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.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Satellite is outside magnetosphere – at the day time, at the night time magnetosphere goes beyond the moon. Ground level magnetometer is within magnetosphere day and night.
Have you got a link to any data files (since 1970-80s) to the satellite HMF data and a direct magnetometer output
My experience with you is that it doesn’t matter what I say. You must think scientists to be morons. The modern satellite data comes from a satellite at the L1 point [Google it], a million miles from the Earth. The solar wind hits the magnetosphere and puts stress on it. The stressed magnetosphere is unstable and blows up now and then. The debris races towards the night side of the Earth and creates magnetic activity which IDV and IHV are measuring.
Satellite data are here http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Magnetometer output can be found http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/bou_12h.html and many other places [e.g. at Tromsoe].
I didn’t say I believe, I said I think
Thinking usually does not preclude learning, although in your case it, sadly, seems that it does.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm
So, you have inside info that Joe is a bad guy?
I must apologize to Joe the Plumber. It was wrong of me to lower him to your level. But one aspect of my comparison was valid, namely that his professional qualifications are just as ill-suited to the problem of solar activity as yours.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm
THEN, going by Vuk’s work that you endorse, the assumption is made that the equations are sinusoidal, as would be expected with coupled oscillators as presented. But the pitfalls of that were revealed in Willis’ piece Riding a Pseudocycle.
Hi KD Knoebel
Vuk’s oscillators are as sinusoidal as astronomy can provide, they have been like that for few billion years, they are called Jupiter and Saturn.
No idea is it right or wrong, it just works, for time being.
Willis is right, Scafetta’s is confused about 60 (actually 64-5) years cycle, it is only an apparent cycle, and has no astronomic or planetary orbital meaning.
Dr.S
You didn’t say that it is at Lagrangian point, so any effect of the reconnections is not registered by satellite, while many are registered at both sides of the globe at the same time.
See the spike at Tromso today at 12 mid-day.
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
I’ll look at the data and be back, if no difference I am happy to accept discrepancies between pre and post 1980’s.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm
“Using that, a full cycle in the shaft would be about 3,700 Hz, a period of 0.00027 seconds.”
Sure. And, when you pull up one of those stalks and “twang” it, it emits an ear-piercing high frequency shriek. Farmers in Kansas have to wear ear plugs when walking through their wheat fields, as their dogs cower under the woodshed.
“So many big words, you sound like a GISS employee, trying to demonstrate authority by using big words…”
Or, I undertook 8 years of undergraduate and graduate study, and those words are simply comfortable to me.
“You have also added another layer of ignorance, as the “variables that are functions” are still unknown.”
Knowing the form that a realistic model must take can be a huge help in sifting through the possibilities. There’s a reason the fundamental transform of Special Relativity is called the Lorentz Transformation, and not the Einstein Transformation, you know.
“Thus I can tell Vuk doesn’t have it right.”
Never said he did. I said he was on the right track, and his results are compelling. And, I then explained how to improve the method.
“Try again after you can demonstrate some competency in proper curve fitting, that provides believable equations that actually fit the data, and shows you understand the nature of the data beyond mere numbers to be crunched.”
Go jump in a lake.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“I must apologize to Joe the Plumber. It was wrong of me to lower him to your level.”
But, he’s still untermenschen, no?
“But one aspect of my comparison was valid, namely that his professional qualifications are just as ill-suited to the problem of solar activity as yours.”
Because you expect to sit in a cubbyhole somewhere and capture all the behavior through divine inspiration. Data? You don’t need no stinkin’ data.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:40 pm
You didn’t say that it is at Lagrangian point, so any effect of the reconnections is not registered by satellite, while many are registered at both sides of the globe at the same time.
So what? They have nothing to do with each other. As I said, you have a learning problem. I have patiently explained many times how this works. For a refresher: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
I am happy to accept discrepancies between pre and post 1980’s.
There are no discrepancies between HMF from satellite and from Ground-Based IDV.
The difference with CET is another matter. The simplest explanation is that you have discovered AGW.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Go jump in a lake.
It is rare I come across people from the baser levels of humanity, but here it happens too frequently for my taste.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm
But, he’s still untermenschen, no?
When using big words, use them correctly: ‘ein untermensch’.
Data? You don’t need no stinkin’ data.
Data does not stink. They are the lifeblood of science. But, of course, will not play a role in your ‘oscillator’.
KD Knoebel
I think you misunderstood what the equations are about.
For sunspot cycles there are 3 points that matter, times of the min & max and the SSNmax.
First two are shifting all the time and the third is always disputed by someone, Dr.S is attempting to change it too.
Curvature of the rise time is about Cos^2, while of fall time is more exponential, peaks are mess, and minima overlap by few years, as you see not much to do with a sinusoid shape, polarized or rectified.
Equations are there to give an idea that the general form of the sunspot magnetic activity can be found elsewhere in the solar system, i.e. within combination of the orbital parameters of two largest magnetospheres.
So if you whish to look at what the sun’s magnetic field is doing, the sunspots are not good point to start anyway, perhaps you could start with polar fields, which have more regular form, but still not sinusoidal:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
and for frequency
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.htm
Since it is not possible to turn on-off the sunspot cycle, than one guess could be as good as another. My guess made in 2003 still looks OK.
The equations are not result of superior knowledge of the solar activity but the recognition of the cross-modulation pattern, as I point on the graph (see inset 2000-2020)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
I am not really bothered what anyone may think about it, Dr. S has been at it for about 3-4 years now, show mi something better which can be linked to some other known cosmic event and I am happy to accept it.
I hope that is of some help to understand what the equations are about.
Dr. S
The simplest explanation is that you have discovered AGW.
Great, do I get a multimillion dollar grant ?
Hmm, are you sure your monitor is on the level ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
but if you are so certain I better book Stockholm flight.
(p.s. discrepancy referred to the reduction of correlation since late 1970s)
Tom Murphy:
re. your post at October 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Excellent! Well said.
I commend everybody to read all of it.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“It is rare I come across people from the baser levels of humanity, but here it happens too frequently for my taste.”
Every morning shaving is not what most people would consider “rare”.
‘ein untermensch’
OK, so Joe is subhuman. Glad we have your confirmation. Gives us a little window into your soul.
“They are the lifeblood of science.”
Then, one who refuses to consider them would be not a (fill in the blank).
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm
OK, so Joe is subhuman.
Perhaps you should not insult Joe.
Anyway, looking back at your comments on this thread, I note that you have brought nothing to the table. You should be glad that Anthony let you dilute the bandwidth on his blog.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm
but if you are so certain I better book Stockholm flight.
You have to go to Oslo, like Al Gore, not Stockholm.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm
If you really practice, you could be even more petty.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 5:31 pm
If you really practice, you could be even more petty.
You are hard to beat in that department
Tom Murphy says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Following this approach, Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr.
Later research suggests that this probably was not the case: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
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.”
Martin457 Photo-sensitive security lights is what you mean, they switch on at night time! a full moon can switch them off, they are usually fitted with a switch to adjust the sensitivity of the photovoltaic sensor to compensate for other light sources. You know you can predict the next full moon and adjust them properly but good luck tying to predict what the weather is gonna be like.
Good stuff Lief. Looking forward to your friend’s findings on the nuclear decay anomaly tracking rotation of the sun(?). I used to read these solar threads verbatim, now: i just wait a week or so then I fast forward to the end and only read your responses. My hats off to your patience with your patients!!!!
johnnythelowery says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Good stuff Leif
Thanks. On that positive note, I’ll go have some oatmeal.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm:
You’re right, I should have reviewed figuring out the natural frequency (although a dry stalk can be used as a whistle if you know how).
So I figured it out as an undamped single degree of freedom (SDoF) oscillator, a beam (rod, shaft) with one end fixed and the opposing end with an attatched mass (seedpod). As the possible dampening force would be supplied from the shaft/seedpod unit interacting with the air, and this was the mechanism transmitting energy from the wind to the unit, treating it as an undamped oscillator is justified.
The equation is:
f = 1/(2π) * (k/m)^(1/2)
where k is stiffness in Newtons/meters,
and m is the mass on the end in kilograms.
A fresh grass stalk with leaves removed was suspended between two points. Separation was 24″, which is irrelevant other than to indicate multiple stalk joints were present. A fabricated weight holder was placed at the midpoint. Stalk bottom to surface below was 2 3/16″. Three US quarter dollars placed in the holder resulted in clearance reduced to 1″. Thus 1 3/16″ deflection for 3 quarters.
1 3/16″ * 25.4mm/in * 1m/1000mm
= 0.030m deflection
By a digital kitchen scale of unknown make and model originating from Walmart, 16 quarters were weighed, yielding a “weight” of 90g. The US Mint gives the weight of a new quarter dollar as 5.670g.
90g/5.670g = 16 quarters, reading of scale is confirmed within two significant digits and allowing for loss of mass due to pocket wear.
12 seedpods were collected, weight was 18g.
18g* 1/12 * 1kg/1000g
= 0.0015kg/seedpod on average.
Bringing it together:
90g * 3/16 * 1kg/1000g * 9.81m/s²
= 0.17N force of 3 Quarters
Stiffness=Force/deflection
k = 0.17N/0.030m
k = 5.7 N/m
Natural frequency
f = 1/(2π) * (5.7N/m / 0.0015kg)^(1/2)
f = 9.8Hz
Invert, period is 0.10 seconds.
The observed periods of the seedpods swaying were from about 1 second to perhaps about 1/2 second. The calculated natural frequency yields a period that is an order of magnitude less.
Therefore it is concluded the seedpods observed were not oscillating to the natural frequency of the stalks. The apparent pattern witnessed was the effects of the varying wind on the unit, and would not have occurred with a constant wind velocity.
I have researched, collected data, performed the calculations. I conclude you were wrong. If you have reason to believe this is in error, present your evidence.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm:
Ah, so you are well practiced at feigning authority by using the big words, a useful skill for picking up undergrads who are easily impressed by such demonstrations of intelligence.
Respect for a fellow intellectual, as Henri Poincaré named the transformation after Lorentz. Lorentz’ work was mathematical gyrations while trying to salvage luminiferous ether theory after the historic null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Since the presence of the ether was the “realisitic” model that Lorentz was working with, which was debunked despite the mathematical results of Lorentz and other adherents to the theory, what does that say about your adhering to the “Sun as an oscillator” model because you like the resulting equations?
So to summarize, you are saying you never said Vuk had it right, just that he was on the right track.
So for you to know Vuk is on the right track, you must know the destination he is approaching. So cut to the chase and tell us what it is. For such an authoritative knowledgeable expert as you wish to appear to be, it should be easy to convince Leif by the weight of your certain evidence.
Must it be a lake? Ponds are more prevalent, lakes are very rare with the local terrain. It’s been raining, perhaps I could find a mud puddle. Although to avoid a water-borne disease, a swimming pool is best.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Google is your friend.
Lorentz specified the transformation. Einstein merely explained how it was a consequence of the principle of relativity.
“For such an authoritative knowledgeable expert as you wish to appear to be, it should be easy to convince Leif by the weight of your certain evidence.”
Leif couldn’t be convinced his hair was on fire if he didn’t want to be. And, his expertise does not extend far into the realm of signal processing and systems analysis. That’s a double “no chance in Hades”. And, you’re apparently nursing a personal grudge, so not much chance of convincing you, regardless of your qualifications.
It’s isn’t even really important – it’s just annoying, because it could be resolved so straightforwardly. But, I can’t carry the world on my shoulders, so someone else is going to have to step up to the plate. Anyway, the actually important question is, is the Sun driving recent temperature variations on Earth? Clearly, it is, to anyone with his or her eyes open. Sadly, of those, there are remarkably few.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
Something that requires an explanation:
(after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models)
How is it that when solar forcing is known to vary by an amount that you now argue is equivalent to 10-15 years of ‘global warming’, neither the models nor the error bands on their predictions incorprate this variation?
What else is left out of the models, and out of the uncertainty bands?
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“Leif couldn’t be convinced his hair was on fire…”
It’d go something like this:
Me: Leif, you’re hair is on fire!
Leif: No, it isn’t.
Me: There are flames dancing on top of your head!
Leif: How do you know that?
Me: I’m looking right at them!
Leif: You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sight is useless for measuring the heat of a fire.
Me: Wha… What?
Leif: How could my hair be on fire?
Me: I don’t know, but the flames are licking the ceiling now.
Leif: Fire is not spontaneous. There has to be a cause. If you don’t know the cause, how can you be sure my hair is on fire?
Me: Are you insane? Your whole scalp is starting to boil.
Leif: Your insults show you to be a person of low character, just like Joe the Plumber.
Me: (aside) Somebody grab a fire extinguisher!
Leif: If you were sure my head was on fire, you’d get the extinguisher yourself.
Me: It’s at the end of the hall, with that group of people I’m trying to signal.
Leif: Well, obviously you are delusional, and this conversation has been completely unproductive.
Me: (throwing up hands) OK, whatever you want.
Leif: I’m going to get the last word.
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.