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.
Going back to the source of the NS article, I’d be interesting in hearing what Leif has to say about the Tobias models. Just looking at his web page suggests a fairly technical kind of guy.
Web page:
http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~smt/
Correlation does not prove causation, however it gives a good clue where to look for it.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling.
———————————
Then where is my premise of his belief wrong? By your account the sun plays no role in any change of climate conditions. If I was politically incorrect not to use the word change when associated with climate I apologize! I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.
Sparks says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am
While a drop in the solar wind might be enough to drop the size of an orbit by a few miles, there’s no way it can change a nearly circular orbit to a highly elliptical one.
OT: Anthony, I alerted you about the attempt to have the Wikipedia page about French Climatologist Marcel Leroux deleted.
Now no other than William M. Connolley has shown up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux#Marcel_Leroux
“•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)”
William M. Connolley is at it again.
Peridot says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:55 am
The initial CERN tests showed that cosmic rays can create the seeds from which larger droplets could grow. The since the test was designed to test the seed creation part of the hypothesis, these seeds were swept from the test chamber by magnetic fields before they had a chance to grow.
The next round of tests will determine if these seeds are able to grow into cloud forming droplets.
We know that while TSI does not change much from min to max in a solar cycle, however UV radiation does change by as much as 10% over the same period.
We know that UV radiation creates the ozone layer.
We know that ozone is a greenhouse gas.
If a 10% decrease in UV causes a decrease in the thickness of the ozone layer, would this in turn lead to a cooling of the planet?
Just a few days ago we had an article that speculated that a Carrington event sized CME would reduce the ozone layer and result in a 3C drop in temperatures.
OT: Anthony, sorry if it is a double post, the English Wikipedia page for French Climatologist Marcel Leroux is being attacked by no other than William M. Connolley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux
•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ged – why would the north and south parts of the _same_ magnetic field behave differently?
I am asking questions, uh, not implying anything.
So the sun is just like the earth; when the ice is melting at its north pole it is growing at the south pole; pretty hot stuff if you ask me.
By the way, the photograph of that spectacular donnybrook on the sun the other day, had that weird lattice structure over in the left corner area, that looked absolutely impossible as a natural structure; more like a multiple exposure of shifted photos.
So Dr Sv, do you sunchaps have any ideas what could create such a regular looking structure in such an event ?
Tom Murphy in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144,
You don’t really know what the IPCC does, do you?
You assert,
“””””…..marchesarosa says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:41 am
I do wish people would leave out the “we”! As in
” In the North we are *at* max right now.”
“We” are not at lunar max either right now or ever. Neither are “we” located on the northern hemisphere of the sun.
Come on guys, let’s have a little more scientific rigour in the way propositions are stated……”””””
In that the SUN doesn’t give a rats about maxima or minima; doesn’t even know what the hell “WE” are talking about, and neither the Aardvarks nor the mushrooms even know what it is that “WE” call the SUN; even the sun doesn’t know it is the sun; then it stands to reason that “”””…WE…””” are the ONLY entities that do give a rats about the SUN and its maxima and minima, which are all figments of our imagination that WE made up to keep people like Dr Svalgaard gainfully employed.
Then I think it is perfectly reasonable for folks like Dr Sv, in a friendly forum like this; and even in the cloisters of his professional environment and sunfellows, to talk in such jargon. Yes I know that in peer reviewed papers, he must replace four letter words like “WE”, with multisyllabic mediaeval Roman synonyms , that suit the stuffiness of formal science; but still mean pretty much the same as “WE” .
Nothing in the universe but WE or US even knows what the hell minima and maxima are; so what else could one say ?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there.
A lag might. You do understand the concept, don’t you?
The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Why, look at that. You do understand that concept.
How come you only apply the concepts you understand when doing so benefits your faith commitment to ‘global warming’?
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will
continueresume over the next decades, …There, fixed that for ya. What is not occurring cannot continue. Over the last decades (about 1.7 of them so far) warming has halted. The only thing that can “continue” over the next decades is lack of warming.
I don’t see any flat spots in the previous predictions made by you fellows. Funny, that.
Jeff D. says:
I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.
Tim responds:
Looking at the climate record with an open and still inquisitive mind one does think the sun just might have some effect on change of our climate, more so to this point than the CO2 in our atmosphere.
As far as the Dr.’s time and effort to educate here. It is true he does give of his time to educate. He does provide some usefull information. The problem is he doesn’t consider what others think or have to say. Of course there are probably exceptions to that statement. The AGWs are trying to educate us all also. I would much rather have more people think, they have something to learn. Those are the ones that help us all learn best.
Ged says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:35 am
@omnologos
“because the sun has a magnetic field, and magnetic fields have a north and a south.”
umm, probably partially correct. yes, magnetic fields have a north and south, but the Sun flips it’s poles every solar cycle IIRC. Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.
David Ross – my question is in fact…why would the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Sun behave differently? What tells the Northern part that it is “North”, and the Southern “South”?
….and the answer is – the Sun’s magnetic field . Also in the northern hemisphere the spots rotate in a clockwise direction and in the south in an anticlockwise direction.
I see Perlwitz is cheating the taxpayers again. I bet he posts on his blog on public time, too. And Hansen made over a thousand speeches complaining that he was being muzzled by President Bush.
Does anyone at GISS have an ounce of integrity? Judging by Perlwitz and Hansen, the answer is no.
As far as reality goes, Perlwitz makes the preposterous statement:
“…an ‘absence of predicted warming’ exists only in your imagination.”
Wrong, as usual. Just like the IPCC’s always wrong models.
Exactly why should we pay these scientific illiterates?
Vukcevic said:
“Thanks to all who followed my graphs during last 3-4 years, and my gratitude goes to Anthony and the WUWT for the hospitality and open-mindedness.”
Virtually every reader is here because we want to see the real data not computer models and political memes. Thanks for your input
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
spangled drongo says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:46 am
Afraid he’s right: this “correlation” is meaningless. The trendlines are affine functions. Two affine functions can always be made scale similar because they are scale similar. One might argue, ah yes, but there is still a positive correlation. But, that is just a flip of a coin.
“The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up.”
You mean, the peak SSN has been trending down. And, since the early ’90s, not mid-century. It went sharply down from the peak near 1960 to 1970, just in time for the Global Cooling scare, and trended up from that time until 2000, in tune with what has been attributed to AGW, and to the subsequent current warming hiatus.
I wrote this before reading down to see where others have made the same point, but might as well pile on to dissuade future such ludicrous commentary.
“…by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations…”
The Apocalypse has been delayed again, eh? Funny how that happens.
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:05 am
……
Hi George
Thanks, I had a good laugh, (I often have a chuckle at my own posts, usually on the second reading some hours later) but that was hilarious.
Ah yes ‘omnia mutantur nihil interit’.
Jan P Perlwitz says, September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
Yet another prat who draws straight lines on evolving time series. Did they teach you nothing in school?
Steve M. from TN says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.”
Indeed. A positive rotation about a given axis is, by convention, counter-clockwise. And, most of the planets revolve counter-clockwise about the North pole axis of the Sun.
In the right-hand diagram (WSO North-South) of
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png,
a data trend fit of 2012 data plus just the last couple of months of data from 2011 currently indicates that magnetic reversal of the poles could happen late this year rather than in 2013.
Guys. It’s New Scientist.
A catastrophe here, a catastrophe there… pretty soon it adds up to Armageddon.
From D Böehm on September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am:
Ah, “communicating the science” is part of GISS’ “community outreach”. Part of “restoring public confidence” in the validity of GISS’ “work”, which is vitally necessary due to the growing and arguably overwhelming scientific evidence of GISS cooking the numbers to produce a record with an unreal amount of warming, to support the positions of the convicted activist Hansen, that human influence will cause and is causing catastrophic global climate effects (despite the predictions not coming to pass and the “work” being debunked).
And given the sterling success of GISS employee Gavin over at the ReallyRealClimate blog, it’s been proven it’s helpful to the “outreach” to have GISS people “communicating” on the clock at a blog that’s technically and legally not a part of GISS, where they can say whatever they need to towards the “restoring” without the potential legal issues arising from government accountability.
So if GISS wants to replicate a previous profitable endeavor by sending Perlwitz out into the blogosphere to fight for Climate Truth and continuing/increasing GISS funding, who are we to complain? We’re only taxpayers, it’s not like we’re allowed any say in how government runs itself. ☺