Solar Cycle 24 Update

Guest essay by David Archibald

Recently, a number of newspaper articles spoke of the potential of cycle 25 to be   “Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”. “We’re in a new age of solar physics,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Here is a collection of solar measurements that illustrate the current state of cycle 24, as well as provide insight into cycle 25.

image

Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2013

This graph suggests that it may be a further six months or more to solar cycle maximum. Neutron count tends to follow the solar cycle with up to a one year lag so it may be another 18 months before we get to the minimum neutron count for Solar Cycle 24.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Oulu Neutron Count for Solar Cycles 20 to 24 aligned on month of minimum

In terms of neutron count, Solar Cycle 24 isn’t much weaker than the previous four cycles at a similar stage of development.

image

Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2013

The Ap Planetary Magnetic Index has now spent the last couple of years below the levels of previous solar cycle minima, including an all-time record low for the data set.

image

Figure 4: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle

Solar minimum is marked by the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle. This tends to be quite sharp. Solar maxima are a lot broader with the current maximum the broadest of the instrument record. There is no indication yet from this measure that solar maximum is over.

image

Figure 5: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2013

The F10.7 flux shows that Solar Cycle 24 is quite a weak cycle relative to the ones that have preceded it in the instrumental record.

image

Figure 6: F10.7 Flux of Solar Cycles 19 to 24 aligned on month of minimum

In terms of F10.7 flux, Solar Cycle 24 peaked two years ago. The relationship between F10.7 flux and sea level rise indicates that a flux of 100 is the break-over between climate warming and cooling. The flux level has been at about that value for the last three years.

image

Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2013

The 1970s cooling period had a weak and flat interplanetary magnetic field over Solar Cycle 20. Solar Cycle 24 could produce a similar result with a slightly lower average value over the cycle.

image

Figure 8: Solar Cycle 24 sunspot count relative to the Dalton Minimum

All things considered, the current solar cycle is tracking Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, fairly closely.

clip_image018

Figure 9: Predicting the year of maximum of Solar Cycle 25

Just over two years ago, Richard Altrock of the National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak published the latest version of his green corona emissions diagram.

He stated at the time that the progression of the Solar Cycle 24 was 40% slower than the average of the previous two cycles. That would make it 15.5 years long. Given that the cycle started in December 2008 and solar maximum is in 2013, that makes the Solar Cycle 24 fall time 11.5 years.

Figure 9 shows the strong relationship between fall time and the time from maximum to maximum. Based on that relationship, the Solar Cycle 24 fall time derives a period of 17 years from the Solar Cycle 24 maximum to the Solar Cycle 25 maximum – putting it in 2030.

Advertisements

212 thoughts on “Solar Cycle 24 Update

  1. David,
    “The relationship between F10.7 flux and sea level rise indicates that a flux of 100 is the break-over between climate warming and cooling. The flux level has been at about that value for the last three years.”
    Is this F10.7 relationship based on raw values or values adjusted for earth’s orbital position? Thanks.

  2. Nice work David A. Easy to read for people who do not know much about what gives life to earth every day, the Sun.
    Thanks

  3. Don Allen says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:14 am

    In 2006 Mr. Hathaway said SC 24 was going to be the biggest in 400 years. As far as I am concerned he has a large credibility gap.

    Oh give him a break. Solar physicists have learned a lot from SC 24 and will learn a lot from SC 25. This is their “Golden Era,” and the knowledge gained since 2006 is stunning.
    There were two groups with separate predictions for SC 24, Hathaway was in the group expecting a strong cycle. Leif was in the group that expected a cycle much like we are experiencing.
    At least Hathaway isn’t griping that the sunspots are hiding under the surface of the Sun like some climate scientists gripe about “our” missing heat hiding under the sea surface on Earth.

  4. In April 2007, a NOAA/SWPC prediction said:

    In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.

    See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html for some of the history of the SC 24 predictions.

  5. Gee, it’s lucky that the Sun doesn’t have any effect on the global climate, or we could be in deep cooling-induced doo-doo in years to come /sarc

  6. Well said Ric. Hathaway constantly revises his predictions, fitting his projections to the evidence. He has little other choice – it would be obvious if he had his head in the sand.

  7. Verity Jones says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:47 am
    Hathaway constantly revises his predictions, fitting his projections to the evidence. He has little other choice – it would be obvious if he had his head in the sand.
    As he must do to give a forecast that is useful in real time. You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.

  8. All I gots to say is that this is a moment in time that I”m sure solar physicists can thank their lucky stars for. Regardless of what the predictions are … Cycle 24 is without doubt different from the last 3 cylces, and that gives them the opportunity to actually learn something in real time.
    It’s really kind of impossible, in my opinion, to go comparing cycle 24 to cycles of past, simply because we didn’t have any satelites floating around up there back in the 1800’s or early 1900s. It’s the same beef I have with these idiots pretending they can give you an accurate reading of what the temperature was based tree rings. it’s all good for academics .. but none of it is reality.
    Also … the next 10-15 years or so will definitely settle the question whether Climate is driven by Natural forces, or by CO2. The Collection of data during this period should make for some really good study on if or how the sun may interact with our climate.

  9. I cannot equate Hathaway’s approach to his solar revisions with the climate folks who continue to insist that anthropogenic-related heat is now hiding in places we can’t measure. In fact, I give him major props for his revisions. They are excellent examples of good science. It is good for researchers to remember that a Ph.D. gives you official license to publicly investigate what you don’t know. Hathaway appears to be taking that license seriously.

  10. I found it interesting that there was an El Nino every time the Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle (fig 4) started to rise quickly. I guess this means the Pacific Ocean drives the Sun after all. 😉

  11. I have not paid attention to the sunspot argument, so collection of charts could use more words. Solar cycle amplitude is measured in what? The amplitude looks to be inverse to neutron count? Maybe a blurb about what current sheet tilt angle is?
    All of these answers are readily available on Google, but it would be user friendly to add just a few more paragraphs here.

  12. Dr. Deanster says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:09 am
    It’s really kind of impossible, in my opinion, to go comparing cycle 24 to cycles of past, simply because we didn’t have any satelites floating around up there back in the 1800′s or early 1900s.
    The sunspot number for cycle 24 is not determined by satellites, but deliberately with small terrestrial telescopes like the ones shown in Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf

  13. . “We’re in a new age of solar physics,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
    Without an accurate physical model, Hathaway and the rest use a statistical model [which is based on history] for prediction. Now that the statistical model has failed, “We’re in the new age of solar physics”. I thought that “solar physics was settled”!?!?
    My physical model is based on the following:
    1) Hydrogen burn rates on the surface of the core.
    2) Hydrogen inflow rates [fuel supply for the burning of hydrogen].
    3) Size of the Sun’s core.
    4) Solar energy output.
    5) Oscillatory time position [where we are in the burn cycle at the core surface].
    The results are the following:
    1) Every 360 to 380 years the surface of the core has consumed available hydrogen.
    2) Hydrogen burning [consumption] decreases.
    3) It takes 30 to 40 years for the hydrogen inflow to make up the deficiency.
    4) The core pulses in size like a heart beat [360 years]. The entire size of the Sun is decreased.
    5) Cycle repeats starting with hydrogen burning increasing.
    The ~11 year cycle is caused by higher speed motions of the plasma near the Solar surface. These motions are a result of the surface of the core hydrogen burning [energy slowly flows to the Sun’s surface].
    We are headed for a 10.7 cm Flux of 70 to 100 for the next 10 years. We will all see what this does to the Earth’s Global temperature.

  14. Leif,
    I asked this a week or two ago but was not back on the thread to see if you replied. Many seem to think that more sunspots are correlated with higher temp.’s on earth. But sunspots are actually cool areas on the sun. Awhile back you said you thought that some of the past temp. minimums (Maunder, Dalton, et.) were due to volcanos which just happened to occur during low sunspots. And you implied that maybe the sun was hotter with fewer sunspots and could increase temp’s on earth. What is the level of understanding and agreement in this area?

  15. Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong.

  16. “As he must do to give a forecast that is useful in real time. You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.”
    Yes, we do. The statistical methods are grossly misleading and do not qualify as physical science. Statistical models assume the Universe has a steady state, rather than a variable state. We need a more accurate physics model to identify the actual physical processes taking place in the Universe, rather than a bookie service trying to play the odds.
    Oliver Manuel has shown physical evidence from real measurements of the Sun and observations of the planets that the Sun has a solid core and composes from elements much heavier than just hydrogen and helium. This solid core sloshes around due to variations in the solar barycenter, which is determined by the combined planetary gravitational influences. The solar barycenter is just now completing an exceptionally long transit of the solar surface as opposed to oscillating perpendicular to the solar surface. The dynamics of the Sun are driven by the movement of the solar barycenter and not by statistics.
    It is clear to those of us who follow physical processes that we are heading for an exceptionally cooler climate that will not fully recover for about 150 years. Based upon the exceptionally long transit of the solar barycenter over the solar surface, this grand cycle will be deeper than even the Maunder Minimum.
    Also, watch the Gulf Stream. If shifting weather patterns and/or high energy weapons transfers significant heat to the Caribbean waters, and the Gulf Stream extends north into the Labrador Sea, then we will see a different event with even much colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere after a very violent weather phenomenon. However, although this secondary event is a real possibility, I have not yet seen evidence that such an event is imminent.

  17. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:49 am
    “Count on Archibald to be inaccurate. His Figure 8 purports to be ‘SIDC Monthly Data’. It is not. Here is what that graph should look like if the data had been from SIDC http://www.leif.org/research/David20.png
    It looks like Archibald should have lined 24 up with SC6 instead.

  18. Bill_W says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:36 am
    What is the level of understanding and agreement in this area?
    Medium to Low
    One more question. Do you think we have hit solar max yet?
    Solar max for a low cycle is usually a drawn-out affair [can last several years] and is hard to define. We have definitely entered the maximum ‘interval’ and will stray there for some time. The total solar irradiance is still going up and is now the highest ever measured by the reliable instrument on SORCE since 2003 [even though the sunspot number and F10.7 flux now are lower than they were in 2003].
    Patrick says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:46 am
    Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong
    As paraphrased Leif is very wrong. In reality, Leif maintains that the solar cycle causes a cyclic change of temperature [not 30-yr average climate] of the order of 0.1 degrees.

  19. David Thomson says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
    Yes, we do. The statistical methods are grossly misleading and do not qualify as physical science.
    A successful [and scientifically correct] statistical method predicts that next summer will be warmer than the coming winter. Farmers rely very much on this prediction.
    Oliver Manuel has shown physical evidence from real measurements of the Sun and observations of the planets that the Sun has a solid core and composes from elements much heavier than just hydrogen and helium.
    Oliver is a crank and his ideas are baloney. You believing his nonsense makes you a crank too.

  20. Well, I would say Dr Hathaway is practicing science as it should be done (in his predictions). This is quite a deviation from the CAGW crowd who are dead set on “The heat must be hiding somewhere”.
    Its rather interesting how this maximum and now on to minimum is showing how magnetism and theoretical waves emanating from the sun may or may not be a factor in our climate. Its a fun time to be even a garage or layman scientist..

  21. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:05 am

    Oliver is a crank and his ideas are baloney. You believing his nonsense makes you a crank too.

    At least he’s a well mannered crank, though I’m a bit disappointed he hasn’t changed his lunch meat.

  22. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:56 am
    Patrick says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:46 am
    Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong
    As paraphrased Leif is very wrong. In reality, Leif maintains that the solar cycle causes a cyclic change of temperature [not 30-yr average climate] of the order of 0.1 degrees.”
    And I am in no dispute, other than effect. You claim none, this rock appears to disagree!

  23. Dr. Lurtz says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:33 am
    Some time ago I tried to get Lief to understand the burn cycle. I was discounted pretty abruptly but this did not stop me from considering what is known fact. As a fire consumes its fuel it leaves inhibitors in the remaining burning fuel (especially important with fission reactions). While this may happen at the suns core it still happens and can not be attenuated out by the distance traveled to the surface.
    Of another concern with a fission reaction is magnetic pull to remove those burned particles from the burning area. If the reaction is slowed by garbage in your process and it cools suspending that garbage for long periods of time where the burning should take place the sun could very well get very cool for a very long time before those particles leave the normal burning area.
    Using your 360 year model and amount of dead material created in the fission burning area of the core, reduced output could be held at a low rate for 90,000+ years if it cools slightly and the expended material is slow to migrate to the center of the core. Low magnetic pull due to a decreased solar dynamo could very well be what sends us into a glaciation phase on earth.
    12,000 years would create a substantial amount garbage in the burning chamber. It would also explain the gradual cooling after a rapid start up and then a sudden cool down when the reaction becomes overloaded.
    In layman’s terms, this would equate with dirty injectors and no way to clean them out, making the motor run rough and the power robbed.. The suns magnetism is the injector cleaner. If it is low or non-existent the low output remains for a very long time.

  24. Don Allen says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:14 am
    In 2006 Mr. Hathaway said SC 24 was going to be the biggest in 400 years. As far as I am concerned he has a large credibility gap.
    —————————————————————————————————————————
    That’s funny, I was just thinking the same thing when reading his predictions for cycle 25.
    Like in my line of work…. there are some that are really good at the job and some that are not, even though we are all qualified at the same skill set. Looks like this holds true in this line of work as well.

  25. And to think of all the wasted time I’ve spent over the years seeking shade on a hot day !

  26. Use of statistical methods to predict the future are valid as long as there is no change in the status quo [simplistic statement]. The Sun will apparently move around the equator -+23.5 degrees over a year period on a sinusoidal basis. So we can use this statistically verified physical model to predict where the Sun will be on a peculiar day of the year.
    But if there is a change to the Earth’s orbit, or the the Earth’s tilt, the historical statistics will make an incorrect prediction. We need a new physical model. This is the same for the Solar Cycles and for the “Climate Change”. The status quo is changing, therefore, using history to try to predict the future is not only wrong but scientifically a travesty.

  27. I just checked and found once again that the occurrence of CMEs (magnetic storms) this month correlate to daily increases in the UAH tropospheric temperature. These small increases usually last from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.
    Since CMEs generally track the solar cycle (with a bit of a tail), could they be the source of the historic correlation between solar cycles and temperature? It seems like something worth studying. With data from 1979 available it would seem to be worth the effort of a master’s thesis at a minimum.

  28. David Thompson says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
    “If shifting weather patterns and/or high energy weapons transfers significant heat to the Caribbean waters …”
    David,
    I did not follow that bit. Could you clarify what process “high energy weapons” is referring to? Thanks.

  29. I find this post deceptive. The graphs show weak cycle 20 and then label the 1970s cooling period. If we can claim that there has been a pause since 1998 then the mid 20th century pause was 1940s through 1970s not a 1970s cooling period. That 30 year period contained monster cycle 19.
    The warmists have continually pointed out the not perfect correlation between temperature and solar cycles. When will Archibald be more honest in his presentation?

  30. highflight56433 says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:23 am
    The Russians are building new ice-breakers…hint hint! Why build ice-breakers? hint hint!
    So that they can exploit the Arctic sea routes opened up by global warming…

  31. David Archibald,
    Thank you for supplying for our benefit the only solid and collective material by which we can anticipate what the future might be relative to climate. I don’t remember since 07 when I began to see your material posted here, any other climate scientist who was predicting the now well accepted fact that the earth will enter into a protracted cooling period. A great deal must be said about your foresight, courage, and intelligence to make bold predictions as you have. These predictions are baring out today and are now being expanded upon by the scientific community.

  32. lf the less active sun does cause cooling, then am beginning to understand how it could do it and that the cooling could be sudden. Because during summer we have been getting a Polar jet that has been splitting in two. Where you get these splits you often have areas of high pressure sitting in the middle of them. What would be a real worry is that this pattern lasts into the winter. As these highs will set up large pools of cold air, due to drawing cold air down from the north and heat loss by clearer sky’s.
    But because you got the jet running to the north and south of them. Then you will have areas of low pressure running to the north and south of them as well, along with the weather fronts they bring.
    This sort of set up would bring cold and snowy winters to large areas of the northern half of the NH. lf this sort of pattern sets in for a dozen years or more, then you could be looking at the process of what causes ice ages to form.

  33. I enjoy sitting back watching these discussions. IMO what the recent events have shown is that the sun’s behavior and it’s impact on Earth is still not well understood and not yet predictable. What’s that you say? Professior X predicted it? That group at y predicted it. Of course – every possible prediction for this cycles was made – someone’s prediction HAD to be right! Doesn’t mean the theories behing those predictions are correct and the future will be as they predict. Far from it. From what we have seen, everyone will be right on something and wrong on other things, leaving total doubt as to what the future will bring, and that makes for an E-ticket ride through this universe!

  34. Bill H says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Paraphrased: I have a solar model.

    How does a magnetic field move more massive nuclei out of a “burn chamber”? If the solar magnetic field is caused by the motion of charged particles, then it is consequence of the heat produced from fusion. In your model, if the magnetic field is weak, fusion would be reduced to a lower level. A weaker magnetic field would presumably make fusion even weaker, a positive feedback. Where does the feedback end?
    It is hard to believe fusion rates change much in the Sun. Simply stated, it seems you’ve reversed cause and effect in your model. That reminds me of CO2 and global warming dogma.

  35. Bill H says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
    You are speaking of fission reactors, perhaps I am wrong but is not the Sun a fusion reactor?
    What are the “burned particles” left over from fusion? Does fusion actually “burn” anything?

  36. L Svalgaard,
    “You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.”
    Most weathermen don’t have the gall to make forecasts more than a few days out.

  37. Dr. Lurtz says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:59 am
    The status quo is changing, therefore, using history to try to predict the future is not only wrong but scientifically a travesty.
    Whatever is changing is changing slowly enough that using the historical shape of the cycle adjusted to match the cycle so far is good science [and the only thing we have that is not just based on wild, non-quantified dreams]

  38. Jtom says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:52 am
    “I enjoy sitting back watching these discussions. IMO what the recent events have shown is that the sun’s behavior and it’s impact on Earth is still not well understood and not yet predictable. What’s that you say? Professior X predicted it? That group at y predicted it. Of course – every possible prediction for this cycles was made – someone’s prediction HAD to be right! Doesn’t mean the theories behing those predictions are correct and the future will be as they predict. Far from it. From what we have seen, everyone will be right on something and wrong on other things, leaving total doubt as to what the future will bring, and that makes for an E-ticket ride through this universe!”
    I think you have to realize the difference in solar theory that is used by the predictors. Dr Hathaway’s SC 24 prediction was based on his understanding of the solar cycle and Dr Svalgaard’s prediction was based on how he understands the solar cycle. It appears that Dr Svalgaard’s understanding of how it works is pretty much on the money, for now. But as he always says, as more reliable data comes in understandings get modified according to where the data takes you, as Dr Hathaway is doing. That is a process we all can live with.

  39. Eric Barnes says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:10 am
    Most weathermen don’t have the gall to make forecasts more than a few days out.
    The Sun is so big that it does not change from one day to the next.

  40. Dr. Svalgaard kindly provided data for Danish Aurora observations.
    These show expected coincidence with solar cycles, but it appears that during odd cycles the aurorae appearance has a better match with the SSN, i.e. aurora is relatively more frequent during odd cycles, resulting in a strong spectral component at Hale cycle, which is not so evident in the sunspot cycle.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
    Dr.S. obviously disputes this, just attributing longer periods to harmonics (I think he meant sub-harmonics, harmonic being an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency not its wavelength).
    What is significance of the finding?
    Only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth reacts differently to sunspot polarity.
    Is there another independent set of data showing similar sunspot polarity digression effect?
    Yes, data from Jackson-Bloxham show the LOD oscillations correlate with the sunspot polarity
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
    Why would this matter anyway?
    It could be the long sought after evidence of a variable solar input beyond and above the TSI with profound consequences for the climate’s natural variability as discussed here in more detail:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

  41. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:15 am
    Only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth reacts differently to sunspot polarity.
    Not reasonable as in every solar cycle there are sunspots of both polarities [Hales’s law], so there is nothing to react differently to.

  42. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:15 am
    Dr.S. obviously disputes this, just attributing longer periods to harmonics
    The periods longer than 11 yrs are harmonics of the 100-yr long wave modulating the sunspot cycle, not ‘Hale cycle’ peaks.

  43. taxed says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:51 am
    “This sort of set up would bring cold and snowy winters to large areas of the northern half of the NH. lf this sort of pattern sets in for a dozen years or more, then you could be looking at the process of what causes ice ages to form.”
    If this sort of setup prevails global temperatures may not actually decline much. In fact, ocean temperatures may remain the same or elevate, to compensate for reduced radiation from NH continents. Oceans will continue to pump moisture into the air and land areas will receive the benefits, or perhaps too much of a good thing.

  44. Basic Questions for the solar scientists:
    1) If the chaotic atmospheric heat engines of earth make accurate weather prediction out past a few days difficult, why wouldn’t the more energetic heat engines of the sun make it’s atmospheric flow even more difficult to predict in the same manner ?
    2) is it also true that the behavior of the sun – it’s climate – is based on empirical observation (for a very limited period), and similar to earth’s various ‘climates’, defined by arbitrary start and end points such that the probability of an exceptional event equals one divided by the total units of the defined period (e.g. the probability of a flood exceeding the 100 year flood for any future year equals 1/100) ?
    3) Does anyone actually believe that we completely understand the long-term behavior of the sun and there is nothing basic left to learn about it’s behavior ?
    As a biologist, I can say with accuracy that we know little and understand less about life on earth, speaking for myself at any rate. For example, we still have not described perhaps even half of the probably total species present on the planet and progress is “glacial”.

  45. “Dr. Svalgaard kindly provided data for Danish Aurora observations.”
    My father, lived as a young boy in Mo I Rana Norway in the 30s, and told me that the auroras then was spectacular and that felt that he could hear the cracking noise from it. Never felt the same since.

  46. BioBob says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:29 am
    1) If the chaotic atmospheric heat engines of earth make accurate weather prediction out past a few days difficult, why wouldn’t the more energetic heat engines of the sun make it’s atmospheric flow even more difficult to predict in the same manner ?
    The Sun is very large and can only change slowly. Think of how to make a row boat change course versus turning around an oil supertanker.
    2) is it also true that the behavior of the sun
    see reply to 1)
    3) Does anyone actually believe that we completely understand the long-term behavior of the sun and there is nothing basic left to learn about it’s behavior ?
    We don’t need to understand something completely in order to make reasoned predictions based on what we know. I step on a tiger’s paw and can make a pretty good prediction that that is not a good thing to do.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:25 am
    …………..
    So 11 year sunspot cycle is 9th harmonic of 100 year fundamental ?!
    Hmmm…. that is a news to me, but I will buy it if reluctantly, you insist.
    And what happened to Miss Feynman’s
    “Eighty Year Periodicity in Solar-Terrestrial Phenomena Confirmed”
    you were promoting only yesterday

  48. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:46 am
    So 11 year sunspot cycle is 9th harmonic of 100 year fundamental ?!
    Hmmm…. that is a news to me, but I will buy it if reluctantly, you insist.

    Peaks at ~50, ~33, and ~20 years are harmonics of the longer cycle. As the harmonics have decreasing amplitude you can hardly see their contribution to the ~10-yr peak. No need for you to pretend [?] to be stupid…
    And what happened to Miss Feynman’s
    Her analysis also shows the harmonics of the long cycle, so take that to heart.

  49. Hathaway keeps talking/writing about the Maunder Minimum and an new Ice Age. It’s as if he is writing a book on the coming Coldpocalyse. If Suzuki can get 30 grand for lecturing students on how to hate man for what he has done to the world. I’d like to see Hathaway get 30 grand for giving students a view that nature, not man, has the power in this universe. Just don’t ask me for taxes to build heat-generating machines to offset the arrival of glaciers.
    Back to our near-reality:
    The Dalton is a lot more similar at this point. It would take a further collapse to take us from the Dalton to the Maunder. That being said, the weather in the Eastern United States was already cold prior to the Dalton. The Revolutionary War of the US was conducted – or should I say stopped – with horrible winters and the Valley Forge bit of American history. Our previous 30 years was better than the Dalton’s previous 30 years. If we are heading into a similar temp drop, we’re starting at a higher level. Of course, if we choose to say that each Cycle determines the temperatures in an intrinsic way, i.e. the Sun’s overall performance doesn’t change, then we can drop ourselves into the Dalton-as-was. But that will then say that even the LIA wasn’t a change in the fundamental heat output of the Sun but of energy redistribution here on planet Earth. Which has some arguments for it, though I am not of the opinion/personal bias based on conflicting data, that is so (I’m a geologist, by the way, concerned about past climate conditions every day of my professional life).
    A Dalton-drop from today would take us only back to the 1920s, perhaps, or even maybe only to the 1940s. The mid-1940s had terrible cold winters in Europe – as the German army found out. But not civilization defining cold. Certainly enough of a change for these times to put an end to CO2 hysteria – actually, only to postpone it, as you know the Gore-ists and Suzuki acolytes would merely say the heating is “hiding” and will come back with a vengeance, two for one rise and crisp us all. All information can be spun by a determined mind.
    This Archibald essay is fabulous, by the way. Letting the data speak for itself with mild interpretations. Two questions, though:
    1. Various curves, including the sunspot number, show truncated peaks (and valleys, though less so). I mean that a nice smooth series of curves could be plotted up/down one side, through a maximum/minimum and down/up the other. These “truncations”: could they reflect negative feedback mechanisms that become meaningful, i.e. stronger, at the extremes? I don’t read of feedback mechanisms in solar or other physics, though I expect they exist.
    2. The last graph, Figure 9, plotting Fall Time: although we see non-linear relationships everywhere, this graph has a linear relationship plotted. As with the temperature graphs, the sea-level graphs, all the climate change graphs, the linear treatment puzzles me. I understand that CAGW has, in the short-term, a linear response to CO2, so the warmists want that to be displayed. Why the skeptics do (with the exception of step-functions) I don’t know, as the curving nature of the ups and downs looks pretty obvious. With Figure 9, a non-linear relationship would honour our last data point better, pulling a curve up.
    A curvi-linear relationship would then give a maximum of more like 18+ years, and a Cycle 24 Fall time of <11 years. (Start the curve above the lowest value, go through the mass of data, closely approach the highest/most recent value. With the number of datapoints, one can easily argue that true statistical validity is not certain as the current datapoints do not fully represent actual statistical distribution.)
    Can someone explain why

  50. Eric Barnes says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:10 am

    L Svalgaard,
    “You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.”
    Most weathermen don’t have the gall to make forecasts more than a few days out.

    It was an analogy, analogies are typically not perfect. Leif’s comment was directed at the several folks who think solar physicists should make a forecast and then stick with with it for the duration of a solar cycle. While people sort of do that to test climate model predictions, it makes far more sense to come up with better forecasts as the data, timing, and science permits, if your interest is in the future.
    BTW, here in the US, the NWS is making seven day forecasts of some parameters. See http://www.weather.gov/ . New England Cable News is making 10 day forecasts on their evening broadcasts. Sometimes its not a very high confidence forecast. After all, it is New England.

  51. Ric Werme says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:00 am
    Leif’s comment was directed at the several folks who think solar physicists should make a forecast and then stick with with it for the duration of a solar cycle.
    A forecast is needed long before the cycle so that people that build satellites [and insure them!] have as long a lead time as possible. Even satellite operations need long lead time forecasts. A good example is the Hubble space telescope. If cycle 24 would have been a very large cycle, Hubble would have fallen out of the sky. NASA was preparing to de-orbit the spacecraft safely, but when Schatten and I predicted a small cycle NASA [trusting that we knew what we were talking about :-)] decided to keep the telescope in orbit [making a lot more good science possible].
    it makes far more sense to come up with better forecasts as the data, timing, and science permits, if your interest is in the future
    It is amazing that some people can’t see that, but, hey, it takes all kinds…

  52. > Leif said: The Sun is very large and can only change slowly.
    > We don’t need to understand something completely in order to make reasoned predictions based on what we know.
    ———————————————–
    Sounds reasonable but any one solar area can change quickly (like sunspots) and the whole is simply the sum of the parts couched in a theorized ‘system’. A ‘local’ solar flare of adequate size lasting hours can destroy some of earth’s human infrastructure. Integrating over the entire sun simply increases the sample size and standard deviation, in a manner of speaking. The same can be said for earth’s ‘climate’ as well. We can conjecture about the nature of global processes of the sun or earth but any scientist must admit that empirical observation of any system’s changes is based on the length or effort expended. Likewise, theories based on those observations can change on the same basis as ‘new’ behaviors are observed. Nothing wrong with this but it is important to understand our limitations and the limitations of prediction of inherently chaotic systems.

  53. poches
    What risks happening with the Polar jet pattern l have outlined is that it locks in a climate within these splits. Outside to the south of these patterns it can be warm as toast. But within these patterns you will get bitter winter weather. Also when the Polar jet splits the southern part will track further to the south. Pushing the cloud cover and colder air further to the south as well. While further to the north where the highs are clearer sky’s and snow cover will allow very rapid cooling. Any increase in moisture is likely to lead to more snowfall which would only add to the problem.

  54. BioBob says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:12 am
    Integrating over the entire sun simply increases the sample size and standard deviation
    Integration decreases the error in the estimate [roughly error = standard deviation / sqrt(number of elements over which you integrate].
    Nothing wrong with this but it is important to understand our limitations and the limitations of prediction of inherently chaotic systems.
    and you assume that solar physicists are morons who does not know that and fully consider this.

  55. Peaks at ~50, ~33, and ~20 years are harmonics of the longer cycle. No need for you to pretend [?] to be stupid…
    Quite so…
    Harmony of harmonics, cyclomania creeping in, its contagious you know…
    Let’s see: If 100 year (not in my graph, link below) is the fundamental (but in the last century may have been 80, what a mess)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
    50 = 2nd (not in my graph, link above)
    but these are:
    31 could be 33 with a bit of stretching = 3rd
    21 with a bit of squeezing = 5th
    12.6 = 8th
    11 = 9th
    there also 8.3 (12th) and 6.7 (15th)

  56. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:28 am
    there also 8.3 (12th) and 6.7 (15th)
    Once you are on that side of 11, the harmonics of the long cycle have dwindled to nothing, but now there will be [and are] harmonics from the 11-yr cycle. People suffering from cyclomania do not accept harmonics and think every peak is its own independent, physically important peak.

  57. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “……… The sunspot number for cycle 24 is not determined by satellites, but deliberately with small terrestrial telescopes like the ones shown in Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf …………”
    Yes Leif … I know this. But really, if you are going to tell me that the methodology for counting sun spots has not changed since the 1500’s, I’ll have so say that I would find that amusing.
    I look at a spot, … I count one … but the sun spot number says 25. Likewise, I seriously doubt that if today’s technology and methods were available during the Maunder Minimum, we’d see the same results of practically no sunspots. Surely there were a few “pimples” that were missed in those days that would have registered a sun spot number of 5-15 these days.
    Just sayin’

  58. Dr. Deanster says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
    Yes Leif … I know this. But really, if you are going to tell me that the methodology for counting sun spots has not changed since the 1500′s, I’ll have so say that I would find that amusing.
    The methodology was introduced in the 1850s and was applied to all records [one could find] back to the telescopic discovery of sunspots 400 years ago. Nothing amusing about that.
    Now, unfortunately the method was changed slightly in 1890s and in the 1940s which have led to some in-homogeneities in the record. This was recognized recently and efforts are under way to correct that: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf

  59. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:28 am
    Let’s see: If 100 year (not in my graph, link below) is the fundamental (but in the last century may have been 80, what a mess)
    Yes, the Sun is messy. Most of the problems finding harmonics of the long cycle stem from the time series being too short. The longest one we have [with the smallest error] is the sunspot series. If you study the FFT of the SSN series since 1700 [when the data is perhaps good]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png you can see the harmonics in actuion. Starting with the 100-yr peak we would expect a 50-yr peak, then 33, 25 [weak], 20, 16, 14,… and they are there. Put differently: if there is a long cycle which is not a pure sine wave, there MUST be harmonics, so no wonder we see them.

  60. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    …….
    Yes agree, harmonics naturally dwindle, until 100 years fundamental’s fifth harmonic hits electromagnetic magnetospheric feedback resonance (Vukcevic hypothesis)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    and what do you know, we have polar magnetic field synchronised with 5th harmonic.
    Polar magnetic field gives rise to the next sunspot cycle is the Svalgaard hypothesis.
    Oh yea, there is a Hale cycle somewhere in there too.
    Agree? No, what, too simple ?!
    Yep, . the Sun is messy place
    Off I go!

  61. The main thrust of the article – “Solar Cycle 25 will be very weak.” – seems right to me. But, in my opinion, the data set we have available is too small in comparison to the overall phenomenon of Solar Cycle Behavior to be able to accurately predict what the next cycle will be like. I look forward to seeing Cycle 25 because each new piece of the puzzle gets us closer to the truth.
    I like the Low Sunspot Number = More Cosmic Radiation = More Cloud Formation = Lower Global Temps idea better than the Slightly Increased CO2 = Runaway Greenhouse = Fireball Earth model, but we certainly don’t see the whole picture, yet, and we don’t really know.

  62. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
    “So that they can exploit the Arctic sea routes opened up by global warming…”
    ======
    Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway ?
    They must have done a cost/benefit analysis.
    They are still done, aren’t they ?, or is it just a race to spend taxpayers money faster than the other competitors in the race.

  63. u.k.(us) says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    Russian scientists tend to be CAGW skeptics. IMO Russia is building the new class of icebreakers to replace smaller, aging Arktika class ships, & to facilitate the growing economic importance of the Northern Sea Route. The large yet shallow draft nuclear-powered vessels will also be useful on Siberian rivers.

  64. u.k.(us) says: July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm “Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway?” The sea routes may be opening up but the embayments, where the ports and economies are, will still be ice bound.
    Our lakes shipping lanes are often ice free, but still we keep an ice breaker near by and sturdy fishing-tugs (boat) are occasionally used to break a path through the ice shoved into ferry breakwaters.

  65. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    Yes agree, harmonics naturally dwindle, until 100 years fundamental’s fifth harmonic hits electromagnetic magnetospheric feedback resonance
    There is no need to invent unphysical extra causes for something that has a natural explanation. If a cycle is asymmetric some harmonics will be missing [which ones depend on the exact asymmetry]. As a simple illustration check this http://www.leif.org/research/Missing-Harmonics.png where with the particular asymmetry shown in the upper right causes the 2nd and 5th harmonic to go away.
    Agree? No, what, too simple ?!
    Too simplistic and unnecessary.
    Steele says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    The main thrust of the article – “Solar Cycle 25 will be very weak.” – seems right to me. But, in my opinion, the data set we have available is too small in comparison to the overall phenomenon of Solar Cycle Behavior to be able to accurately predict what the next cycle will be like.
    We are not completely in the dark, see http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf “By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores. Such behavior would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum” Granted that there is extrapolation, but it is a reasoned one.
    I like the Low Sunspot Number = More Cosmic Radiation = More Cloud Formation = Lower Global Temps idea better
    The data we do have suggest that even if you like that chain of inference better, it is not solidly supported by the data: http://www.leif.org/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
    u.k.(us) says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway ?
    Are you being dense on purpose [or is it for real] ?. The ice will freeze back on every winter [but still be amenable to ice-breaking] so having ice breakers would allow for opening up the sea route earlier in the year and continuing later in the year. That has economic benefits.

  66. Leif says:
    In reality, Leif maintains that the solar cycle causes a cyclic change of temperature [not 30-yr average climate] of the order of 0.1 degrees.”
    Leif, what time frame is this over? And is it +/- 0.05 C or +/- 0.1 C? (or Fahrenheit??)

  67. @ u.k.
    Nobody is saying it is going to be ice free for very long. You still need ice breakers to exploit the time before and after minimum ice. This has always been the case and always will.

  68. Bill_W says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Leif, what time frame is this over? And is it +/- 0.05 C or +/- 0.1 C?
    It is 0.1C from solar min to solar max [subject to a somewhat varying solar cycle maximum]. The point is that it is too small to worry about.

  69. Leif. I know I was in somewhat ‘argumentative’ mood during our last discourse.
    Apologies.
    However, I would like you to express yourself about your opinions wrt radiation and matter.
    The energy delivered to the Earth from the Sun is a spectral composite. That spectrum is a variable. As you have said ‘large, dark sunspots are cold areas’ on the solar surface. These result in a reduction of TSI. Agreed.
    However, light isn’t always heat. An LED torch even at daylight brightness is ‘cold’. Generally for light to become heat it requires a radiationless transition from electronic to protonic vibration through identical available eigenstates. As an enhanced electronic shell pressure it cannot be 100% thermal. Light can be much a part of Earth’s albedo as a spectral filter, as a property of radiation and matter.
    Therefore a reduction in the solar surface for light production (active Sun) in favour of a lower temperature which peaks in short wave infra red could possibly result in a spectral redistribution that is more directly ‘thermal’ and less prone to being electronically scattered and not thermalised.
    This is physical certainty. At equilibrium, short wave thermalised= long wave outgoing to space.
    The emphasis there being the ‘proportion’ thermalised.
    This is not a trick question. 200 years ago physicists where scratching there heads having separated the ‘light’ from the ‘heat’ and focussed the ‘light’ onto their hands from an intense thermal source to find it didn’t burn. Some warmth but not the full heat content.
    The Sun’s energy delivery is a spectral variable. Visible light can become part of chemical and biological energy storage or entropically thermalised as part of the ‘real time energy budget’ or be part of Earth’s albedo as a consequence of its production and absorption from and to electronic and not protonic energy states.
    As an interesting aside there is no physical mechanism whereby visible light interacts with water. It does not vibrate its nuclear core nor interact with its electrons.
    See
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html

  70. Dear Prof Svalgaard
    I note your FFT of the solar cycle with interest. I too plotted that spectrum and got similar results. I also plotted the FFT of just the 19th Century vs the 20th Century and noted that the 19th Century had solar cycles generally a year longer than those in the 20th.
    Could you confirm this?

  71. What is the value of accurately predicting the extent of the next solar cycle other than a scientific achievement unless that prediction can be associated with other fundamental changes to the earth or solar system?

  72. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm
    It is 0.1C from solar min to solar max [subject to a somewhat varying solar cycle maximum]. The point is that it is too small to worry about.

    Why bother with tenths of a degree when the results of billions of dollars of research using climate models prove temp is co2 driven and are only an order of magnitude greater than that value from reality.
    The above makes perfect sense given previous predictions about the solar cycle. The sun and climate are completely understood and one has nothing to do with the other.
    There’s a pattern here and it’s not hard to see.

  73. @ Leif: what is your response to de Toma’s arguments in this article:
    http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/The-Weakest-Solar-Cycle-in-100-Years-216752671.html
    “But Penn acknowledges that magnetic field measurements from other studies don’t always see the same trend he sees. Some observations show that sunspots’ magnetic field strength varies with the solar cycle, and others (including de Toma’s) show that sunspots’ magnetic fields aren’t changing with time. De Toma was even able to reproduce Penn’s results by excluding small sunspots, suggesting Penn’s trend might result from the way his team selects the sunspots they measure. “

  74. nuwurld says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    Therefore a reduction in the solar surface for light production (active Sun) in favour of a lower temperature which peaks in short wave infra red could possibly result in a spectral redistribution that is more directly ‘thermal’ and less prone to being electronically scattered and not thermalised.
    If light or ‘heat’ is absorbed by the ground [not always by water] it will result in a higher temperature no matter by which mechanism and no matter what wavelength.
    As an interesting aside there is no physical mechanism whereby visible light interacts with water. It does not vibrate its nuclear core nor interact with its electrons.
    If the temperature of the radiating body [sunspot] is lower, then the amount of infrared emitted is also lower, hence it ‘heats’ less. And if visible light does not interact with water, it should penetrate all the way to the bottom of the ocean, but it [as should be well-known?] does not penetrate that far as it is pitch dark down there: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html
    John A says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    I note your FFT of the solar cycle with interest. I too plotted that spectrum and got similar results. I also plotted the FFT of just the 19th Century vs the 20th Century and noted that the 19th Century had solar cycles generally a year longer than those in the 20th. Could you confirm this?
    Yes: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-Sunspot-Numbers-1st-2nd-halves.png
    That sort of kills the idea that sunspots are due to [or strongly modulated by] planetary tides [or other more exotic causes]

  75. Sorry I compared the 18th Century to the 20th and found that the 18th appeared to have longer cycles. Not the 19th

  76. Russians are extending territorial waters deep into Arctic ocean, claiming Siberian continental shelf as their exclusive deep see exploitation territory, which on this map roughly coincides with grey shaded area streching from Murmansk to Bering Strait. Their all seasons powerful navy controls Arctic sea routes and protects the asserted exploitation rights.
    While the West spends billions on ‘green energy’ nonsense while Russians wisely spend billions to defend valuable natural resources.

  77. This was the FFT spectrum when I compared the 18th and 20th Centuries: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8hcbceGNsK-TmlFYmh6SGlnbnc/edit?usp=sharing
    Now I do know that there is a hypothesis linking length of solar cycle to warming or cooling of the Earth (Svensmark I believe). Without passing judgment on the merits, the solar cycle was generally longer during the 18th Century part of the Little Ice Age and cycles were weaker, as evidenced by the amplitude of the FFT spectrum.

  78. Eric Barnes says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    The above makes perfect sense given previous predictions about the solar cycle…
    There’s a pattern here and it’s not hard to see.

    good to see that you agree with me that we have a very good track record predicting the solar cycle.
    jcarels says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    “But Penn acknowledges that magnetic field measurements from other studies don’t always see the same trend he sees. Some observations show that sunspots’ magnetic field strength varies with the solar cycle, and others (including de Toma’s) show that sunspots’ magnetic fields aren’t changing with time. De Toma was even able to reproduce Penn’s results by excluding small sunspots, suggesting Penn’s trend might result from the way his team selects the sunspots they measure. “
    Livingston amd Penn observes in the infrared [where nobody else has extensive measurements] with one of the best telescopes in the world by the most experienced observer [Bill L.]. deToma et al.. are the ones with a selection effect because they have a threshold below which they don’t observe, As to Livingston’s selection: since 2000 Bill observes ALL spots within his observing time with no selection at all.
    Here is the magnetic field measured [using an objective computer algorithm http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson3.pdf ] from space by Fraser Watson: http://www.leif.org/research/Watson-Umbral-Data.png make up your own mind. The reaction from some other solar physicists smacks of ‘rearguard’ action, IMHO.

  79. John A says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Sorry I compared the 18th Century to the 20th and found that the 18th appeared to have longer cycles. Not the 19th
    Not to worry. The 19th is also longer than the 20th. For the 18th, our data is a bit more shaky so it is harder to draw firm conclusions. There are people who believe that a cycle was missed near the end of the 18th century and that the length of cycle 4 thus is wrong. I think the data is too poor to determine that.

  80. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    “Are you being dense on purpose [or is it for real] ?. ”
    ==========
    It seems to vary…
    Just like the weather:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/business/energy-environment/shell-oil-rig-runs-aground-in-alaska.html?_r=0
    “An enormous Shell Oil offshore drilling rig ran aground on an island in the Gulf of Alaska on Monday night after it broke free from tow ships in rough seas, officials said. ”
    ===
    lessons being learned in the soon to be ice-free arctic ocean.
    With that said, I’ll stop digging now 🙂

  81. Leif, thanks, point taken about the lower energy Plank distribution. This does of course depend upon black body ideology.
    When the solar spectrum was measured by SORCE, the emittance was found to be unexpected, with spectral divergence at the surface due to process.
    My wording was,
    ” the emphasis there being the proportion thermalised”
    Light is more likely to be scattered despite its higher energy. Activity at the surface does not obey black body physics 100%, however thermodynamic stability requires energy radiation to approximately equal core production.
    Light energy within the ocean does not penetrate to the bottom, due to sea water not being 100% pure water. I thought that was common knowledge. Life, for instance absorbs a deal of this ‘non thermally’ that results in oil deposits being available millions of years later in ocean sediment. Thought that was common knowledge.

  82. Leif:
    When calculating the sunspot number today with old telescopes, do we use the same number of telescopes in the same locations as they did then?

  83. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Russia also claims that the Lomonsov Ridge is an extension of the Siberian continental shelf, giving them rights clear across the Arctic Ocean floor to Greenland. In July 2007, a Russian expedition of an icebreaker & two mini-submarines explored the region. Its scientists dived 14,000 feet down in August & planted a rust-proof titanium metal Russian flag on the seabed.
    Russia is also fielding new, improved ballistic missile (SSBN “boomer”) & attack (SSN) subs.

  84. nuwurld says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    When the solar spectrum was measured by SORCE, the emittance was found to be unexpected, with spectral divergence at the surface due to process.
    Apart from the spectral measurements being beset with great uncertainty, the effect of the purported change is considered by be very small [cf. slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf ] so is not really problematic
    Activity at the surface does not obey black body physics 100%, however thermodynamic stability requires energy radiation to approximately equal core production.
    !00% perfection is not required as you seem to acknowledge by saying ‘approximately’.
    Light energy within the ocean does not penetrate to the bottom, due to sea water not being 100% pure water. I thought that was common knowledge.
    What matters for the Earth’s energy balance is not the water being pure. We have the oceans we have and their properties are what counts. That ought to be common knowledge [but apparently I was mistaken in this]

  85. Dr. Deanster says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:38 am

    I look at a spot, … I count one … but the sun spot number says 25. Likewise, I seriously doubt that if today’s technology and methods were available during the Maunder Minimum, we’d see the same results of practically no sunspots. Surely there were a few “pimples” that were missed in those days that would have registered a sun spot number of 5-15 these days.

    You need to spend more time learning how to derive sunspot numbers. If you count just 1, then the sunspot number is 11. 25 probably means there were 2 groups with 1 and 4 spots or 2 and 3 spots.

    Just sayin’

    If you’re too lazy to read Leif’s paper (the 10 times the number of groups is right there on the first page), you shouldn’t bother to reply to his posts.
    Just sayin’

  86. Tom in FLA: yes, I am aware that the basis for just about every prediction is based on different types of observations, and the researcher’s understanding of what processes produced those observations and how they behave. You totally missed my point. Every possible outcome for this cycle was predicted, from the most active in 400 years to a very weak cycle. My point was someone’s prediction HAD to be right, even if the theory and understanding of the phenomena was bollocks. You may be tempted to say Dr. Hathaway’s understanding was wrong, but there is the possibility that just by tweaking some weighting factors, his approach may be right, just as there is the possibility that Dr. Svalgaard’s theories my be quite wrong, but happened to give the correct answer this time. I would put my money on Dr. Svalgaard’s approach from this snapshot we have seen, but I suspect even he would be surprised if he has indeed ‘nailed down’ a theory that would yield accurate predictions of solar cycles in the future, without the need for significant modifications as more data are obtained. I suspect we will all see some more, “that’s funny (strange),” observations in the future.
    Then there is the more important (for man) question, just what are the effects of these cycles on earth, if any? We have a long way to go in answering that question.
    Finally, this must be remembered: we are dealing with an evolving system. Whatever is driving those processes will change over time. Theories may be correct and predict accurately until they day they aren’t and don’t. If Dr. Svalgaard has my luck, he will have accurately modeled all the process involved, just in time to see a fundamental change in what drives those processes!

  87. milodonharlani says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    ………
    http://barentsobserver.com/sites/barentsobserver.com/files/styles/grid_8/public/main/articles/Russian_flag_Bottom_North_Pole.jpg
    Что касается вообще шельфа всех арктических морей, то там прогнозная оценка достигает 100 миллиардов тонн, а может, и больше.
    As for whole of the shelf in the Arctic seas, estimates reach 100 billion tons (of oil), and maybe more.

  88. Jtom says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    I would put my money on Dr. Svalgaard’s approach from this snapshot we have seen, but I suspect even he would be surprised if he has indeed ‘nailed down’ a theory that would yield accurate predictions of solar cycles in the future
    The problem is not to have understood ‘all the possible processes and variability’, but to have isolated the critical parameter [if one exists] that controls the cycle. Long time ago I and colleagues suggested on basis of the then understanding of the so-called Babcock-Leighton dynamo model that the magnitude of the polar fields of the Sun at the end of a cycle [before significant spots from the new cycle appear] would be that critical parameter and as such could serve as a precursor for the magnitude of the next cycle. The idea being that the polar fields would be dragged into the Sun and there be the ‘raw material’ for creating the next cycle. Model calculations seem to support the idea [even though they are primitive]. Ever since, the polar field precursor method has worked well for all cycles 20-24, so our confidence is strong that it will continue to do so. If not, we’ll learn something new [I almost wish the method would fail – as I’m always interested in learning something new]. For example, would it still work if we enter a Maunder Minimum? But so far, it does seem that we have a method that works.

  89. Along with MC and Proctor I also would like to thank Mr. Archibald for this and prior contributions.
    I would note in passing that our nearby 3000 acre lake is 4 degrees cooler this year than last.

  90. Boys and girls, there’s little money to be made in all this solar prognostication. On reading the comments, however, it occurs to me that a bundle could be made on a sequel to Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. The new version would be authored by Leif “Lightnin’ Rod” Svalgaard. Who could resist buying a copy?

  91. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    Yep, but Eugene Parker left us a beautiful legacy
    that explains it all.

    No, that is complete nonsense. No electric or magnetic influence can travel upstream in the 11 times supersonic solar wind, apart from the fact that the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn are much too tiny to have any effect. They take up about a millionth of the sky seen from the Sun. If they had significant influence on the Sun, we would sense that when the Earth is on the ‘line of influence’. Nobody has observed that.

  92. Claude Harvey says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    Boys and girls, there’s little money to be made in all this solar prognostication.
    Actually there are many billions of dollars riding on this

  93. Vukcevic: one hundred billion tonnes or more of oil in the Arctic…..that’s three years or more world supply at current rates of consumption….just a perspective on risks versus benefits.

  94. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    “Actually there are many billions of dollars riding on this”
    ======
    On what ?, the predictions ?
    The guesses are all over the board, some better than others admittedly, why throw the billions back in our faces ?

  95. This is a great thread and is a debate that must be brought out to the public in general. I have been telling colleagues and environmental industry professionals for several years to look at the sun (with dark glasses of course) and have written articles published in my industry newsletter in regard to the predictions of Abdussamatov about the decline in solar activity. But please why did Archibald use as his first graph the one from the Mail on Sunday with all its inaccuracies? Apart from the ridiculously low prediction of Cycle 25, the most glaring error is the labeling of “End of Little Ice Age’ in 1899. This was the Little “Victorian” Ice Age – rather than the Little Ice Age which correlated with the Maunder Minimum not 1899, and the perpetuation of this labeling by those who know better does not help the general public to understand the arguments.

  96. All evidence points to the sun itself providing a consistent amount of energy to the Earth. If we accept this as true then the changes we see on Earth are due to changes in Earth systems. We already know that volcanoes appear to cool the surface by reflecting sunlight. It is clearly possible this might be the biggest factor in changes over an interglacial.
    A series of strong volcanic eruptions cools the Earth leading to a cool period like the LIA and then as the dust settles so to speak, the Earth warms back up to its equilibrium temperature. As far as I can tell nothing else is required to explain changes over the last 10K years.
    Not saying this is the case, but maybe we’ve been trying to make this more complicated than required …. Occam’s Razor and all that.

  97. Richard, the Sun provides not merely energy, but varying degrees of protection from cosmic rays, influences on the magnetic fields that surround the Earth, and of course the changing solar wind.
    It’s not such a simple system

  98. Doug Proctor says:
    July 28, 2013 at 10:59 am
    Thankyou for your kind words. Hathaway’s mistake was to presume that 24 would be strong simply because the previous two cycles were strong. He guessed a number just under Dikpati. In fact, given that Dikpati was NASA’s golden child at the time, he wouldn’t have been allowed to have a prediction that diverged too much from hers or otherwise it would have lessened the credibility of Dikpati’s forecast. Schatten makes a living from predicting solar activity and in 2006 said that solar activity looked like falling to Maunder levels. Anyone in this field should have asked themselves what was the basis for Schatten’s prediction. My advice to anyone who wants to predict solar activity is to go to Ed Fix’s model and continue its development. The amplitude we are seeing in Solar Cycle 24 is the leftover momentum in the system.
    Agreed that the Earth climate system is the warmest its been for a thousand years. The linear relationship shown is machine-generated. To not use the machine-derived line would introduce subjectivity. It is fabulous that we can predict the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum. That prediction is derived from Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, now over two years old. He’s up on Sacramento Peak, updating it, but hasn’t released it again. Solar maximum has occurred 15 months after “the rush to the poles” is completed. So Altrock knows the month of maximum. Solar maximum is also when the new cycle is initiated. That’s right now. If there is no or very little activity evident from the plot, that means that Solar Cycle 25 will be next to non-existent. All very important stuff. But Altrock can’t release his diagram again while there is a war on coal underway.

  99. Patrick says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:46 am
    Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong.
    __________________
    I’ve not reached that conclusion after reading Dr. Svalgaard for years. Your distillation of Dr. Svalgaard’s message is very clear, but where is the data to support your conjecture that the sun (operating within observed parameters) does affect our climate in any meaningful way?

  100. David Archibald, nasty and brutish maybe (just like all the previous ones then) but why will the 21st Century be short? Is the coming collapse in solar activity going to cause a time distortion?

  101. Melbourne Resident says:
    July 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    The Sunday Mail generated that graphic from a graph I produced a couple of years ago here on WUWT. It is part of Anthony’s introduction to the post and I thank him for it. I am too modest to have used it myself. I think the graph is correct in all aspects including its predictions. The Solar Cycle 25 forecast of 7 is from Livingstone and Penn. No one else has made a prediction of the amplitude of that cycle yet.

  102. PJF says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    Well said. The publisher has been alerted to the fact that the full title they have chosen suggests that a century can be a lesser interval than 100 years.

  103. Dr. Svalgaard:
    “Climate scientists” tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. Can you understand how skeptics might be suspicious of an attempt now by solar scientists to get rid of the Modern Solar Grand Maximum?
    Counting sun spot group numbers rather than sun spots has seemed to me to worsen not help solve the problem the procedure was meant to address. But coming at this point in the history of science, changing the system is naturally going to arouse suspicions, IMO. While you & your colleagues may well indeed be trying to advance science in an area where much depends upon good predictions, proposals for enforcing among solar scientists uniform acceptance of whatever new orthodox system emerges sounds troubling.
    This effort also comes after discovery in the past decade from the SORCE program that there is short term variation in the UV part of the solar spectral array. I’ve learned that this primarily occurs in the UV-C band & progressively less so in the more abundant UV-B & UV-A. There are nevertheless possible climatological implications for this discovery, especially when considering man-made & natural (not that humans are unnatural) effects on ozone.
    I am convinced by your statement that you & your colleagues have not been influenced in any way by the gaseous gate-keepers of climatological orthodoxy, but are simply interested in improving understanding of the sun as a not very variable star in both long & short terms. However I have for instance noted that the Stanford Linear Accelerator Web site has taken down the IMO good material it had on solar magnetic field modulation of cosmic rays & the possible effect such fluxes could have on cloud formation. With the CACCA Empire striking back against rebels throughout the system, I hope you can forgive some cynicism as to scientists’ motives.
    Thank you for your continued commenting here. I wish that more of your colleagues in relevant fields shared your courage. patience & desire to educate. I hope that you too feel that at times you’ve gained something from participating in discussions here.

  104. Leif,
    Referring to the observation that El Nino seemed to coincide with quick rise in the Current Sheet Tilt Angle, e.g.
    Richard M says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:11 am
    It does seem on quick examination that there may be correlation between El Nino occurrence and Current Sheet Tilt Angles in the Middle of the Tilt Angle range. Has this been investigated?
    If there were such a relationship, increased frequency of El Nino would correspond to cycles which (for whatever reasons cause this) had a preponderance of fluctuations of tilt angle in the mid range. And shorter cycles would necessarily lead to increased frequency due to quick rise and fall of the angle.
    And If there is such a relationship, it suggests periods of warming are not related to length of cycle per se, but the preponderance of fluctuations in the mid range.
    (greater frequency of el Nino – tendency to warming)
    If longer cycles were less likely to produce this range of tilt angle -might this mean greater frequency of La Nina, period of cooling?
    Have you looked at this?

  105. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:53 am

    You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.

    I gleefully laugh at mine just about every time he comes on. Then I switch to the weather guy in the next city since he seems to be more pragmatic and less stuck on himself.

  106. David Archibald says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    PJF says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    Well said. The publisher has been alerted to the fact that the full title they have chosen suggests that a century can be a lesser interval than 100 years.

    David, the title of your book is an allusion to the famous quote by Thomas Hobbes, describing the ‘natural state of mankind’ (if there were no governments to rule mankind).
    “And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” -Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, 1651, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

  107. The Russians are building icebreakers because they have studied paleo climatology and are aware unlike a certain solar scientist that during a transitional period toward cooling, some areas of the Arctic do get warmer as a result of renewed warm air advections caused by more powerful polar air masses reaching deeper southward (see Svalbard islands before the last glaciation). Kinnard showed indeed that Arctic sea ice extent during the LIA was reduced in some places.

  108. Cycle 24 is closest to cycles 12 & 14 when I plotted them recently, Too high for 5.
    So no Dalton Min yet…Why does cycle 25 appear so low on Davids diagram prediction. What are the reasons behind that very low cycle 25 prediction, Lief nof anyone?

  109. The Russians build icebreakers because they have a lot of waterways where ice is an issue.
    They don’t necessarily need any assumptions about global temperature change.

  110. I believe we need to think a bit more about the leads and lags in the solar dynamo. A few days ago I was reading John Eddy’s book “The Sun, Earth and Near Earth Space”. He suggested that it took 100,000 years for a photon generated at the sun’s core to reach the surface of the sun.
    Further, I have been getting my head around upper atmospheric chemistry. It is very short wave-length photons (in the EUV, high energy range) that cause oxygen atoms to split and hence precipitate the creation of ozone and provide the heat that causes the stratosphere to rise in temperature with height. But because the ozone layer is relatively thick (due presumably to dynamic processes in relative equilibrium) short term changes in EUV emissions don’t change the level of ozone or the temperature very much. But long term changes in EUV emissions must change both ozone levels and stratospheric temperatures. EUV data for cycles 23 and 24 are available at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/semdownload.htm
    This shows that EUV emissions to this point in cycle 24 are almost 40% down on cycle 23. By extrapolation using F10.7 data (which is often used as a proxy for EUV) it seems that EUV emissions so far in cycle 24 are only about 40% of those emissions in cycle 22. The changes in the suns output in this spectrum also change the temperature and thickness of the thermosphere and above. See this presentation from NASA at a UNCOPUOS meeting.http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/pres/stsc2011/tech-14.pdf
    The paper “Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber” Gondwana Research (2010) provides part of the explanation for the additional volcanic activity during strong solar minimums. But the volcanic activity is also seems related to a slight increase in tectonic plate movement that seems to occur. The 6-7 fold increase in category 8+ earthquakes since 2004 suggests that the forces which cause the sun to change its orbit of the SSB also act on Earth’s mantle presumably by slightly increasing its heat – at least in some places – presumably similar to what happens on Io but obviously to a relatively minor degree.
    I think what I have read above just confirms my belief that there is much that we do not know. I suppose mankind will still be saying that on WUWT in another hundred years.

  111. Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your many posts today. I have a question about this: And if visible light does not interact with water, it should penetrate all the way to the bottom of the ocean, but it [as should be well-known?] does not penetrate that far as it is pitch dark down there: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html
    I thought that the interaction was with stuff dissolved and suspended in the water. Clean water such as that found in swimming pools (and swimming pool reactors) hardly intercepts visible light at all, Right?

  112. We were watering trees by bucket brigade again on top of the Ozarks. We lost maybe a hundred million trees to drought last summer. Texas lost 301 million trees the year before. Couldn’t buy a cloud. Wondering where the monsoons went. (I know Bob Tisdale pretty well explains the drought) Then Mexico’s Popocatépetl blows a huge honker and clouds and rain everywhere. Thank God!
    http://www.intellicast.com/National/Precipitation/Weekly.aspx
    Happens like this far back as I can remember. Not the losing millions of trees part, but the rains a couple of weeks following good size volcanic eruptions somewhere near Central America.
    Leif, I’ve never seen you comment much on this. Is there anything to more volcanic activity lower solar cycles and solar cycle minima? There are a few papers on the subject, as you probably know.

  113. taxed says, July 28, 2013 at 9:51 am:
    “lf the less active sun does cause cooling, then am beginning to understand how it could do it and that the cooling could be sudden. Because during summer we have been getting a Polar jet that has been splitting in two. Where you get these splits you often have areas of high pressure sitting in the middle of them. What would be a real worry is that this pattern lasts into the winter. As these highs will set up large pools of cold air, due to drawing cold air down from the north and heat loss by clearer sky’s.
    But because you got the jet running to the north and south of them. Then you will have areas of low pressure running to the north and south of them as well, along with the weather fronts they bring.”
    Splits in the jet stream are nothing new. High pressure areas in the splits are nothing new.
    As for storms – problems with those tend to be around where the north branch is northbound. There is a tendency for dryness around where the north branch is southbound, and well within an associated high pressure area. When this sets up as a protracted pattern, the north branch often resembles an upper case Greek letter omega, the high pressure area is referred to as an “omega high”, and the blocking pattern is referred to as an “omega block”.
    When an omega block occurs, drought can occur not only in the omega high and where the north branch is southbound, but also often in some of the other areas deprived of intermittent approach by non-southbound jet stream. All of this is well known temperate zone weather, especially north temperate zone weather, that has always happened probably for millions of years.

  114. Brent Walker said:
    “I have been getting my head around upper atmospheric chemistry. It is very short wave-length photons (in the EUV, high energy range) that cause oxygen atoms to split and hence precipitate the creation of ozone and provide the heat that causes the stratosphere to rise in temperature with height. But because the ozone layer is relatively thick (due presumably to dynamic processes in relative equilibrium) short term changes in EUV emissions don’t change the level of ozone or the temperature very much. But long term changes in EUV emissions must change both ozone levels and stratospheric temperatures.”
    I think this is the nub of the issue but there is a problem.
    We see more EUV when the sun is active, EUV splits oxygen to create ozone and more ozone warms the stratosphere.
    The trouble is that the mesosphere and stratosphere cooled when the sun was active (more EUV) and may now be warming with the quieter sun (less EUV).
    A recent finding was that unexpectedly, between 2004 and 2007 ozone actually increased above 45 km (around the stratosphere / mesosphere boundary) despite less EUV from the quieter sun.
    I am led to think that there is something wrong with current assumptions about the ozone creation / destruction balance above 45km and that it is what goes on up there that ultimately controls the ozone content of the entire stratosphere.
    My interim solution is to propose that it is not EUV alone that controls stratosphere temperatures but rather the overall mix of particles and wavelengths. Someone else will have to sort out the relative dominance of all the processes involved in upper atmosphere chemistry.
    The significance of all that is the potential effect on the tropopause height gradient between equator and poles.
    It is the slope of that gradient which controls latitudinal climate zone positioning, jet stream behaviour, cloudiness and ultimately the amount of solar energy able to get into the oceans to fuel the climate system.

  115. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    No electric or magnetic influence can travel upstream in the 11 times supersonic solar wind.
    If you consider magnetosphere tail reconnection, you will find the process releases huge amount of energy, which regular solar wind doesn’t poses. Velocities within the solar CME’s electromagnetic circuit are far greater than those of solar wind ( It is still mystery how these disturbances lightup the aurora so quickly– NASA). Solar wind is swept out of the way, hence it has no effect on the closed electric and magnetic circuits:
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
    apart from the fact that the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn are much too tiny to have any effect.
    Nope, Jupiter magnetosphere is about 5AU and is the largest entity within heliosphere it stretches all the way to the Saturn’s orbit and its magnetosphere at the times of the solar minima.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  116. Having a life,so we went to the City [San Francisco] with some children and grandchildren.Now, as Arnold said “I`m baaaack”.
    ———–
    u.k.(us) says:
    July 28, 2013 at 4:18 pm
    “Actually there are many billions of dollars riding on this”
    On what ?, the predictions ?

    Yes, just to take one [real] example. A satellite operator wants to sent up a 500 million dollar bird. His bank wants the bird insured for the duration of its life [like your home has to insured if you have a bank loan on it]. The premium is set according to the risk of the satellite becoming non-functional because of a solar storm. The risk of a storm depends on the sunspot number, thus the premium depends on what somebody [usually the government] says that the sunspot number will be in the future, hence on prediction.
    The guesses are all over the board, some better than others admittedly, why throw the billions back in our faces ?
    Some are better than others and the insurers know which. From a scientific point of view a failed prediction has value too in that we will know what doesn’t work.
    Melbourne Resident says:
    July 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    But please why did Archibald use as his first graph the one from the Mail on Sunday with all its inaccuracies?
    Archibald is well-known for his inaccuracy, so don’t be surprised.
    Richard M says:
    July 28, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    A series of strong volcanic eruptions cools the Earth leading to a cool period like the LIA and then as the dust settles so to speak, the Earth warms back up to its equilibrium temperature.
    Volcanoes certainly have an effect, but it has been hard to determine precisely how much going back in time.
    David Archibald says:
    Thank you for your kind words. Hathaway’s mistake was to presume that 24 would be strong simply because the previous two cycles were strong.
    Not true. He had [what he thought was] a good reason for his prediction.
    He guessed a number just under Dikpati.
    Also not true.
    In fact, given that Dikpati was NASA’s golden child at the time, he wouldn’t have been allowed to have a prediction that diverged too much from hers or otherwise it would have lessened the credibility of Dikpati’s forecast.
    Not true. Presumption on your part.
    Schatten makes a living from predicting solar activity and in 2006 said that solar activity looked like falling to Maunder levels. Anyone in this field should have asked themselves what was the basis for Schatten’s prediction.
    Schatten explains painstakingly what the basis was. Pay attention to what he says.
    My advice to anyone who wants to predict solar activity is to go to Ed Fix’s model and continue its development.
    Ed’s model is not ready for prime time and is very likely pseudo-science.
    It is fabulous that we can predict the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum.
    We cannot; we can only guess.
    That prediction is derived from Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, now over two years old.
    And later data disagrees.
    Solar maximum has occurred 15 months after “the rush to the poles” is completed.
    Has already happened [last week for the South, last year for the North].
    If there is no or very little activity evident from the plot, that means that Solar Cycle 25 will be next to non-existent.
    You cannot use his plot to determine the size of the next cycle.
    But Altrock can’t release his diagram again while there is a war on coal underway.
    Baloney. And his plot can be constructed from other coronal data, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
    Luther Wu says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    but where is the data to support your conjecture that the sun (operating within observed parameters) does affect our climate in any meaningful way?
    Yes, where?
    David Archibald says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:25 pm
    The Solar Cycle 25 forecast of 7 is from Livingstone and Penn. No one else has made a prediction of the amplitude of that cycle yet.
    That number is highly uncertain. All we can say is that the sunspot number will be very low. This does not mean that solar activity or its magnetic field will disappear. The cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder and Spoerer minima was as strong as it has been the past several cycles. What we predict is a disconnect between sunspot number and solar ‘activity’. But even that is speculation.
    milodonharlani says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    “Climate scientists” tried to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. Can you understand how skeptics might be suspicious of an attempt now by solar scientists to get rid of the Modern Solar Grand Maximum?
    That is because they are lazy or worse [a Modern Grand Maximum is what they want]. The laziness becomes in this way: all the data we relay on, all the analysis we do, all the conclusions we draw can be duplicated by simply reading the material [I hate to sound like Scafetta: “read my papers”], but all our stuff is out in the open and the findings can be duplicated [or at least followed] by anybody without undue effort.
    proposals for enforcing among solar scientists uniform acceptance of whatever new orthodox system emerges sounds troubling.
    We do not try to ‘enforce’ but to convince and agree.
    This effort also comes after discovery in the past decade from the SORCE program …
    This has very little to do with re-assessing solar activity and, in any event’ at most will have an effect of the order of 0.1C, so is a straw man.
    Stanford Linear Accelerator Web site has taken down the IMO good material it had on solar magnetic field modulation of cosmic rays & the possible effect such fluxes could have on cloud formation.
    Lack of funding is always a problem, but there are about a hundred other instruments in the world producing good data.
    I hope you can forgive some cynicism as to scientists’ motives.
    Cynicism has no place in this. The thing to do is to study the material, check the derivation, then make up your mind.
    I hope that you too feel that at times you’ve gained something from participating in discussions here.
    Every time one prepares a lecture, one learns something. If nothing else, at least during the lecture where people have difficulties understanding your message.
    Richard M says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:11 am
    (greater frequency of el Nino – tendency to warming)
    If longer cycles were less likely to produce this range of tilt angle -might this mean greater frequency of La Nina, period of cooling? Have you looked at this?
    One generally looks into something that seems to have some chance of yielding a publishable result, so: no.
    GeoLurking says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    Then I switch to the weather guy in the next city since he seems to be more pragmatic and less stuck on himself.
    Then go with what he says…
    Ian H Australia says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    Cycle 24 is closest to cycles 12 & 14 when I plotted them recently, Too high for 5.
    So no Dalton Min yet…Why does cycle 25 appear so low on Davids diagram prediction. What are the reasons behind that very low cycle 25 prediction, Leif or anyone?

    David’s prediction is hardly science, so not really worth discussing at length. Our own prediction of a low sunspot number [but not necessarily low solar activity] is slightly more scientific, but is also just speculation [albeit well founded].
    Brent Walker says:
    July 28, 2013 at 7:46 pm
    This shows that EUV emissions to this point in cycle 24 are almost 40% down on cycle 23. By extrapolation using F10.7 data (which is often used as a proxy for EUV) it seems that EUV emissions so far in cycle 24 are only about 40% of those emissions in cycle 22. The changes in the suns output in this spectrum also change the temperature and thickness of the thermosphere and above.
    Very true for the thermosphere and above, but that does not translate to similar changes at the surface.
    The 6-7 fold increase in category 8+ earthquakes since 2004 suggests that the forces which cause the sun to change its orbit of the SSB
    The sun is in free fall, as is the Earth, and neither feel any such forces.
    Matthew R Marler says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:01 pm
    I thought that the interaction was with stuff dissolved and suspended in the water. Clean water such as that found in swimming pools (and swimming pool reactors) hardly intercepts visible light at all
    In the free ocean far from land the water is very clear and very clean, and pure water does attenuate the light, especially when you have lots of water, like five kilometer’s worth.
    Ed Mertin says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    Leif, I’ve never seen you comment much on this. Is there anything to more volcanic activity lower solar cycles and solar cycle minima? There are a few papers on the subject, as you probably know.

    I have commented on this and there are papers debunking that idea. A good way to see that, is to see if there is more tectonic or seismic activity near solar events, and there are not.

  117. vukcevic says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    If you consider magnetosphere tail reconnection, you will find the process releases huge amount of energy, which regular solar wind doesn’t poses
    No, the energy extracted by reconnection from the solar wind is less than a tenth of the energy of the solar wind falling on the magnetosphere…
    Solar wind is swept out of the way, hence it has no effect on the closed electric and magnetic circuits:
    apart from sounding wrong, the acceleration takes place in the magnetosphere, not in the solar wind.
    Nope, Jupiter magnetosphere is about 5AU and is the largest entity within heliosphere it stretches all the way to the Saturn’s orbit and its magnetosphere at the times of the solar minima.
    Nix, Jupiter’s magnetosphere is dragged out radially from the Jupiter by the overpowering solar wind. You can picture that as a thin pencil stretching from Jupiter away from the Sun. There are more than a million such ‘pencils’, so Jupiter’s pencil is completely insignificant.

  118. I am predicting cooling but not anything spectacular.
    As Leif says the sun is big and changes slowly. The earth is also big relative to our imaginations. It has taken 300 years to rise a degree and a half from the Maunder Minimum and it appears it took at least 400 years to dive down into that minimum via several of those major minimums occurring after 1200ad.
    Plus we probably have ocean momentum still from that recovery that is going to take perhaps one or two hundred years of cooling to play out. That should dampen cooling progress over the first century of cooling. I suspect cooling a degree might take a hundred years even with some the variable ocean states lining up to temporarily rush it along. Sure something faster could occur like one of those Bond events but I am not sure how anyone might surmise when something like that occurs. Climate changes, always has. People have more intense experiences from normal year over year local weather changes (not to even speak of seasonal change) than they are likely to experience in their lifetime as general climate change.

  119. vukcevic says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:40 am
    You are not making distinction (on purpose or otherwise) between solar wind and CMEs flux ropes
    On purpose, of course [everything I say is always on purpose]. Because it it completely irrelevant. First, most CMEs travel at or only slightly above solar wind speed [actually mostly dragged out by the solar wind]. A few travel faster, but are rare so don’t matter.
    Second, The CME drapes itself around the blunt nose of a magnetosphere which, in a way, simply ‘bores’ a whole in the CME. So, the tiny part of the CME that encounters the magnetosphere simply becomes part of the pencil stretching away from Jupiter among the million others that are not attached to Jupiter. Therefore, any influence by Jupiter is of the order of 1/millionth of the energy and particles in all of the pencils stretching away from the Sun.

  120. I didn’t see anything in the article to evidence this idea that SC25 will be tiny, even compared with the small SC24.
    There’s seems to be 2 camps in the SC predictions. (a) That SC25 will be about the same size as SC24. (b) tiny SC25.
    anyone got any strong arguments against one or the other?

  121. Stanford University (Dr. Svalgaard)
    Most CMEs travel at or only slightly above solar wind speed [actually mostly dragged out by the solar wind].
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    The average solar wind velocity is 400 km/second
    Solar flares, are usually followed by coronal mass ejections (CME’s), produce radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum as well as a proton storm. This radiation travels to the earth at the speed of light while the protons can travel as fast as a third the speed of light.
    “you pays your money and you takes your choice”

  122. pochas says:
    July 28, 2013 at 3:28 pm
    Further to my comment July 28, 2013 at 10:28 am
    re ocean temperatures remaining stable or rising while northern continental interiors cool, the current UNISYS sea surface temperature anomalies in the northern oceans are positive, whereas those south of the equator are more or less neutral.
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
    I’m not saying this proves anything, but it is interesting.

    I have a feeling the high NH SSTs are temporary, in a month or two they will be gone.

  123. vukcevic says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:19 am
    “Most CMEs travel at or only slightly above solar wind speed”
    “you pays your money and you takes your choice”

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/CME-Speeds.pdf :
    “CMEs propagating in the interplanetary space, asymptotically approach the wind velocity due to the viscous drag high in the corona” They study 4315 CMEs, The most common projected speed [see their Figure 1] is 350 km/s. Corrected for projection the distribution peaks at 430 km/s.
    I making tour choices it helps to know what you are talking about. You are a wee bit weak in that department.
    jcarels says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:35 am
    Do you know if deToma has a website where I can see his work?
    No, she does not. I have her paper, but cannot release it as it was given to me in confidence.
    meemoe_uk says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:00 am
    (a) That SC25 will be about the same size as SC24. (b) tiny SC25
    It is all guess work. Now that the polar fields have finally reversed, we should be able to follow their build-up. After a few years the new polar fields should stabilize and we can make a prediction, not before.

  124. If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably during this lower activity cycle, (due to lower polar field strength?) have we seen ‘temperature changes,’ within the solar corona, extended corona or at the solar surface?
    If the there are changes in pressure around the bubble, wouldn’t that be reflected in something getting hotter nearer the solar surface or coronal heating? If pressure is applied something heats up because of resistance? The differential in heat causing shears, preventing the spots from forming?

  125. I’m late, what about changes in length of rotation time(s) for the sun in this low activity period. Are there changes at the equatorial locations, or polar locations in length of rotation time for the sun now?

  126. milodonharlani , Walker and Wilde on EUV.
    This portion of the spectrum comprises 20% of the energy reaching the Earth. That portion reaching the surface penetrates to 300 meters in the oceans.
    Mr. Wilde’s observation that ‘something is amiss’ is astute, beginning with TSI varying 0.1% over the SC.

  127. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
    highflight56433 says:
    July 28, 2013 at 9:23 am
    The Russians are building new ice-breakers…hint hint! Why build ice-breakers? hint hint!
    “So that they can exploit the Arctic sea routes opened up by global warming…”
    More likely so they can reach destinations in the future which presently do not require an ice breaker to reach. If they truely believed in AGW they could waite a little while as the ice should be all gone very soon according to some of the AGW fanatics. Either way, living where they do the ships are a good investment.

  128. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 8:05 am
    Oliver is a crank and his ideas are baloney.
    ==============
    Iron is the stable by product of both fission and fusion. It should be found in abundance in nth generation solar systems, as our own planet’s core demonstrates. It seem inconceivable that similar mass fractionation did not take place on the sun.
    The sun should have a core of heavy elements overlaid by lighter elements such as helium and hydrogen, unless the gravitational force/pressure is sufficient to overpower the nuclear forces, causing the core elements to break down into neutrons. These neutrons would decay into hydrogen as they circulate away from the core and the nuclear force once again comes to dominate. From there the hydrogen would fuse into heavier elements. Either way, the sun ends up with a core that is not hydrogen with hydrogen fusion occurring at the boundary between the core and the outer hydrogen shell.

  129. Leif Svalgaard says: to
    Brent Walker says:
    The 6-7 fold increase in category 8+ earthquakes since 2004 suggests that the forces which cause the sun to change its orbit of the SSB
    “The sun is in free fall, as is the Earth, and neither feel any such forces.”
    The sun and the earth are both traveling in straight lines through curved space/time and both “feel” the curvature, that is why they do what they do. But then that is only Einstein’s opinion, you know General Relativity.

  130. The suggestion that the Sun’s core is made of heavier elements than helium is intriguing. Does anyone have a quick precis (or a url) that provides proper physical evidence to back up this suggestion, or that refutes it?

  131. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 11:44 pm
    Hope your family enjoyed the City.
    I did read your Nagoya 2012 ppt presentation, “The Long-Term Variation of Solar Activity”. Thanks.
    This is what made me choose the word “enforce”. Maybe not the best choice.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    September 16, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    The politics is then reduced to managing the self-promoters or trouble makers.
    Good luck with your quest.
    ——
    Luckily, everybody in the sunspot community is on-board for this re-assessment and we are making good progress. There are only a few trouble makers. The biggest problem is our ‘users’, the people that use the sunspot numbers and solar activity indices. They do not want any improvements if these upset their pet theories and correlations. They talk about ‘ironing boards’ and other assorted nonsense. Our solution to that is to for all sunspot-counters and index-producers to stand together, then after a while the recalcitrant users will begin to look silly [some are already in that boat – to wit some of the hand-wringers on this very blog]] and quietly be converted. We can also use the ‘name and shame’ mechanism which can be quite effective.

  132. Keith says:
    The suggestion that the Sun’s core is made of heavier elements than helium is intriguing.
    The entire Solar system comes from the same original material. So the Sun most likely contains more heavy elements than the rest of the Solar system. (Possibly including transuranics.)
    The issue is more how these could end up as solids inside a star!

  133. Dr S, I’m sure many here appreciate your patience answering questions. I wouldn’t have the patience…

  134. Bill Hunter says: July 29, 2013 at 12:36 am. “I am predicting cooling but not anything spectacular.
    As Leif says the sun is big and changes slowly. The earth is also big relative to our imaginations. It has taken 300 years to rise a degree and a half from the Maunder Minimum and it appears it took at least 400 years to dive down into that minimum…”
    I don’t know if you are correct or not; but, eyewitness accounts of the little ice age in Europe say that it came on suddenly – it started snowing one day and it didn’t stop.

  135. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    “We are not completely in the dark…”
    No argument here. My point is, simply, we don’t see the whole picture, yet. We won’t live long enough to see it either. But, we’re still making the best evidence-based guesses we can. And those guesses are ever evolving as new evidence appears. Solar physics is very exciting right now, because the sun is behaving in a new way (to us) and we have much better ways of studying it since the last Minimum.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    “The data we do have suggest that even if you like that chain of inference better, it is not solidly supported by the data…”
    True enough. I wasn’t asserting that was the whole picture or even the correct one, but it was certainly a better inference chain than man-made CO2 emissions are the only significant forcing in global temperature change. Thanks for the links. I do need to catch up on the newest evidence.

  136. Thresholds,secondary solar effects, the beginning state of the climate concepts are not appreciated by Leif, therefore it is hard for him to get his hands around the solar /climate connection. Also the climate is non linear(Lief deos not seem to appreciate that fact either) meaning the same forcings can give a different climatic result.
    As I have said many times this prolonged solar minimum is going to be long enough in duration and quiet enough in degree of magnitude to change the climate. Will actual thresholds be met ?
    Based on where we are at with solar cycle 24 thus far,and what I mentioned above it is much to premature to reach any conclusions about how much of an effect the sun will have on the climate,however the sun is going to have an effect ,in my opinion.
    The solar irradiance changes versus temperature changes is but on tiny part of the solar /climate connection.

  137. Also climate can change very abruptly when thresholds are reached ,it is not a slow gradual change, when the climate goes from climatic regime to another one. Although it is slow when the climate is in the same climatic regime.
    Ice core data shows this to be clearly the case.
    In addition the atmosphere is INTERCONNECTED, meaning a change in one part will have an effect on all of the other parts.
    .
    This situation we presently have gives all of us a great opportunity to express are views and see which ones will prove to be correct. I think it is going to become pretty clear before this decade is out which of us are correct and which of us are wrong.
    As long as the sun cooperates and stays in a deep prolonged solar minimum, which I expect it will.

  138. “Stephen Wilde says: July 28, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    Brent Walker said: “I have been getting my head around upper atmospheric chemistry. It is very short wave-length photons (in the EUV, high energy range) that cause oxygen atoms to split and hence precipitate the creation of ozone and provide the heat that causes the stratosphere to rise in temperature with height. But because the ozone layer is relatively thick (due presumably to dynamic processes in relative equilibrium) short term changes in EUV emissions don’t change the level of ozone or the temperature very much. But long term changes in EUV emissions must change both ozone levels and stratospheric temperatures.”
    I think this is the nub of the issue but there is a problem.
    We see more EUV when the sun is active, EUV splits oxygen to create ozone and more ozone warms the stratosphere.
    The trouble is that the mesosphere and stratosphere cooled when the sun was active (more EUV) and may now be warming with the quieter sun (less EUV).
    A recent finding was that unexpectedly, between 2004 and 2007 ozone actually increased above 45 km (around the stratosphere / mesosphere boundary) despite less EUV from the quieter sun.”
    Perhaps the chemistry is changing. Have you noticed the Noctilucent clouds that are being seen father South in greater amounts this year. Also a Nacreous cloud was photographed recently. These clouds are formed at very high altitudes by ice crystals and cold temperatures. They had not been seen until recent years. The photos are on Spaceweather.com.

  139. “Steele says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:13 am
    No argument here. My point is, simply, we don’t see the whole picture, yet. We won’t live long enough to see it either.”
    Well said. And as to that 0.1% TSI (Leif) change from max to min “variability” having no “effect” on temperatures and climate? Rediculous.

  140. CO2 emssions and temperatures have very weak to no correlations. In addition co2 follows the temperature change does not lead it, meaning co2 is a RESULT of the temperature change, not the cause of it.
    The data shows this to be CLEARLY the case.
    The AGW theory is asinine.

  141. Carla says:
    July 29, 2013 at 5:36 am
    If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably …
    What the heliosphere does has no effect on what the Sun does. So, the answers to your quest are all ‘no’
    what about changes in length of rotation time(s) for the sun in this low activity period.
    Generally, magnetic fields on the Sun slow down the differential rotation ever so slightly: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf “the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.”
    ferd berple says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:17 am
    Either way, the sun ends up with a core that is not hydrogen with hydrogen fusion occurring at the boundary between the core and the outer hydrogen shell.
    The fusion takes place throughout the core, but mostly near the center where the temperature and density are highest; the result of the fusion is helium.
    Jim G says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:33 am
    The sun and the earth are both traveling in straight lines through curved space/time and both “feel” the curvature, that is why they do what they do.
    If they did, they would not be moving in ‘straight lines’.
    Keith says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:58 am
    The suggestion that the Sun’s core is made of heavier elements than helium is intriguing. Does anyone have a quick precis (or a url) that provides proper physical evidence to back up this suggestion, or that refutes it?
    We can measure the ‘molecular weight’ and hence the composition of the material within the Sun because it determines the speed of sound which we can measure accurately using seismic method [just as we can do on the Earth while prospecting for oil]. A short note on this:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Helioseismology%20and%20the%20Helium%20Abundance.pdf
    milodonharlani says:
    July 29, 2013 at 8:18 am
    “Luckily, everybody in the sunspot community is on-board for this re-assessment and we are making good progress. There are only a few trouble makers. The biggest problem is our ‘users’, the people that use the sunspot numbers and solar activity indices. They do not want any improvements if these upset their pet theories and correlations. They talk about ‘ironing boards’ and other assorted nonsense. Our solution to that is to for all sunspot-counters and index-producers to stand together, then after a while the recalcitrant users will begin to look silly [some are already in that boat – to wit some of the hand-wringers on this very blog]] and quietly be converted. We can also use the ‘name and shame’ mechanism which can be quite effective.”
    The problem is not the producers of the record, but the users who because of their agenda refuse to drop the flawed older records.
    Steele says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:13 am
    but it was certainly a better inference chain than man-made CO2 emissions are the only significant forcing in global temperature change.
    One does not contradict one false claim by pushing another false claim.

  142. Keith,
    The idea that the core of the sun is made of Iron is “explained” here. Take it for what you think it is worth. Leif would probably tell you (as he has others already) “Oliver is a crank”.
    Of course, a lot of people thought that Einstein was a “crank” as well, so I guess you never really know….
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/

  143. Donald L. Klipstein
    Weather this jet stream pattern is new or not is not what will be important.
    lts how often it will turn up and last is what will be important.
    Get a blocking high sitting around for a week or two and you end up with a cold spell of weather. But if it hangs around for years on end then you are on you’re way to a ice age.

  144. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:24 am
    Surely if such a core existed, it would be in plasma state rather than solid, as hypothesized here.

  145. milodonharlani says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:47 am
    Surely if such a core existed, it would be in plasma state rather than solid, as hypothesized here.
    It is simpler than that. We can calculate how many neutrinos would be released by fusion of Hydrogen and the calculated number closely matches what is observed [we can now observe all three flavors].

  146. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:56 am
    To paraphrase a late, great physicist, observations & rational inferences therefrom trump hypotheses, no matter how elegant.

  147. I was looking over the Greenwich Sun spot Area numbers, it seems to me that solar cycle 24 has the lowest sun spot area on record so far, As sunspots become smaller it is being well represented in the sun spot record by area.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    “That sort of kills the idea that sunspots are due to [or strongly modulated by] planetary tides [or other more exotic causes]”
    I’m interested to know, do solar physicists in general believe that there is NO interaction between the Sun and the planetary system?.
    The planets in our solar system interact with each-other, and the solar system in its entirety interacts with the sun, personally I like the Idea of the polarity of the suns core interacting with Jupiter and Uranus with Neptune perturbing Uranus’ orbit strengthening and weakening the suns dynamo as direct empirical observations suggest. There are clear differences between using observations to confirm an idea to that of the use of statistical models by adding or removing harmonics to prove or disprove a collation.
    I would also step away from any statistical work that claims to rebut an astronomical fact that the Sun and the planets have an ‘integral relationship’.

  148. Spelling correction, “collation should be correlation as in the statistical relationship between two random variables or two sets of data. 🙂

  149. Sparks says:
    July 29, 2013 at 11:38 am
    I’m interested to know, do solar physicists in general believe that there is NO interaction between the Sun and the planetary system?.
    Generally, yes. But you have to be specific: the Sun does have some influence on the planets [e.g. creates magnetic storms and aurorae], but not the other way around.
    The planets in our solar system interact with each-other, and the solar system in its entirety interacts with the sun, personally I like the Idea of the polarity of the suns core interacting with Jupiter and Uranus with Neptune perturbing Uranus’ orbit strengthening and weakening the suns dynamo as direct empirical observations suggest.
    There is no such observations. Claims galore, but none convincing. The polarity of the core? No such thing.

  150. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Jim G says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:33 am
    The sun and the earth are both traveling in straight lines through curved space/time and both “feel” the curvature, that is why they do what they do.
    “If they did, they would not be moving in ‘straight lines’.”
    But they are, check your General Relativity, it is space which is curved in a gravitational well and objects travel in straight lines within this curved space which appears to us as if they are traveling on a curved orbit or deflected line. For one who speaks so knowledgeably about physics I am surprised that you ‘forget’ this..

  151. Jim G says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    it is space which is curved in a gravitational well and objects travel in straight lines within this curved space which appears to us as if they are traveling on a curved orbit or deflected line.
    So if the Sun thinks it is going straight then clearly it doesn’t feel the curvature.

  152. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “So if the Sun thinks it is going straight then clearly it doesn’t feel the curvature.”
    The sun does not think, the sun does. It must travel within the space/time in which it exists. You are thinking in Newtonian terms in which there is a “gravitational force” acting upon something rather than curvatures of space/time for all obects with mass. The sun like all massive bodies does obey the curvature, feel it or not, thinking or not, there is a relationship that exists.

  153. Jim G says:
    July 29, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    The sun does not think,
    Cheap shot, but apparently it feels:
    Jim G says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:33 am
    both “feel” the curvature
    You are thinking in Newtonian terms in which there is a “gravitational force
    I said that “The sun is in free fall, as is the Earth, and neither feel any such forces” so no Newtonian terms here. My comment was in response to Brent Walker: “The 6-7 fold increase in category 8+ earthquakes since 2004 suggests that the forces which cause the sun to change its orbit of the SSB”. Better to respond in the same formulation.
    The point is that in both the Newtonian and the General Relativity [GR] formulation the Sun is in free fall and does not ‘feel’, ‘react’, ‘influenced by’, etc any ‘forces’, ‘curvature’, whatever. In another thread a commenter said that there are certain complications in GR for ‘extended bodies’ and that solar activity was an effect of GR. You want to go down that road?

  154. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
    “There is no such observations. Claims galore, but none convincing. The polarity of the core? No such thing.”
    Astronomical Ephemeris Data show The planets in our solar system interact with each-other.
    http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/TYPE/ephemeris.html
    And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
    sunspot_area_1875-2040- ephemerides-de-102- Jupiter and earth
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sunspot_area_1875-2040-ephemerides-de-102-ej-dist-low.jpg
    Sunspot Number 1749 – 2040 ephemerides-de-102 N= N1-N2 resonance Uranus, Jupiter and Neptune
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ssn-monthly-average-1749-2040-n-n1-n2.jpg
    Planetary Resonance of Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn derived from ephemerides de-102
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance.gif
    And here is a model test I have been working on, which is unfinished, but matches sunspot numbers almost exactly. Worth looking at!!
    Sunspot number estimate derived from ephemerides de-102 (Unfinished Model)
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/unfinished-ssn.gif
    The polarity of the core?
    It’s an Idea, it’s not a claim, the Idea is basically described best as large magnetic planetary polarities interacting as we would expect them to interact under physics i.e. opposites poles attract and like poles repel each-other and looking for this process in the elliptical orbits of planetary bodies around the sun, the sun has a core, this core must have a north and south / negative and positive polarity and it must also be that any interactions should be clearly evident in planetary bodies as is the case with Uranus and Jupiters orbits, the timing of these planets are an exact match to the suns magnetic cycle including higher activity and greater sun spot development as well as solar minimum length.
    The timing of the Jupiter-Uranus coupled system matches the distorted magnetic activity on the sun and is further highlighted by the evidence that; when Uranus is perturbed by the orbit of Neptune a remarkable change takes place on the sun. We have empirical observational evidence of this, and it is well noted by the astronomical community. as I’ve attempted to show in this image 1650-2012 http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/gravitation-perturbation-of-neptune-on-the-orbit-of-uranus1.jpg?w=900
    You can view an orbital animation of the timing of the Jupiter-Uranus coupled system which matches solar activity here: http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/3-0.gif

  155. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 28, 2013 at 6:53 am
    Sorry about the very late response but been out of internet contact for a few days.
    Re Weather Forecasts in our house we regard the 5 day forecasts by Meteo France as being nothing more than a work of (Science) Fiction. It’s something along the lines of if they were that good at predicting the future they wouldn’t be working for NASA/Meteo France/Met Office/DECC. Since they cannnot predict the future that well a publicly financed sinecure is the next best thing,

  156. Retired engineer John said:
    “Perhaps the chemistry is changing. Have you noticed the Noctilucent clouds that are being seen father South in greater amounts this year. Also a Nacreous cloud was photographed recently. These clouds are formed at very high altitudes by ice crystals and cold temperatures. They had not been seen until recent years”
    I think the chemistry of the upper atmosphere is indeed changing.
    Solar variations appear to have different effects at different heights and noctilucent clouds are between 80km and 100km up whereas the observed increase in ozone since the sun became quieter appears to be around 45km..
    I would think that the weak sun is making it colder at the height of noctilucent clouds but warmer at lower levels by producing more ozone at 45km especially above the poles so that the tropopause height above the poles has fallen relative to the height at the equator thus forcing the jets and climate zones more equatorward.
    The resulting increase in global cloudiness is reducing solar energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate system but it is a very slow process due to oceanic thermal inertia.
    All we see at present is weaker El Ninos relative to La Ninas and cessation of the earlier warming.

  157. Sparks says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
    Except that they don’t line up. So much for that idea.

  158. l’ve got lucky with the weather and in the next few days we will get the a split in the Polar jet like what l’ve been talking about. lf you click onto the Stormsurf global jet stream map and go to the +150hr forecast. You will see just the sort of pattern am talking about. Now what l would like to see is this jet pattern turning up during the winter and seeing what we end up getting.
    Cold and snowy weather over large areas of the NH is my guess.

  159. “Stephen Wilde says: July 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm
    …so that the tropopause height above the poles has fallen relative to the height at the equator thus forcing the jets and climate zones more equatorward.”
    I have wondered what the lowering of the atmosphere is doing to the jet stream. As the Earth turns the atmosphere is heated and increases in height; when the Earth turns away from the Sun, the atmosphere shrinks and this causes the air to rush downhill. This adds rotational energy to the atmosphere and helps power the jet stream. When the height of the atmosphere decreases and the energy heating the upper atmosphere decreases, less rotational energy is going to cause changes in the jet stream. With time we will see how much effect this will have.

  160. Leif,
    You wrote: It is all guess work. Now that the polar fields have finally reversed, we should be able to follow their build-up. After a few years the new polar fields should stabilize and we can make a prediction, not before.
    According to wso.stanford.edu, the reversal of the fields of the north pole region took place around June 1, 2012, but the reversal of the fields of the south pole region has not yet happened. On the contrary, it seems the reversal of the south will take some time. How can you say that both polar fields have finally reversed?

  161. Thanks Leif and Peter B 🙂
    Some of Manuel’s ideas may indeed be elegant. However, if the physical basis of it is bunkum, then it’s back to the drawing board.
    Seems that there’s plenty still to learn about our solar system and its visitors, and there’s nothing wrong with making observations, looking for patterns and hypothesising on a physical mechanism or mechanisms. Continuing down the same path when that physical mechanism is plain wrong, though, seems to be the sign of somebody seeking validation of a pet idea rather than someone seeking enlightenment.
    Livingston and Penn don’t have everything mapped out yet, but at least there’s a posited physical mechanism behind their work which hasn’t been disproved thus far. Like many observed factors in the solar system, it seems likely to me that the observed values of umbral intensity and magnetic field will follow a curve of some description rather than a straight line. Time will tell where the next inflection point will be, and therefore what the visible average sunspot number for cycle 25 may turn out to be, but at the moment they seem to have identified an important driver of the process.

  162. “Luther Wu says:
    July 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    I’ve not reached that conclusion after reading Dr. Svalgaard for years. Your distillation of Dr. Svalgaard’s message is very clear, but where is the data to support your conjecture that the sun (operating within observed parameters) does affect our climate in any meaningful way?”
    I always try to persuade people discover the physics of this rock we live on and our solar system for themselves. Don’t take my or anyone else’s word for it! I have been reading Svalgaard’s posts/info for years too and, although I do respect his posts (Might not read that way…I am very terse and could easily read as “hot headed”, it’s not meat that way, so deal with it!) however, there is plenty of research information available that contradicts his claim that the small changes in solar output (Commonly referred to as TSI), between solar min/max, has ZERO effect on climate. In this tread posties have suggested that there are simply too many variables to suggest that only ONE, that we know of (TSI), has NO effect on climate when it changes, given the primary energy source for this 3rd rock from the sun *IS* the sun. It’s similar to the position alarmists take that states ~50% of ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 IS the DRIVING mechanism, that “thermostat”, in climate change. The probability is that BOTH have an influence, measureable or not at this stage. No-one knows for sure!
    The evidence so far suggests CO2 is not the driver of that change given we already know changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temps by ~800 years (This is accepted science) and we now have, reasonably reliable temperature data since 1979, that temps are not following CO2 concentrations as predicted. As Svalgaard has said in past posts, something else is going on.

  163. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “In another thread a commenter said that there are certain complications in GR for ‘extended bodies’ and that solar activity was an effect of GR. You want to go down that road?”
    Not sure but can you cite me a source, I did not see that one? Could be interesting though it sounds more than a little out of the box.
    Thanks,
    Jim G
    PS: You should never accuse others of cheap shots, I know, I know, as you told me once before, “no need to stoop to your level”, one of your best comments, ever.

  164. Thanks Leif!
    However, I prefer the filtered version of the WSO-graphs: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mfield-aggiornato-ciclo-24.bmp, because these graphs give a clear indication of the reversal for each hemisphere seperate. So, one can ascertain that the filtered curve of the southern hemisphere has not yet crossed the zero-line (last data of July 6: “+ 12”). I conclude that the fields of the south pole region have not yet reversed.
    From the pictures of http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png, I can only deduce that:
    – the northern polar fields have definitely reversed;
    – the southern polar fields have crossed the zero-line but not definitely.
    I don’t know what can be deduced from the unfiltered values N + S. From the unfiltered values N – S, one can conclude that the graph has crossed for the second time the zero-line but I don’t see how this can say something about the definite reversal of the fields of the south pole.
    That’s why I prefer the filtered version because it gives a clear evaluation of the reversal for both hemispheres separate. Of course, I have no much expertise in this matter…

  165. Thanks Leif!
    However I prefer the filtered graph of http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mfield-aggiornato-ciclo-24.bmp. Here, it can clearly be seen that the reversal of the fields of the north pole region took place around the June 1, 2012 and that the value of the fields of the south pole region is still positive (latest value: + 12). So, the reversal of the south pole did not take place yet.
    Looking to the graphs of http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png, I can only deduce:
    – that the unfiltered graph of the northern hemisphere has definitely crossed the zero line;
    – that the unfiltered graph of the southern hemisphere has crossed the zero line, but not definitely.
    I don’t know which information can be taken from the N + S line. The N – S line has crossed the zero line for the second time, but it gives no information about the fields of the south pole region seperate from the northern fields. That’s why I prefer the filtered graph which gives clear information about the reversal of both hemispheres separately. Do you agree with this view? I have not much expertise in this matter.

  166. rikgheysens says:
    July 30, 2013 at 7:17 am
    That’s why I prefer the filtered graph which gives clear information about the reversal of both hemispheres separately. Do you agree with this view?
    We are not sure if there are systematic offsets of the zero level of the magnetograph. One way to eliminate any potential problem is to use the difference between North and South as a measure of the global polar fields. In the data produced at WSO that difference is shown in the rightmost column:
    2013:03:28_21h:07m:13s 9N 25S -8Avg 20nhz filt: 11Nf 15Sf -2Avgf
    2013:04:07_21h:07m:13s 10N 26S -8Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
    2013:04:17_21h:07m:13s 11N 28S -9Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
    2013:04:27_21h:07m:13s 14N 21S -4Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
    2013:05:07_21h:07m:13s 13N 16S -2Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 13Sf -1Avgf
    2013:05:17_21h:07m:13s 7N 3S 2Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf -0Avgf
    2013:05:27_21h:07m:13s 14N -2S 8Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf -0Avgf
    2013:06:06_21h:07m:13s 16N -6S 11Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf 0Avgf
    2013:06:16_21h:07m:13s 15N -8S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 12Sf 0Avgf
    2013:06:26_21h:07m:13s 2N -5S 4Avg 20nhz filt: 14Nf 12Sf 1Avgf
    2013:07:06_21h:07m:13s 4N -21S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 14Nf 12Sf 1Avgf
    Jim G says:
    July 30, 2013 at 6:31 am
    PS: You should never accuse others of cheap shots
    the receiver is the proper judge of how cheap a shot is.

  167. Sparks says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    Except that they don’t line up. So much for that idea.
    What exactly would you expect to line up?
    My charts are not depicting an alignment between Sunspot numbers visible on the record of the solar disk with elliptical planetary resonances if this is what you mean.
    The Sun is spherical the sunspot numbers are recorded from the view point of earth, the planetary orbits are elliptical and there are more than one. My charts use the sunspot record as a guide for the suns monthly state of activity over a period of time, the planetary measurements are a snapshot taken once per year on the 15th of January there are always going to be a slight misalignment based on the timeline and an anomaly or two between the two different data sets, If I was dishonest with the data I could torture it in such away as to compress and stretch the timelines to make them line up exactly, that actually wouldn’t be a problem for me to do as I am familiar with the data and the structure of it. As the data is based on observations and not statistics there are NO Harmonics no wave matching or squaring used in the data, what I think is important is that one half of the data can be very accurately modeled (which is the orbital values) years into the future. And with this accurate model (and higher resolution measurements) it is my hope that it will be possible to derive an accurate forecast of the state of the suns activity.
    I Have the observational data I need to begin building low-resolution forecasts and testing them for accuracy, If it works, great, If it doesn’t work even better!
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance-ssn.gif
    Leif, Just one more point. Just what exactly would you expect to line up? 🙂

  168. Sparks says:
    July 30, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    Leif, Just one more point. Just what exactly would you expect to line up?
    It is your graph, you tell me what is special about it and what I’m supposed to see. I don’t see anything as it is.

  169. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    It is your graph, you tell me what is special about it and what I’m supposed to see. I don’t see anything as it is.
    Any physical relationship or influence between the Sun and its orbiting planets, I would expect it to appear slightly out of sync and for there not to be an exact match of time and influence, in this case I’m using planetary resonance to look for a relationship between the Sun and the planets.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance-ssn.gif
    Basically, In this graph, I use N=N1+N2 where N is the resonance from the observations of three orbiting planetary body’s, I then collect the data of N once per year over a any given period of time.
    What you are looking at in the graph is a slightly out of sync relationship between an independent source of recorded sunspot number data from 1749-2012 and N which is the resonance data, to highlight the Relationship/influence I have plotted the difference in orange with a simple line between the data points. Using this difference value and following N is what I will be using to test for solar cycle forecast potential. As It is based on observation from data to the point of forecast I see nothing wrong at this point. I know it is also based on an Idea of a relationship/influence between the solar system and the Sun but that is all the more reason to test it, I don’t see how it effects any major aspect of solar science.
    I haven’t fully read this paper below but it seems to have the basics of what I’ve been discussing.
    orbital resonances and chaos in the solar system
    http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/rio97.pdf

  170. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am
    Carla says:
    July 29, 2013 at 5:36 am
    If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably …
    What the heliosphere does has no effect on what the Sun does. So, the answers to your quest are all ‘no’
    what about changes in length of rotation time(s) for the sun in this low activity period.
    Generally, magnetic fields on the Sun slow down the differential rotation ever so slightly: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf “the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.”

    Well you know me Dr. S., had to go search alittle and check back with you.
    INTERNAL-CYCLE VARIATION OF SOLAR DIFFERENTIAL
    ROTATION
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3970.pdf
    K. J. LI1,2, J. L. XIE1,3, X. J. SHI1,3
    1National Astronomical Observatories/Yunnan Observatory, CAS, Kunming
    650011, China
    2Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories,
    CAS, Beijing 100012, China
    3Graduate School of CAS, Beijing 100863, China
    17 May 2013
    Abstrct. The latitudinal distributions of the yearly mean rotation rates
    measured respectively by Suzuki in 1998 and 2012 and Pulkkinen & Tuominen
    in 1998 are utilized to investigate internal-cycle variation of solar differential
    rotation. The rotation rate at the solar Equator seems to decrease
    since cycle 10 onwards…
    Contrasting the solar rotation rate of cycles 23 and 24
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012018/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012018.pdf
    H. M. Antia1 and Sarbani Basu2
    1 Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India
    2 Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P. O. Box 20801, New Haven CT 06520-8101,
    U. S. A.
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series 440 (2013) 012018
    2. Results
    In Fig. 1 we show the change in the latitude-independent part of the solar rotation rate at three
    different depths. The latitude-independent part of the rotation rate was obtained by inverting
    the splitting coefficient a1. The changes were obtained by subtracting the average rotation rate
    from the rotation rate at each epoch. Note that there appears to be a solar-cycle related change,
    with the fastest rotation at the cycle 23 solar maximum and the slowest during the two minima.
    Also note that the rotation rate is slower during cycle 24 than it was in cycle 23, in particular
    the solar rotation rate as shown by the latest data point which is close to the cycle 24 maximum
    is lower than the rate at cycle 23 maximum, at least in the outer layers in the Sun. The data
    are too noisy in deeper layers to determine whether or not the rotation rate in the deeper layers
    changed too. The results with GONG data show some large variations at the cycle 23 maximum
    which the MDI data do not, that could be due to some systematic differences introduced during
    the upgrade of GONG instruments. Although, is comparable to errorbars at individual
    points, if we take average over neighbouring points the value will be significant. Further, the
    changes in the latitude-independent part of the solar rotation rate correlate well with the 10.7
    cm flux, which is a proxy for solar activity. This can be seen in Fig. 2…

  171. And on corona heating..
    Long-term Variation of the Corona in Quiet Regions
    S. Kamio1
    · J.T. Mariska2
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5575.pdf
    c Springer •••• 25 April 2012
    Abstract Using Hinode EUV Imaging Spectrometer (EIS) spectra recorded
    daily at Sun center from the end of 2006 to early 2011, we studied the longterm
    evolution of the quiet corona. The light curves of the higher temperature
    emission lines exhibit larger variations in sync with the solar activity cycle
    while the cooler lines show reduced modulation. Our study shows that the high
    temperature component of the corona changes in quiet regions, even though the
    coronal electron density remains almost constant there. The results suggest that
    heat input to the quiet corona varies with the solar activity cycle…

  172. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am
    Carla says:
    July 29, 2013 at 5:36 am
    If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably …
    What the heliosphere does has no effect on what the Sun does. So, the answers to your quest are all ‘no’

    Not so fast Dr. S.
    The galaxy is big. Bigger than the sun and its solar system. The spiral arm we reside in rotates, has magnetic field lines of unbeliveaable proportions. This just might create the scenario for waves..
    How about if a magneto WAVE roles through the Local solar neighborhood, oooh let’s say every 8 to 14 years and just lifts that whole heliocurrent sheet up or down.
    The heliosphere just doesn’t have a southern hemisphere offset in the up wind direction (dent in the nose) but also discovered by IBEX an offset in the helio tail as well… That inward, outward IMF may have an opening.
    IBEX spacecraft images the heliotail — the last region of solar system’s boundary to be seen — revealing an unexpected structure
    San Antonio — July 10, 2013
    http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/2013/ibex-heliotail.htm#.Ufhel04o6Uk
    …”We’re seeing a heliotail that’s much flatter and broader than expected, with a slight tilt,” says McComas. “Imagine sitting on a beach ball. The ball gets flattened by the external forces and its cross section is oval instead of circular. That’s the effect the external magnetic field appears to be having on the heliotail.”…

  173. Sparks says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Are the orbits of the Jovian planets constant in terms of time? Could their orbits change (slow down, elongate) if the sun’s activity cycle slows down? I think they might, now your theory might have a problem..
    Just thinking out loud..
    Just the messenger don’t shoot me..

  174. @Carla
    And space aliens may be causing waves that are interfering and causing all the effects as well or perhaps there is a big space whale and he just flapped his tail and sent the space wave.
    You do realize how desperate this all looks?
    As Leif says you are a true nutcase believer you will believe anything to make your story work.

  175. Carla says:
    July 30, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Are the orbits of the Jovian planets constant in terms of time? Could their orbits change (slow down, elongate) if the sun’s activity cycle slows down? I think they might, now your theory might have a problem..
    Just thinking out loud..
    Just the messenger don’t shoot me..

    The changes in the planets orbits are built in to their observations, they are well known about, in fact Neptune was predicted by Urbain Le Verrier before it was directly observed by using these observed changes. There is actually nothing unusual or out of the ordinary with what I’m doing, orbital calculations are made by astronomers every day.

  176. Again, it is clear “experts” don’t know what is going on. Why is it so hard for “experts” to say “I don’t know?”.

  177. LdB says:
    July 31, 2013 at 12:38 am

    Heavens sake, not a whale tail, but a coiling SNAKE. Taa Daa Ya think that Orion is making magneto waves, harmonic subdivisions, and resonance. Yep How much more different than a spiral arm in our own galaxy. Could there be a periodicity in that. Yep I think so……..
    Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in Orion
    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml
    By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 12 January 2006
    BERKELEY – Astronomers announced today (Thursday, Jan. 12) what may be the first discovery of a helical magnetic field in interstellar space, coiled like a snake around a gas cloud in the constellation of Orion.
    “You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud,” said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. “The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape.”
    Astronomers have long hoped to find specific cases in which magnetic forces directly influence the shape of interstellar clouds, but according to Robishaw, “telescopes just haven’t been up to the task … until now.”
    The findings provide the first evidence of the magnetic field structure around a filamentary-shaped interstellar cloud known as the Orion Molecular Cloud…
    Sparks says:
    July 31, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    How do these numbers work with your numbers.
    “”Note also that the sunspot N-S asymmetry also depicts a similar
    80..90-year oscillation as the rotation asymmetry”””
    Consistent long-term variation in the hemispheric asymmetry
    of solar rotation
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa20693-12.pdf
    L. Zhang1;2, K. Mursula1, and I. Usoskin3
    1 Department of Physics, University of Oulu, 90914 Oulu, Finland
    e-mail: liyun.zhang@oulu.fi
    2 Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100012 Beijing, PR China
    3 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, 99600 Tähtelä, Finland
    Received 5 November 2012 / Accepted 26 February 2013
    …4. Discussion
    Figure 6 shows the difference between the total area of sunspot
    groups with an area larger than 2000 uHem in the northern and
    southern hemispheres, i.e., the N-S asymmetry of large sunspot
    groups. One can see that the southern hemisphere was significantly
    more active in large sunspots than the northern hemisphere
    around 1900. Then the asymmetry reversed, with the
    north being dominant from the 1920s until the 1960s. (The
    asymmetry is fluctuating considerably from 1940 to 1960).
    Thereafter, the asymmetry reversed again and reached its minimum
    around 1980. Accordingly, the N-S asymmetry of large
    sunspots (Fig. 6) shows a clear anti-correlation with the N-S
    asymmetry of solar surface rotation (see, e.g., Figs. 2 or 5).
    Note also that the sunspot N-S asymmetry also depicts a similar
    80..90-year oscillation as the rotation asymmetry…

  178. And Sparks.. included in the group for differential rotation are Saturn and Jupiter.
    How in tune are you with their differential rotation?
    Just thinking out loud, no need to answer that.

  179. If one is interested in the different types of magnetic fields and topography of our galaxy and other galaxies, try this catalog.
    Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems, Springer, Berlin 2013, Vol. 5, Chapter 13
    – corrected and updated version –
    Magnetic Fields in Galaxies
    Rainer Beck & Richard Wielebinski
    Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, Germany
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
    I have only just .. browsed this doing a little search on information on larger scale differential rotation it is described 4 times.. maybe the next search of this article should be on sign as in reversals.. oh my really good stuff so far.. looking like a must read.
    Another mandatory read I would think for Dr. S…
    Or maybe he already has read it..

  180. LdB says:
    July 31, 2013 at 12:38 am

    Like Neil Young says, “This Note’s for You.”
    Now there might be some “electromagnetic waves,” coming from the coiling snake……..
    looky see ah LdB
    2.2 Synchrotron emission
    Charged particles (mostly electrons) moving at relativistic speeds (cosmic rays) around magnetic fields
    lines on spiral trajectories generate electromagnetic waves. Cosmic rays in interstellar magnetic fields
    are the origin of the diffuse radio emission from the Milky Way (Fermi 1949; Kiepenheuer 1950). A
    single cosmic-ray electron of energy E (in GeV) in a magnetic field with a component perpendicular to
    the line of sight of strength B┴ (in μG) emits a smooth spectrum with a maximum at the frequency:

  181. Carla says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm
    How do these numbers work with your numbers.
    “”Note also that the sunspot N-S asymmetry also depicts a similar
    80..90-year oscillation as the rotation asymmetry”””
    Consistent long-term variation in the hemispheric asymmetry
    of solar rotation
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa20693-12.pdf

    The rotation rates of sunspots are on a different scale from the orbital calculations Ive been plotting, and I haven’t used any factors from the suns rotation, that would be counter intuitive.
    The orange line in this graph is N=N1+N2 where N is the resonance from the observations of three orbiting planetary body’s.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/planet-solar-match-1.jpg
    Here is a quick example to show you the similarities between the planets orbits and solar activity. with a mock up of solar cycle 24 and 25 in the example so you can see it better.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/planet-solar-match-2.jpg
    And here.
    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/planet-solar-match-3.jpg
    Carla says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    “included in the group for differential rotation are Saturn and Jupiter.
    How in tune are you with their differential rotation?”

    I don’t know what you mean by this??, I may just need some sleep… 🙂

Comments are closed.