|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 3, 2010 15:28:36 GMT
And indeed they may. This probably happened before in 1645-1705, called the Maunder Minimum. The active regions did not disappear, only the spots were harder to see. Had there been a L&P pair observing the sun 1625-1640, they might well have predicted that SPOTS MAY VANISH BY 1645... 2015 will be around SC24 max. That is a very brave prediction, if so your SC24 prediction is shot. Surprised that is all you can offer in defense of L&P? Their methods seem to be highly in question. "probably" is that a weasel word? You are not getting the point, which is that we are not predicting sunspots but solar activity. See slide 37 of www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdfL&P's method is not in question. Their extrapolation could be in question as all extrapolations. Nobody is convinced that L&P are correct, but no reasonable person can ignore the possibility that they are correct. And 'probable' is not a weasel-word. Think of the legal concept of 'probable cause'. It means that something is more likely than not.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 3, 2010 14:51:05 GMT
I can't be bothered to check the original paper, but I am fairly sure that there was no assertion that the trend would continue. All that could reasonably be extrapolated from the data as presented was that 'by 2015, the trend must have changed OR there will be no spots'. The paper presents experimental observations and makes no attempt to propose a mechanism. This is not something to be dis-proven, rather it is something to probably decide to continue to observe - maybe not continuously through this low point in the cycle, but certainly in a couple of years time, and over a period of many months to account for the random behaviour of the observations. The title of L&P's paper is "SPOTS MAY VANISH BY 2015"And indeed they may. This probably happened before in 1645-1705, called the Maunder Minimum. The active regions did not disappear, only the spots were harder to see. Had there been a L&P pair observing the sun 1625-1640, they might well have predicted that SPOTS MAY VANISH BY 1645...
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 3, 2010 1:04:00 GMT
<i>Your calculations of Vuk’s minima are wrong as above graph clearly shows. </i> note that Vuk uses different formulae at different times. It would be good if you would check his numbers rather than just splash some random figures. To stay focused I calculated the cycle from the polar field formula. You can always claim that the polar fields have nothing to do with the solar cycle [as Vuk does], but then we must take leave of you. His PF formula is straight forward, use that and if your computer can calculate correctly you must come to the same result as I have [unless you screw up]. So it is incorrect to say that the minima were calculated incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 17:26:05 GMT
Heliosphere it is not a sphere, hence variability. It is not a gravity but an electro-magnetic feedback driven circuit. This is complete nonsense. The shape of the heliosphere has nothing at all to do with the solar cycle length, and electro-magnetic forces cannot travel upstream in the solar wind. Even if they could they are MUCH to weak to influence anything. Even if they did provide 'variability' the planetary influences should provide a very precise clock, and the observed timings are off from that clock. It is sad that in this day and age, pseudo-science can have such a strong hold on some people that they can cast aside all reason.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 17:16:41 GMT
Overlooking facts is contagious, not too hasty! Here is list of all cycles length: l 12 less than 10.8 years 11 above 10.8 yearsThe Ayes have it ! Statistician of a dice throw would insist on a few more. Sloppy analysis. The average cycle length since 1710 is 11.058+/-0.037. And your little tables show that as well: 12 less than 11.058 and 11 above 11.058. The difference between this and 10.81 amounts to 5 years accumulated since 1710, so Vuk's astronomical cycles are now 5 years off [half a cycle] from what the Sun is doing. This is the correct analysis as the phase error is accumulating. One is constantly amazed by the antics some people will go to to 'support' something. cycle# min obs min Vuk -3.5 1712 1712.265 -2.5 1723.5 1723.075 -1.5 1733.5 1733.885 -0.5 1744.5 1744.695 0.5 1755.5 1755.505 <= lined up on cycle 0 1.5 1766.5 1766.315 2.5 1775.5 1777.125 3.5 1784.5 1787.935 4.5 1798.5 1798.745 5.5 1810.5 1809.555 6.5 1823.5 1820.365 7.5 1833.5 1831.175 8.5 1843.5 1841.985 9.5 1856 1852.795 10.5 1867.5 1863.605 11.5 1879 1874.415 12.5 1889 1885.225 13.5 1901.5 1896.035 14.5 1913 1906.845 15.5 1923.5 1917.655 16.5 1934 1928.465 17.5 1944.5 1939.275 18.5 1954.5 1950.085 19.5 1965 1960.895 20.5 1976 1971.705 21.5 1986 1982.515 22.5 1996.5 1993.325 23.5 2009 2004.135 If one uses the times of maxima the average cycle length is 11.014+/-0.047, and there is still a phase error of 5 years for the recent cycles compared with the early cycles. Astronomical forcing must be precise to work. The typical response from pseudo-scientists is that if we just took into account more planets, comets, supernovae, little green men, galactic currents, the kitchen sink, etc, everything fits perfectly. It will be interesting to see which one you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 16:23:14 GMT
Sranders You may have overlooked substance in a rush to express your valued appraisal. The substance is 11.862 and 19.895, you can work out the rest yourself. And you may have overlooked that that 'substance' predicts a constant solar cycle length of 10.8 years [contrary to observations].
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 14:00:42 GMT
Yes, when the plot was made more than a year ago, the Rush had not yet started in the South. By now it has, but is still weak as most activity has been in the North. It is not unusual to see such asymmetries. Yes "Rush to the poles" I can see that now...I don't suppose there is enough data to split the L&P conjecture into north and south contributions? If so it might show that the north cycle, which is more advanced has come out of the effect and the south is continuing OR it might show the opposite which would be that the start of the cycle hasn't stopped the effect with more clarity because the late south is removed. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Yes, but there is no need to suppose such as both 'cycles' are now going.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 8:41:00 GMT
When a good engineer constructs a device or is given one to test, he does his utmost to drive it to destruction (which can be costly) to find its week points. If he doesn’t he ends up with ‘Gulf spill’ fiasco. Scientists should do same with their theories, an early failure it would be less costly to their career. All good scientists do this all the time, at least with other scientists' work. But to do this effectively requires some knowledge of the field. Vuk has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have any and that he [and his acolytes] are education-resistant. This is a sad comment on the failure of modern science 'education'.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 7:53:13 GMT
Vuk doesn't have any. His activity is anti-science which is deplorable at a time where scientific literacy among the populace is sorely needed.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 7:46:06 GMT
For cycle 24 the slope of the boundary is weak leading to an expected time for reversal around 2014-2015: The question mark on your picture is to signify that there is a missing southern "road to the poles"? Yes, when the plot was made more than a year ago, the Rush had not yet started in the South. By now it has, but is still weak as most activity has been in the North. It is not unusual to see such asymmetries.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 4:21:31 GMT
I do not think for the moment that Vuk believes it either. All his charts, ideas etc are just a ‘lego toy’, a harmless bit of fun. It is an interesting approach '4 highs by 4 lows', hardly random, sea waves tip over on the 3rd. Your butterfly diagram is an interesting approach. Is there a conflict here? If the conveyor belt’s meridional flow transporting the poloidal field to some depth to ‘amplify’ (turning it to toroidal) and generate new pairs of SS, currently is moving fast as Dr. Hathaway suggest, wouldn’t that assume a shorter cycle? On the other hand there is a new kid on the block called ‘tachocline’ claiming responsibility and taking the credit for the generation of the strong toroidal field giving rise to sunspots. No need for the ‘conveyor belt’ fast or slow. Consensus ? First, let me clarify the rise time to put Vuk's invalid correlation out of its misery. The time to maximum [and PF reversal - which may come even a bit later than max] does have a very good relation with the size of the cycle: larger cycles rise faster. Here is the relationship for cycles 2 to 23: The green square is for the predicted SC24, about 5 years into the cycle, or 2014. [to be precise: 2008.9+5.1 = 2014.0] Harmless bit of fun? We predict because lives and vast amounts of money depend on it, so it is not for fun, and we believe in what we say. You have misunderstood the 'randomness' aspect. The solar cycle is mostly deterministic: a large cycle leaves behind a large polar field for the next [large] cycle. The process does have enough randomness to ensure that from time to time [~a few cycles] the pattern is broken. The conveyor belt is very likely a wrong image of the process [it takes too long]. The polar fields are only a very small part [one in a thousand] of the total magnetic flux generated during a cycle [corresponding to 3-5 active regions only]. Some of that small amount of flux diffuses inwards [downwards] and is amplified to become the next cycle. There is no debate about that gross picture, only about the details.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 4:02:31 GMT
You can put red lines all over it in an attempt to "hide the incline" but the SC24 upramp is what is important. Even with the missing large sunspot areas the trend is clear. No mechanism and a SC24 upward trend is appearing....I think the point is made. The point is made that you do not have any understanding of how to evaluate noisy data. But, hey, you are in good company. Most people don't know how to either. To do this correctly requires training and perspective.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 2, 2010 1:33:51 GMT
The trend is clear for all to see when the data is not reduced to a mean value. The word "may" is not a weasel word but refers to the relatively short timespan of 6 months of the SC24 upramp, no crystal ball here. But even with the sampling method employed the trend is on a rise, lets go over the records and view what data was sampled and what was not. The 2 years of records prior to Dec 2009 did not show a lot of variation so an adhoc sampling method would probably display reality. After Dec 2009 the records vary distinctly as SC24 takes off. Specks have been ignored. 2010 Jan 1, 2 1039 measured after peak. large area 1040 missed along with 1041,1042,1043, large area 1045, 1048 & 1049Feb 25, 26 two early groups 1050 & 1051 measured. Large area 1054 missed along with 1056March 27, 28 , 29, 30 good timing with substantial area 1057 recorded. Some high results taken. April 2, 3 tail end of 1057 and small group 1059 measured. Arguments can be made about random sampling but most reasonable people can see that if the missing groups were measured the uptrend in gauss reading could be substantially higher. So looking at the data in detail the continuance of the downward trend is not apparent, and if anything displays a change after Dec 2009 in an upward direction. Its early days but perhaps time to sit and wait before giving the L&P effect any credence. Follow the peaks, a trend line does the some thing. You cannot base a trend on 5 months. Overall, L&P are looking good. Did you see the F10.7 plot? Follow the peaks?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 20:55:17 GMT
with another year added because SC24 is a small cycle and thus longerNow that is something that can be tested. Apparently there is no correlation between the length and strength. Don't believe everything Vuk tells you. The [anti-] correlation is there, Rsq = 0.14, with Length = 12.5 - 0.012 SSN. Not strong, but there. We expect it to be broken every ~4 cycles when a group of low cycles is followed by a group of high cycle [and vice versa]. This decreases the linear correlation if you ignore this shift. The real issue is the rise-time to polar field change, which is only the first half of the cycle and not influenced by the next cycle. The polar cap boundary can be seen as an enhancement of the Green Coronal Line that moves towards the poles as maximum is approached. For cycle 24 the slope of the boundary is weak leading to an expected time for reversal around 2014-2015:
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 19:54:15 GMT
The curve suggest reversal in 2012, but again it was more than a year out in 2000, however PF lost 80% of its value in less than a year in 1979. It would be interesting to know why would you go for 2014. There is also possibility that it may not reverse at all, as it was suggested it may happen at the times of a weak and ‘shrunk’ heliosphere, as it is now. Apparently reversal may not happen at the next cycle (if it there is one, that is), but it would be remarkable if that it is a predictable event, and even more remarkable if the sun fails to do so. The curve is still doing well (the updated version) is on his website: www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htmIt would be a miracle if the ‘charlatan’ does better than ‘boys & girls’ from NASA. What you are saying is that Vuk was already one year wrong in 2000. The 2014 comes about by noting that PF reversal happens ~4 years after minimum, which would put it in 2012.9 with another year added because SC24 is a small cycle and thus longer. The heliosphere has nothing to do with [influences] the reversal. To say that the curve is still doing well is nonsense. It didn't do well to begin with [minimum in 1965-66]. Now, my prediction is that when it finally fails for all to see that Vuk [and you, possibly] would not accept that either and claim that the Sun is anomalous and this being more proof of various catastrophes. The reversal is predictable and observable from month to month, as we can directly see the magnetic field progressing towards the poles.
|
|