|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 18:26:47 GMT
Degrees of freedom are understood well enough, what is not understood or even known is: Why the sun should follow it so faithfully, if it is driven by a random process? It is not the Sun that follows anything, but Vuk's curve that is fitted to the Sun [ignoring the data for polar fields in 1965 which we know from measurements were very weak]. And the curve is about to not fit any more. His 'predicted' polar field reversal is at the end of 2010. There are no signs that that will happen. With the way the sun is going, we expect the reversal in 2014. Random processes can be highly predictable. Flip a coin 1000 times and I can predict the number of heads with fair accuracy +/-30. Here are the latest data:
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 17:27:43 GMT
Hmmm! Sounds as a bit of a science protectionism. While LP's Rsq = 0.05+, our old friend Vuk has Rsq = 0.9285 (range 0 < Rsq < 1) as shown below , but L&P are scientists and Vuk is a scoundrel and charlatan trying to destabilise the cosy rule of the science’s regime of the privileged! www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htmVuk [and you, evidently] has not understood the concept of 'degrees of freedom'. If you have only two independent data points Rsq is 1.0000, but the significance is nil. It does help to know what one is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 16:24:41 GMT
re LP: From 2003 onwards there was statistically insignificant change either in the contrast (Rsq= 0.0528) or magnetic field (Rsq = 0.0592). The data in itself is only suggestive and as L&P are well aware of does not establish the 'reality' of the effect. As shown in another comment, the L&P effect receives support from other data, so we are beginning to take it seriously. The simple calculation of Rsq is not correct. The 'width' of the band of data points is not an indication of the random 'errors' but comes about because the data includes both large [occupying the upper part of the band] and small spots [in the lower half of the band]. But, of course, such complications will be ignored by people trying to push a viewpoint, so my comment will be lost on those.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 16:21:02 GMT
It has always been available. My graph is also always up-to-date and your words were most inappropriate. Not inappropriate, you have stated in the past the text file is available on a short term basis and will be deleted. So from your statement we can assume this data will now be available 24/7? (meaning the raw data text file) 'Smoke and Mirrors' is always inappropriate. And the data is here at Bill L's pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 16:19:40 GMT
There is more to follow, but the trend is clear, the tide might have turned. The values are on the incline over the past 6 months. I will come back with what groups have been included in this years count. It is incorrect to connect the points by lines [Bill L did too, but he knows now not to do it anymore], as the points are independent and do not represent measurements of the same spot. 'the trend is clear' clearly refers to the overall downward trend as your graph shows so well. 'The tide may have turned' is over-interpretation [wishful thinking] of noisy data, as your weasel-word 'may' clearly indicates. What the L&P effect shows is that sunspots have become harder to see. This mostly affects the smaller spots. A large spot in a group would still be dark enough to show through. When one interprets noisy data it is useful to have an independent dataset that shows the same thing. We have that; it is the F10.7 cm microwave flux. We have analyzed the flux and find a change consistent with L&P: www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf and www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdfThe divergence between observed and expected [from F10.7] sunspot numbers can be seen here [on a monthly basis]: and an a yearly basis: These graphs show that we are seeing fewer spots than expected, and thus support L&P. Scientists are usually cautious and look for supporting evidence as here presented.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 15:58:14 GMT
'Smoke and Mirrors' is inappropriate language in serious discussion. The data is always available at www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txtTo descend to your level: put up or shut up! Not inappropriate, we can talk all day but now we have some data. I will come back. ps...as you have stated in the past it is not always available. It has always been available. My graph is also always up-to-date and your words were most inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 14:12:44 GMT
Clive "But this is a divergence, waiting on Leif for the up to date raw data. I will plot against it every decent spot recorded this year, and watch how many have been measured. " Can you try to understand the concept of sampling? L&P are given time on the necessary instruments when it is convenient for the main users of the telescope. Therefore they rely on sampling and the methodology of sampling, which is well established, from marketing to physics. When measurements are done correctly the only difference between covering the complete sample and a randomly picked sample would be in the error bars. Smoke and mirrors Anna, give me the data and we will analyze. 'Smoke and Mirrors' is inappropriate language in serious discussion. The data is always available at www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txtTo descend to your level: put up or shut up!
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 14:04:50 GMT
Quote 1: Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots, specks, and pores. You can see some of that explained here www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdfSchatten's work on percolation theory and the dynamo is not worth following up, since it has many faults and is not accepted by most dynamo theorists.Perhaps a list of the many flaws would be illuminating... There is a difference between the percolation [which is an observed fact and has been known for more than a hundred years] and Schatten's dynamo theory [which proposes a shallow dynamo rather than a deep one]. No dynamo theory is generally accepted in its details.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 4:27:38 GMT
Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots, specks, and pores. You can see some of that explained here www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdfIf that process varies with time [and we don't know why, but see no reason to deny that it can] you would have an explanation for the L&P effect. Nobody is blindly following anybody. Solar physicists are reasonable people that look hard at the data. So what is the mechanism for the reduction in magnetic fields?? Lets have a good look at the data, do you have the up to date values so they can be plotted in the normal manner, which will also show us the missing groups in JAN/Feb/March? Since a spot is formed by concentration of smaller pieces of magnetic field, its magnetic field strength is determined by the degree of compaction. Solar magnetic fields generally consist of small 'elements' of field strength 1500 G. These are almost invisible, but when compacted together with other elements a higher field strength can result and that inhibits the solar convection and a darker [and cooler] spot can be seen. Livingston does not have telescope time every day so he will miss some [most] spots. An updated plot is: He has more time in June, so let's hope there are spots.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 1, 2010 1:03:25 GMT
What are you talking about? Livingston has made very careful measurements over a period of many years and has observed a trend. He published this in 2006 long before the end of SC23. Since then the trend has continued. Why is that a "voodoo incarnation"? What is the mechanism? There is no effect without some sort of mechanism, otherwise it is just a set of measurements showing a trend. This trend is probably just what you might expect when entering a grand minimum, measured mainly off the back of a down slope of the previous cycle. I am not convinced the trend has continued, too many of this years big groups were not measured, leaving the results open to question. The religious following is akin to those blindly following the AGW mantra. Sunspots form by the coalescence of smaller spots, specks, and pores. You can see some of that explained here www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdfIf that process varies with time [and we don't know why, but see no reason to deny that it can] you would have an explanation for the L&P effect. Nobody is blindly following anybody. Solar physicists are reasonable people that look hard at the data.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 27, 2010 15:19:55 GMT
It is indeed somewhat of a puzzle why the corona is so hot. A popular theory is that waves travel upwards and 'break' and thereby deposit their energy in the solar atmosphere. Part of that explanation is that the corona is very thin or tenuous so react to even minor perturbations. The process is much like cracking a whip. " Part of that explanation is that the corona is very thin or tenuous so react to even minor perturbations"Presumably this is due to conflation of 'energy content' with 'temperature' Has anyone ever developed an 'energy profile' as opposed to a 'temperature profile'? Would an energy profile be more 'logical' with a continual drop off in energy content with distance from the surface? One could do that, but you have to take into account the spreading over a larger volume. One way to do that is to plot the quantity times the radial distance squared. It depends on what you want to use the value for.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 26, 2010 23:18:40 GMT
It is indeed somewhat of a puzzle why the corona is so hot. A popular theory is that waves travel upwards and 'break' and thereby deposit their energy in the solar atmosphere. Part of that explanation is that the corona is very thin or tenuous so react to even minor perturbations. The process is much like cracking a whip. Could the whip crack sound be so loud it creates heat? Indeed yes. If you were hit by the whip you would feel that heat. The effect is due to a certain amount of kinetic energy being distributed over ever thinner parts of the whip.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 26, 2010 18:41:33 GMT
It is indeed somewhat of a puzzle why the corona is so hot. A popular theory is that waves travel upwards and 'break' and thereby deposit their energy in the solar atmosphere. Part of that explanation is that the corona is very thin or tenuous so react to even minor perturbations. The process is much like cracking a whip.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 22, 2010 4:54:42 GMT
Probably, there are several billion people with fridge magnets. They also probably possess much stronger magnets, in microwave ovens, loudspeakers, hard disks, and stereo headphones etc. They also have electrical appliances which generate strong electromagnetic fields. Do all these man-made magnetic fields cancel each other out, or do they contribute in some way to make our small corner of the cosmos the most strongly magnetic feature in the neighbourhood? Since many of the strongest magnets are ceramic or rare-earth alloys encased in protective films, they will hang around for a long time, as we discard our old kit, are we polluting our magnetic environment? they all cancel out to very high degree. The earth itself also makes strong [small] magnets. Lightning striking iron ore gives you natural magnets [lodestones]
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 21, 2010 4:07:45 GMT
It hard to imagine a sun without a strong magnetic field. Has anyone postulated a theory as to what may be causing the decrease in the field? Nothing has changed physically on or in the sun, has it? It is not THAT strong. The magnetic field of the toy magnets on my refrigerator door is stronger... The vast majority of magnetic fields on the Sun [99.9%] cancel out with neighboring fields of opposite polarity. Only 1 in 1000 survives to form the seed for the next cycle. By pure random change that could easily be 2 in 1000 or 0.5 in 1000, so large variations are very possible.
|
|