Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
2
1
vote
Article Rating
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 12, 2014 9:42 am
AJB , thanks. The accompanying paper attempts to detect the turnaround expected from Montreal protocol limiting CFCs.
ftp://iaclin2.ethz.ch/pub_read/maeder/CANDIDOZ/documents/deliv1_eth.pdf
Total column ozone at that site seems to have recovered about half the post Mt Pinatubo drop since 1995.
@Greg
Like I said: cfc: red herring
1995 is when global cooling started looking at maximum temperatures.
You can calculate that from my best fit curve
August 12, 2014 9:57 am
MoreCarbonOKetcHenryP says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:49 am
@Greg
Like I said: cfc: red herring
1995 is when global cooling started looking at maximum temperatures.
You can calculate that from my best fit curve
====
Why does that make it a red herring. It may be a part of reason if there has been a recovery of ozone since that date.
@Greg
There is no AGW whatsoever, caused by any GHG. No room for it in my last equation for minima. 1995 lies exactly in the middle of Gleissberg. Has to do with planets and stuff. I think Ulric figured it out as well.
August 12, 2014 10:09 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:46 am
Vuk’ , no comment on the phase drift in you geo index vs SST plot ?
9.3 / 9.4 y look more like a lunar signal than solar.
…………..
There is another phase drift developing currently, the AMO trails the GSC, complex reasons, but Dr. Dickey’s (JPL-NASA) work on diff rotation of the liquid core (in relation to the mantle) where the primary component of geo-magnetic field is generated (solar being the secondary) gives a good match for the delay.
Nothing is perfect; for some of the reasons see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/11/a-gleissberg-solar-minimum/#comment-1707534
August 12, 2014 10:27 am
I don’t see either you or Ulric presenting anything credible, just vague claims.
All I recall seeing from you is an attempt to represent the whole to climate by one sinusoid, fitted to a ridiculously small segment of data. There’s “no room” for anything in that kind of model so it’s hardly an argument that carries much weight.
Is your latest equation any more sophisticated?
August 12, 2014 10:32 am
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:16 am
Now we blame data, if it is ‘garbage in’ why do you use it to justify spurious LP effect?
The data is not good enough to fix the 11-yr cycle with precision better than 1-2 years during the Maunder Minimum. different ice cores and tree data give different results [noise].
The garbage is not the data itself [which is just noisy] but your baseless pseudo-scientific claims.
Are you now claiming that changes in the Earth’s magnetic (geo-magnetic) field do not affect 10Be deposition rate?
The Earth’s magnetic field determines the production rate, not the deposition rate [which is determined mainly by climate and weather and volcanic eruptions].
rather than the advance of science
Nothing of what you post in any way serves the advance of science.
Near 22 year cycle is observable in
The 22-yr cycles [as I have explained many times] are tied to the reversals of the solar polar fields [and goes from maximum to maximum], not to the even and odd cycles. Again you have not learned anything.
August 12, 2014 10:40 am
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:09 am
diff rotation of the liquid core (in relation to the mantle) where the primary component of geo-magnetic field is generated (solar being the secondary)
There is no solar influence on the mantle-core interaction. Again you are off the rail. This has been explained to you many times, but you are impervious to learning.
August 12, 2014 10:46 am
Leif Svalgaard says: Near 22 year cycle is observable in
The 22-yr cycles [as I have explained many times] are tied to the reversals of the solar polar fields [and goes from maximum to maximum], not to the even and odd cycles.
===
I don’t get the point you are making here. Is anything more than an objection to him calling them odd and even?
IIRC, the polarity change happens around max SSN so each half of the Hale cycle ( +ve or -ve in number) has opposite polarity.
August 12, 2014 10:56 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
I don’t get the point you are making here. Is anything more than an objection to him calling them odd and even?
If CMEs have a magnetic field determined by the parity of the solar cycle, geomagnetic activity [and all the other 22-yr cycles he mentions] should be higher in even cycle from minimum to minimum and lower in odd cycles from minimum to minimum. This is not what is observed. Rather geomagnetic activity is higher the last half of even cycles and the first half of the following odd cycle. This is a well-known and well-understood and well-observed and well-documented effect.
August 12, 2014 11:00 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:53 am
Leif, what is the mathematical fn that is fitted as the generalised skewed bell shape when predicting how a cycle is expected to run?
Eq. (6) of http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-1/download/lrsp-2010-1Color.pdf is generally thought to be good.
August 12, 2014 11:37 am
As I grow more knowledgeable, these solar threads get easier to scan quickly. For example, as soon as Ulric Lyons said “I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima.” I knew I could skip over his scribblings, although there still might be something worthwhile in the replies correcting him.
Then there’s Henry Pool, who has no room for any AGW anywhere in his tables and graphs and equations whatsoever, who tosses logic grenades like:
(…) Don’t trust any other data set but the ones that you have established yourself from trusted sources.
Look at all three graphs underneath my tables and tell me where we are going?
Don’t trust any data set other than your own for the truth. Trust my data set and see the truth it shows.
Then there is ultimate curve-fitter Greg Goodman. Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing, amongst other crimes against responsible data handling. His talents might be better used searching for patterns on the grassy knoll.
After noting these and a few others, that removes about 60% of the vertical space from needing closer inspection, sometimes 70% or more. Quite a time saver!
August 12, 2014 11:40 am
Thanks , a interesting paper.
” Rather geomagnetic activity is higher the last half of even cycles and the first half of the following odd cycle. This is a well-known and well-understood and well-observed and well-documented effect. ”
Well-understood as in the mechanism is understood?
August 12, 2014 11:45 am
KDK: Then there is ultimate curve-fitter Greg Goodman. Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing, amongst other crimes against responsible data handling.
LOL, which filter was that that you “caught” me using and why is its use in one field mean it is not suitable for another, for example solar?
August 12, 2014 11:52 am
Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:40 am
Well-understood as in the mechanism is understood?
Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
August 12, 2014 12:22 pm
Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
Thank you. So the presence of a 22y solar signal in SST is not surprising.
In figure 23, apart from the max appearing later/earlier , from the 3rd to the 7th year the changes seem to be in multiphase, so this seems to be the essence of the 22y component. I’m sure all this has been well dug into over the centuries we’ve been counting spots but it’s all very intriguing.
August 12, 2014 12:32 pm
From Greg Goodman on August 12, 2014 at 11:45 am:
LOL, which filter was that that you “caught” me using and why is its use in one field mean it is not suitable for another, for example solar?
You mentioned it here in your first comment on August 12, 2014 at 2:50 am:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Which says:
Processing:
A 75 month low-pass lancos filter was applied to SST. This almost totally removes any variation at or below 5 years in period.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/lanczos-filter-script/
Among many places referencing a Lanczos filter for digital photography (and rarely anything else), there’s Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos_resampling
Lanczos resampling or Lanczos filter is a mathematical formula used to smoothly interpolate the value of a digital signal between its samples. (…)
Lanczos resampling is typically used to increase the sampling rate of a digital signal, or to shift it by a fraction of the sampling interval. It is often used also for multivariate interpolation, for example to resize or rotate a digital image. It has been considered the “best compromise” among several simple filters for this purpose.[1]
It is used for processing huge amounts of digital data like pictures and video of many megabytes and even many gigabytes in size. You used it on piddling bits of monthly SST values while searching for solar signals. It is used for interpolation, to “fill in data” to increase perceived sharpness of images, etc. You say you have used it essentially remove data, to smooth away variations.
Thus I ignore you.
August 12, 2014 12:38 pm
KDK: Whom I have caught processing these small bits of solar data with a “filter” used for digital image processing….
Maybe because a gaussian filter is used to ‘soften’ photographs we should not use it in any other kind of data processing.
Or perhaps it’s the Lanczos you refer too, which does sometimes get used in image processing. Not because it is limited to case but because it is a filter with good general properties. Nothing about Lanczos’ theoretical work is specific to image processing, in fact I don’t think he made any reference to such an application. It was a rather abstract mathematical attempt to produce an optimal filter.
Or was it the gaussian-derivatative that you “caught” me using. Quelle horreur!
This can be used for edge detection in medical and other image processing but again that application does not prevent its use elsewhere.
It is also a more efficient ( and slightly more accurate ) way of gaussian “smoothing” the time derivative ( rate of change ) of a time series.
Since the whole debate seems to focus on “trends” which are the ultimate low-pass filter of rate of change, I don’t see why you would see that as a “crime” either.
Your idea that the use of a filter in image processing in some way makes improper to use it in another field seems particularly ill-informed. But for some reason I’m not surprised by that.
August 12, 2014 12:44 pm
KDK “It is used for processing huge amounts of digital data like pictures and video of many megabytes and even many gigabytes in size. You used it on piddling bits of monthly SST values while searching for solar signals. It is used for interpolation, to “fill in data” to increase perceived sharpness of images, etc. You say you have used it essentially remove data, to smooth away variations.”
Oh, so it was the Lanczos. If you main source of information is Wankipedia, I’m not surprised you are ill-informed.
Not only that you don’t even seem able to understand what you read at WP. It is a low-pass filter so one this it will not do is “increase perceived sharpness of images”.
Next time you set up a kangaroo court to accuse someone of “crimes” of data processing, don’t forget to call some expert witnesses. 😉
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.