An article in the New Scientist says:
But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:
Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.
Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click
on paper 1540.
Dr. Svalgaard adds:
Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fascinating.
On the one hand we have the ongoing Leif vs {sun did it crowd} turning over some interesting points, but devolving into “throwing oatmeal” on one side, and pithy snipe on the other. BOTH carefully avoiding paying any thought time at all to look at lunar tidal cycles as the thing that eliminates the “problems” with a solar correlation / planetary stir driver.
On the other hand, we have Perlwitz making arguments that exploit just about every logical flaw possible (some called out by name by others) while practicing PR / PC / Political Debate with the best of them. Like trying to get a handle on a pile of warm jello… Yet the opposition keeps coming back for more rounds of “Whack-A-Mole”…. Sigh. You know, if Perlwitz spent even 1/4 the time on actually thinking about the problems raised by others and having actual responses to the points, folks would learn a lot more (one way or the other). As it is, reminds me more of kindergarten food fight tactics.
Oh Well…
@ur momisuglyLeif: Thank you for your efforts. I have benefited greatly from them. Yet simply doggedly saying “ignore the solar impact” can cloud that there is a correlated non-solar mechanism. Recognizing that correlation and then testing “possibles” is more productive, IMHO. Even if TSI is clearly not important. There is something of merit in the correlation…
@ur momisugly{Sun Did It Folks}: Yes, the correlation is compelling. PLEASE take just a little time to look at the Lunar Tidal paper that pretty much hands you the Planetary Orbit Driver for Earth weather and climate changes driven by planetary positions. Yes, it isn’t based on TSI, or UV, or other direct solar activity. No, I don’t know if it accounts for 1/10 or 9/10 of the total effect. But would it not be nice to have ONE clearly demonstrable causality to hang things on? To shift from “Hypothetically it can / can’t” bickering over to “It works party via lunar tides, but what percent is via that vs UV or…”
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
Lays out a clear climate driver, with nicely matching sizes of various periods. Including a mechanism via known ocean stirring tides.
@ur momisuglyPerlwitz:
I found your song and dance on CET entertaining, if futile. CO2 is global and dominant, except that it doesn’t work globally and isn’t dominant. Priceless… I suppose that the fact that the Antarctic is growing in ice and getting colder is not important either…
And that there’s a very clear longer term cooling trend, from quite warmer 6000 years ago to colder now; but it has spikes of rapid warming, then rapid cooling: somehow that gets ignored in “trend”…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/low-no-ice-arctic-5000-bc/
Simply put, we peaked in warmth about 8000 years ago and it’s been all down hill ever since. BUT there are some very rapid, if limited, spikes and drops (all long before CO2 generation by people). You conveniently ignore such things, dismissing them with a good drive by smugging… Yet they do not go away… ( Explain Heinreich Events, please… and D.O. and Bond Events and…)
So fitting a trend line to ANY period shorter than 6000 years becomes entirely an exercise in picking starting and ending dates. Nice propaganda, worthless science.
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Connect the tops of the upward peaks. Connect the bottoms of the down going peaks. The “tops” have “lower highs”. The bottoms have “lower lows”. We are inevitably headed into the next ice age glacial. That’s just the way it is. ( 60 N insolation is ‘on the cusp’ of the swap and dropping due to orbital mechanics). As soon as the North Pole has persistent multi year ice, increasing year over year (and NOT melting during warm spikes as now) we are headed into a “tipping point” (the only one that is real) back into a glacial.
ANY warming we can get is a good thing. Period. Full stop.
You choose to ignore that evaporation, convection, and precipitation put a limit on warming at just about the present temperatures. Any added heating just runs the “heat pipe earth” faster, not hotter. Yet desire to push, hard, toward colder. The one thing that has no limit until the whole planet is an ice ball ( we have past existence proofs). Sirrah, radiation does not trump evaporation and convection. That is your fundamental and fatal error.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/
But carry on… it makes for a fascinating study in psychology…
E.M.Smith says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
For us lazy critters, could you mark the mins and maxs of the lunar tidal cycle on this graph.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.
Both of those are false, and muddled to boot.
The overwhelming consensus reached is that all the geomagnetic records (now that yours is amended) show no floor and that a rise from the Maunder Minimum to a modern maximum exists, this is shown conclusively in the Lockwood paper you reference.
You are stuck on the floor. The issue is whether our record back to 1835 [which is the earliest actual data we have] is correct, and there is agreement that it is.
In a recent paper from Cliver (2012) who now seems to depart from you, your original claim of a floor level of 4 nT (near earth IMF) has been blown away by actual measurements of around 2 nT
The minimum Cliver reports is 3.9 nT.
with Steinhilber (2010) also suggesting values would be considerably lower during the Maunder Minimum using empirical 10Be data.
There is controversy about the Steinhilber values [which at times go below zero]
Interestingly Cliver displays a breakdown in your prescribed method of forecasting SC24 and re estimates a much lower possibility (admittedly with huge error bars). There is obviously a disconnect in your perceived understanding.
Nonsense, Cliver does not dispute the forecast of SC24.
On a related topic I have shown you for 3 years that the L&P data suffers from the same problems, which is now being supported by scientists working in the field. Do the right thing and accept the solid criticism so that the general public including Anthony can begin to see the truth.
You do not do valid science, so have ‘shown’ nothing. A recent analysis by Fraser Watson using automatic processing of all MDI magnetic data confirms L&P’s data.
JanP;
Let’s talk about it at the end of the decade again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And, having failed to respond to a long list of major issues, JanP quits the field.
The thing is JanP, I would not be surprised if it IS warmer at the end of the decade than it is now. I would be shocked if, that being the case, you didn’t declare yourself the victor. But what will be the true arbiter of who is “right” and who is “wrong” will not be some amount of warming over current temps.
The arbiter of right and wrong will be if a model, ANY model, makes a prediction NOW that is proven accurate at the end of this decade. In addition to that will come some measure of the change in temperature being beneficial or not.
So here’s my prediction JanP. The models will ALL be proven wrong. Further, if there is any warming, it will be beneficial and if there is any cooling it will be detrimental to humanity.
Chefio,
Nice summary.
Chiefio!
Try and give the guy a compliment and can’t even spell his name right. Sorry.
Perlwitz says:
“The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” supported by you to cherry pick a too small time period…”
First off, skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. And Perlwitz is no scientific skeptic. Skeptics are not rent-seekers, we just present facts and ask questions that climate alarmists cannot answer.
Now, about ‘cherrypicking’ a too small time period. May I deconstruct? Thank you:
We will begin with a LONG time period; about three and a half centuries. Let’s look at the trend:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
As we see, the long term trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. That is verified in this Wood For Trees chart. The naturally rising global temperature since the LIA has remained within its long term parameters. There is no acceleration in global warming; it is on the same trend line that it was on before the start of the industrial revolution, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
And the scientific fact that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature is confirmed here. Notice that the two warming episodes — again, one when CO2 was low, and the other when CO2 was high — shows conclusively that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is not even measurable.
Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia. That proves that the alarmist crowd has cause and effect reversed. Temperature changes cause CO2 changes, not vice-versa. There is no empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. That Belief is based on an entirely coincidental and short-term correlation, which is now breaking down.
Finally, the planet is starved of (harmless, beneficial) CO2. More is better. Bring it. The biosphere will thrive, and there will be no global harm or damage. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.
Thus, using verifiable scientific facts, it is demonstrated that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. None. The reason that the alarmist contingent cannot get anything right is because they are fixated on the false and disproven narrative that CO2 drives temperature — when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“The main point of the article is that prediction beyond one cycle is impossible so there is no possibility to extrapolate the two harmonic modes you claim to find into anything useful.”
Ridiculous. I do stuff like this all the time in products that actually work. Your response is typical of your lack of insight into signals and systems.
@Leif:
OK. It will likely take me a while (as I’m not great at manipulating other folks graphics) but I’ll do it. Likely a few days and I’ll put it up as a posting on my site. (Then put a reference in some posting here 😉
From the PNAS paper, this graph:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F1.large.jpg
has the tidal raising forces from about 1600 to present while this graph:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F2.expansion.html
has periods from 500 BC to present.
This one has 36 kyr of pattern with L.I.A., Minnesota dust layers, Akkadian Drought, Heinrich Events and Bond events marked.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F7.expansion.html
But I’ll see if I can integrate the Ice graph with those cycles… ( It’s a good ‘exercise for the student’ anyway… and I’m the student here… 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:04 pm
“What we have demonstrated [no mere value statement or opinion] here is that no meaningful predictions can be made from illustrative mean-field models, no matter how they are constructed.”
Actually, it’s kind of obvious where he went wrong. But, don’t mind me (which you wouldn’t anyway). Just keep blustering on (like there was any chance I could alter that).
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:03 pm
You continue to live in your own universe. Bart sums up the situation well.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Ridiculous. I do stuff like this all the time in products that actually work. Your response is typical of your lack of insight into signals and systems.
Since the sun is not an oscillator your stuff doesn’t apply. And I do have insight into signals and systems from when in another life I designed communication systems, e.g. for the Alternate War Headquarters Communication System for SHAPE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Headquarters_Allied_Powers_Europe
@davidmhoffer:
Thanks!
And no worries on the name…. I’d rather have been a Chef than a Chief anyway, but life didn’t work out that way…
(Really: I’m the cook at home and I grew up in a Family Restaurant. Everyone in the family cooks. At about 8 years old, I’d cut up a case of 50 chickens into parts every week, or less… So I take “Chef” as a compliment 😉
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:56 pm
You continue to live in your own universe. Bart sums up the situation well.
And you cannot back any of your assertions up, so our two universes are indeed separate.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Actually, it’s kind of obvious where he went wrong.
If so, you should do the right thing and write your obvious finding up and submit it to an appropriate astrophysical journal.
I’m not trying to pile on but, I live in the real world where Greenland was green when the vikings found it. They had to move when it got cold again. My solar powered yard lights turn off when the full moon is at its height at night which tells me there are lunar forces at work. Wether or not these are magnetic or reflective in nature really doesn’t matter, I know they exist but, nobody ever talks about these things. Since the moon has no real atmosphere and the radiative features appear to me to be quite strong and there are times when this temp and light and even magnetic forces effect the earth, why doesn’t anyone account for this?
This is a really cool thread.
Martin457 says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“My solar powered yard lights turn off when the full moon is at its height at night which tells me there are lunar forces at work.”
You are kidding, right? I didn’t see the sarc tag.
Nope. Couldn’t believe it myself till I seen it.
It’s really dry here in Nebraska. Theres a full moon tonight. If you have some of these things, check it out for yourself.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm
And you cannot back any of your assertions up, so our two universes are indeed separate.
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine. Like I said I will be providing an in depth article that will be a reference on the subject which will include copies of all the relevant papers (I have them all on my hard drive).
Maybe I should call it “Leif’s Flat Floor Fallacy”.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine.
since they are not true, you are either mistaken or misleading. You can begin with those: “Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.”
Show those references.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Maybe I should call it “Leif’s Flat Floor Fallacy”.
There are two distinct issues: 1) HMF back to 1835 which is observed and does not extrapolate to any ‘flat floor’, and 2) what happened before 1835. IHV/IDV belong to issue 1). The ‘Floor’ idea [which is not ours, so I should not get credit for it] has a long history: “[3] A |B| floor implies the existence of a time-invariant component of the open solar flux. A number of authors [McComas et al., 1992; Webb and Howard, 1994; Owens and Crooker, 2006, 2007] have suggested heliospheric magnetic flux consists of a constant open flux component [the floor] with a time-varying contribution from the closed flux carried by coronal mass ejections (CMEs), which provides the solar cycle variation in |B|. The return to the same value of |B| each solar minimum means flux added by CMEs must be balanced over the solar cycle, either by opening the closed flux via reconnection with open flux [interchange reconnection; Crooker et al., 2002], or by disconnecting an equivalent amount of open flux [McComas et al., 1992]. Using the observed CME rates and an estimate of the typical CME magnetic flux content, Owens and Crooker [2006] estimated that the observed solar cycle variability in |B| can be matched if CMEs contribute flux to the heliosphere for 30– 50 days. [4] Constancy of open flux also features in a number of models of coronal and heliospheric solar cycle polarity reversal. Fisk et al. [1999] suggest that continual reconnection between open and closed flux at coronal hole boundaries allows the polarity reversal to proceed as a rotation of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), conserving open flux throughout. Fisk and Schwadron [2001] propose that HCS rotation is driven by a diffusive process involving interchange reconnection. Owens et al. [2007] suggest the interchange reconnection occurs in the legs of CMEs, conserving but transporting open flux in the manner required for the polarity reversal.”
2008GL035813.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“If so, you should do the right thing and write your obvious finding up and submit it to an appropriate astrophysical journal.”
It’s not my job, and this application doesn’t interest me. I don’t care to tell you what is wrong – you wouldn’t understand it, and I’ve been subjected to enough uninformed abuse. It’s something you will have to see for yourself before it makes an impact.
I’ve given you all the information you need, in this thread, in earlier ones, and at the photobucket site. Follow my prescriptions, in detail, or find someone who can, and it will become apparent to you what is holding the others back. Save any further criticism until you have at least made an attempt. Until you have, it’s just trash talk, and I’ve run out of time for that.
From Leif Svalgaard on September 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm:
Leif, some clarification requested.
The Sun is not an oscillator as Bart would it like it to be,
But as I see when reading about helioseismology, it does have oscillations (milli-Hertz range) and standing waves. And torsional oscillations:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/183286
The sun is observed to be a torsional oscillator with a period of 11 years
Howard, R.; Labonte, B. J.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 – Letters to the Editor, vol. 239, July 1, 1980, p. L33-L36.
So the Sun not a Bart-preferred type of oscillator, but it is an oscillator of a different type. Is that correct?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine.
———————————
since they are not true, you are either mistaken or misleading. You can begin with those: “Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.”
Show those references.
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008) and others. Links, excerpts and graphs will be provided in an upcoming article as stated.