The solar cycle is still slumping

vukcevic says:
July 13, 2013 at 3:20 pm
“It is simpler than that: it is not science at all.”
you mean It is not science results of which should be known.
No, it simply is not science. Spreading pseudo-science is detrimental to society.
Now, if you cannot, as you said – “it is beyond me” – describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period. You are not being a heretic, just a fool [if you think anybody will seriously pay any attention to your ‘enjoyment’].

Wondering now if Daniel Baker, (Van Allen Belt Probe lead?) has read some of these articles concerning bottom up interactions with the radiation belts. Seeing as though he knows about the top down interactions that are simultaneously occurring in the radiation belts.
That Beatles song, “Fixing a Hole,” is still playing in my head..

Sparks says:
July 13, 2013 at 10:10 am
..I also agree with the rest of your comment, the solar systems relationship with the sun or vise-versa is what I mean by an “integral relationship” when you say you think the solar system is accidental, these timing features must then also be accidental and a product of the formation of the solar system itself, but it would also be fantastic to have the ability to study a distant star and its solar system, recently I have been plotting “fantasy” planets and measuring the resonance, perturbations etc… Its an interesting exercise that helps me understand planetary orbits better, but I wouldn’t use it to prove a point (regarding models etc…).
—
You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/

Sparks said:
“Weaker solar cycles or a “quiet sun” coincide with less clouds.”
Apparently not. Global albedo declined during the late 20th century period of active sun and is now recovering with the less active sun.

still some energy left from the wobble
http://www.sibet.org/solar/sc24_forecast_jusa.jpg
However the tidal cycle did not impress after the May 2013 top, suggesting that there is little energy left. The tidal peak this fall is very weak, and the strong peak in January 2014 has little energy from the wobble cycle.
http://www.sibet.org/solar/sc24_forecast_tidal.jpg
So this SC still may have some energy into Feb-March 2014, but the solar maximum seems to have been passed
JAn 🙂

Heh, Geran’s a foil and a pedagogically useful one. I’ll back up Leif’s assertion that this is public service. I’ve also long suspected he’s hoped to find the answer we all seek which is climate understanding, and so far he’s been as disappointed as the rest of us. But his service here, ah, that demonstrates greater faith that answers will be found than most have.
=======================

That’s just gotta be a big clue.
=====================

So its basically demonstrating that the equations are Synthetic sunspot numbers. Wave matching?
What it demonstrates is that if there is a 1024-yr wave that is not a pure sine-wave, then automatically the can be many other peaks [happen to match the ones claimed to be in the real data] so that these other peaks are not independent and that therefore the probability that there are all there by chance is not so astronomically small.
In addition, there is almost certainly sufficient nonlinearity in the system (plus substantial non-Markovian state memory) that the system could do almost anything — exhibit a 1000 year peak for three or four peaks in a row and then completely change to a mode where it peaks in 700 years for a few cycles, then shift to a mode where it peaks in 1900 years for a few cycles, or worse. That is, there could be many peaks not really there by “chance” but at the same time only weakly and inconsistently coincident with any natural drivers one might look for.
We persist on linearizing the climate system and for that matter the sun and the rest of the solar system because our minds naturally perceive and extrapolate linear trends, and because we are professionally overtrained in normal calculus and analytic functions (e.g. Taylor series, power series, functional bases).
IMO, the Earth could at any time initiate a return to glaciation, regardless of the state of GHG concentrations, as it has demonstrated repeatedly in the past. It could OTOH rocket up to an interglacial peak, also independent of GHG concentrations. It could remain nearly stationary for at least a time. It could fluctuate up and down on a mixture of annual, decadal and centurial time scales that has no particular meaning outside of some local linearization or poynomialization or fourier analysis that could at any moment shift to a different one.
In decades, perhaps a century, we might accumulate enough data and learn enough of the science to reduce all of the many GCMs to just one, “the” GCM that actually works. Or, perhaps not even then — there may be fundamental limits to our ability to extrapolate the chaotic climate system, limits that prevent us from ever being able to go out more than a few decades before the moral equivalent of the butterfly effect smears the phase space of future probability out all over the range of the physically plausible. We don’t even know the correct density of phase space proliferation, although even the crude GCMs of today suggest with their spaghetti snarl per model that it is remarkably broad, probably 2-3 times broader even than the range of the spaghetti.
As you note below, we are hampered in our studies of the sun by a lack of stars where we can obtain observational data anywhere near as good as we have in our own solar system, possessing a moderately variable star and a moderately similar planetary system all with the right general age that its dynamics MIGHT be similar to the Sun. We are even more hampered by our lack of any sort of reliable picture of the Earth’s earlier climate. We have only low-resolution proxy-based data, much of which is itself multivariate and hence corrupted by confounding causes (e.g. tree rings, which can be thick or thin for any of many reasons, not just temperature variation).
We have between 30 and 60 years of halfway decent planetary climate data for the Earth, and almost none at all for other planets, let alone other Earth-like planets. For the oceans that cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, the reliable record is just beginning, with perhaps a decade’s worth of data that — once various problems have been resolved — give us a sufficient picture to begin to appreciate the role of the ocean in the evolution of the climate. I doubt that we will accomplish this in less than 30 years, however, and it might well take 100 or even more. It depends in part on just how complicated the answer is, and we don’t even know that.
Separating signal and noise isn’t easy in a system that really is periodic and has a fourier signal there that can be resolved. How can one separate signal and noise in a chaotic, non-periodic or quasiperiodic system? “Signal” begins as nucleating “noise”, grows to become dominant for a few quasiperiodic cycles, then is superceded by a new behavior altogether as noise re-nucleates and grows.
I think that the best that can be said for the GCMs is that they are, in their failure to agree internally one at a time, externally amongst the collection, or statistically with the actual time evolution of the climate, sound evidence that we do not yet know enough to be able to even approximately predict climate trends or system responses to linear perturbations in the drivers. And without the GCMs we are quite literally presuming a linear response to a nonlinear system with an observed scale of natural variability far greater than the predicted linear response, at least so far. We don’t even have a chance of resolving most of the climate issues yet.
In the meantime, looking for periodic coincidences in “ancient” (pre-electronic, pre-satellite) data is sheer numerology. We cannot re-perform the measurements made by others a century ago with far cruder instrumentation than we have today. All we can do is look at the data record produced at that time and guess how it might relate to a related record taken today.
Patience is a virtue in science, but sadly we have allowed the scientific establishment en masse to become a grant-fed fishbowl where almost no work is done where progress cannot reliably be measured in at most three year increments, and where career progress depends on finding somepositive result, not merely eliminating possible hypotheses or publishing “I looked for X but found nothing interesting”. This is a problem not just in climate science but in medical research, general physics, and many other places as well. Worse, the research usually has to be presented somehow as if it might be useful — produce a new technology, cure cancer, save the world — to get funded. One cannot just study something interesting for its own sake and with little hope of making instant progress anywhere outside of pure mathematics (and God knows, probably not even there).
Sigh.
rgb

vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:38 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 13, 2013 at 4:00 pm
describe how your ‘data’ is defined and collected then you are not doing science, period.
There is no mystery to either data or description, it is straightforward, ..forward, the N. Atlantic SST relation to is a matter of hydro-thermo-dynamics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm ..
..The big puzzle is why geological data are correlated to the solar activity , it may be resolved in future by another generation. If you were a bit more cooperative you would have it long ago.
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 5:47 pm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm Any chances that you are going to be bring this up to date, Vuk..
Data has been around since mid 1990s, it was just matter of simple filtering. I will eventually write something, ..
Thanks for the link , may have some new and useful info.
—
Now you got my brain tinking about hydro-thermo-dynamics.
But it couldn’t get past the ‘magnetic element.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the dynamics of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water or electrolytes. The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.
The fundamental concept behind MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which in turn creates forces on the fluid and also changes the magnetic field itself. The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically.
Earths overall field has been in decline for some time now. The solar system is showing signs of its age? Shrinking and slowing down. But so slowly, that it is incomprehensible to our longer range measurements of parameters like field strength or cosmic rays etc.
I’ll be back..

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:53 am
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:01 am
I’m still curious about the ‘primarily southern hemispheric’. This was a prolonged period of asymmetry, was it not?
Yes it was. See slide 33 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
—
Thanks Dr. S. has Vuks seen slide 33?.. Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
But all the articles are stacking up around me and Windows wants to restart (always a hassle) my computer for updates. ick

Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
Then is 70 – 100 years the interstellar magnetic ‘cycle?’ When we see it manifest through the hemispheric asymmetry in our solar cycle?
No, Carla, there is no 70-100 yr interstellar magnetic cycle. The interstellar field changes on time scales thousands of times longer. Here is some information about the interstellar medium: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1307-2899-ISM-pdf

half the period 35 – 45 years, then twice the period giving us 70 – 100 years