Our resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, sends word of this new discovery.
Stanford solar scientists solve one of the sun’s mysteries
The sun’s magnetic field can play havoc with communications technology. Stanford scientists have now described one of the underlying processes that help form the magnetic field, which could help scientists predict its behavior.
By Bjorn Carey
Stanford solar scientists have solved one of the few remaining fundamental mysteries of how the sun works.
The mechanism, known as meridional flow, works something like a conveyor belt. Magnetic plasma migrates north to south on the sun’s surface, from the equator to the poles, and then cycles into the sun’s interior on its way back to the equator.
The rate and depth beneath the surface of the sun at which this process occurs is critical for predicting the sun’s magnetic and flare activity, but has remained largely unknown until now.
The solar scientists used the Stanford-operated Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) – an instrument onboard NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observatory satellite – to track solar waves in much the way seismologists would study seismic movements beneath the surface of the Earth. Every 45 seconds for the past two years, the HMI’s Doppler radar snapped images of plasma waves moving across the sun’s surface.
By identifying patterns of sets of waves, the scientists could recognize how the solar materials move from the sun’s equator toward the poles, and how they return to the equator through the sun’s interior.
“Once we understood how long it takes the wave to pass across the exterior, we determined how fast it moves inside, and thus how deep it goes,” said Junwei Zhao, a senior research scientist at the Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory at Stanford, and lead author on the paper.
Although solar physicists have long hypothesized such a mechanism, at least in general terms, the new observations redefine solar currents in a few ways. First, the returning currents occur 100,000 kilometers below the surface of the sun, roughly half as deep as suspected. As such, solar materials pass through the interior and return to the equator more quickly than hypothesized.
More startling, Zhao said, is that the equator-ward flow is actually sandwiched between two “layers” of pole-ward currents, a more complicated mechanism than previously thought, and one that could help refine predictions of the sun’s activity.
“Considered together, this means that our previously held beliefs about the solar cycle are not totally accurate, and that we may need to make accommodations,” Zhao said.
For example, some computer models projected that the current solar cycle would be strong, but observations have since showed it is actually much weaker than the previous cycle. This inconsistency could be due to the previously unknown inaccuracies of the meridional circulation mechanism used in the simulations.
Improving the accuracy of simulations, Zhao said, will produce a better picture of fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field, which can interfere with satellites and communications technology on Earth. The sun’s magnetic field resets every 11 years – the next reset will occur sometime in the next few months – and there is evidence that changes in the meridional flow can influence how the magnetic field evolves during a particular cycle.
“We want to continue monitoring variations of the meridional flow,” he said, “so that we can better predict the next solar cycle, when it will come and how active it will be.”
The report was published in the online edition of The Astrophysical Journal Letters. It was co-authored by three other researchers at the Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory – senior scientists Rick Bogart and Alexander Kosovichev and research associate Thomas Hartlep – as well as NASA senior scientist Tom Duvall. Phil Scherrer, a professor of physics at Stanford, is the principal investigator of the HMI project and supervised the study.
=================================================================
Leif adds an excerpt from the paper in an email:
Meridional flow inside the Sun plays an important role in redistributing rotational angular momentum and transporting magnetic flux, and is crucial to our understanding of the strength and duration of sunspot cycles according to flux-transport dynamo theories. At the Sun’s surface and in its shallow interior to at least 30 Mm in depth, the meridional flow is predominantly poleward with a peak speed of approximately 20 m/s.
The poleward plasma flow transports the surface magnetic flux from low latitudes to the polar region, causing the periodic reversals of the global magnetic field, a process important to the prediction of the solar cycles. The speed and variability of the meridional flow also play an important role in determining the strength and duration of the solar cycles, and the unusually long activity minimum at the end of Solar Cycle 23 during 2007–2010 was thought to be associated with an increase of the meridional flow speed during the declining phase of the previous cycle. Therefore, an accurate determination of the meridional flow profile is crucial to our understanding and prediction of solar magnetic activities.
Although the poleward meridional flow at the solar surface and in shallow depths has been well studied, the depth and speed profile of the equatorward return flow, which is expected to exist inside the solar convection zone to meet the mass conservation, largely remains a puzzle. It is generally assumed that the return flow is located near the base of the convection zone, although no convincing evidence had been reported.
The continuous Doppler observations by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager onboard the recently launched Solar Dynamics Observatory mission (SDO) allow us to measure and detect the long-sought equatorward flow. Our analysis, which takes into account the systematic center-to-limb effect that was recently found in the local helioseismology analysis techniques, gives a two-dimensional cross-section picture of the meridional flow inside the nearly entire solar convection zone, and reveals a double-cell circulation with the equatorward flow located near the middle of the convection zone.
Figure 1 shows the new picture suggested by the HMI data.
This new picture of the solar interior meridional circulation differs substantially from the previously widely believed picture of a single-cell circulation with the equatorward flow near the bottom of the convection zone [the Conveyor Belt Model]. Through removing a systematic center-to-limb effect that was only recently identified, our analysis corrects and improves the previous solar interior meridional flow profile given by Giles (1999) using a similar analysis procedure.
The new meridional circulation profile poses a challenge to the flux-transport dynamo models, but provides more physical constraints to these models creating a new opportunity to further understand how magnetic field is generated and how magnetic flux is transported inside the Sun. Past dynamo simulations have already demonstrated that a meridional circulation profile with multiple cells might not be able to reproduce the butterfly diagram and the phase relationship between the toroidal and poloidal fields as observed, unless the dynamo model was reconsidered. However, on the other hand, solar convection simulations have shown the possibility of multi-cell circulation with a shallow equatorward flow (e.g.,Miesch et al. 2006; Guerrero et al. 2013), demonstrating that our analysis results are reasonable.
Moreover, a recent dynamo simulation, with the double-cell meridional circulation profile incorporated, showed that the solar magnetic properties could be robustly reproduced after taking into consideration of turbulent pumping, turbulent diffusivity, and other factors (Pipin & Kosovichev 2013). All these studies, together with our observational results, suggest a rethinking of how the solar magnetic flux is generated and transported inside the Sun.
Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/774/2/L29
pdf here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/ApJL-2013-Meridional-Flow.pdf
…research at Stanford’s Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory.
Please tell me this place isn’t named after James Hansen.
Now take into account the downward motion of the hydrogen [plasma flows] and the burning of the hydrogen into helium on the surface of the core. Again, the core is the place where burned hydrogen waste products are stored. As per other research, the hydrogen density above the core is 75% to 25% helium. In the core the helium is at 75% and the hydrogen at 25%.
These things will explain the 180/360 year cycles.
This model is getting better, but is still not complete.
pinroot says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:55 am
…research at Stanford’s Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._W._Hansen
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:05 am
Now take into account the downward motion of the hydrogen [plasma flows] and the burning of the hydrogen into helium on the surface of the core.
No, the burning does not take place on the surface of the core. And you have to be explicit about what you call the core. Energy production maximizes at the center where the temperature is highest.
These things will explain the 180/360 year cycles.
it takes 250,000 years for the energy released in the core to reach the surface, so we cannot say that the core processes explains 180/360 ‘cycles’.
However, on the other hand, solar convection simulations have shown the possibility of multi-cell circulation with a shallow equatorward flow (e.g.,Miesch et al. 2006; Guerrero et al. 2013), demonstrating that our analysis results are reasonable.
They’re validating their results, which are supposedly based on observational results, with simulations?! Like “our interpretation of the readings must be correct because someone already modeled something similar”? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy? Do they not move energy faster than 250,000 years? Yes, you can not say what processes explain the cycles, because the model is incomplete!
In addition, you “prove” what happens in the cores interior. A supernova explosion happens in days. That energy moves faster than 250,000 years.
It is time for your theories/proposals; instead of blasting everyone else. What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?
The Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory was founded in 1947. At that time James Hansen was six years old.
Pinroot asked about the source of the name.
No, not the egregious modern-day Hansen, it was named after William Webster Hansen (May 27, 1909 – May 23, 1949), a U.S. physicist who was one of the founders of the technology of microwave electronics. See e.g. wikipedia entry.
It’s funny to me to see people who do such a good job criticizing the use of models – computer games – in place of science in the global warming debate embrace the same use of models – comparable computer games – in place of science in solar physics.
Currents running through the surface of the screw cause it to spin in this demonstration of a Faraday Motor. Currents generate magnetic fields.
You are correct. We should not use models. We will get together some
funds and buy a space ship and send the two of you (Mark and Katherine)
to the sun to take measurements directly. Really, you should think before
you type.
In reality, any equation can be considered a “model” so no one who
knows their ass from a hole in the ground (should I have self-snipped that?)
would think that you can’t use models in science. But eventually they have
to match the real world. That is the point. The problem folks have with
models are the projections 100 years from now of temperatures, weather,
mass extinctions, etc. Short term predictions can be tested and that is
the point of models/science. The GCM’s are not doing that well. It is the
long term catastrophic nth-dimensional projections that are the problem.
By nth-dimensional I mean the chaining together of what-if scenarios.
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy?
The energy of the sound from distant thunder is infinitesimal compared to the energy in the thunderstorm itself.
Katherine says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
They’re validating their results, which are supposedly based on observational results, with simulations?!
A model simulation is the expression of the physics we know about a phenomenon, so the statement is that the data is consistent with the physics as far as we know it. This is important because both the data and the physics have uncertainties.
Thanks Dr. S and Anthony, I always enjoy reading about the Sun and, of course, Dr. S’s comments!
In the end, it will be determined that there are two fundamental processes with periods of approximately P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years which beat together, producing variations in flux magnitude at approximate periods of P2*P1/(P2+P1) = 10.8 years, P2*P1/(P2-P1) = 131 years, P1/2 = 10 years, and P2/2 = 11.8 years.
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?
There aren’t any.
Zeke says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:29 am
Currents generate magnetic fields.
In a plasma, movement of the matter in an existing magnetic field generates the electrical currents.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:35 am
In the end, it will be determined that there are two fundamental processes with periods of approximately P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years which beat together
Bart, we are trying to discuss science here. So, perhaps, you should not expose your ignorance yet again.
Leif Svalgaard says: ?????????
Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick! Don’t you have theories? Oh, that is correct; you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:41 am
you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.
and you are?
“Considered together, this means that our previously held beliefs about the solar cycle are not totally accurate, and that we may need to make accommodations,” Zhao said.
Spoken like a true scientist!
I have a PhD is Systems Engineering with a minor in Plasma Physics. I do real math models. I use statistics data to verify whether my model is correct.
I see you still can’t propose any theories!
Leif,
Are you saying that there are no 180/360 cycles or no theories about them, or both?
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:41 am
Leif Svalgaard says: ?????????
Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick! Don’t you have theories? Oh, that is correct; you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.
#######################
Mods please
Leif and others should not be subjected to this kind of abusive trolling on a technical scientific thread. Especially from an anonymous poster.
Dr. Lurtz says:
“Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick!”
Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy?
Answered. Their energy is infintesimal
Do they not move energy faster than 250,000 years?
Not relevant since their energy is infintesimal
What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?
Answered. There are no cycles to explain.
So lets see. A Phd asks three questions. Two of the three are answered directly and we can see that the second doesnt matter. No Phd required, just 5th grade reading skills.
And then the Phd demands that all his questions be answered.
Stupid questions exists. folks, you’ve just seen three of them
Solar science — careful observation doesn’t match model, model needs revision.
Climate science — careful observation doesn’t match model, wave hands, claim missing data is travesty, point with alarm at what might happen according to the model
It’s all so clear to me now.
Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:47 am
I do real math models. I use statistics data to verify whether my model is correct.
‘real’ math models?
In physics, models are an expression of our knowledge [a short-hand you might say] and so what is important is what physical mechanism lies behind an observation. As far as I know you have never explained the physics.
Jim G says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:54 am
Are you saying that there are no 180/360 cycles or no theories about them, or both?
Both. A theory, in science, is not just some hand waving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Steven Mosher says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:54 am
Leif and others should not be subjected to this kind of abusive trolling on a technical scientific thread. Especially from an anonymous poster.
Well, in general we should take care that a thread is not [as in this case] hi-jacked by people who has their own [unfounded] pet ‘theories’ to peddle. I’m myself partly guilty by even replying to them [as their nonsense should just be ignored], but on the other hand there may be readers that need a suitable warning about the spreading of this kind of stuff.
Fascinating story about our closest star. The term “Doppler radar” is used incorrectly, I suspect. It appears that the scientists are creating images similar to Doppler radar, but other techniques are used to generate the images.
So ballpark, the surface flow is 20m/sec, so the time to transport a parcel from equator to a pole is roughly
years, give or take a hair? Or rather less time (perhaps a year or even less), since the surface flow must either accelerate or the thickness of the northbound surface layer must increase due to conservation of mass plus the Jacobean, or does it remain uniform (meaning that there is continuous subduction occurring as it moves north, which has a major impact on where the defect line would be where there is no bulk transport in the center of the outer roll?
The movie above (with only a cross-section shown) doesn’t show the compression of flow streamlines that has to occur as one moves towards the poles. Surely this creates some sort of instability. I would not claim this is the cause of the butterflies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some visible sign of a turbulent instability as the plasma is effectively compressed as it flows north.
rgb
RHL says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:09 am
The term “Doppler radar” is used incorrectly, I suspect.
Every analogy is halting at some point. What we observe is that the solar surface ‘bobs up and down’ [because of waves in the material]. So patches of the solar surface is coming toward us [and is blue-shifted] and other patches are moving away from us [and is red-shifted]. The Doppler map shows where the blue-shifted and red-shifted patches are. Analysis of the pattern allows us to say something about the solar interior [just like seismic waves from earthquakes – or artificial explosions – do], so the ‘Doppler’ designated is very appropriate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Both. A theory, in science, is not just some hand waving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory”
I was merely asking you to clarify your comment, the condescension was unneccesary.
FYI:
con·de·scen·sion
/ˌkändəˈsenCHən/
noun
noun: condescension; plural noun: condescensions1. an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.
“a tone of condescension”
Jim G says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:19 am
I was merely asking you to clarify your comment, the condescension was unnecessary.
Perhaps you could appreciate that my comment about ‘theory’ has applicability to other people’s use of the term [.e.g a certain Dr. L].
I always thought it was extremely interesting that it takes 250,000 years for energy generated in the core to reach the surface of the Sun. Obviously there is a lot of molecules under tremendous pressure to migrate through but a similar process must also work on Earth. How long does it take for energy received from the Sun to migrate its way through all those land, water and atmospheric molecules back out to space.
The movie above (with only a cross-section shown) doesn’t show the compression of flow streamlines that has to occur as one moves towards the poles. Surely this creates some sort of instability. I would not claim this is the cause of the butterflies, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some visible sign of a turbulent instability as the plasma is effectively compressed as it flows north.
Hmmm, a second source of instability occurred to me. Northbound currents “should” be deflected spinward by Coriolis forces, should they not? Southbound currents “should” be deflected antispinwards. There are no continental boundaries so shouldn’t the entire flow pattern be surface-skewed, accelerating, to the right, spiral around at the poles before “going down the drain” there, and come back, depth skewed towards the left, so that the northbound and southbound expresses cross at some angle across the defect plane. There’s a source of serious turbulence right there, especially when one has to factor in magnetohydrodynamics and this motion occurs in a magnetic field.
rgb
Bill Illis says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:26 am
I always thought it was extremely interesting that it takes 250,000 years for energy generated in the core to reach the surface of the Sun. Obviously there is a lot of molecules under tremendous pressure to migrate through but a similar process must also work on Earth.
Strictly speaking it is not the molecules that migrate [as the interior out to 0.7 of the radius is convectively stable – i.e. does not move in the radial direction – like the Earth’s stratosphere]. The energy is carried by photons, that are constantly absorbed and new ones emitted [some of them back in the direction of the center]. This ‘diffusion’ of photons [energy] is very slow, hence the long time to reach the outer layers.
How long does it take for energy received from the Sun to migrate its way through all those land, water and atmospheric molecules back out to space.
For some it is immediately, for others [e,g, if it reaches the deep ocean of great depth on land] it can take thousands of years.
“This new picture of the solar interior meridional circulation differs substantially from the previously widely believed picture of a single-cell circulation with the equatorward flow near the bottom of the convection zone [the Conveyor Belt Model].”
Indeed, very interesting… One wishes many including the good doctor were as willing to correct their antiquated vision of Earth atmospheric circulation…
Are they in a position to hind cast and see, by how much, plugging in this new data improves the projections for the current solar cycle?
If the text “… some computer models projected…, but observations have since showed it is actually….” were to be applied in climatology, what do you reckon the reaction would be? D-words, anybody?
rgbatduke says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:32 am
There are no continental boundaries so shouldn’t the entire flow pattern be surface-skewed, accelerating, to the right, spiral around at the poles before “going down the drain” there…
It does, see e.g. the spiral at the lower right on slide 22 of http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
The solar predictions have been almost as bad as AGW theory.
Dr Svalgaard, I have am looking for papers regarding plasma recombination. I am wondering what the sun and other stars would look like if their power came solely from recombination. I’m not saying that’s how stars work, just wondering what a model of a star would look like using recombination rather than fusion as its power source.
Any links you could provide to profession-grade work on plasma recombination would be appreciated. My undergrad textbook has nothing on the subject.
Many think it is the angular mometum exerted by the planets. Count me in on this theory, and out on this latest study.
Galvanize says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:36 am
Are they in a position to hind cast and see, by how much, plugging in this new data improves the projections for the current solar cycle?
I don’t think it improves the projections for the current cycle, but our improved understanding might help for the next cycle.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:39 am
The solar predictions have been almost as bad as AGW theory.
The solar prediction is actually quite good, http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf and slides 20-21 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf or if you can show it: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.ppt
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:42 am
Many think it is the angular mometum exerted by the planets. Count me in on this theory, and out on this latest study.
Never let observations interfere with your beliefs, it seems…
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” (Winston Churchill)
The use of models compares to the use of reasoning. Neither models nor reasoning are intrinsically good or bad. Their quality and relevance comes from their constructive properties and congruity with real phenomena.
Thanks for the contribution Dr. Svalgaard. Fascinating as usual. I had many question, but others appear to be asking them for me. I appreciate the answers.
Steven Mosher says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:54 am
For the fisrt time in several years I TOTALLY agree with Mosher. STOP IT.
@Bart
Don’t let these so called professionals here intimidate you! Just keepfollowing your own results.
My data suggests that the two binomials (we are talking about the sun’s field strengths), if we were to take it backwards in time, must come to dead end stop somewhere in 1972 and then the 22/23 years before that time (1 HN solar cycle) must be similar / more or less mirror the 22/23 years after that date (1972)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
I determined:
average annual SSN 1950-1972
76
Average annual SSN 1972-1995
74
the two periods are mirroring as expected –
In terms of my data, one would expect the data for SSN from 1995-2016 to be similar to that of the period 1927-1950 (data for SSN before 1927 is murky/incorrect/inaccurate/used different formula/etc)
Average annual SSN 1927-1950
63
Looks to me I am on the way of being proved right, again.
What a pleasure it is to see real science. Congratulations to Dr. Svalgaard and his colleagues.
Thanks Leif for always being here when your subject arises
I want to see solar predictions going forward from these people and then we will see how much or little of an understanding they have about the solar dynamo.
Back up this study with precise predictions. Not one prediction.
Leif made predictions on solar flux and ap index going out to year 2015 which I appreciate. They(STANFORD SOLAR SCIENTIST ) need to do the same.
HENRY, your studies are as valid as their study.
There were may solar scientist who thought Solar Cycle 24 was going to be very active,
Now that its half over and significantly lower than what was projected 10 years ago I find it difficult to understand how you Dr, Svalgaard can still defend that position, You personally may not have predicted an active cycle 24 but many other solar scientists did.
Magicjava says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:41 am
Any links you could provide to profession-grade work on plasma recombination would be appreciated. My undergrad textbook has nothing on the subject.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘plasma recombination’ in this context. The Sun is so hot that plasma is generated spontaneous and continuously as the kinetic energy of the moving atoms are much larger than the binding energy of the electrons around the nucleus. Furthermore, the fusion process produces neutrinos. we can calculate how many and of which energy and the observations show good correspondence with the calculations, so we are quite certain that fusion is what powers the Sun.
LEIF, some of the solar predictions were good but as the article points out many predicted based on some computer models that this current solar cycle would be strong..
Infact many more from the mainstream(not all however) approach were callng for this cycle to be strong, then those who subscribe to the angular mometum theory.
Arthur you are so correct. After the fact they change the story ,just like AGW theory.
Arthur, Leif made some predictions here they are
solar flux for rest of this year 120, next year 120, year 2015, 115
ap index for the rest of this year 10, next year 9 and year 2015, 12
Top cell’s 15m/s velocity as quoted gives 1.2 solar circumference for 11 year cycle, which appear to be far [too] fast.
Velocity of about 6m/s (~0.5 of solar circumference) would be of right order for generating 11 year sunspot cycle ( for 22 year magnetic cycle about 3m/s).
That said, if the above meridional flow hypothesis explains solar magnetic cycle, it still doesn’t tell anything about sunspot generation and even less about such important matter as the Grand minima. I expect further progress, but until then I’ll stick with ‘magnetospheric feedback’ hypothesis for the solar magnetic cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which gives both magnetic cycle and the forthcoming Grand minimum. I am sure none of the experts in field will agree, but again the sun wouldn’t care too much about that.
“For example, some computer models projected that the current solar cycle would be strong,”
Not again, please. That was a prediction, surely. A failed one, but prediction nevertheless. The term “projection” was used only in climate science so far, with no definite meaning, to muddy the water, no doubt.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for the reply. As I said, I’m not saying the sun is powered by recombination. I just want to build a model of a star powered by recombination to see what the results would be. Recombination is not covered in the plasma textbook I have and I’ve had little success in tracking down online papers covering recombination.
Again, thanks for your reply and thanks for sharing the article about new information about the sun with us.
Arthur says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Now that its half over and significantly lower than what was projected 10 years ago I find it difficult to understand how you Dr, Svalgaard can still defend that position
I think the prediction of 10 years ago is holding up quite well: 75+/-8, or 68% chance that the value would be in the range 67-83, or 95% chance that it would be in the range of 59-91: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
You personally may not have predicted an active cycle 24 but many other solar scientists did.
So what? they all agree now that mine is what counts 🙂
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm
some of the solar predictions were good but as the article points out many predicted based on some computer models that this current solar cycle would be strong..
See above.
those who subscribe to the angular momentum theory
are nuts, as far as I am concerned, because that ‘theory’ violates the laws of physics: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says;
‘on the other hand there may be readers that need a suitable warning about the spreading of this kind of stuff.’
You are perfectly correct. I, at least, who visit here regularly need rubbish exposing as, rubbish as my science education is often inadequate to pick out the untruths. Thank you.
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I’ll stick with ‘magnetospheric feedback’ hypothesis for the solar magnetic cycle:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm which gives both magnetic cycle and the forthcoming Grand minimum.
You are one of those who pollute these pages by spreading garbage.
I am sure none of the experts in field will agree, but again the sun wouldn’t care too much about that
nor about your nonsense.
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-solar-dynamo-published/#comment-1403047
Interesting, from simple trend analysis I think I can estimate the error in the readings 1904-1927 with reasonable certainty.
Applying the correction, it gives me
Average annual SSN 1904-1927
62
In terms of the 88 solar / weather cycle it is important to understand where we are in history (droughts coming up 2021-2028).
rgbatduke says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:09am and 11:32 am
Good insights, rgbatduke!
From a (mental) polar view, I could visualize the constrained in-flows and rotational distortions you described. Thanks!
And Thanks to Dr. Svalgaard. for the informative responses!
MtK
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:40 am
“Bart, we are trying to discuss science here.”
You try, I succeed.
HenryP says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:59 am
“@Bart
Don’t let these so called professionals here intimidate you! Just keep following your own results.”
Thanks but, don’t worry. Eventually, he will either learn how it works and realize that it’s been staring him in the face all along, or someone else will. Anyone with a moiety of skill in the appropriate subjects will recognize what this means.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:46 pm
“Bart, we are trying to discuss science here.”
You try, I succeed
Looks very much like a case of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You have joined the merry band of polluters.
.
Let us see what the temperatures do going forward and how the sun behaves going forward and if any correlations come about as a result, and then take it from there.
I want to see results not talk which is all we are getting.
Make the predictions and stand by them, a study or talk without being backed up by predictions, is meaningless.
Put the money where the study is and make the prediction and stand by the prediction.
I hate excuses and changes once a prediction is made. Don’t make it if you can’t stand by it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:52 pm
I want to see results not talk which is all we are getting.
Most of the ‘talk’ comes from you [with contributions from the usual polluters].
rgbatduke says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:32 am
There’s a source of serious turbulence right there, especially when one has to factor in magnetohydrodynamics and this motion occurs in a magnetic field.
——————————————————-
Lorentz force on sodium and chlorine ions in a salt water solution flow under a transverse magnetic field:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/30/3/004
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm
“Looks very much like a case of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.”
Indeed. As I stated, anyone with a moiety of skill in the appropriate subjects will recognize what this means. D&K had you pegged.
Question.
If I were “standing” on the “surface” of the sun, how much would I weigh ?
(assuming 160lb of mass).
I know, but what would be the potential ?
This (magnetic properties of the sun)is all a simulation… It only explains how it “might” work.
And how does the surface of the sun work again??
I find it amazing that there is a layer of neutral iron and a layer of neutral nickle that HMI can use to determine the surface magnetic field… And they can do this at the micro nm scale of measurement. The surface of the neutral layer give enough resolution for 100’s of feet of motion…..
Above this layer the temp rises quickly to thousands of degrees… That would indicate the presence of a electric field accelerating the plasma from 0 to to a couple of million degrees by the time it reaches the corona…
Nobody has explained how this is so…..
“””””……Stanford solar scientists solve one of the sun’s mysteries……””””””
“Solve” ??? I couldn’t find that in my compendium of weasel words.
Damn nice to see an announcement, where the informants, have confidence in the correctness of their new(er) model.
I’ve been there and done that (in a much more minor situation) and it is always a thrill, to be able to say with confidence; “We figured this thing out correctly.”
It’s not too often that Dr Svalgaard asserts that the sun is actually doing something; so this must be the real thing. Izzat a sort of solar “Hadlee Cell” thing Leif. (except in a layered direction) ? Seems like there must be some sort of angular momentum value, that suddenly got itself adjusted to a new value. Darned if I can guess whether up or down though.
Some apparently think putting emphasis on results is somehow offensive.
All I have called for is back up a study /conclusions with a prediction.
I believe Anthony Watts, and others base their conclusions on such an approach, as do I.
I will admit to wrong,if the sun is either much more active then I expect or if the sun is quiet and
the temperatures fail to go down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
I think the . (Dr. Svalgaard’s) prediction of 10 years ago is holding up quite well: 75+/-8….
…….
You are . (Vukcevic) one of those who pollute these pages by spreading garbage.
Hey Doc
Are you worried that my ‘garbage’ produces superior results to the Stanford science?
Let’s see, your hypothesis is based on the PF max time which was not reached until 2006 Your paper http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
is also dated 2006, so you could not make prediction in 2003, the PF was 3 years off its maximum
I wrote the equation in the early part of 2003 (published 8th January 2004)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm (indicated by red arrow) when it was not known future course of the PF, while Hathaway and Dicpati were talking large numbers.
Equation has proved itself up to date, may fail in the future but that remains to be seen. You may call it garbage but so far so good.
Thanks much for your comments, Leif, and contribution to this board.
“””””…..Arthur says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:11 pm
There were may solar scientist who thought Solar Cycle 24 was going to be very active,
Now that its half over and significantly lower than what was projected 10 years ago I find it difficult to understand how you Dr, Svalgaard can still defend that position, You personally may not have predicted an active cycle 24 but many other solar scientists did……..”””””
Isn’t that the process that one is supposed to follow in science ?
If you make predictions on the basis of your (current) model, and then new lines of evidence suggest that a different model is more accurate; this is like having your foot on the gas, and suddenly realizing there’s a concrete wall in your way. Common sense dictates that you at least take your foot off the gas, and preferably steer in a different direction that is more likely to succeed.
I don’t see any contradiction to complain about. If you realize that the flow has a different structure from your previous models said; well you shift horses to what your evidence tells you is a more real model or structure.
Quite often, the most valuable research discovery, is the discovery that you have no business continuing down the previously preferred path, and should shift to a new one.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:01 pm
D&K had you pegged.
Apart of the D&K syndrome is that you don’t even know it.
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm
If I were “standing” on the “surface” of the sun, how much would I weigh ?
27 times as much as you would weigh on the surface of the Earth.
Brant Ra says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:08 pm
I find it amazing that there is a layer of neutral iron and a layer of neutral nickle that HMI can use to determine the surface magnetic field
Actually no ‘layers’ just iron and nickel atoms springled among the overwhelming bulk of Hyrogen and Helium.
That would indicate the presence of a electric field accelerating the plasma from 0 to to a couple of million degrees by the time it reaches the corona…
If there was such an electric field it would be neutralized by the plasma, so no electric field.
george e. smith says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Damn nice to see an announcement, where the informants, have confidence in the correctness of their new(er) model.
We are actually talking about obervations and measurements. It is an extra bouns that they also agree with some models.
Izzat a sort of solar “Hadley Cell” thing Leif. (except in a layered direction)?
More or less, and probably also caused by some temperature difference, but the ‘layered’ puzzles me. The Hadley cell is also ‘layered’.
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Equation has proved itself up to date, may fail in the future but that remains to be seen. You may call it garbage but so far so good.
Apart from your ‘history’ being wrong, we have gone over this too many times to be worth repeating. Garbage it was and still is.
Time will tell. This decade is going to very interesting.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm
“A part of the D&K syndrome is that you don’t even know it.”
Precisely.
I really want to read Leif’s comments, but am really annoined by the condescension. Am I the only one?
A solar ‘greenhouse effect’ eh? No wonder the Sun is so hot 🙂
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:55 pm
“A part of the D&K syndrome is that you don’t even know it.”
Precisely.
Including your denial of your incompetence. In any event you are not bringing anything to the table in this thread. Perhaps you should refrain from embarrassing yourself any further.
nope, David you’re not the only one…
…I just think of it as science by baseball bat
Meridional flow inside the Sun plays an important role in redistributing rotational angular momentum and transporting magnetic flux,
Redistributing angular momentum? Would you be describing something similar to a Hadley Cell which is normally associated with atmospheric flow on a planet’s surface? So you are saying all of this occurs within the 200,000 km deep convection zone layer of the sun and does not penetrate other deeper layers? Would this shallowness also not suggest there are two layers within the convection zone itself?
Explanation of atmospheric circulation: http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/air_circulation.htm
David says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm
I really want to read Leif’s comments, but am really annoyed by the condescension. Am I the only one?
No, there is the usual band of peddlers of nonsense [vuk, bart, Henry, Salvatore, …] who deserves unmasking when they try to hi-jack a thread. Are you joining that club? I hope not. We could have a good science discussion about why the Stanford observations are important, how they might shape the future development of solar dynamo theory, what it might mean for future solar activity, how the measurements are made, what the uncertainties are, etc, etc, but we are constantly derailed by the whining, self-deception, self-aggrandizement, etc of a few spoilers.
Leif Svalgaard @ vukcevic
Garbage it was and still is.
May be, may be, but in this ‘muck’ of mine there’s shiny bit of brass ,
Beats your prediction by 3 years, and foretold not only low SC24 and even lover SC25, but also what no one else did in 2003, a Grand Minimum in the late 2020s.
Neither you or Stanford can match it, stand it or accept that a true amateur could do it
Bye.
dscott says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:11 pm
So you are saying all of this occurs within the 200,000 km deep convection zone layer of the sun and does not penetrate other deeper layers?
Essentially, yes. The deeper layers are stable, they don’t convect, or circulate [as far as we know].
Would this shallowness also not suggest there are two layers within the convection zone itself?
the data does suggest the presence of two layers as shown in Figure 1.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm
=============
“If I were “standing” on the “surface” of the sun, how much would I weigh ?”
27 times as much as you would weigh on the surface of the Earth.
———————
Thanks Leif,
Now what if I was an Earth radius from the sun’s center of mass ?
How many times would it be ?
Just trying to get a feel for it 🙂
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:12 pm
Beats your prediction by 3 years
More nonsense [mine is from 2004]
and foretold not only low SC24 and even lower SC25, but also what no one else did in 2003, a Grand Minimum in the late 2020s.
Schatten and Tobiska 2003 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity”
But all of that doesn’t matter. Nobody has priority on nonsense which can be produced at any and all times.
“That would indicate the presence of a electric field accelerating the plasma from 0 to to a couple of million degrees by the time it reaches the corona…”
“Leif- If there was such an electric field it would be neutralized by the plasma, so no electric field.”
The only other option you have Leif, is a magnetic field… Which doesnt do nearly the job of an electric field of accelerating ions and electrons.
How does a plasma tube work? Wheres the electric field in a plasma tube? The most energy efficient way of making a plasma is direct acceleration by electric field. You can get to GeV in inches. See wakefield accelerators.
Neutral?! atoms sprinkled among the plasma?? Hahaha…. Have you even looked at the MDI and HMI movies?? They use the “Bilderberg” model of solar atmosphere to determine WHY that neutral iron is there… Its just a model. Its doesnt really tell you why and what the iron is there.
“Iron, with its partly filled 3d subshell, has, by far, the largest number of lines all over the spectrum of a typical late-type star. This atomic property coupled to a relatively large abundance makes it a reference element for spectroscopic estimates of stellar parameters.”
“Specifically, the Fe I line is able to determine field strength, longitudinal and transverse flux four times more accurately than the Ni I line in active regions. Inclination and azimuthal angles can be recovered to ≈2° above 600 Mx cm−2 for Fe I and above 1000 Mx cm−2 for Ni I. Therefore, the Fe I line better determines the magnetic-field orientation in plage, whereas both lines provide good orientation determination in penumbrae and umbrae.
We selected the Fe I spectral line for use in HMI due to its better performance for magnetic diagnostics while not sacrificing velocity information.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608124.pdf
Brant
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Now what if I was an Earth radius from the sun’s center of mass ?
The sun’s center of mass is the center of the sun.
How many times would it be ?
since the density at the center is about 29 times that of the Earth’s you would weigh 29 times as much as on the Earth.
Dr. Svalgaard,
This is king of tongue-in-cheek but, for those who believe that the angular momentum of the planets is IMPORTANT – and if the energy from the interior of the sun takes 250,000 years to reach the surface – would not those angular momentum believers have to base their theories [assertions?] on the positons of the planets as they were 250,000 years ago rather than current planetary positions?
David:
re your comment at August 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm which says
I read WUWT threads on solar matters because I know almost nothing about them and I want to learn.
This thread is about a new paper about the solar dynamo.
I want to know about it.
Others have other ideas about the Sun, and it is reasonable for them each to state their alternative and to link to it. Hence, people (including me) who want to learn can follow-up their alternative ideas. Except for that, their only reasonable contribution to discussion of the new paper is for them to state any flaws they perceive it to have.
But that is not what has happened in this thread. Advocates of particular ideas have been promoting their ideas to the exclusion of the subject of the thread. They may not know it, but they have been trolling.
Leif took the trouble to write the above article which describes the paper about the solar dynamo such that the paper can be understood by non-experts. He has a right to be offended by the trolling which is preventing discussion of his article and the paper which his article explains.
Under the circumstances, I think Leif’s responses to the trolling have been restrained.
Richard
Wow. Some ugly comments here. I hope it stops, this is a pretty interesting article.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm
“since the density at the center is about 29 times that of the Earth’s you would weigh 29 times as much as on the Earth.”
——–
Thanks again Leif, it finally sunk in.
I’ll shut up now 🙂
Brant Ra says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Wheres the electric field in a plasma tube?
It comes from an external power source. Turn of the power and see what you get.
Neutral?! atoms sprinkled among the plasma??
Its doesnt really tell you why and what the iron is there.
Spectroscopy has been a mature science for many decades. We know rather precisely how much iron there is in the sun: namely 1 iron atom per 25,000 hydrogen atoms. The iron atoms are neutral because the temperature is not high enough to ionize them. Even for Hydrogen, only one out of 10,000 atoms are ionized. The conductivity of the photosphere is like that of sea-water. Not particularly high. It is still a plasma because the length scale is so large.
F. Ross says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm
This is kind of tongue-in-cheek but, for those who believe that the angular momentum of the planets is IMPORTANT – and if the energy from the interior of the sun takes 250,000 years to reach the surface – would not those angular momentum believers have to base their theories [assertions?] on the positons of the planets as they were 250,000 years ago rather than current planetary positions?
You have to ask them, but it doesn’t really matter because there is no exchange of angular momentum between the planets and the sun
SMC says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Wow. Some ugly comments here.
The ugly comments are almost always from the same handful of nasty or misled [by their own, self-perceived brilliance] people [in every solar thread]. We are used to them, they show up without fail, and make the threads somewhat entertaining, if a bit tedious.
REPLY: I agree, you can all take a lesson here. – Anthony
Leif, any comment on the observations looking similar to a Hadley cell? Wouldn’t that understanding advance the models of circulation more realistically?
Leif Svalgaard says: August 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm
…………
Here is full Abstract from Ken Schatten’s paper (since your link failed)
Abstract
Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations.
My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
There is qualification “If this trend continues,…..” which may or may not, hedging the bet …
In my case there is no “If” it accurately plots the solar activity evolution path (so far).
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:22 am
Jim G says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:19 am
I was merely asking you to clarify your comment, the condescension was unnecessary.
“Perhaps you could appreciate that my comment about ‘theory’ has applicability to other people’s use of the term [.e.g a certain Dr. L].”
Understood. Sorry for “stooping to your level” in my reply but it is so difficult not to.
There is as you know exchange of orbital angular momentum between the bodies of the solar system, but it balances out precisely. The angular momentum for the solar system remains constant.
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Here is full Abstract from Ken Schatten’s paper (since your link failed)
Yoy can lay off the snide comment. Everybody knows that WordPress mangles links. All you have to do is to copy the link and paste it in another window.
There is qualification “If this trend continues,…..” which may or may not, hedging the bet …
In Science there are always qualifications.
In my case there is no “If”
In pseudo-science there are no ‘ifs’ or ‘nuts’, so you fit right in.
it accurately plots the solar activity evolution path
No, it is only curve fitting and it fails going back in time, but all that we have gone over too many times to arouse any further interest.
Carsten Arnholm says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm
There is as you know exchange of orbital angular momentum between the bodies of the solar system, but it balances out precisely.
Orbital angular momentum is not the issue, which is whether there is exchange of orbital and solar rotation angular momentum, which there is not.
Jim G says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Understood. Sorry for “stooping to your level” in my reply but it is so difficult not to.
You have to stoop low to reach some bottom dwellers.
Leif Svalgaard said on August 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm:
Wait a minute. As you go beneath the surface, the mass above you provides a countering gravitational force to the mass below. As is said about descending into the Earth, at first your weight will increase as you get closer to the higher-density material below, but only for a proportionally short distance, then your weight will decrease. At the center, you will weigh nothing.
Radius of Sun: 695,500 km (Wikipedia)
Radius of Earth: 6,371 km (Wikipedia)
At a distance of only 0.009160 solar radii from the center of mass, you’d still weigh 29 times what you would on the Earth’s surface?
When you stated on the solar “surface” (one solar radius) you’d weigh 27 times Earth weight?
That’d make for a quite different depth vs weight graph for the Sun than for the Earth.
Katherine says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
…
They’re validating their results, which are supposedly based on observational results, with simulations?! Like “our interpretation of the readings must be correct because someone already modeled something similar”? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Science inherently depends upon “models.” The entire effort of science is to develop understandings of natural processes that are “complex enough” to offer understanding of how a given process interacts with other natural systems (to yield predictions of the behaviour of the systems under study). Occam’s Razor asks that such explanations (models) be no more complex than necessary. The problem in climate science is not “computer models,” but rather the scientific explanations upon which the models are built. The science is not “complex enough” to be useful.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:08 pm
In pseudo-science there are no ‘ifs’ or ‘nuts’, so you fit right in.
Interesting typo there. ‘buts’ it should be. ‘nuts’ there are many of, to wit…
If fusion in the core is what powers the Sun and this energy is radiated in all directions with the same strength the double-cell meridional circulation structure would automatically imply that the surface of the sun should be hotter at the poles and maybe at the equator for these are the only places where there is no deviation of the energy coming from the center of the star.
If fusion in the core is what powers the Sun ,coronal temperatures (1,000,000 K) should not be higher than surface temperatures (5778 K)
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Wait a minute. …
If you took the Earth and made it have 29 times more massive, you weight would increase 29 times: g = GM/R^2 [make M 29 times larger]
The density near the center of the Sun is 29 times that of the Earth, so the mass of that volume centered on the center with the same radius as the Earth would be 29 times larger than that of the Earth, hence your weight would increase 29 times. I feel a bit silly having to explain this, but there you have it.
So, can we assume that the long solar minimum, and the low intensity of this solar cycle indicate that something may be changing inside the Sun itself, to affect the flows? (I know –probably no one knows). I haven’t read the report yet, but I intend to this evening (if the report is free).
True, but your statement there is no exchange of angular momentum between the planets and the sun was what I responded to and it is by itself not correct.
I agree the spin-orbit coupling idea is clearly incorrect, for the reason I gave: Solar system angular momentum is the sum of orbital angular momentum for all the bodies plus angular momentum from the spin of the bodies around their own axes. Since the sum of the orbital angular momenta (?) of the sun+planets balances out precisely, it follows that the spin contributions must also balance out precisely to maintain a constant angular momentum for the solar system. Since almost all the mass is in the Sun, it means the solar spin angular momentum must be constant.
Robertv says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:17 pm
these are the only places where there is no deviation of the energy coming from the center of the star.
The meridional circulation [years] is too slow to make any significant difference [it takes only a couple of weeks for the energy to bubble up though the convection zone], but there probably is a small temperature difference.
If fusion in the core is what powers the Sun ,coronal temperatures (1,000,000 K) should not be higher than surface temperatures (5778 K)
No, as the heating of the corona is due to completely different processes: local explosions and the temperature in an explosions is usually much higher than its surroundings. But you miss the point:
fusion generates neutrinos of different energies and amounts. We can calculate [because we know the atomic physics involved – we measure that in the laboratory] that, and compare to what we actually observe on the Earth, and the amounts agree with the calculations [after allowance for the (also measured) neutrino oscillations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation ]
Carsten Arnholm says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:24 pm
True, but your statement there is no exchange of angular momentum between the planets and the sun was what I responded to and it is by itself not correct.
also true, but you have to take it in the context of the angular momentum ‘theory’ which posits that solar rotation [or circulation within the Sun] is changed by the planets’ influence on the sun’s orbital angular momentum and hence solar activity.
Yes, that is exactly what I addressed in my previous post.
Carsten Arnholm says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Yes, that is exactly what I addressed in my previous post.
so now the angular momentum guys should be satisfied that they are wrong. I expect Salvatore to concede any moment now.
Well said, that entertainment is tedious, pandering as it does to the lowest common denominator. Education is challenging, challenging our worldview Weltanschauung.
richardscourtney says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm
“He has a right to be offended by the trolling which is preventing discussion of his article and the paper which his article explains.”
No, that’s really not it. The only reason so much space has been wasted (and, I have tried to keep my OT commentary as brief as possible) is that Leif feels a need to squash any and all comments with which he either disagrees or does not understand. If he just left the comments to stand on their own, that’s all that would have happened – they would just have sat there to be considered or disregarded by others, and Leif could have focused on what he presumably wanted to focus on.
Leif has a very narrow focus. He may be brilliant within that focus, but his bombast when he strays outside of it rather dims any view of it. My problem is, when he is so badly misinformed on topics I do know quite a bit about, how do I determine where his expertise ends and the bombast begins?
Believe nothing that one reads or hears without verifying it oneself unless it Weltanschauung congruent.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:54 pm
My problem is, when he is so badly misinformed on topics I do know quite a bit about, how do I determine where his expertise ends and the bombast begins?
The thing you know quite a bit about is like a hammer. If the only tool [your extremely narrow focus] you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The sun is not an oscillator in the ‘hammer’-world view. The processes that govern the sun are multi-faceted and various and contingent on many random events and cannot be described a simple differential equation.
I take offence to the ‘bombast’ bit. I do my utmost to provide answers that are as scientifically accurate as I can make them. No bombast there. When I see a ‘hammer’ misused on ‘something I do know quite a bit about’ I try to correct the misconception, but you just will not learn [like several of the other merry gang around here], and eventually sinks to the level of insults [which I may occasionally pay back in the same coin to keep up the entertainment level].
rgbatduke says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:32 am
….so that the northbound and southbound expresses cross at some angle across the defect plane. There’s a source of serious turbulence right there, especially when one has to factor in magnetohydrodynamics and this motion occurs in a magnetic field.
I presume you mean that this would occur uniformly around particular (internal) circumference.
If not so, then you may have solved another known ‘unknown’, which you may or may not be aware of; i.e. the sun exhibits pronounced magnetic bulge, which slowly (over period of number of cycles) drifts along heliocentric longitude, as shown in this illustration:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
I see the usual suspects are here.
Leif enters the fray and the body count starts to rise.
Take no prisoners Leif !
ClimateForAll says: August 29, 2013 at 4:21 pm “Leif enters the fray and the body count starts to rise. Take no prisoners Leif !”
You whack ’em, we’ll stack ’em. They make good cover.
vukcevic says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm
the sun exhibits pronounced magnetic bulge, which slowly (over period of number of cycles) drifts along heliocentric longitude
that is an artifact of the definition of heliographic longitude, which is based on the rotation period determined by Carrington as a sort of average of his observations. This period has no physical significance. A more correct statement would be that the artificial Carrington longitude drifts with respect to the ‘true’ [average] rotation period of the sun.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:05 pm
I really do not want to continue this conversation. But, I am going to leave one parting message.
“The processes that govern the sun are multi-faceted and various and contingent on many random events and cannot be described a simple differential equation.”
This is trivially untrue from the data alone. In fact, it is very common to solve complicated partial differential equations, whether randomly or deterministically driven, using modal expansion. Generally, some modes tend to be dominant.
“I take offense to the ‘bombast’ bit.”
Chill out. It’s not like I called you incompetent or anything. Try to deal with it in a constructive manner.
ClimateForAll says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Doug Huffman says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Just out of curiosity, how do Leif’s boots taste?
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm
This is trivially untrue from the data alone. In fact, it is very common to solve complicated partial differential equations, whether randomly or deterministically driven, using modal expansion. Generally, some modes tend to be dominant.
This is where your trivially false hammer view comes in; the sun cannot be described by partial differential equations having a few [or only two as you will have it] dominant modes. In this assumption you show indeed incompetence.
On another note though, while this paper does somewhat give a greater understanding of meridonal flows and flux transportation, I find it difficult to imagine that these currents could be confined to a depth at 100,000 km.
The images taken from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager only shows us what the Sun is doing within those flows during a period of low heliospheric activity.
I would like to see how these currents operate during a period of higher solar activity.
It is one thing to observe fluid dynamics in a lull, and I’m sure its quite another when there is a storm brewing.
On a side note, before any of you try to claim who was first at solar predictions, I have but one thing to say…..
Long Live Timo !
lol
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm
” I feel a bit silly having to explain this, but there you have it.”
=========================
“we” come here looking for answers, even explanations, but there is no need to explain.
There is always the next comment/link to absorb.
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm
“we” come here looking for answers, even explanations, but there is no need to explain.
There is always the next comment/link to absorb.
When answer is given, “you” say ‘wait a minute’…
ClimateForAll says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm
I find it difficult to imagine that these currents could be confined to a depth at 100,000 km.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
ClimateForAll says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm
It is one thing to observe fluid dynamics in a lull, and I’m sure its quite another when there is a storm brewing.
Experience shows that the polar fields ‘in the lull’ is what seems to predict the next solar cycle and that therefore the dynamics during the lull is perhaps the thing to study, but, fear not, we’ll keep a watch on this for the following several years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:47 pm
When answer is given, “you” say ‘wait a minute’…
=======
That wasn’t me Leif,
I do listen, that is why I am here.
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm:
From Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, yup.
Conceptual issue on the part of the student. It happens.
Mass Earth: 5.972 x 10^24 kg
Mass Sun: 1.989 x 10^30 kg
Mass Sun = 333,100 Mass Earth
I’m seeing the countering masses. With a perpendicular plane through the radius at 0.009160 solar radii from the center, the mass below minus the mass above would yield 29 Earth masses, if we were using point masses on the radius. But with a number so small, they’re basically hemispheres, so it’s a reasonable simplification.
I see that as soon as I barely move outward from the center, the difference quickly grows and so does my weight. Very soon I’d be at 500 times my Earth weight!
I can see stating a sphere the size of Earth that’s 29 times as dense would yield 29 times the weight, having 29 times the mass. But on the Sun, in the example, there would be so much mass overhead, that would also exert gravitational forces, that I cannot see how it would still sum to 29 times Earth weight.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm
“The sun cannot be described by partial differential equations having a few [or only two as you will have it] dominant modes.”
What a silly thing to say. It is readily apparent in the data.
Leif ! Leif !
I’m not saying I don’t agree. I’m saying that looking at one slice of time doesn’t necessarily mean that a thing could be considered constant.
Just because these meridonal flows are now at about 100,000km, doesn’t mean that it will remain at 100,000km later.
I’m also willing to bet that the amount of plasma that flows along those currents are not constant as well. I imagine that that bottlenecks occur, creating greater volumes of plasma along those flows and lesser volumes elsewhere. Thus creating variability along meridonal lines.
Nandy discribed this, but you know this.
You’re not still holding a grudge are you?
You know I love you man, even if you may have blinders on.
It’s one of the things I respect about you !
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm
============
Kinda what I was thinking, Leif didn’t seem to want to play my game.
Not that I blame him.
Now I’m really confused 🙂
The deeper one goes into any gravity well, the more it “weighs” ?
kadaka, you are right to question the weight question near the center of the sun. I just checked a few figures first, and here’s my stab.
At the surface you weight let’s say 29x more than on Earth. Ok, I accept that without calc’ing it. But if the sun was all of the same density, from the surface to center, the gravity and your weight would linearly decrease exactly all of the way down. Weightless at the center. But the sun is not of the same density vertically so that linearality would be warped toward the inversed square curve and there we don’t (or I don’t) have the density profile to figure it even if if wanted to, and I don’t right now. So could you end up 29x heavier also at one Earth radius from the center… seems doubtful to me too. Wait, that is unless Leifs 29x density *at that distance from the sun’s center* was correct, then he’s right, all shells above you are meaningless, they all cancel. Inside any spherical shell you are weightless everywhere and we can imagine a hundred shells above of varying density but they can all be discarded when calc’ing the gravity deep inside.
I stopped on Leif statement about that myself, did some work on that very question years ago. That would be an unusual density profile but maybe that is due to the gaseous state. Hmm.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm
I check the site from time to time and have even posted a few comments here and there. But, this is among the uglier comment threads I’ve seen. Makes me glad I don’t usually follow the comment threads. I do like the reference pages though.
wayne says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm
=====
I like your explanation.
It seems it might also give rise to free-floating gobs of magma in the earth’s interior ?
Kinda like spinning a hard boiled egg vs a raw egg.
From u.k.(us) on August 29, 2013 at 5:39 pm:
In the classical treatment of all masses as dimensionless points, which greatly simplifies the math, sure, the closer you get to the point the more you weigh. Force of gravity is calculated from the inverse of the square of the distance, so halve the distance and quadruple the force.
Here’s an intro to Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation (aka Law of Universal Gravitation, go figure). Bit simple, you can always try Wikipedia.
(Yes, this is classical physics, not the relativity-invoking stuff.)
But when it’s not a point mass, as when starting on the surface of a sphere and moving to the center, it gets messier. There is mass above and below, the competing gravitational forces cancel out. Your weight goes down. By the time you hit the center of mass, it all cancels out, you cease having weight.
For Earth, the upper crustal stuff is much less dense than the stuff below. So as you drop down past the surface, your weight will slightly increase as you get closer to the higher-density stuff below. But soon your weight will be dropping as you continue traveling to the center.
With the Earth’s different layers of different densities and thicknesses, with density as a function of depth, and layers of changing composition, finding weight (or total force of gravity) on Earth from surface to center is an interesting math exercise, much integration, a computed numerical solution needed.
That big ball of plasma should be much easier to figure out.
“Weight,” however, at the center of the sun (or near the center of the sun) is an entertaining theoretical topic , but it is the combination of pressure + temperature + time-at-temperature-and-pressure that MUST be high enough to cause fusion.
And, is a mere 29x gravity enough for that?
Distracting also, is the “total” effect of the planets on the entire sun: While that may be, or may not be, a cause or influence on any thing out at earth’s average orbit, all that is needed to influence circulation out on the edge of the photosphere is not “moving the sun” but moving the filaments and moving, circulating loops of plasma and gasses now “balanced” in near-space vacuums as the chaotically twist and spin. Moving the entire sun is not needed, indeed, the “rest” of the sun could not “move” if the effect is based on the average relative motion changes between loops and currents and the deeper, static (not-moving) core.
From u.k.(us) on August 29, 2013 at 6:18 pm:
Hell no. Too much pressure compressing what’s there. Depending where you’re looking, the pressure is enough to compress liquids to solids, but there’s enough temperature at the center to liquefy what pressure made solid.
Everything is held together as close to a solid mass as it gets. Anything that’s technically liquid, sure ain’t like water, more like thicker than the thickest asphalt you’ve ever known existed.
So no free-floating magma gobs. I’m sorry, I know it’d make for good sci fi, but still, no.
Say what? In both hemispheres, north to south? To the “poles”? How does that work, again?
How high is the stack of books?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm
————–
I meant the gobs that are free-floating near the center of the earth in zero gravity, being tugged on by the moon/sun/or other planetary forces.
Why else volcanoes ?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I see that as soon as I barely move outward from the center, the difference quickly grows and so does my weight. Very soon I’d be at 500 times my Earth weight!
In fact, if you are 10 Earth radii out you’d be at 200 times your weight on Earth. The thing is that density does not decrease very fast with distance [as long as you deep within the Sun], but the mass increases with the cube of distance, divided by the square of the distance to get the weight, so ten times further out your weight is 290 times Earth weight, which must be decreased a bit [about to 200x] because the density does decrease a bit.
But on the Sun, in the example, there would be so much mass overhead, that would also exert gravitational forces, that I cannot see how it would still sum to 29 times Earth
The mass overhead doesn’t matter. Newton proved that.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm
What a silly thing to say. It is readily apparent in the data.
This is where your incompetence shows. Live with it. Often, one cannot transfer competence nilly-willy from field to field. You are a victim of that, but don’t know it [in good D&K style]
ClimateForAll says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm
You’re not still holding a grudge are you?
I never hold grudges. If needed, I get even right away 🙂
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:39 pm
The deeper one goes into any gravity well, the more it “weighs” ?
No, the weight usually goes up in the beginning, to a maximum, then declines to zero at the very center.
wayne says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Wait, that is unless Leifs 29x density *at that distance from the sun’s center* was correct, then he’s right, all shells above you are meaningless, they all cancel.
The density is correct. The Sun’s radius is 110 times the Earth’s, so within the first 1/110th of the Sun the density does not vary significantly, so I used the central density.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 29, 2013 at 6:36 pm
And, is a mere 29x gravity enough for that?
What is important is the pressure and THAT depends on the weight of all the mass overhead.
Brian H says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:17 pm
In both hemispheres, north to south? To the “poles”? How does that work, again?
In both hemispheres to the pole in that hemisphere. See the movie at the beginning of the posting.
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:32 pm
I meant the gobs that are free-floating near the center of the earth in zero gravity
The Earth has a SOLID inner core, so no free-floating gobs.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:49 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:32 pm
I meant the gobs that are free-floating near the center of the earth in zero gravity
The Earth has a SOLID inner core, so no free-floating gobs.
——————–
Not even some sort of plasticized solid ?, the Titanic sank after hitting ice which we know can flow.
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Not even some sort of plasticized solid ?
A very stiff solid under enormous pressure.
I said on August 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm:
That is an error. It may be the net gravitational effect of 29 Earth masses as the difference, but that is not that many actual masses difference.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:04 pm
“A very stiff solid under enormous pressure.”
———————
The kind of pressure that can make rocks do this ?
http://letslearngeology.com/website/amazing-folds-pennsylvania/
Where does the pressure come from ?
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:25 pm
The kind of pressure that can make rocks do this ?
The inner core is a crystal and does not flow.
Where does the pressure come from ?
From the weight of 6370000 meters of rock and iron
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The inner core is a crystal and does not flow.”
———————-
Yep, it seems to be our current understanding of it :
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/crystals-earth-core/
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm:
Would it have helped if I had said IN the Sun? It’s obvious then the mass overhead does matter. From a plane bisecting the Sun, the mass “overhead” does matter as at the center it will cancel out the gravitational force of the mass “underneath”. Move the plane outwards along a radius, up until you clear the Sun, the solar mass overhead still matters as its gravitational force will be partially counteracting that of the solar mass underneath.
And Newton proved it doesn’t matter? It has been awhile since I got my BA in Physics, that did not get used. Perhaps I forgot it. Got a link to an explanatory text?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Got a link to an explanatory text?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
For the lovers of Geomagnetic Cycles:
Previously when researching the Earth’s core, I found new research showing it rotated far slower than previously thought, hardly turning at all.
Now the researchers have done it again, and found something even more improbable, variable speed.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-earth-center-sync.html
Lately the Sun’s magnetic field has decreased, while the inner core has dramatically sped up.
Faster rotation 1970’s and 1990’s, slowed down in 1980’s, and also apparently was slow in the 2000’s.
Who’s going to be the first to claim a tie to the approximately 11-yr sunspot cycle?
Who already has these rotational speed changes clearly visible in their already-published graphs and charts?
There does not seem to be a good reason not to suppose that there are one or more zones circulating below the first two. I wondered about the impact of the speed estimate under the surface if this is the case. There is only so much stirring energy from rotation. Perhaps it is distributed over a greater depth. The sun is full of surprises.
I look forward to an estimation of the activity of the next two cycles based on this new understanding because I will probably be around long enough to see them. I will keep watch.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Lately the Sun’s magnetic field has decreased, while the inner core has dramatically sped up.
Faster rotation 1970′s and 1990′s, slowed down in 1980′s, and also apparently was slow in the 2000′s. Who’s going to be the first to claim a tie to the approximately 11-yr sunspot cycle?
Who already has these rotational speed changes clearly visible in their already-published graphs and charts?
The 1970s solar activity was lower than that of the 2000s.
The outer core is effectively a superconductor and does not allow any magnetic fields to penetrate more than a few meters into the outer core, thus screening the inner core from any external magnetic forces.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:06 pm
<i.Lately the Sun’s magnetic field has decreased, while the inner core has dramatically sped up.
http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Earth.png shows how changing external magnetic fields propagate into the Earth and stop and when they meet the outer core [there diminishing wiggles].
Re: Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 8:55 pm:
Got it. The infinitely thin spherical shells “overhead”, thinking spherically instead of planar, will exert zero net gravitational force on the object within the Sun. Only the remaining sphere underneath will be exerting gravitational force, easily calculable as a point mass at that radius.
So this has mostly been a frame of reference argument?
Well, thanks for the shell theorem info, that explained it.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm
So this has mostly been a frame of reference argument?
No, a lack of understanding the physics argument…
Leif-
Thank you.
Does this provide any insight into the Livingston and Penn Effect or the possibility of a coming minima, or both?
A short article explaining key points along with solar cross section diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core
The core radius is 22% of the solar radius, but is only 1% of solar volume. There has to be some inner convection, otherwise He buildup in the core would stop H fusion.
I love threads like this!
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm:
Hey, I know better than to expect them to propagate inward much. Mainly because the mantle material is basically like thick asphalt loaded with magnetic materials. Just as asphalt is used for sound dampening (you’ll likely find pads of it under your car’s carpeting), any physical movement of the magnetic materials will be dampened, sapping energy.
Please advise if I’m in error about that.
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm:
Which takes care of the rest.
Except now people may think there’s a “superconducting motor” for our planet’s core, thus it doesn’t need as much energy to speed up and slow down as otherwise… People are funny that way.
Eric Gisin says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:50 pm
<i.There has to be some inner convection, otherwise He buildup in the core would stop H fusion.
I don’t think so. If fusion is throttled a bit because of less fuel, the core would contract and the temperature would go up. The fusion is extremely temperature dependent so even a tiny increase in temperature is enough to compensate for the slightly lower concentration of H. Convection is only possible if [roughly] the pressure gradient is smaller than the density gradient and in the solar core it is not, so the core is stable.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Except now people may think there’s a “superconducting motor” for our planet’s core, thus it doesn’t need as much energy to speed up and slow down as otherwise… People are funny that way.
Most people are reasonable. But there is always a small number who is total nuts and will believe anything or peddle anything. We have a good sampling here on WUWT, so expect some of them to come out of the woodwork.
People have asked about the influence on the dynamo theory of the double cell. Here is a paper that discusses this http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0943v2.pdf The main conclusion is “The mean-field dynamo model that includes the subsurface rotational shear layer and the double-cell (in radius) meridional circulation, indicated by the recent helioseismology results, can reproduce the solar magnetic cycles in the form of the time-latitude “butterfly” diagrams. The double-cell circulation affects the distribution of the magnetic field with radius in the convection zone, increasing the field concentration to the convection zone boundaries, and in the middle of the convection zone where the two cells converge. The latter effect can lead to a non-monotonic profile of the amplitude of the large-scale poloidal magnetic field in response to an increase of the circulation speed. The models qualitatively explains the observed synchronization between the polar magnetic field strength and the sunspot number”
Brad says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Does this provide any insight into the Livingston and Penn Effect or the possibility of a coming minima, or both?
I don’t think so [but don’t know, of course]. I think the L&P effect is rather a surface phenomenon.
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 pm:
Now come on, we both know sometimes the physics just doesn’t become clear without the proper frame of reference.
http://xkcd.com/123/
Lief, I would like to ask you a couple of questions, the atmosphere on planets seems to be governed by chaos with strange attractors that give some harmony in the chaos. Examples are the big red spot on Jupiter the black spot on Neptune and the strange but constant hexagon cloud on pole of Saturn. The red spot and the dark spot as are many other features on planets always at 19.5 north or south latitude.
My questions , could the cyclical behaviour of the sun be it chasing its strange attractors and if so finding them would give a good insight into its antics.
Secondly as on the planets are there any of the solar activity centered around 19.5 latitude north or south. I understand that these are odd questions but if you have any information it would be received with thanks.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Now come on, we both know sometimes the physics just doesn’t become clear without the proper frame of reference.
Knowing the proper frame is understanding of the physics.
wayne Job says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm
My questions , could the cyclical behaviour of the sun be it chasing its strange attractors and if so finding them would give a good insight into its antics.
I don’t think so as the sun exhibits both deterministic and random behavior at the same time. Random is not the same as chaotic, and I don’t think the sun is chaotic as a whole.
Secondly as on the planets are there any of the solar activity centered around 19.5 latitude north or south. I understand that these are odd questions but if you have any information it would be received with thanks.
There does not seem to be anything special on the sun about 19.5 latitude.
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 10:26 pm:
Bingo!
I noticed in Fig 1 the flows were oriented perfectly north-south. However, angular momentum (i.e. conservation of a.m.) would alter the flow, and produce a lateral component, unless somehow the energy is bled off in another process. Using the Mark I lipid-ion computer, I’m trying to create my own flow model. Wouldn’t the flow likely be somewhat like a screw? Although perhaps there would not be even one complete turn from the equator to near the pole. I imagine then the flow might dive under and follow almost the same track back to the equator, offset to some degree because of the change in depth.
Hey, if it’s a bad idea, don’t complain to me about it, ya get whatcha paid for.
Leif, look on the bright side. You don’t have the guy we’re not to bring up and his iron core sun junk. No Maya apocalyptic pole shift, rotation reversal nutters show up anymore. Remember the guy Red something, Red Dawn or Red Day? You blew a gasket at the mods for that one.
These Solar threads are still more entertaining than fight night on Mexican TV but overall they have improved a lot. And you still make wuwt so good.
SvP says
I will admit to wrong,if the sun is either much more active then I expect or if the sun is quiet and
the temperatures fail to go down.
Henry says
temps are falling
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I however, I do fear that there is already large scale fiddling going on, trying to hide the decline.
temps are have fallen at least 0.17 since 2002 of my own data set so there is already a discrepancy. Ignoring the exact sequence of sunspots, over time, I find an average of
75 during a warming period (1950-1995)
and an average of
63 during a cooling period (1904-1950)
hence we are now in a cooling period.,….
(1995-2039)
So the theory of the sun causing certain climate patterns/cycles at regular intervals firmly stands.
That there must be an angular momentum cranking the sun up or down a bit seems the most likely explanation of all the data that has so far been collected by me.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
As the end of the month is approaching, the current sunspot numbers are still low side (SIDC non-smoothed is likely to be around 65).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Polar fields have finally fully reversed, the SC24 max is not far off http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
It looks as the SC24 will not be multi-peaks cycle as SC14 or as low as SC5
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC24-14-5.htm
“Steven Mosher says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:01 am
Stupid questions exists. folks, you’ve just seen three of them”
The only stupid questions in my experience are the ones not asked.
Kadaka: A mischaracterization of a situation is not a “different frame-of-reference,” at least in physics. You mischaracterized the sun as part of a sphere with an earth-size sphere hanging from the flat part.
Leif: I think you should have known right away that Kadaka was doing this and that he didn’t know that exterior shells don’t count.
….But on the Sun, in the example, there would be so much mass overhead, that would also exert gravitational forces, that I cannot see how it would still sum to 29 times Earth weight…
I know this one from A-levels – inside a spherical shell there is no gravity rom the shell, it all balances out. So you only have to consider the bit “below” you.
Robertv says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:17 pm
‘If fusion in the core is what powers the Sun ,coronal temperatures (1,000,000 K) should not be higher than surface temperatures (5778 K)’
So on the Sun we see no Greenhouse effect. The corona does not back radiate to the surface or would surface temperatures even be lower without the extreme hot coronal temperatures?
What do we know of the mass of the coronal layer ? Could it give enough pressure on the surface to heat it up to 5778 K
If the atmosphere can heat the surface temperature of Venus up to 740 K
ps I hope you slept well. Health first. We need people like you.
From Smoking Frog on August 30, 2013 at 2:10 am:
Strange, I was certain I was thinking of a single sphere with an intersecting plane, and was getting hung up by thinking about the amounts of mass of the sphere above and below the plane. But obviously you know better what I was thinking than I knew what I myself was thinking.
I wasn’t thinking in terms of shells, but of the intersecting plane. And yes, I didn’t know exterior shells didn’t count. If I could do the math, I would have come up with the same answers by my approach, the fundamentals were sound.
But with the simplification of a perfect sphere which can be divided into perfect spherical shells, the shell theorem does make things much nicer.
I was thinking in more general terms, when a specific simpler approach was available. But what if the object studied was not a sphere, but an ovoid? How would you proceed?
Leif, why would the disappearing sunspots and the hemispheric asymmetry happen together, as in the Maunder Minimum’s ‘large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric’ sunspots, and possibly as now? I’ve long been reminded I’ve longed for a van de Graff.
=============
Robertv says:
August 30, 2013 at 2:55 am
What do we know of the mass of the coronal layer ? Could it give enough pressure on the surface to heat it up to 5778 K
The corona is extremely tenuous and exerts very little pressure on the surface [about 1/1000 of the pressure on your ear drum during a Rock concert] so does not heat up the surface.
kim says:
August 30, 2013 at 4:34 am
Leif, why would the disappearing sunspots and the hemispheric asymmetry happen together
I think coincidence as the L&P effect may be a surface phenomenon, but don’t really know.
Just noting that the Sun is NOT cooler than normal right now.
The surface temp is about 5,778.3K versus the normal temp of 5,778.0K. We are at the top of the solar cycle and more energy is coming from the Sun than normal, not less.
It is NOT responsible for the current slight cooling trend on Earth.
Okay, there may be a little false precision in the numbers above but that is what the basic calculations would show.
Bill Illis says
It is NOT responsible for the current slight cooling trend on Earth.
Henry says
Sorry Bill, it is fact not the cooling of the sun that causes the cooling on earth.
Indeed, I predicted that the sun could be hotting up a little bit, although that is really not very much, as you seem capable of measuring.
But there is a slight re-distribution of the sun’s output, leading to an increase tin he photons with very short wavelength, leading to an increase in ozone and peroxide/nitric oxides at the TOA,
With those components’s concentration increasing TOA, more normal sunlight, especially, F-UV, is deflected now, which leads to the cooling period.
Try understanding my report on all of this, including the connection with the planetary movements.
It is really very simple.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
HenryP says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:39 am
Try understanding my report on all of this, including the connection with the planetary movements. It is really very simple.
And all very wrong.
Dr S, a bit OT, but looks like the sun’s convective layer is ~1/3 the total radius. Small M stars have convection all the way to the center. Does that mean larger stars can eventually get so massive that the convective layer goes to zero?
Thanks, Leif; co-incidence yes, correlation yes, I guess common cause, and I can’t get van de Graff out of mind. He tickles.
================
beng says:
August 30, 2013 at 7:18 am
Does that mean larger stars can eventually get so massive that the convective layer goes to zero?
Convection depends on pressure and density, i.e. indirectly on the temperature gradient. If the gradient is large, i.e. the temperature change with radius is steep, you get convection. The outer layers of a star are more opaque than the inner layers which are hotter and therefore more completely ionized [which makes them opaque].
There are basically two different fusion processes in normal stars: the proton-proton [the pp] reaction and the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen [CNO] reaction [which also burns Hydrogen, using Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen as catalysts]. The pp reaction dominates at lower temperature [as in the Sun and lower-mass stars] and gives you a convection zone in the outer layers [stretching all the way to the core for the lowest masses] and a radiation-dominated [no convection] core. In more massive stars, the CNO reaction [which is much more efficient than the pp reaction] dominates resulting in a core temperature far higher than for pp-stars. That favors convection, so high-mass stars have convective cores. As you can see, it can become quite complicated.
kim says:
August 30, 2013 at 7:26 am
I can’t get van de Graff out of mind. He tickles.
A van de Graff machine works because the top dome is supported by an insulator which prevents the charge from running away. In the solar plasma there is no handy insulator around…
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm
“The sun cannot be described by partial differential equations having a few [or only two as you will have it] dominant modes.”
What a silly thing to say. It is readily apparent in the data.
===
Indeed. And when this was discussed some time back when Bart originally presented this , I did not see much but the usual condescension and insults from Leif.
Occam’s razor would favour a simple explanation and I think Bart’s analysis was remarkably concise.
Condescension is common from those who spend much of their time in a teaching context. Insults are a common defensive reaction.
Now I can understand why someone who has invested their whole career on a subject would feel threatened by such a simple explanation of the multitude of observed periods. Especially when Bart says it only took him half a day to do. That does not detract from the elegant simplicity of Bart’s model.
If Bart’s “hammer” cracks this particular nut, he may well have got to the kernel of the problem.
That, IMO, deserves respectful consideration rather than condescension and insults.
Leif Svalgaard says:
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2013 at 5:39 pm
The deeper one goes into any gravity well, the more it “weighs” ?
“No, the weight usually goes up in the beginning, to a maximum, then declines to zero at the very center.”
I know that inside the event horrizon of a black hole nothing is or can be known but take a shot anyway. Using general relativity and not Newtonian physics, zero gravity at the theoretical singularity?
And since time slows to a stop there, would it not take infinite time for the supposed sigularity to ever form?
Sorry, singularity-spelling!!
Greg Goodman says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:29 am
Occam’s razor would favour a simple explanation and I think Bart’s analysis was remarkably concise.
Einstein once said “make it as simple as possible, but no simpler”. And Occam’s razor does not favor a simple solution, instead is says “Plurality must never be posited without necessity”, that is: do not invent new explanations when they are not necessary. Bart’s ‘beating’ explanation is one such extra and not necessary ‘explanation’.
The problem with Bart is that his ‘explanation’ is too simplistic and does not apply to the real sun, but with his extremely narrow focus he cannot see that, combined with exaggerated opinion about his ability. It is a common fallacy to favor simplicity when knowledge is lacking and you are a good example of that. There is a word for it: ‘dumbing down’.
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:32 am
I know that inside the event horizon of a black hole nothing is or can be known but take a shot anyway
We are getting way off topic here. Perhaps since the concepts of space and time break down, we can bypass the issue by noting that the concept of a ‘center’ also breaks down 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
Clarification of my question:
I know the difference between weight and gravity but the real issue would revolve around the formation of the singularity, the inherrant time dilation in such a gravity well and any non-instantaneous matter movement and distribution within the event horrizon moving towards its center (the supposed singularity). Weightless at an infinitely small and infinitely dense point, if such exists?
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:51 am
Weightless at an infinitely small and infinitely dense point, if such exists?
My view is that the gravity well is infinitely deep and you can never get to the ‘bottom’, but since you are in free fall you are weightless all the way, outside the horizon, crossing the horizon, and for ever after falling towards the infinitely far away singularity.
Leif Svalgaard says
“We are getting way off topic here. Perhaps since the concepts of space and time break down, we can bypass the issue by noting that the concept of a ‘center’ also breaks down :-)”
Well then, any time dilation effects within the center of a high mass star and the effects it would have upon all of the years it takes for the convections and mass and energy movements within the star?
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:01 am
Well then, any time dilation effects within the center of a high mass star …
No, because gravity is zero at the center.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:56 am
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:51 am
Weightless at an infinitely small and infinitely dense point, if such exists?
“My view is that the gravity well is infinitely deep and you can never get to the ‘bottom’, but since you are in free fall you are weightless all the way, outside the horizon, crossing the horizon, and for ever after falling towards the infinitely far away singularity.”
Very interesting and I thank you for your concept. Kind of goes away from the concept of length contaction in infinite gravity which is supposed to be same as at the speed of light. Would think possibly the opposite with instantaneous arrival, avoiding the time dilation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:05 am
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:01 am
Well then, any time dilation effects within the center of a high mass star …
“No, because gravity is zero at the center.”
Is this per general relativity as well as Newtonian gravity?
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:06 am
Kind of goes away from the concept of length contraction in infinite gravity which is supposed to be same as at the speed of light.
Since you never get to the ‘bottom’, gravity is never infinite.
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:09 am
“No, because gravity is zero at the center.”
Is this per general relativity as well as Newtonian gravity?
General relativity only deviates from Newton when gravity is high and since gravity falls to zero approaching the center, I would say that the shell-theorem also holds in general relativity. There is an ongoing discussion of GR in ‘Extended Bodies’. You can get a feeling for it by visiting http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0543 but now I think we are way off, off, off topic with little return for the effort expended.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:10 am
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:06 am
Kind of goes away from the concept of length contraction in infinite gravity which is supposed to be same as at the speed of light.
“Since you never get to the ‘bottom’, gravity is never infinite.”
Length contraction and time dilation are supposed to occur all along the way just increasing as velocity and/or gravity increase. Time has been proven to be slower as one moves away from the very minor gravity well of the Earth and increase as one goes deeper into the well. I am not sure about proofs of length contractions under similar circumstances.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:16 am
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:09 am
“No, because gravity is zero at the center.”
Is this per general relativity as well as Newtonian gravity?
“I think we are way off, off, off topic with little return for the effort expended.”
Thank you in any event for your responses.
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:17 am
Length contraction and time dilation are supposed to occur all along the way just increasing as velocity and/or gravity increase
Einstein’s point was that in free fall there is no gravity hence no time dilation or length contraction so none of those effects for an observer falling towards the singularity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm
“You are a victim of that, but don’t know it [in good D&K style]”
No, you are the victim of it. The methodology I speak of is not mine. It has been used extensively and successfully in uncountable applications where the mathematical framework is <i<precisely the same. It is applicable here, trivially so, to someone who works with the theory almost every day, churning out products which actually work to paying customers.
You are not familiar with it and so, in true D&K style, you dismiss it. That’s your loss, and now you’ve backed yourself into a corner. I expect that kind of chest-thumping bravado from a kid fresh out of school. You have no excuse for your immaturity.
Greg Goodman says:
August 30, 2013 at 8:29 am
Thanks. Good comments. But Leif has backed himself into a corner. It’s no longer about science, and hasn’t been for quite some time. It’s about establishing alpha supremacy. Very sad.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:29 am
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:17 am
Length contraction and time dilation are supposed to occur all along the way just increasing as velocity and/or gravity increase
“Einstein’s point was that in free fall there is no gravity hence no time dilation or length contraction so none of those effects for an observer falling towards the singularity”
There are experiments that indicate that time dilation has been measured on orbiting satelites in free fall and I have heard of this before. But then that could be due to velocity.
The angular momentum theory makes much more sense then what this latest study is trying to convey.
The angular mometum theory if one uses past history has shown that when the planets exert a certain amount of angular momentum upon the sun due to their orbital relationship about the sun, that the sun has entered either a very active period or inactive period.
Geoff Sharp has used this theory to make his solar forecast which have been quite accurate.
The study that was done really is saying nothing new, it is just an expansion on what they had already thought. The angular momentum theory gives a cause and an effect, this latest theory can not explain why the sun does what it does ,it just says it does what it does.
IT HAS NO CAUSE FOR WHAT THE SUN DOES.
Bart says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:39 am
No, you are the victim of it. The methodology I speak of is not mine. It has been used extensively and successfully in uncountable applications
So is a hammer, but that does not mean it is the proper tool for everything.
now you’ve backed yourself into a corner. I expect that kind of chest-thumping bravado from a kid fresh out of school. You have no excuse for your immaturity.
I’m in a very comfortable corner. And no excuse is needed. I repeat: your analysis [no matter how well executed and how much your customers pay for your expertise] is not applicable to the real sun, nor is it universally applicable to every phenomenon in the Universe.
It’s about establishing alpha supremacy. Very sad.
Your comments show who is seeking alpha supremacy [you, in case you didn’t get it]. And it is indeed sad, but such is life. You are not alone.
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:40 am
There are experiments that indicate that time dilation has been measured on orbiting satelites in free fall and I have heard of this before. But then that could be due to velocity.
The issue is ‘time dilation’ with respect to whose time? Time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. For a single observer falling into a singularity there is no time dilation, because there is no other observer to compare with. Now, for an observer outside of the horizon watching you falling towards to hole, the situation is different: he would see you slow down as you approach the horizon and actually never crossing it [light from you would also be increasingly red-shifted so he can eventually not see you]. The difference in experience is why the theory is called ‘relativity’.
Jim G says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:40 am
Not sure what you guys are discussing, but yes, time dilation occurs on orbiting satellites. The higher your orbit, the faster your clock relative to one on Earth. However, at circular orbit altitude of approximately 1.5 times Earth radius and below, your orbital speed starts to slow down your clock more than the weaker gravity speeds it up, and time runs faster on the Earth.
GPS satellite clocks are corrected by the appropriate factor so that they will measure time as it would be on the surface of the Earth. See chapter 18 “Introduction to Relativistic Effects on the Global Positioning System” here.
Oops. Here.
Errata: Should have said “circular orbit radius of approximately 1.5 times Earth radius” or “circular orbit altitude of approximately 1/2 times Earth radius.”
Call me simple ,but I want predictions based on these theories, not just theory. Back it up with prediction.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 10:30 am
Call me simple ,but I want predictions based on these theories, not just theory. Back it up with prediction.
1) they are measurements, not theories.
2) there is theory interpreting the data, I mention one here:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
“The models qualitatively explains the observed synchronization between the polar magnetic field strength and the sunspot number”
3) there are succesful predictions based on the polar magnetic field, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
4) once the new polar field has been established [in about three years time] we can make a good prediction for cycle 25.
So, there you have it. Alternatively, you can use Bart’s ‘model’ to get your predictions 🙂
Greg says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-solar-dynamo-published/#comment-1403761
Well said. Agreed!
\
Leif says
And all very wrong.
Henry@Leif
You are such a fraud. For one thing, why don’t you stop talking to your alter ego’s on this thread as if you were arguing with yourself (perhaps to attract high visiting numbers?)
Do you honestly think that we don’t see through you?
Leif says
) there are succesful predictions based on the polar magnetic field, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
4) once the new polar field has been established [in about three years time] we can make a good prediction for cycle 25.
Henry@Leif
We did look at that before, remember?
It seems you are admitting now that 2016 is an important date,
as was 1972.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
It must be something to do with the planets? Or what?
In 2016 we will be at deep end of the polar fields, both sides, and in 1972, if we go back, there must be a dead end stop (at the top/bottom)
Why don’t you put those results of the +/- polar field into binomials (parabolic/hyperbolic) and give us your comment as to why what happens (if we observe the best fit)
If you give me the data, I can also do it myself, but I don’t have time, for some time.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 10:13 am
“…you, in case you didn’t get it…”
Well, I regret our discussions have degenerated into mutual abuse for whatever reason, and whomever is more or less at fault. I am completely aware that your experience in solar dynamics is vast and knowledgeable, which is why I for one would never call you incompetent. But, my experience in matters dynamical and mathematical is similarly vast, and successful, I might add. Of course, I can just say that, but you don’t know me from Adam, and are justifiably cautious about accepting my input. Unfortunately, I am in a position where my doubts about AGW could materially affect my company’s ability to gain contracts, and I being just one person in the organization whose views are not widely shared within it, would be in the position of harming innocent colleagues and friends.
I would hope that my demonstration of a variety of skills would convince you that I have at least some heft to my claims. In my view, you are looking at the trees, but I am attempting to direct your attention to the forest.
This little olive branch will probably gain me nothing more than additional abuse. At least, that is how it has gone down in the past when I have made overtures. You appear to have a strong inclination to nurse grudges. This is not a very constructive policy. By your response, I will let others judge you. I have offered you my “hammer”. It is a very good hammer, which has seen extensive use. It could help you nail the boards together, if you ever tire of your tongue and groove work.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 10:40 am
“Alternatively, you can use Bart’s ‘model’ to get your predictions”
My “model” is still quite complicated. It is not merely adding a bunch of sinusoids, though with light damping, that may not produce a completely off-base result. I believe Vuk has done so with some inarguable success. My model assumes the quasi-sinusoids arise from lightly damped modes, which represent a truncated modal expansion of a solution to your partial differential equations. These modes are driven by wideband noise, so any prediction from their current state will diverge over time.
A Kalman Filter could be devised for this system. It can be trained with past measurements, and then projected into the future with quantifiable error bars from the Kalman Filter covariance propagation.
I don’t know why but that word “singularity” tickles me. Maybe it reminds me of words like “jocularity”. It is such a funny rolling tongue word. Speaking of fun, those two boys I spoke about on the “eclipse” thread used to end their writing time with me with spelling challenges. We would use a collegiate spelling dictionary to challenge each other on spelling unusual scientific words with lots of Latin components (don’t they all have lots of Latin components?).
“My model assumes the quasi-sinusoids arise from lightly damped modes, which represent a truncated modal expansion of a solution to your partial differential equations.”
Such an approach is very general. Bounded partial differential equations tend to such solutions. The methodology has been employed successfully in a wide variety of applications, including structural vibrations, fluid transport, electrical power subsystems, and electronic devices. There is no reason it should not be applicable to solar dynamics.
Bart I would be interested in the areas you agree with Leif and the areas you disagree. Thanks.
Bart says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:09 am
Well, I regret our discussions have degenerated into mutual abuse for whatever reason
There is no doubt about your vast expertise in what your do. The issue is whether it is applicable, and I think not.
In my view, you are looking at the trees, but I am attempting to direct your attention to the forest.
Your view is yours, but does not reflect where my attention is, which is very much on the forest.
This little olive branch will probably gain me nothing more than additional abuse.
You are presumptuous.
I have offered you my “hammer”. It is a very good hammer, which has seen extensive use.
In science we judge such statements by further experiments, so apply your hammer on this time series and show the result. This is a simple ‘put up or shut up’ test, and should not be construed as anything else: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.xls . The data are in column D as a function of time in column C.
About ‘incompetence’: I am a very incompetent violin player [and many other things too], but that does not carry any stigmas for me. And you are a very incompetent solar physicist, and that should not carry any stigmas for you either.
Bart says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:16 am
There is no reason it should not be applicable to solar dynamics.
The shoe is on the other foot. One has to show that it is applicable. Now, people have tried Kalman filter techniques from time to time in the hope that they might work, but with generally poor results. Here are some examples: http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/sidc_graphics.php
Bart says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:16 am
There is no reason it should not be applicable to solar dynamics.
Have a look at http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
and comment on that. Nick Lomb is by most people in my field considered to be competent in signal analysis [even has a well-known technique named after him, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-squares_spectral_analysis ]
Leif’s chart of the ap index since 1844 shows how strong it has been in comparisome to post 2005 ,and shows a more or less active sun, with no real prolonged solar quiet periods. It shows a more or less a steady rhythmic cycle in solar activity although strong.
Hence the correlation between solar activity and climate throughout that time period is obscure.
In contrast let us see what might happen with an ap index sub 5 year after year after year, which very likely occurred during the Maunder /Dalton prolonged solar minimums which in turn were associated with a reduction in global temperatures.
Going forward there is a good chance we could see the ap index average below sub 5 once again.
I should have said ap index sub 5 year after year going forward.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:35 am
“This is a simple ‘put up or shut up’ test…”
Someday, when I have the time, I will take up the challenge. I will mark this page and the reference to the data you have kindly provided.
For now, I think I will depart on this relatively high and amicable note. Good hunting to you, Dr. Svalgaard.
HenryP says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:06 am
It seems you are admitting now that 2016 is an important date
absolutely, my eldest granddaughter turns 21.
Janice, IMHO there is no room for color commentary and soft spoken “nice” in scientific discourse. I know whereof I speak. I had to scrub my manuscript of all such brushstrokes. Cold hard facts, keeping feet to the fire of demonstrated plausible and unvarnished mechanism based on unvarnished statistical analysis of hard data, and cold hard feedback is the only way we can stear clear of the same mistakes that invade AGW hysteria among even those with science credentials. I prefer blunt cutting discourse. It leads to improved understanding much quicker than mamby pamby politeness ever could accomplish. That we could pepper AGW blogs with the likes of Leif would end this expensive madness way sooner than what discourse we currently have.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:53 am
In contrast let us see what might happen with an ap index sub 5 year after year after year, which very likely occurred during the Maunder /Dalton prolonged solar minimums
Modern data shows that Ap depends on the interplanetary [i.e. solar] magnetic field, B, [Ap ~ BV^2, where V is solar wind speed]. B is a main factor in modulating cosmic rays. If Ap is low year after year, there will be no modulation of cosmic rays, yet during the Maunder Minimum the cosmic ray modulation was strong [even stronger than the past several cycles]. So, that argues for Ap not being low, year after year.
Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Janice, IMHO there is no room for color commentary and soft spoken “nice” in scientific discourse.
Science is a blood sport. And must be.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 9:57 am
The angular momentum theory makes much more sense then what this latest study is trying to convey.
another example of how simplistic musing crowds out real science. The AM ‘theory’ violates the laws of Nature: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 11:53 am
Have a look at http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lomb-Sunspot-Cycle-Revisited.pdf
Nick Lomb concludes: “This study confirms the structure of the sunspot time series demonstrated in paper 1: a stable 11-year periodicity (the Schwabe cycle) that is amplitude and phase modulated by the long-term periodicities discussed above. This clearly implies that a clock mechanism must exist within the Sun for the 11-year periodicity to persist in the solar data as was first suggested by Dicke [10]. Modern theories provide a possible clock mechanism in the conveyor-belt-like meridional circulation between high polar latitudes and the equator. In the Babcock-Leighton models of Charbonneau and Dikpati [11] and [12] remnant magnetic flux from decaying sunspots is transported away from the equator by meridional circulation towards the poles generating the poloidal field of the following cycle. This field is transported to the base of the convection zone where shearing by differential rotation leads to a new toroidal field at low latitudes. Buoyant flux tubes rise to the surface as sunspots. In this way the meridional circulation provides the clock regulating the 11-year cycle and maintaining its continuity. The models predict fluctuations in the meridional circulation and these fluctuations have been observed with the Michelson Doppler Imager on board the SOHO spacecraft [13]. However, according to Charbonneau and Dikpati [11] the meridional circulation can still act as a clock for most of their simulations exhibit ‘good phase locking, in the sense that their cycle periods rarely depart for more than a few consecutive cycles from their average value’. Moreover, the models also reproduce the amplitude-duration anticorrelation that is related to the amplitude-phase relationship discussed in this paper”
Thus connecting with the topic of this thread.
During the Maunder Minimum based on C14, and beryllium data which are sensitive to galactic cosmic rays ,cosmic rays increased substancially during the Maunder Minimum.
Low ap values are associated with increases in cosmic rays, because low ap values occur in conjunction with a low solar wind and low sunspot count over the long run.
That proves the ap index was low , bu tin addition studies show the aa index was in the range of 2or 3 during the Maunder Minimum.
I have many studies showing this to be the case.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 12:37 pm
That proves the ap index was low , but in addition studies show the aa index was in the range of 2 or 3 during the Maunder Minimum.
You are not paying attention [but links to studies that peddle 2 or 3 would be welcome]. The modulation of cosmic rays depends on B [and therefore on ap], and the modulation during the Maunder [and Spoerer] minima was as strong as today. The background level is much more dependent on unknown factors, such as the climate itself which exerts significant influence on the level of comic rays.
From Leif Svalgaard on August 30, 2013 at 12:05 pm:
Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/leif-svalgaard-on-the-experience-of-peer-review/
Geomagnetic Activity and the Solar Wind During the Maunder …
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998ASPC..140..437C
by EW Cliver – 1998 – Cited by 50 – Related articles
We followed the approach of Feynman & Crooker (1978) to relate the 6.9-7.5 nT range of 11 during the Maunder Minimum to solar wind parameters for …
“”””””……kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:06 pm
For the lovers of Geomagnetic Cycles:
Earth’s center is out of sync
May 13, 2013
(Phys.org) —We all know that the Earth rotates beneath our feet,
Well it sure as hell isn’t rotating beneath my feet; that would really hurt having the earth whizz under my feet at 1,000 nautical miles per hour (on the equator).
It would also wear out my shoes in nothing flat.
The above supports all of my contentions.
Leif you are in denial.
That is okay live and learn.
This decade will prove you to be wrong on all counts.
Geomagnetic Activity and the Solar Wind During the Maunder …
adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998ASPC..140..437C
•
Share
View shared post
by EW Cliver – 1998 – Cited by 50 – Related articles
SAO/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service. Syrwptic Solar Physics ASP Conference Series, Vol.
“”””””…….kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:47 pm
From Leif Svalgaard on August 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm:
But on the Sun, in the example, there would be so much mass overhead, that would also exert gravitational forces, that I cannot see how it would still sum to 29 times Earth
The mass overhead doesn’t matter. Newton proved that.
……………………………
And Newton proved it doesn’t matter? It has been awhile since I got my BA in Physics, that did not get used. Perhaps I forgot it. Got a link to an explanatory text?……..”””””””
How on earth does one get a BA in Physics ??
I can see how one might get a BA in that globally important, Indonesian Tribal Dance; or
Rural Poetry of Lapp-land. But Physics; since when did that become an art form ??
AA Index
The aa index is a measure of the disturbance level of the Earth’s magnetic field based on magnetometer observations at two nearly antipodal stations: Hartland observatory in the UK and Canberra observatory in Australia. The following figure shows the aa index since 1868. [http://roma2.rm.ingv.it/en/themes/23/geomagnetic_indices/24/aa_planetary_index]
A NOAA National Geophysical Data Center website states “the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.” [bold emphasis in original] The following figure is from that website. [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html]
The following figure shows the yearly average aa index along with vertical dashed lines indicating the solar cycles, for 1844 – 1997 [http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4]
AA Relationship to Temperature
A 1998 paper (Cliver et al, “Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.25, 1998) states: “During the past ~120 years, Earth’s surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index. The correlation with aa minimum values suggests the existence of a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar irradiance that underlies the 11-year cyclic component. Extrapolating the aa-temperature correlations to Maunder Minimum geomagnetic conditions implies that solar forcing can account for ~50% or more of the estimated ~0.7-1.5°C increase in global surface temperature since the second half of the 17th century.” [http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Cliver.pdf]
The following figure is from the above paper showing “Comparison of solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index(aamin) and () from 1880-1990”
The same paper states: “The correlation we find between the aa baseline and terrestrial surface temperature suggests the existence of a long-term (low-frequency) component of solar irradiance that tracks the average level of geomagnetic (sunspot) activity. In this view, the absence of pronounced 11-year temperature fluctuations is attributed to the damping effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans.”
The following figure shows the Hadley Climatic Research Unit global average
I subscribe to Cliver and the like and not to your opinoins Leif . Time will tell who is correct and who is wrong.
Their are countless studies similar to the few I posted which refute all that Leif tries to convey.
End of story.
george e. smith:
At August 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm you ask kadaka (KD Knoebel) how he got a BA in physics.
Obviously, he qualified from one of the better English universities. They award BA – not BSc – degrees for science courses.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) was claiming he had obtained a ‘better’ science degree than a mere BSc from some ‘red-brick’ uni. but you failed to ‘get it’.
Richard
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm
I subscribe to Cliver and the like and not to your opinions Leif .
Cliver is a co-author of most of my papers on that subject and agrees with me. You cite an old and obsolete paper [you see, progress does happen]. And there is now general agreement that the aa index is seriously too low before 1957. You might also consult Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
CLIVER E. W. (1) ; BORIAKOFF V. (1) ; BOUNAR K. H. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Radex, Inc., Bedford, Massachusetts, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
We used a strong (r = 0.96) correlation between 11-year averages of sunspot number (SSN) and the geomagnetic aa index to infer that the mean level of geomagnetic activity during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) was approximately a third of that observed for recent solar cycles (∼7 nT vs. ∼24 nT). We determined the variation of 11-year averages of solar wind speed (v) and the southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field (Bs) with cycle-averaged SSN for the two most recent cycles and also compared cycle-averaged variations of v2Bs and aa for the same interval. We then extrapolated these observed solar wind variations to Maunder Minimum conditions (mean SSN of ∼ 2 and mean aa value of ∼ 7 nT) to deduce that, on average, the solar wind during that period was somewhat slower (v = 340 ± 50 km s-1), and the interplanetary magnetic field much smoother (Bs = 0.3±0.1 nT), than at present (∼ 440 km s-1 and ∼ 1.2 nT). Various lines of evidence (including 10Be data) suggest that, despite the virtual absence of sunspots that characterized the Maunder Minimum, the 11-year geomagnetic (solar wind) cycle persisted throughout this period.
Revue / Journal Title
Geophysical research lettersISSN0094-8276CODEN GPRLAJ
Source / Source
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum
CLIVER E. W. (1) ; BORIAKOFF V. (1) ; BOUNAR K. H. (2) ;
Ed Cliver now recognizes that he was wrong on that. Time that you accept his verdict.
There are two sides to this argument, just like the causes for prolonged solar minimum periods and what causes the climate to change which is not co2 ,butprolonged solar changes as shown in this article.
Past history supports all of this,and so will future history..
Leif whatever you say.
Among the little gems that I got out of this thread; other than the multi-layered rotation cells, was Leif’s statement, that only about 1 in 10,000 hydrogen atoms in the sun (surface ?) is ionized.
I had always pictured that there was just a sea of protons, in a cloud of electrons; (not because of any knowledge to that effect).
So it is nice to know that in our neighborhood plasma gizmo; hot as it is, it is still mostly neutral atoms. Leif sprinkles these things around, and you have to catch them, at the time, or lose out.
No Wiki, is not likely to save you from ignorance.
Encyclopediae seldom tell you anything useful. Oh they are exciting to read, about all kinds of stuff you never knew (or needed), or had the remotest interest in.
But turn to something you want to know, and it is never there; no matter what it is you look up.
It’s called “The Encyclopaedia Syndrome”, and it also infects, all on line help menus or telephone answering machine menus. No matter your problem, that you call for help on, it isn’t one of the things mentioned in the FAQs, and never context related to what you were doing when you got stalled.
I always keep pressing zero, until a human answers, or the phone hangs up.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Leif whatever you say.
Take that to heart and remember it well.
Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum
onlinelibrary.wiley.com › … › Vol 25 Issue 6 › Abstract
by EW Cliver – 1998 – Cited by 50 – Related articles
Dec 7, 2012 – Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum. Edward W. Cliver1,; Valentín Boriakoff1,; Khaled H. Bounar2 …. 14C record, Secular Solar and Geomagnetic Variations in the Last 10,000 Years, F. R. …
The 22-year cycle of geomagnetic and solar wind activity – Cliver …
onlinelibrary.wiley.com › … › Vol 101 Issue A12 › Abstract
by EW Cliver – 1996 – Cited by 88 – Related articles
Sep 20, 2012 – Edward W. Cliver; Valentín Boriakoff; Khaled H. Bounar … The amplitudes of the 22-year sunspot and geomagnetic activity
sep 2012 same
george e. smith says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Among the little gems that I got out of this thread; other than the multi-layered rotation cells, was Leif’s statement, that only about 1 in 10,000 hydrogen atoms in the sun (surface, yes) is ionized.
Another little gem: the density of the photosphere is only 1/1000 of the air at the surface of the Earth. And the pressure of the corona down on the surface is like that under one foot of a spider. And the energy generation by the fusion at the center is very gentle, like that of a compost heap [no exploding H-bombs]. Lots of those gems around…
Ap Index, Neutrons and Climate | Watts Up With That?
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/ap-index-neutrons-and-climate/
Jan 21, 2012 – The Ap Index is the weakest of the solar activity indicators and has …. I’v e checked the Hadcrut record and there was no cooling during this …
From richardscourtney on August 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm:
To clarify, as the speculation is getting ridiculous, I was a science credit short of a BS so it “defaulted” to a BA. That’s it.
Looks like this site is entertaining the theory .
Live and learn.
Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum
Edward W. Cliver1,
Valentín Boriakoff1,
Khaled H. Bounar2
Article first published online: 7 DEC 2012
DOI: 10.1029/98GL00500
Copyright 1998 by the American Geophysical Union.
Issue
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 25, Issue 6, pages 897–900, 15 March 1998
Additional Information(Show All)
How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication History
SEARCH
Search ScopeAll contentPublication titlesIn this journalIn this issueBy Citation
Search String
AGU EASI Search >
Browse by Index Term >
ARTICLE TOOLS
Get PDF (540K)
Save to My Profile
E-mail Link to this Article
Export Citation for this Article
Get Citation Alerts
Request Permissions
More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on citeulikeShare on connoteaShare on deliciousShare on http://www.mendeley.comShare on twitter
Abstract
References
Cited By
Get PDF (540K)
We used a strong (r = 0.96) correlation between 11-year averages of sunspot number (SSN) and the geomagnetic aa index to infer that the mean level of geomagnetic activity during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) was approximately a third of that observed for recent solar cycles (∼7 nT vs. ∼24 nT). We determined the variation of 11-year averages of solar wind speed (v) and the southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field (Bs) with cycle-averaged SSN for the two most recent cycles and also compared cycle-averaged variations of v²Bs and aa for the same interval. We then extrapolated these observed solar wind variations to Maunder Minimum conditions (mean SSN of ∼ 2 and mean aa value of ∼ 7 nT) to deduce that, on average, the solar wind during that period was somewhat slower (v = 340 ± 50 km s−1), and the interplanetary magnetic field much smoother (Bs = 0.3±0.1 nT), than at present (∼ 440 km s−1 and ∼ 1.2 nT). Various lines of evidence (including 10Be data) suggest that, despite the virtual absence of sunspots that characterized the Maunder Minimum, the 11-year geomagnetic (solar wind) cycle persisted throughout this period.