|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 26, 2014 12:54:37 GMT
It is just too early to say. Ask again in two years.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 19, 2014 22:57:06 GMT
Weak cycles, e.g. SC14, have occasional spotless days near maximum [and through out, actually]. Doesn't portend anything significant.
And you are right. We need to have the polar fields to build first and become stable and that may take another 2 to 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 17, 2014 22:28:58 GMT
The second Figure of the Bloomberg report shows that the years have been hot since 1998 but not getting any hotter in spite of CO2 going up, so it does not seem to me as straightforward as the report claims.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 17, 2014 13:54:21 GMT
You can either multiply everything before 1947 by 1.2 or you can divide everything after 1946 by 1.2. We have decided on the latter course as after all it is the data after 1946 that has been inflated. The issue about TSI is not whether it now is lower than in 2000, but if it is lower that in 2003-2005 as Evans claims. I have show many times that it is not, e.g. .
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 17, 2014 13:21:19 GMT
indeed sidc/silso reports ssn = 0
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jul 16, 2014 18:14:31 GMT
Almost. Perhaps tomorrow will be
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 15, 2014 15:49:11 GMT
Lockwood et al. have a history of trying to play catch-up. They usually do it poorly, and this is no exception. Here is a short explanation of the counting issue www.leif.org/research/Weighting-of-Sunspot-Counts.pdfThe basic mistake made by Lockwood et al. is the failure to realize that the weight factor depends on the sunspot number. When the SSN is low, the weight is also low [1.1]. When activity is high, the average weight factor is higher [>1.25] because there are then more large spots, which have larger weight. A good average factor is 1.20 with 100% probability. Here is an overview of the International [official, at least for now] Sunspot number [blue curve] and the sunspot number corrected for (divided by weight factor) weighting at Locarno [pink curve]. At the top you can see the correction factor deduced from the Locarno drawings
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 28, 2014 6:07:57 GMT
The last 40 days: 2014:04:02_21h:07m:13s -4N -8S 2Avg 20nhz filt: -2Nf -14Sf 6Avgf 2014:04:12_21h:07m:13s -4N -5S 0Avg 20nhz filt: -2Nf -14Sf 6Avgf 2014:04:22_21h:07m:13s -3N -10S 3Avg 20nhz filt: -3Nf -14Sf 6Avgf 2014:05:02_21h:07m:13s -3N -11S 4Avg 20nhz filt: -3Nf -14Sf 5Avgf
The data is still there...
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 8, 2014 8:00:20 GMT
Do you think it has something to say for the next maximum of the polar fields ( and so for the forecast of SC25)? And do you know if there are proxy-data for the polar fields and so the possibility to check if this behavior is some kind of singular on longer timescales? Thanks and greetings from Frank I don't think it has anything to do with the next polar fields. We just have to wait a couple of years for them to build up. Here is a reconstruction of polar fields for the past 100 years: www.leif.org/EOS/Polar-Fields-Faculae-Andres.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 3, 2014 5:07:55 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: We are now past solar max for this cycle. You have been right so long that I have to ask an expert. What do you think the next few cycles will be like? What do you base your esteemed advise on? Thank you. Statistically we would expect another couple of low cycles, but a real prediction is not yet possible. we have to see what the polar fields turn out to be in about three years time.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jan 3, 2014 13:58:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2013 11:57:24 GMT
thank you Leif At what point will the 2012 solar maximum in 13 month sunspot number be declared as solar maximum? Looks like double tops in the sunspot cycle typically are up to ~2 years apart... so if we dont have a higher peak winter 2014, will that signal that solar maximum was 2012? Look at the red curve for SC14 on www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png it has four peaks. It would be hard to justify calling any of them the maximum. A well-defined maximum may not be meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 30, 2013 16:47:29 GMT
Solar maximum is a 'woolly' concept and it may not make much sense to try to pin a time down to within a month. The reversal of the polar fields is, perhaps, a more physical parameter. See: www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf for more on this.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 17, 2013 1:54:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 9, 2013 1:31:55 GMT
|
|