Questions for Dr. L Svalgaard ---- II

[Pooh]

Dr. Svalgaard,

FYI: You might wish to ride herd on this topic. I'm confident that your expertise would be welcome.
"Solar snooze discussion thread" posted on June 15, 2011 by Judith Curry
judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/solar-snooze-discussion-thread/#comment-75782

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 15, 2011 17:02:05 GMT Pooh said:

Dr. Svalgaard,

FYI: You might wish to ride herd on this topic. I'm confident that your expertise would be welcome.
"Solar snooze discussion thread" posted on June 15, 2011 by Judith Curry
judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/solar-snooze-discussion-thread/#comment-75782

There are too many nuts on Curry's blog. Most of them are well-known cranks and I don't feel like debunking them over and over again. But, I monitor the blog and shall see if anything worthwhile pops up. Until now, it is just more of the same old tired nonsense.

[canelaz]

Jun 15, 2011 15:53:55 GMT lsvalgaard said:

Jun 15, 2011 14:32:45 GMT canelaz said:

Hello Dr. Svalgaard,

First off, I want to thank you for your work on Solar cycle 24. It has been extremely interesting to read about. I'm still extremely green on astronomy and solar physics, but one day I might catch on.

I'm working on a 2012 blog dedicated to debunking the doomsday garbage. The blogs information will also be posted on 2012hoax.org. The number one concern I hear from people seems to be about the sun.

Many 2012ers have used the sun as a platform to produce their nonsensical doomsday theories. Would it be ok if I asked you a few questions in particular of a goof ball named Patrick Geryl? He is convinced that Solar Cycle 24 will produce a killer flare that stems from a negative sunspot. He thinks this flare will enter at the south pole due to the 23.5 degree axial tilt. From there, he believes the polarity from the flare will flip the solid inner core and cause the earth to rotate in the opposite direction.

I know this sounds rediculous, but people are fearful none the less. I apologize in advance for my silly questions

That is sheer nonsense [you can quote me on that]. There are things that 'are not even wrong' [ rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ].

Thank you Dr. Svalgaard, all be it I need a new keyboard after spitting coffee all over it from laughter.

howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/home.htm

Here is a link to Geryl's site: howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/sun_05.htm


He has actually quoted you on his "Solar Activity" page. I believe he "attempted" to develop his own model based on Dikpati's.

These are some quotes from him:

"In the beginning of a new cycle, the polarity of the sunspot changes from north into south. If the plusses are first in one cycle then the minusses are first in the next cycle and vice versa."


"Regardless of the direction of the main driving current coming into the Sun, the eleven-year reversal of the magnetic loops can be explained by the change of the speeds of the polar fields. If the main magnetic field starts to weaken in speed, the secondary (surface) current will reverse direction. Consequently the magnetic polarity of the loops will also reverse."



"I expect the magnetic fields are slowly going over in each other at this moment. In other words in 2012 this phenomenon will happen not at the end of a cycle, but right in the middle."

"During early 2010 and again during mid 2010, it appeared as though the sunspot activity was rapidly increasing, even to the point of catching up with the current NOAA prediction model. During the last 4 months however, the sunspot activity has dramatically diminished."


Are any of those quotes relatively accurate? Hasn't there been a decent amount of activity? Which in turn would make that comment irrelevant?


I'm grateful for the help Dr. Svalgaard

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 15, 2011 20:10:04 GMT canelaz said:

Jun 15, 2011 15:53:55 GMT lsvalgaard said:

That is sheer nonsense [you can quote me on that]. There are things that 'are not even wrong' [ rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ].

Thank you Dr. Svalgaard, all be it I need a new keyboard after spitting coffee all over it from laughter.

howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/home.htm

Here is a link to Geryl's site: howtosurvive2012.com/htm_night/sun_05.htm


He has actually quoted you on his "Solar Activity" page. I believe he "attempted" to develop his own model based on Dikpati's.

These are some quotes from him:

"In the beginning of a new cycle, the polarity of the sunspot changes from north into south. If the plusses are first in one cycle then the minusses are first in the next cycle and vice versa."


"Regardless of the direction of the main driving current coming into the Sun, the eleven-year reversal of the magnetic loops can be explained by the change of the speeds of the polar fields. If the main magnetic field starts to weaken in speed, the secondary (surface) current will reverse direction. Consequently the magnetic polarity of the loops will also reverse."



"I expect the magnetic fields are slowly going over in each other at this moment. In other words in 2012 this phenomenon will happen not at the end of a cycle, but right in the middle."

"During early 2010 and again during mid 2010, it appeared as though the sunspot activity was rapidly increasing, even to the point of catching up with the current NOAA prediction model. During the last 4 months however, the sunspot activity has dramatically diminished."


Are any of those quotes relatively accurate? Hasn't there been a decent amount of activity? Which in turn would make that comment irrelevant?


I'm grateful for the help Dr. Svalgaard

These two are nonsense [or half-true - it is impossible to figure out what he means] :
"Regardless of the direction of the main driving current coming into the Sun, the eleven-year reversal of the magnetic loops can be explained by the change of the speeds of the polar fields. If the main magnetic field starts to weaken in speed, the secondary (surface) current will reverse direction. Consequently the magnetic polarity of the loops will also reverse."

"I expect the magnetic fields are slowly going over in each other at this moment. In other words in 2012 this phenomenon will happen not at the end of a cycle, but right in the middle."

[canelaz]

Thank you sir.

I think he's referring to the speed of equatorial fields?

Either way, he's a proponent of the seismic/solar connection. In other words, he directly links earthquakes to solar activity. What do you find to be the best research on that? And what is your opinion of the correlation he refers to?

I promise I'm almost none

[elbuho]

Dear Dr. Leif,

Perhaps we are approaching a solar maximum but the TSI is in the same level than in the minimum of cycle 23 and 22.
Why during the solar minimum cycle 24 TSI fell progressively? Why was not maintained in a minimum constant value?



Thanks

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 17, 2011 0:58:21 GMT elbuho said:

Dear Dr. Leif,

Perhaps we are approaching a solar maximum but the TSI is in the same level than in the minimum of cycle 23 and 22.
Why during the solar minimum cycle 24 TSI fell progressively? Why was not maintained in a minimum constant value?

Thanks

Keeping the calibration of the instrument constant under the harsh conditions in space that cause steady degradation of the instrument is very difficult. And the curve you show is derived from instruments that have a drifting degradation. Here is the difference in TSI between two instruments:



You can clearly see the downward drift. Here is more explanation:
www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf

The bottom line is that TSI very likely has not declined, but maintained a constant value at each minimum.

[justsomeguy]

Here is some discussion of the sunspot number computations, and the links provide even more:

www.spaceweather.com/java/archive.html

[justsomeguy]

Here is another view of TSI over time. Although it varies, Dr, Svalgaard has some good insights that this variation alone (separate broader effects on cloud formation, etc.) is not enough energy change to account for much. Please correct me if I misread, sir. Here is the TSI over time:

www.nasa.gov/images/content/320851main_tsi2_full.jpg

Here is NASA discussion with largely agrees with Dr. Svalgaard's:

www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/solar_variability.html

The next satellite to study this was Glory, I think:

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html

Unfortunately, I think it was the satellite here, which did not reach orbit:

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Glory/main/index.html

Here is the sad story of what happens when you overfund manned spaceflight, but put real science on the backburner (each shuttle launch costs $1 billion):

news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/nasa-satellite-crash-complicates.html


Dr. Svalgaard - are their other plans for new TIM? Was there a backup? Any other data that could resolve the SORCE TIM issue for you?

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 19, 2011 5:51:54 GMT justsomeguy said:

Here is another view of TSI over time. Although it varies, Dr, Svalgaard has some good insights that this variation alone (separate broader effects on cloud formation, etc.) is not enough energy change to account for much. Please correct me if I misread, sir. Here is the TSI over time:

www.nasa.gov/images/content/320851main_tsi2_full.jpg

Here is NASA discussion with largely agrees with Dr. Svalgaard's:

www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/solar_variability.html

The next satellite to study this was Glory, I think:

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html

Unfortunately, I think it was the satellite here, which did not reach orbit:

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Glory/main/index.html

Here is the sad story of what happens when you overfund manned spaceflight, but put real science on the backburner (each shuttle launch costs $1 billion):

news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/nasa-satellite-crash-complicates.html


Dr. Svalgaard - are their other plans for new TIM? Was there a backup? Any other data that could resolve the SORCE TIM issue for you?

There is no backup. Glory was as refurbishment of an old satellite. There are other satellites measuring TSI, e.g. Picard en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picard_(satellite)
As far as I am concerned there really isn't an issue as it is clear that PMOD is degrading. What is amazing is that people cling to their illusion that it is not.

[justsomeguy]

Is it a concern that PICARD launched a year ago and is still not producing data on TSI, at least that is public?

smsc.cnes.fr/PICARD/

picard.busoc.be/sitools/invoquerSva.do;jsessionid=0E4EDCD3AADA89D2EAEC1C23A894D48F?sva=picard&svaAction=searchFiles

[justsomeguy]

Just a thought, they are always looking for real science from the ISS, any thought of taking a GLORY type payload and hooking up there. Is it's orbit too low? Does it face the sun enough time?

[justsomeguy]

Sorry for the third question in a row, but I have one.

There was lots of discussion of a Maunder minima this week after all the data came out. What is the evidence this is a Maunder-type instead of a Sprorer-type or "shallower" minima. Does the shutdown of the conveyer belt make the scientists argue for a longer, stronger minima or something else?

[lsvalgaard]

Jun 19, 2011 16:21:55 GMT justsomeguy said:

Sorry for the third question in a row, but I have one.

There was lots of discussion of a Maunder minima this week after all the data came out. What is the evidence this is a Maunder-type instead of a Sprorer-type or "shallower" minima. Does the shutdown of the conveyer belt make the scientists argue for a longer, stronger minima or something else?

The Spoerer minimum was probably deeper than the Maunder. We do not really know what causes these so cannot speculate too much. And we don't know yet if it comes to that. My own speculation has nothing to do with the 'conveyor belt' but more with the [unknown] processes that concentrate magnetic flux into spots. So perhaps not a lack of magnetic flux at all, but just of how efficiently it assembles into something we [or rather the astronomers of the 17th century] can see.

If you don't mind downloading 93 Megabytes, here is a nice movie of the formation of a sunspot group in February of 2011. What is shown is the magnetic field [red in, blue out of the sun]: sun.stanford.edu/~keiji/HMI/mtrack_20110212_000000_5d_720s_brtp_3.mpg

[justsomeguy]

Very neat video, is that same sunspot shown here? 1158. Also thoughts on why all the positive and negative do not congregate together? Are paths of negative "blocked" by positive, or some other mechanism?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX9DUV6KmM