|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 26, 2011 16:50:34 GMT
The paper just shows how uncertain is our 'knowledge' of solar activity 400 years ago. It is not clear that the situation is repeatable. It may well be so, but it is hard to know. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 26, 2011 17:48:56 GMT
Here is an article that publishes the correlation that had been spotted here earlier, namely the types of radiation produced by the sun seem to changing as we enter the L & P period. What are the implications of this change for the sun, if you believe it real? Any idea of the cause? www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2010JA016301.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 26, 2011 19:21:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 21:49:26 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard:
I don't want to break house rules, but I have a question or two.
The paper that will soon be published that you co-authored indicates only slight variance in TSI in the past. I read a statement from you that you personally feel that TSI variability was potentially even less than indicated in your paper, maybe as much as 1/2.
I respect your knowledge on this subject. My question is, what effect does this new found evidence have on the hindcast abilities of GCM's?
I would appreciate it if you would post on the AGW forum as I have started a topic on this subject there and do not want to infringe here. My knowledge is only to ask, as I am not well enough versed to provide a credible answer.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 26, 2011 21:58:21 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: I don't want to break house rules, but I have a question or two. The paper that will soon be published that you co-authored indicates only slight variance in TSI in the past. I read a statement from you that you personally feel that TSI variability was potentially even less than indicated in your paper, maybe as much as 1/2. I respect your knowledge on this subject. My question is, what effect does this new found evidence have on the hindcast abilities of GCM's? I would appreciate it if you would post on the AGW forum as I have started a topic on this subject there and do not want to infringe here. My knowledge is only to ask, as I am not well enough versed to provide a credible answer. Thank you. I don't do AGW, so shall post here. A 0.1% change in TSI gives you 1/4 of that, i.e. 0.025 change in temperature, or 0.07 degrees. A change twice that gives you twice the change on temperature, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2011 23:16:14 GMT
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by elbuho on Jun 29, 2011 0:45:35 GMT
Is there an index about the sunspots surface? Isn't more useful to know the extent of the spots that the number of them?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 29, 2011 1:11:27 GMT
Is there an index about the sunspots surface? Isn't more useful to know the extent of the spots that the number of them? Thanks. Yes, there are several such, e.g. solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml with a graph solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gifThe problem is that the area data only goes back to 1874, while the sunspot number goes back to 1610. Also, there is an approximate relationship Area = 16.7 * Number. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 30, 2011 21:48:35 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard:
I thought I had saved your paper on TSI, but alas I didn't. Would you be so kind as to provide the link once again?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 1, 2011 6:30:14 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: I thought I had saved your paper on TSI, but alas I didn't. Would you be so kind as to provide the link once again? Thank you. I don't remember which one, but you can find most of my recent papers and projects on my website www.leif.org/research |
|
|
|
Post by janjanssens on Jul 2, 2011 7:31:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 2, 2011 15:15:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by belric on Jul 2, 2011 18:17:47 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard,
The North polar fields have reversed in March 2011.
- If the South polar fields will reverse only in 2012, can we then conclude that solar cycle 24 will be a long cycle, resembling SC4 preceding the Dalton minimum?
- If the South polar fields will not reverse during this cycle, can we conclude that a Maunder like minimum will be imminent?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 2, 2011 18:39:20 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, The North polar fields have reversed in March 2011. - If the South polar fields will reverse only in 2012, can we then conclude that solar cycle 24 will be a long cycle, resembling SC4 preceding the Dalton minimum? - If the South polar fields will not reverse during this cycle, can we conclude that a Maunder like minimum will be imminent? There are no sure rules for this, only analogies with earlier cycles. Traditional wisdom would for a small SC24 predict maximum [and polar field reversal] in 2013-2014, so right now we are looking at an early reversal. We don't know how to interpret that. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 3, 2011 1:40:05 GMT
Leif-
You have removed "Welcome to Solar Max" from your compilation chart. Any reason for that?
|
|
