HMF was correlated with earthquake activity there should be a peak or spike in at or just after the key times. Here is what one finds: http://www.leif.org/research/Earthquake-Activity.png using two catalogs of earthquakes greater than magnitude 6. As you can see, there is no peak, hence no correlation. The plot at the bottom shows the peak in geomagnetic activity caused by the high HMF [helped along by high solar wind speed]. Something like this is what we would expect [but do not find] in the earthquake count if there were a correlation.
Michele says:
June 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Correlation heliosphere & earthquakes
To show that B is enhanced at sector boundaries, we can make a superposed epoch analysis of solar wind variables around sector boundaries as key times: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Sector-Boundaries.png and something about the sector boundaries: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
@ur momisugly Leif
Thanks,
Leif for data.
MANY PHYSICAL PROCESSES IN PROGRESS
The mechanism is very complicated.
Not only correlation Heliosphere & earthquakes but….
tidal processes….planetary alignments
Read papers
Jakubcová and Pick, 1987 I. Jakubcová and M. Pick, Correlation between solar motion, earthquakes and other geophysical phenomena.
or
SUN, MOON AND EARTHQUAKES
Vinayak G. KOLVANKAR
or
Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity
http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2036.pdf
or
Flare or CME (trigger)
Change in magnetic field: an early warning system to understand
seismotectonics
S. MUKHERJEE and A. MUKHERJEE
or
http://fedgeno.com/documents/on-the-relation-between-solar-activity-and-seismicity.pdf
On the relation between solar activity and seismicity
“……..To he geoeffective, the solar wind from a coronal hole or from a CME has to first
arrive at the Earth, so the geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a both coronal hole and from a CME mainly. depends on their position relative to the Earth. For the CMEs an additional factor is their size and speed. Faster and wider CMEs are more geoeffective……”
Michele says:
June 27, 2012 at 4:43 am
so the geoeffectiveness of solar wind from a both coronal hole and from a CME mainly. depends on their position relative to the Earth. For the CMEs an additional factor is their size and speed. Faster and wider CMEs are more geoeffective……”
The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2012 at 8:21 am
“…The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs…”
I do not think…
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3658/2010lx.jpg
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1834/2011io.jpg
Electrons, protons trigger
Eyjafjallajokul , Nabro, Puyehue-Cordon Caulle eruption …. M9 Japan
etc ….
etc …..
Solar minimum output
Michele says:
June 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“…The superposed epoch analysis shows that there is no effect of geoeffective CMEs…”
I do not think [so]…
There are lots of wild claims out there. The standard approach in science is called reproducibility. In the case at hand, one simply takes all CMEs [geomagnetic storms. proton flux, magnetic field, etc] observed in the last 100 years or so [when we have good earthquake data] and checks if there are any strong earthquakes at or just after such storms. That was the objective superposed epoch that I showed you. As you can see for yourself, the claimed effect is simply not there, so the claim is not reproduced using all available data, and thus the claim is falsified. Now, many people believe in things that are false, so you are probably in good [or at least, in numerous] company.
Leif,
How much has been learnt since this was posted in 2004?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango
I’m thinking paticularly of sun/ozone interactions (UV, flare events, etc.). How much quantitative work has been done to identify causality of recent stratospheric cooling and what is your take on that? Pointers to publications would be useful, not turning up much by WEB search.
Many thanks.