NOAA SWPC has updated their plot page of solar metrics, and the slump continues.
At spaceweather.com Dr. Tony Phillips writes:
SO THIS IS SOLAR MAXIMUM? Forecasters have long expected the Solar Max of 2013 to be the weakest of the Space Age. It might be even weaker than they thought. As shown in this 20-year plot of sunspot counts vs. time, the sun is underperforming:
Sunspot numbers are notoriously variable, so the actual counts could rapidly rise to meet or exceed the predicted curve. For now, however, the face of the sun is devoid of large sunspots, and there have been no strong flares in more than a week. The threshold of Solar Max looks a lot like Solar Min. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of X-class solar flares in the next 24 hours.
===================================================
Here’s the other metrics, which are also “underperforming”.
The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005.
Ray Tomes says: November 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm
…….
Hi Ray
It appears that the Earth’s magnetic field has a ripple with various periods (100, 165, 490 .. etc. years) as contained in the data of the 400 year long magnetic records. Some of these periods coincide with the solar, some do not. But in general they are by one order of magnitude stronger than the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit. It is certain that if the ripple’s existence is a true, that the cosmic rays and consequently C14 and 10Be nucleation would be strongly modulated by such ripple.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 8:34 am
No, they show that sometimes there are hints of a 200-yr cycle, but most of the time there are not.
This is a key statement that is not understood by many. The 200 year cycle is what shows up most with FFT type analysis, but in fact is not all that common. The timing between the different levels of grand minima can vary between 90 years and 250 years, it would take a Sporer minimum to occur each N/U conjunction for a strong 90 year signal which obviously does not occur over the Holocene and in fact is very rare. There are many combinations of possible outcomes that tend to group at the 200 year end because over the Holocene grand minimia are mostly weak. The underlying 172 year cycle is hidden but IS the dominating force of the Holocene. I tried in the past to make this easy to understand with Willis, using an analogy of a hour hand on a clock that is a 3 pronged trident, each one of the points on the trident can be different each time it passes 12 o’clock. When all 3 prongs are strong you get a Sporer type minimum.
I think the recent paper dealing with solar torque is also finding the same outcome.
From Ray Tomes on November 9, 2012 at 12:32 am:
Actually I have unsuccessfully tried several times to right-click download it. Finally I opened link in new tab. The URL you provided somehow is redirected to:
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdfcase_for_cycles.pdf
This throws a “300 Multiple Choices” error:
Now that I can finally get the document, first I notice it is self-published, by Dewey’s foundation.
First “evidence” is a claimed rigid periodicity of 9.6 years in Canadian lynx pelts, from colonial times to present. This is immediately suspicious due to long harsh Canadian winters thus trade would be suppressed at times that would be peaks. The data is presented with a “ratio scale”, something like logarithmic, distorting the data into the supplied 9.6yr triangular waveform. The major effect noticeable is the 20th century drop in sales as alternatives to animal pelts for winter coats were developed.
Further reading reveals the Canada lynx’s diet is primarily composed of snowshoe hares, whose populations follow a 10-year cycle. However that’s only an average, ranging 7 to 17 years, peaks among the different populations do not occur simultaneously.
The second example is monthly sales of an New England textile plant, Jan 1931 to Oct 1940. A 3 month cycle is noted. What could possibly be the cause?
Thankfully in this modern age, we have discovered the existence of seasons, with the attendant seasonal buying of clothes.
I went to the end of the document, searching for sources. None there. But I did find Table 4. From the Wikipedia Dewey entry, it is seen Dewey liked his “magic numbers” arising from multiples of 17.75. This table shows purported cycles following those numbers.
Among those listed with Theoretical Cycles of 17.75 yrs was “Sunspots, alternate cycles reversed”, with Observed Length of 17.66 yrs.
Despite that, I pressed on, trying to confirm 17.724 yrs observed for “Variable Star, Scorpius V 381”, as that would have no connection to other cycles on Earth or even from this solar system. But that is an old cataloging system designation, I can find no match in list of stars in Scorpius. Googling only reveals that description in another book of cycles giving Dewey’s numbers.
Finally I have found the closest match:
http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/cepheus-constellation/
Other designations: HR 8164, HD 203338.
From here I find HR 8164 accompanies the eclipsing binary W Cephei.
Much searching later, two things are clear:
1. The periodicity of HR 8164 is not readily available.
2. The periodicity of variable stars can be very variable, I cannot find such specified as precise as two decimal places of a year.
Summary:
Dewey specifies the rigidity of the timing of cycles, when such rigidity is not supported by the data, to impossible precisions. He likes his “magic numbers”. He also gives dubious evidence, such as 17.75 yrs for “A large mail-order house”, a social phenomenon of short duration (Sears catalog), and sunspot timing, among others.
In short, he is obviously searching for cycles, of durations matching select numbers suitable for claiming interconnections, and will find the data matches his expectations, even when it really doesn’t.
Conclusion: Pseudoscience.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:18 am
Not at all. The torque is gravitational and has nothing to do with AM of the planet.
That is not my understanding of the paper. The tidal force is acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge which in turn is being acted on by the solar oscillation away from the SSB.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/abreu1.png
This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper, 0 – 0b
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
The tidal force is acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge …
This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper
The red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper o-ob
That arrow is not a force, just the vector in the x direction showing the position, not a force.
The thick red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says (November 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm):
Actually I have unsuccessfully tried several times to right-click download it. …
Ray: Thank you for pointing out this problem. I will get it attended to. A link that works (for other people’s benefit) is http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdf
I will just examine one of the topics that you chose to criticise …
Kadaka: First “evidence” is a claimed rigid periodicity of 9.6 years in Canadian lynx pelts, from colonial times to present. This is immediately suspicious due to long harsh Canadian winters thus trade would be suppressed at times that would be peaks. The data is presented with a “ratio scale”, something like logarithmic, distorting the data into the supplied 9.6yr triangular waveform. The major effect noticeable is the 20th century drop in sales as alternatives to animal pelts for winter coats were developed.
Ray: Maybe you can explain how a yearly cycle can interrupt a 9.6 year cycle. That makes no sense at all as multiple winters occur every 9.6 year cycle. Ratio scale is an old term for exactly the same thing as logarithmic scale. It does not distort anything into a triangular waveform. Rather, it allows both the earlier data with lower figures and the later data with higher figures to be seen on a comparable percentage change basis in each cycle. So you cannot see the 9.6 year cycle? It is very widely accepted as a real cycle and is significant at p=0.00000059 so your graph reading is rather lacking.
Kadaka: Further reading reveals the Canada lynx’s diet is primarily composed of snowshoe hares, whose populations follow a 10-year cycle. However that’s only an average, ranging 7 to 17 years, peaks among the different populations do not occur simultaneously.
Ray: The figures of 7 to 17 years quoted are probably misleading as to the actual constancy of the cycle (just as with sunspots). The hare and lynx cycles are similar and lead initially to the idea that it was a predator-prey cycle. However the phases are not really in accord with that idea, and many other creatures follow the same 9.6 year cycle and some of these do not eat each other. These different occurrences of 9.6 year cycles are listed in table 3. Whenever Dewey found such sets of similar cycle periods he found that they also showed common phase. This is a big clue that they all have a common cause. The only possible hint of the cause in this case is that ozone follows a 9.6 year cycle.
Ray: If you do not find Dewey’s paper fascinating, then I think that you are not a true scientist. If you really cannot see the 9.6 year cycle and think that taking logs makes cycles, then your maths and graph skills are not up to doing science.
Kadaka, one more thing that you write is “In short, he [Dewey] is obviously searching for cycles, of durations matching select numbers suitable for claiming interconnections, and will find the data matches his expectations, even when it really doesn’t.”
Ray: This is a totally unjustified assumption on your part. He gathered data on all cycles that he could find which were significant. Many of these cycles studies were done by other scientists in many different fields. The old FSC had as board members many well known scientists, administrators etc., and they had great respect for Dewey. When many cycles periods had been found by analysis, not by magic or assumption, a histogram was made of the periods and the location of peaks was found. Only then did he construct the table showing ratios of 2 and 3 which linked many of the common cycles.
Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena. You will see that some of these appear in the Be10 and C14 spectral analysis. Also, many harmonically related cycles in solar phenomena, noted in peer review articles by Bai et al, including 155 days, 78 days, 52 days, 26 days in solar phenomena of many types. These values linked by 2 and 3 ratios can be extended much further and also link up with other cycles periods found by Dewey that did not fit the ratios from 17.75 years.
My own independent research (before I heard of Dewey), using different data from a different country in a different time period to Dewey found the same pattern of cycles periods. I used a base of 35.6 years, very close to Dewey’s 17.75 years times 2.
Only years after Dewey’s work has understanding of how non-linear systems can generate 2 and 3 ratios been understood. He was ahead of his time.
Ray Tomes says:
November 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena.
Ray, those cycles are called ‘harmonics’ of the fundamental cycle and are artifacts [and not cycles on their own] caused by the shape of the cycle not being a pure sine curve. Here is an example http://www.leif.org/research/FTT-Pure-Distorted.png
Should a Cycle Researcher know this already?
Leif Svalgaard says (November 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm):
Ray Tomes says:
November 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena.
Ray, those cycles are called ‘harmonics’ of the fundamental cycle and are artifacts [and not cycles on their own] caused by the shape of the cycle not being a pure sine curve. Here is an example http://www.leif.org/research/FTT-Pure-Distorted.png
Should a Cycle Researcher know this already?
Leif, I am well aware of harmonics of cycles due to the cycle shape. The shape of the 11 year sunspot cycle clearly causes harmonics of 11 years to be present, especially 5.5 years. However it cannot cause a 352 year cycle. And whereas 2nd and 4th harmonics may happen in this way, higher order harmonics are not usual, and certainly not following a power of 2 series. Rather, such a series only results from *multiple iterations* of non-linear relationships. The existence of 352 years and 88 years in solar proxies shows quite clearly that the 11 year cycle is a result of a long cascading effect of such non-linear relationships rather than a fundamental cycle. For anyone who wants to unravel the mystery of such relationships, they have to give up some of the entrenched beliefs. When that is done, the entire structure of the Universe can be shown to result from cascading non-linear harmonics. See http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html
Leif, sometimes the various harmonics are found in different but related series. For the best examples of this see my summary of 155 day and related solar cycles http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/CRI200510-solar154day.pdf
Note that, just as 352 year cycle is sub-harmonic of 11 years and is unlikely to be caused by it, the 155 day cycle is a sub-harmonic of the solar rotation period. Explain that!
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm
That arrow is not a force, just the vector in the x direction showing the position, not a force.
The thick red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.
Then why even bother showing the vector if it is not important. The vector arrow is creating extra torque on the gravitational force applied from the planets IMO. This is one of the topics that needs to be fleshed out clearly in a separate post. These questions should addressed to the authors.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm
The vector arrow is creating extra torque on the gravitational force applied from the planets IMO. This is one of the topics that needs to be fleshed out clearly in a separate post. These questions should addressed to the authors.
The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.
Ray Tomes says:
November 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm
the entire structure of the Universe can be shown to result from cascading non-linear harmonics.
With such a basis how can rational discussion even be possible.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm
The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.
Solar torque is already created by the movement around the SSB as we are all aware. I think the authors are implying additional torque is created from the tidal mechanism acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge. I will wait for an answer from a suitably qualified astronomer.
Leif, I gave you the link. Its up to you if you do irrational replies or not. But you did not answer the point about how do you get 352 year and 88 year cycles from an 11 year one, did you?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.”
================
Care to convince those of us without ?
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Solar torque is already created by the movement around the SSB as we are all aware.
No, because there is no such force acting on a sun in free fall.
I think the authors are implying additional torque is created from the tidal mechanism acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge.
I would think they would also explicitly mention the ‘torque’ you postulate, rather that just implying it. They calculate the total torque thus “The torque Ni exerted by the i-th planet with mass mi at position ri from the solar barycenter is given by the following expression (see derivation in Appendix B): Nx i = …The total torque is the vector sum over all the planets”
No mention of torque due to movement around the SSB. The calculation of the torque includes the mass of the forcing body. What is the mass of the SSB?
I will wait for an answer from a suitably qualified astronomer
I suggest that Shirley from JPL would qualify http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
“However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” … “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem. … The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type”
Ray Tomes says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm
But you did not answer the point about how do you get 352 year and 88 year cycles from an 11 year one, did you?
No, but answered how you get 44 year cycles. As I showed the 352-yr cycle is not stable. There are certainly longer-term variations of solar activity, but they are intermittent as I said.
u.k.(us) says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Care to convince those of us without ?
http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
“However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” … “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem. … The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type”
Convinced?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2012 at 10:11 am
“A single small sunspot the size of the Earth across carries a current of the order of 1000 billion amps.”
FFS, so how many amps does a Jupiter sized sun spot have?
Sparks says:
November 9, 2012 at 7:46 pm
FFS, so how many amps does a Jupiter sized sun spot have?
Obviously 100 times as many, which will make the effect of the disruption of the flux rope 100 times smaller.
Ok Leif, so you are going to attempt to confuse by invoking a non relevant argument about free fall. Very typical of your style.
I will wait for the experts.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Ok Leif, so you are going to attempt to confuse by invoking a non relevant argument about free fall. Very typical of your style.
The free fall is the important bit, but if you read Appendix B of the Abrey paper you’ll see for yourself that there is no mention of the SSB. The vector xb in Figure B1 is not used for anything.
I will wait for the experts
Ask them.
At some point, you might ask , if these are free falling objects…..
Where is the center of mass, dark matter, or just lots of dust ?
u.k.(us) says:
November 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm
At some point, you might ask , if these are free falling objects…..
Where is the center of mass, dark matter, or just lots of dust ?
The center of the masses are where the masses are observed to be. Otherwise we could not predict their positions as well as we do.