Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 16, 2014 11:13 am
From moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP on August 16, 2014 at 10:19 am:
and your point is?
and what, if anything, has it to do with the subject on hand?
Vuk was getting published. The quality of Vuk’s work was questioned. I checked Google Scholar, found Vuk’s work. Posted search results.
Being more in-depth than the usual graphs, this is not just more evidence for consideration by others to form their own opinions, but better evidence.
And like Mann and Cook and Lewandowsky and Watts and Eschenbach and Svalgaard, Vuk’s work has been published!
That was all.
August 16, 2014 11:57 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 16, 2014 at 11:13 am
And like Mann and Cook and Lewandowsky and Watts and Eschenbach and Svalgaard, Vuk’s work has been published!
There is published and published. His work has not been reviewed, neither in journals or [even more importantly] at conferences [which is where the real review is done].
August 16, 2014 12:01 pm
From Ulric Lyons on August 16, 2014 at 7:00 am:
I think that there is a phase reversal in the AMO response to solar cycles. depending on the mode of the AMO:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/every:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise
And like a true huckster you ignore and blow off complaints and carry on with the same spiel like nothing was said, as once again you throw out the same graph without addressing why you are only showing every thirteenth month of the AMO, don’t mention the evidence showing you are wrong.
Thus I ignore you.
August 16, 2014 12:02 pm
@Kadaka,
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
The SS is good at it.
It is generally frowned upon at WUWT
[except by Leif, apparently]
Mr. Vukcevic’s co-sine function works for me, until 2015-2016. I think at some point around 2016 it must go in reverse.
August 16, 2014 12:03 pm
@Kadaka,
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
The SS is good at it.
It is generally frowned upon at WUWT
[except by Leif, apparently]
Mr. V[]’s co-sine function works for me, until 2015-2016. I think at some point around 2016 it must go in reverse.
August 16, 2014 12:29 pm
moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP says:
August 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
It is generally frowned upon at WUWT
[except by Leif, apparently]
Now, I call THAT going for the man, but that doesn’t seem to bother you, apparently…
henry said@kadaka
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
It is generally frowned upon at WUWT
[except by Leif, apparently]
henry says
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
It is generally frowned upon at WUWT
[except by Leif, apparently, note his comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1710560
where he agrees with Kadaka, instead of correcting him, like I did].
August 16, 2014 12:35 pm
From moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP on August 16, 2014 at 12:03 pm:
that is going for the man, rather than his argument / current work.
That is just what it is, a publication list. First page of results, sorted by year, author and download availability/quality checked. Note the careful formatting and notations. An “attack list” would go much faster, that was a neutral presentation.
Leif has his old work questioned. We often examine old work when new papers come out. When the next Lewandowsky paper comes out, will we not be bringing up his old work as that would be attacking the man? I don’t think so.
August 16, 2014 1:02 pm
From Leif Svalgaard on August 16, 2014 at 11:57 am:
There is published and published. His work has not been reviewed, neither in journals or [even more importantly] at conferences [which is where the real review is done].
Certain serious solar conferences aside:
How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia
More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences
…
Like all the best hoaxes, there was a serious point to be made. Three MIT graduate students wanted to expose how dodgy scientific conferences pestered researchers for papers, and accepted any old rubbish sent in, knowing that academics would stump up the hefty, till-ringing registration fees.
It took only a handful of days. The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.
…
August 16, 2014 1:06 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 16, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Certain serious solar conferences aside:
How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia…
The real review is done when presenting to colleagues [who are often the sharpest critics] and getting feedback from them during corridor face-to-face discussions.
August 16, 2014 1:34 pm
From moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP on August 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm:
I am stunned to find that even the mention of mr V[]’s name puts my comment in moderation.
Thus he is often called Vuk, which does not hit moderation.
Note he used to post as “Vuk etc” when, as he put it, “we” were posting together, him and someone else, I forget who. Now only the full last name is used, which avoids charges of avoiding the moderation bin.
August 16, 2014 2:50 pm
kadaka said:
” once again you throw out the same graph ”
It doesn’t make that much difference, and is a only a trivial distraction from the phenomena that I am discussing:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:25/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855/normalise
August 16, 2014 3:09 pm
From Ulric Lyons on August 16, 2014 at 2:50 pm:
It doesn’t make that much difference, and is a only a trivial distraction from the phenomena that I am discussing:
Throwing away 12/13 of your data is a trivial distraction? Well since you’re finally ceasing doing it I’ll take that to mean you have better distractions now that the minor one has been clearly revealed.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1855/to:1940/mean:25/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855/to:1940/normalise/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1940/to:2014/mean:25/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:2014/normalise/
Matching SSN trough to AMO peak still reveals the same as before, they are separate signals with different average periods.
Is the phenomena that you can scrunch the series to such low resolution that people won’t see the truth for themselves? Huckster behavior, again.
August 16, 2014 4:45 pm
kadaka said
“Like a true huckster”
I have noted an interesting phenomena whereby the AMO tends to in phase with solar cycles in its cold mode, and out of phase with solar cycles in its warm mode. While all you have contributed to the discussion is either wrong or baseless, e.g:
“the AMO just flipped”
“The AMO can go warm while solar activity is still weak”
“And while the AMO is said to be 40 years, the trough-to-trough looks about 30”
“You know, offhand, that REALLY looks more like two cycles with different period lengths”
In these discussions where someone resorts to insult rather than facts alone, typically it is a projection, from that list of your comments above, I would say that you are the huckster. And I will now ignore you.
August 16, 2014 7:23 pm
From Ulric Lyons on August 16, 2014 at 4:45 pm:
I have noted an interesting phenomena whereby the AMO tends to in phase with solar cycles in its cold mode, and out of phase with solar cycles in its warm mode.
You have failed to acknowledge the small AMO wiggles and the SSN are two signals with different average periodicities, that give the appearance you mentioned at the moment. To do so would disrupt your sideshow.
While all you have contributed to the discussion is either wrong or baseless, e.g:
“the AMO just flipped”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/amoarticlel.pdf
The average AMO index or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index went negative or cool in January 2009
…
Based on this analysis , there is a high probability that the current
cooling phase of AMO which started in 2009 is real and likely sustainable for the next 20 years at least.
Next:
“The AMO can go warm while solar activity is still weak”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1940/to:2014/mean:25/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:2014/mean:25/normalise/
It’s right there, since about 1975 SSN was trending down to the current solar lows while the big AMO trend was heading upwards to the Jan 2009 flip. For the little wiggles, AMO started going up just before SSN around 1984, AMO was going up in 1993 before SSN headed up in 1996. The AMO can go warm while solar activity is still weak.
Next:
“And while the AMO is said to be 40 years, the trough-to-trough looks about 30″
Miscounting while distracted, as admitted to.
“You know, offhand, that REALLY looks more like two cycles with different period lengths”
Which I showed by matching SSN troughs to AMO peaks, which you have not even commented on nor indicated you checked yourself to either confirm or disprove.
In these discussions where someone resorts to insult rather than facts alone, typically it is a projection, from that list of your comments above, I would say that you are the huckster. And I will now ignore you.
Now you will ignore me? Offhand I don’t think you’ve directly addressed a single point. I present facts, you pretend they aren’t there, then a description hits too close to home, so you resort to yet another huckster tactic and accuse the questioner of doing what you are doing.
Like a true huckster you ignore and blow off complaints and carry on with the same spiel like nothing was said.
August 17, 2014 12:18 am
Note to the moderators
Dear Sir / Madam
In interest of fairness I hope you may either issue a correction or allow this statement to be published
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Note he used to post as “Vuk etc” when, as he put it, “we” were posting together, him and someone else, I forget who. Now only the full last name is used, which avoids charges of avoiding the moderation bin.
That statement is total fabrication.
1.At the time my comments were not in moderation
2. In English language usual combination is ‘ck’ while in my name ‘kc’ so other posters were prone to misspelling.
3. Dr. Svalgaard first used Vuk for short, which was OK with me. Thus I thought Vuk etc would avoid misspelling problem.
4. Vuk etc was meant to mean Vuk + cevic (i.e. etc referred to the rest of my surname)
5. It is total fabrication that I claimed I was posting with or in name of someone else.
Thank you
regards
m.a.vukcevic
August 17, 2014 4:05 am
Kadaka said:
“You have failed to acknowledge the small AMO wiggles and the SSN are two signals with different average periodicities,”
I don’t see why you are bringing up “small wiggles”, and the AMO signal changes frequency in respect to sunspot cycles as it changes from in phase to out of phase with the sunspot cycles.
“The average AMO index or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index went negative or cool in January 2009”
A very minor cooling for 5 months , big deal, and it has been more positive than negative since then:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data
It should be running slightly cooler around sunspot maximum in its warm mode, and it will warm again strongly from just after this sunspot maximum, till around the next sunspot cycle maximum.
“It’s right there, since about 1975 SSN was trending down to the current solar lows while the big AMO trend was heading upwards to the Jan 2009 flip. For the little wiggles, AMO started going up just before SSN around 1984, AMO was going up in 1993 before SSN headed up in 1996. The AMO can go warm while solar activity is still weak.”
Solar cycles 21&22 were higher forcing, the decline in solar forcing is from 1995 onwards, i.e. from when the AMO transitions to its warm mode, which is why it is rising up “1993 before SSN headed up in 1996”, as that is where the phase change is taking place. After 2000 the AMO is anti-phase with the solar cycles. The “little wiggle” around 1984 is just some minor variance, and not the only example, and is superfluous.
“Which I showed by matching SSN troughs to AMO peaks, which you have not even commented on nor indicated you checked yourself to either confirm or disprove.”
Well lets have a look, you said:
“SSN trough to AMO peak
~1865 before ~1867
~1878 before ~1879
~1889 same
~1901 after ~1899
~1913 after ~1908
~1923 after ~1915
~1933 after ~WHAT? AMO going berserk and up.”
When in fact the sunspot minima were in 1867 and 1879, and through solar cycles 14, 15 and 16, the AMO is in its cold mode and is in phase with solar cycles. Which what you cannot seem to get on board. It also shows that the AMO frequency has altered here only for ONE cycle duration the phase change.
“SSN trough to AMO peak
~1942 same
~1953 after ~1952
~1964 after ~1960
~1975 after ~1969
~1986 after ~1980
~1996 after ~1990
~2008 after ~1999”
Same again, you have ignored what I am saying about the phase reversal, the AMO becomes in phase with solar cycle 20, 21 and 22, i.e during the cold mode of the AMO.
August 17, 2014 10:34 am
My work was also presented at a “conference”. But I didn’t get to be there. The politics and image issues at work that was used to make that decision didn’t matter to me. I was just thrilled to have my lowly Masters degree research presented at a national conference on speech and hearing issues. And yes, the feedback improved the final article, along with the addition of one of the best researchers in the field, brought onto the team after our first submission to a journal failed. We re-wrote it, and submitted to another journal. They loved it. It is the trial by fire that at least tries to weed out snake oil efforts and get rid of impurities in otherwise good efforts.
August 17, 2014 1:41 pm
@Pam
it is easy to prove that somebody’s work is good or not good by attempting to duplicate his result.
My claim here has been that based on my results, there is no man made global warming:
i.e. table 3, http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
(ending up with a completely natural relationship for the deceleration of minimum temperatures)
Anybody can see that the results of all three formulae given by me for Max., Mean, Min. will pass any statistical test for significance of correlation….
The implication here is that everything follows natural relationships / cycles, as far as earth’s temperature is concerned, of which we have identified at least one here, namely the Gleissberg cycle.
We all know that this AGW issue is an important issue as it affects a lot of people and the flow of money…So, one would think that there would be an army out there to repeat my experiment, given that I even disclosed my sampling technique;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
And one whole class of first year statistics students should be able to duplicate my results in a week or so, as a test, given that you only need to analyse a sample of 50 or so weather stations.
Fact is that there is nobody, including everyone here at WUWT that has attempted to try to duplicate the experiment it or expressed a wish to try it.
[I believe that ] the sad reality is that everyone here now depends [for income] on the proposition that at least there must be some AGW, as also proclaimed now at your last conference in LV.
There is only so much I can do. I can bring a horse to the water but I can not make him drink.
I seriously have started to think now that I am wasting my time further with this, even though I am afraid that mankind, 7 billion and counting, might not be ready for the global cooling that will hit us, eventually.
August 17, 2014 2:07 pm
Henry, I wouldn’t duplicate your research even if I were paid to do it. And if you haven’t a clue as to my well founded reasons related to research design, there is likely no benefit to either of us in me listing them. Yet hope springs eternal. For starters you have a decided lack of tight research design and self-critique of the design you chose, you have not disclosed the data (list the stations please), you have not finished your work in terms statistical analysis (how many degrees of freedom does your sample size interaction with number of variables impose?), I see no results reported in standard format- intro, literature review, problem statement, methods, results, discussion, etc (IE standard sectioned research article), and because you have not completed those steps, you have not even begun peer review. Sorry. Your study does not even pass a nose-clipped smell test. If you are going to be disappointed, be disappointed in your effort, not the efforts of others.
August 17, 2014 2:47 pm
Pam says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1711202
Henry says
honey, I don’t do papers. someone else must do that, sorry
I figured out how to test and I DID report the results of all stations.
[note that none of the big data sets are properly balanced]
Why don’t you give it to your stats prof and let him run with it.
In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.
Edited abstract:
Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.
* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.
* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.