SIDC have a symbolic news release, if you can bear it

Posted: August 28, 2013 by tchannon in Solar physics

Image

OKAY, right, Belgians do humour, Solar Influences Data Analysis Center have put this image as an entrance to a news article on solar polar field reversals, a subject I hope is of interest to Talkshop readers.

For the current solar cycle 24 (SC24), the reversal on the Sun’s north pole has been going on now for about a year or two, with positive and negative polarities alternating each other for the above mentioned reasons. It seems that only right now, the reversal on the north pole has become permanent. This still has to be confirmed in the months ahead. The reversal at the south pole seems to have only just begun (mid-2013). Therefore, a complete reversal still seems quite a few months away.

SIDC home page here, you know where to go

post by Tim Channon

Comments
  1. Doug Proctor says:

    Perhaps this is the place to pose a simple question wrt solar magnetic fields and GCR causing cloud seeding on Earth:

    1. Does the solar magnetic field at Earth orbit change significantly as a natural variation irrespective of sunspot activity, and if so, by how much?
    2. With solar polarity reversals, does the total magnetic field of the sun change significantly at Earth orbit and if so, by how much?
    3. During the Dalton and Maunder Minima, what sort, by how much, and if episodic, how sustained and strong was the (alleged) reduced solar magnetic field occurred at Earth orbit?
    4. Do all solar sunspot minima necessarily have reduced magnetic fields at Earth orbit, and if so, by how much?
    5. Do periods of zero sunspot activity during normal periods of sunspot activity have reduced total solar magnetic field strength at Earth orbit, and if so, by how much?
    6. Has a record of solar magnetic field strength at Earth orbit been plotted against sunspot levels, and if so, what is the correlation?
    7. Have satellite albedo or Earthshine albedo records been plotted against either solar magnetic field strength at Earth orbit or sunspot activity, and if so, what is the correlation?

    For the analysis of mag field-sunspot activity-clouds-global temperatures, we’d need plots covering the same time period for:

    1. Earth orbit solar magnetic field strength, absolute and anomaly,
    2. HadCru4 global temperature, anomaly,
    3. Albedo measurements, absolute,
    4. Sunspot Wolf or other numbers. absolute and
    5. GCR ground/Mauna Loa absolute value and anomaly measurements.

    We need absolute values for causative parameters as it is probable that, with compensating negative feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere, we could have threshold values to deal with, an issue that may not show itself with just anomaly values. Temperature and cloudiness, being the resultant properties we are studying, probably need anomalies, not absolutes, as their change from background variation may be too small to recognize easily, and it is the change from “normal” that is the feature we are concerned about.

    Those with X-box computers could probably do a 5-dimensional plot and correlation analysis.

    Obviously, I am attempting to put observation to test Archibald’s and others GCR mechanism of cloud development on Earth as (a temperature control for the planet) AND get some idea of the substance behind thoughts that a Dalton-esque Solar Cycle 25 will bring Al Gore to, if not his knees, an admittance that those who felt the sun controlled the Earth’s temperatures are not talking BS.

    Should be straightforward, unless (as I am sure to hear) I am missing something.

    The study would be an interesting post.

  2. wayne says:

    Look at http://sidc.oma.be/news/211/welcome.html, the Carrington Rotation chart, and notice that the blue at the bottom (southern) does not appear to be flipping in sync as the other transitions in the past. That seems a bit unusual. Maybe it will soon follow suit but you sure can’t tell that from the Mt. Wilson chart.

  3. ren says:

    The northern polar field reversed in June 2012 while the southern polar field as of July 2013 still remains weakly positive. During the previous similar polarity reversal in 1989-1991 the northern polar field reversed 14 months before the southern polar field reversal.

  4. ren says:

    Please note the index Ap.

  5. Brian H says:

    8. How will the poley bear respond to clashing symbols? Or cymbals, even? and how did a penguin get so far from home?

  6. tallbloke says:

    Brian: I think the poley bear will p-p-p-pick up a penguin.

  7. ren says:

    As for the teddy bear and a penguin, it can now sleep peacefully. No lock the north is ice growth in the Arctic. In the south, the ice goes on the record.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml

  8. vukcevic says:

    as posted on WUWT

    Tallbloke’s Tim Channon noticed something odd; the Belgians have sense of humour.
    No, I don’t think so.
    SIDC is the world’s Solar Influences Data Analysis Center.
    Note words Solar Influences
    Could it possibly be the climate?
    Now, most of us are aware of something called ‘solar polar magnetic field reversal’ subject that SIDC is currently preoccupied with.
    We all also heard about plight of the polar bears and penguins in current global warming epoch.
    So SIDC illustrates their front page (http://sidc.oma.be/) with an extremely happy snoozing polar bear with no shortage of snow and ice, and accompanied with an unlikely prop-powered penguin.

    The actual article page illustration is even more intriguing, http://sidc.oma.be/news/211/Picture6.png
    to me it suggest ‘snowball earth’ with polar bear greeting penguins somwhere in the mid Atlantic, holding Hansen’s model of overheated globe as a reminder of now instinct humans and their climate science folly.
    SIDC and you and I know that solar activity is winding down, the Earth will cool somewhat, but ‘snowball Earth’, that is overdoing it a smidgen.
    I wonder if SIDC knowws something about Solar Influences the rest of us don’t.
    🙂

  9. michael hart says:

    You might like this TB,

  10. ren says:

    Vukcevic can you explain this artwork? Thank you.

  11. vukcevic says:

    Hi ren
    Graphic is ilustration of the Svalgaard’s hypothesis which posits that polar field max (N-S) is precursor of the next SSNmax, and up to now it appears to work.
    He used it for predicting correctly SC24 as a low cycle, while NASA’s Hathaway at the same time predicted falsely SC24 as the highest ever.
    http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf pages 14&15

  12. hunter says:

    I thought the pic at the lead of the post was about a cymbalic press release.

  13. Caleb says:

    I stole the Penguin-Wake-Up-Call picture to use for a post describing a visit to Joe Romm’s site. I was checking out a post from last March 23 about big cracks forming in the Beaufort Sea’s ice. Joe went up slightly in my opinion, for he allowed you to comment. It is sort of funny to see all the outrage your view stimulated, especially as it now looks like you may have been right, as the summer that followed was so cool up there. I think the ocean may have been cooled by being so exposed at the start of the winter, and also by the Beaufort Sea cracks.

    In any case, I mentioned you and your site and stole your penguin picture in an update at the bottom of, http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-a-september-surprise/

  14. tallbloke says:

    Hi Caleb. Joe Romm usually blocks my comments, unless he thinks I can be ridiculed successfully. I guess he thought I would get hammered for the ocean cooling since 2007 statement. Little does he realise ARGO data is selectively ignored by the people he trusts to use it properly.

  15. Caleb says:

    Yes, I noticed he did say that he only allowed your comment for purposes of ridicule, but now who looks ridiculous?

    He who laughs last laughs best.

    What do they call it when they selectively ignore data? Cherry not-picking?

  16. Caleb says:

    Sounds like a good wager to me.

    But it goes to show you how naive I sometimes can be. I honestly thought I had found a sign of open and honest discourse on the part of an Alarmist towards a Skeptic. Only later on did I get to Romm’s derisive comment.

    Years ago, before it became a typical echo-chamber, the Accuweather site had some really decent intellectual brawls between Alarmists and Skeptics. People didn’t pull any punches, but there was a real exchange of ideas. I think it is a huge pity that such discussions have become so hard to find. Perhaps it is because Alarmists have so few worthy points left to argue about. The sea-ice issue seems to be their last, great hope, and now it too seems to be walking on thin ice. (Or maybe I should say, “walking on thicker ice.”)