|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 3, 2011 3:19:19 GMT
Leif- You have removed "Welcome to Solar Max" from your compilation chart. Any reason for that? Not that I know of:  |
|
|
|
Post by belric on Jul 3, 2011 8:05:52 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard,
Can you let me know in which journal the speakers [Frank Hill, Matthew Penn, Richard Altrock] on the press conference of June 14, 2011, Las Cruces, NM, will publish their very interesting talks? Can some of these talks be consulted on the Net? I have seen the abstracts but I like to read the entire text.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 3, 2011 10:32:13 GMT
I was looking at your other version, and did not realize the differences:  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 3, 2011 11:19:08 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, Can you let me know in which journal the speakers [Frank Hill, Matthew Penn, Richard Altrock] on the press conference of June 14, 2011, Las Cruces, NM, will publish their very interesting talks? Can some of these talks be consulted on the Net? I have seen the abstracts but I like to read the entire text. Thanks! The results are not yet published so you have to wait a bit. Likely it will in different journals, Astrophysical Journal, Science, Solar Physics. |
|
|
|
Post by belric on Jul 3, 2011 16:31:13 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. I made a diagram of the hemispheric sunspot number since October 2008. See www.astronomie.be/rik.gheysens/fietshoorn/climate/Reversal%20North%202011.pdfI have the following comment. 1. It is remarkable that there was a reversal in March 2011 with a sunspot number Rn (northern hemisphere) of only 39. 2. The sunspot number for the southern hemisphere remains low. As long as the activity remains low, I expect no reversal for the South polar fields. I read in a paper of V. Makarov that a minimum strenght of the solar cycle (W_max of +/- 40) is required for a polar magnetic field reversal. I see that around 1990, there was about one year difference between the S and N reversal. Patience can sometimes help  Do you agree with my comment? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 3, 2011 17:00:04 GMT
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. I made a diagram of the hemispheric sunspot number since October 2008. See www.astronomie.be/rik.gheysens/fietshoorn/climate/Reversal%20North%202011.pdfI have the following comment. 1. It is remarkable that there was a reversal in March 2011 with a sunspot number Rn (northern hemisphere) of only 39. 2. The sunspot number for the southern hemisphere remains low. As long as the activity remains low, I expect no reversal for the South polar fields. I read in a paper of V. Makarov that a minimum strenght of the solar cycle (W_max of +/- 40) is required for a polar magnetic field reversal. I see that around 1990, there was about one year difference between the S and N reversal. Patience can sometimes help Do you agree with my comment? Make the same plot for cycles 19-24 and check how persistent the finding is. I'm not so sure about Makarov's number. Especially since the Livingston & Penn hypothesis might undermine the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 5, 2011 9:29:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 6, 2011 1:15:52 GMT
It looks like it is based on 10Be and that it has problems with very low values [negative sunspot numbers?]. The calibration of the proxies is not very good, so it is hard to say. |
|
|
|
Post by sranderson on Jul 10, 2011 15:02:20 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, I have noticed that the TSI/SSI data sets from the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite have not been updated since June 2nd "due to a technical problem". There is no other explanation on their website. Do you know if the satellite failed? I know that it has already exceeded its mission lifetime. Are there any other sources for TSI/SSI data? Thanks.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 10, 2011 15:38:35 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard, I have noticed that the TSI/SSI data sets from the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite have not been updated since June 2nd "due to a technical problem". There is no other explanation on their website. Do you know if the satellite failed? I know that it has already exceeded its mission lifetime. Are there any other sources for TSI/SSI data? Thanks. Scott The Weekly Status Report has been classified [as being on the US Munitions List] so SORCE is not allowed to tell us what the problem is: lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/weekly_status.htmThere are no other sources of SORCE data, of course. There are other TSI data, but not in real time, so we'll have to wait a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by chickenlittle on Jul 11, 2011 0:30:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 11, 2011 2:26:33 GMT
SORCE is missing since June 2, so data missing later are from a different source |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 13, 2011 14:09:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 13, 2011 21:51:07 GMT
This is just the usual NASA hype. It is normal that half of the stuff falls down again. Sun's gravity is really strong. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 14, 2011 2:55:45 GMT
Thanks. It is truly depressing that science has become partially about hyping BS in order to gain funding and prestige, instead of doing real science.  |
|
