Missing sunspots solved by NASA?

I have a computer model that says x^2 = 2x.

So Climate Change is really happening and once the sunspots return, we are all going to be cooked?

Indeed, much work remains to be done, but, says Guhathakurta, “finally, we may be cracking the mystery of the spotless sun.”
That sounds so much like the situation within the medical profession back in the 1920/30s before the advent of antibiotics.
“We can diagnose your illness, the symptoms are extremely well known to us, we can give you a full prognosis of how the disease will kill you, but cure you? Nope, not a chance! All we can hope to do is ease your dying, Next patient please, nurse!”

a new computer model? Great, so that’s another bit of ‘fudgeability’ able to be introduced to explain the observations…..

Is this like the martian microbes? Or that release when they were sure about the arsenic based life on earth?
Oh wait, this research is based on a model! How silly of me, it must be correct then.

BS
“For the first time, Nandi’s team believes they have developed a computer model that gets the physics right for all three aspects of this process”
A computer model…….

We need a model of how many incorrect models can adequately retrocast before smashing up on the Rocks of Reality. We could test the model by predicting how many incorrect hypotheses NASA, NOAA, etc. will produce prematurely exult over, over the next 1, 5, and 10 years.

Computer models certainly have their place. They are used successfully in many engineering disciplines daily.
For example, we can certainly create a computer model to predict the velocity of an object in free fall at approximately sea level on earth. The model would be pretty accurate – until wind resistance started kicking in. The model could be upgraded to take into account the aerodynamic drag of the free falling object, and would, again, be pretty accurate. Until other weather conditions also kick in (high humidity. shear winds, etc).
The point is that models *are* a useful tool. But they are not a replacement for observed data. Unless or until the models have some type of predictive power, they should be viewed suspiciously. Prior to that, they are merely an interesting piece of data – but certainly not worthy of being considered a falsifiable scientific theory.
Regardless, interesting theory. Let’s see if they publish predictive data, and how the model performs against it.

Obviously the cause for the speeding up of the Conveyor belt through the amplification zone is the presence of a greater quantity of Carbon in the core trying to combine with the minute ammounts of Oxygen being produced through the fusion process. Once again, a slight increase of CO2 on the levels of PPB is to blame for what ails the sun, now all the warmists need to do is find a way to attribute it to Man’s activities

Solar activity dropped to hundred-year lows; Earth’s upper atmosphere cooled and collapsed;…

Someone help me out here. A cooling upper atmosphere is supposed to be evidence of global warming but now they’re saying the sun’s hundred-year low has caused it to cool? Does this change the AGW hypothesis and its conclusions in any meaningful way or has this solar activity cooling the upper atmosphere all been accounted for already in the climate models?

Vukcevic says: “Dr. Hathaway must be pulling his beard out in a rage too”
Hathaway has a comment on the Nature site, actually it was Hathaway that said their model is in conflict with observations. If you read his comment you will see that he doesn’t agree with their model at all.
Jim

From the NASA news story:
“… The famous Maunder Minimum of the 17th century lasted 70 years and coincided with the deepest part of Europe’s Little Ice Age. Researchers are still struggling to understand the connection.”
So they are still trying to reinforce the notion that the LIA and MWP were regional by implication. I’m sorry, but using words that may be technically true, but are chosen to give an impression of some that is not, is still lying. NASA lies.
The only thing researchers(propagandists) are struggling with is to explain away the LIA so as to decouple changes in the suns behavior as a significant contributor to changes in the earths weather.

Owl droppings, that’s all NASA has. And People make fun of Astrology, but Nature lets NASA do entrail readings and and get away with it!

@NoAstronomer: Tested on the number 2 from the ground stations undoubtedly.
Problem with this sort of model is that it describes an inherently mathematical chaotic process that is driven by the logistic equation. Notoriously hard to predict except for short periods.

What stands out to me is that Nandi’s team seems to think that the sun is broken/malfunctioning.
…the trouble with sunspots actually began…
…but the damage was already done.
Adding insult to injury…
Is this something that is broken or a natural process in flux? NASA seems to take the stance that previous years sunspot levels were the ideal and that the natural system is operating at a less than optimal level. Treating it in this way sets them up to be the arbiter of the next cause celebre in identifying exactly how we should fix this problem.

Where have all the sunspots gone?
NASA’s modelled them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
With apologies to Pete Seeger

They with the use of their big old super computer could come closer to knowing the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet earth than it and they could come to understanding what it is that makes the sun tick.
Tell us Phd., Dr. of Solar Astro Physics, do Super-Nova’s have a hand in any of it or do you have data to prove they do not. Go , study if they cause the plasma currents of the sun to cycle or not.

Sounds like yet more epicycles.

The Map (model) is Not The Territory (the sun).
“Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” – Alfred Korzybski
As Richard Feynman said, [paraphrasing] when you have too many explanations that are alleged to be the answer that’s a very good hint that you’ve not understood the thing you’re studying and it’s time to go back to the drawing board.
Soothsaying digital solar entrails with software models. At least there is no doomsday in their less than stellar explanations of the past. Oh wait, 2012 is just around the corner and neutrinos still have time to start interacting more strongly with the Earth heating up The Core. [:)] Ah, love it, two movie references in that sentence [:)].

This model cannot explain the past few hundred years. There is no mechanism for a hundred years without sunspots and it also implies that the 11 yr cycle fluctuates based on the conveyor belt speed.
delaying the onset of Solar Cycle 24.
Since that time variation in onset is not seen, they have no real basis. The Sun does appear to have larger cycles on top of the 22 yr cycle as the peaks in the past have steadily changed over time. Since the current greater cycle peaked in 1959-1960 and each cycle has been weaker (generally) it should be no surprise that the current one is weaker still.
Their mechanism for altering current speeds does little to explain why, much less does it explain why the current fluctuates.
John Kehr

You mean there aren’t a couple of small black holes orbiting each other down there after all?
Well, so much for THAT theory…

The predictive power of the models is what I find so frustrating. Models that continually adjust themselves to past history, but have no predictive capabilities are little better than Freudian theories of psychoanalysis, namely:
1. Everything is “consistent” with the theory
2. Anything unexpected can always be explained by the theory in a consistent way after it has occurred.
3. Some descriptions of what can be explained are like “cold readings”, they can fit virtually any outcome (floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice melting, land 6 feet deep in snowstorms and blizzards, etc etc.). Take this from Australia:
In the future, Queensland will experience longer and hotter summers, less rainfall, more evaporation, increased severe storm and cyclone activity.
and later in the same article
an increase in cyclone intensity, with maximum wind speeds up by 5–10 per cent by 2050 and rainfall associated with these events up by 20–30 per cent 4.
Does that mean less rainfall, or more rainfall? As far as I can see, it covers both drought conditions and flooding. That’s just like a cold reading by a magician.
Any alternative explanation is always wrong.
Do climate scientists believe that, like weather forecasters, that we will notice less when they get it wrong if they tell us weather events we have already seen happening? At least weather forecasts are solid enough to be wrong, although we’ve had slippery language creeping in – “occasional showers, perhaps persistent at times”, or the best one “wintry showers” – covers rain, sleet, hail, and snow all in one.
Finding any prediction is like trying to staple jelly.

I’d be interested in Dr. Svalgaard’s views on this. There does seem to be a logical inconsistency in the text (as pointed out by several commenters) that on the one hand when the interior current speeded up, it passed the active area so fast that it didn’t pick up enough steam to do much, but on the other hand when the current slowed, it was … running too slow for the current to pick up enough steam? Or have I misunderstood something?

“Our conclusions are based on a new computer model of the sun’s interior.”
How many others stopped reading here… and so much of what I do depends on creating accurate computer models… I am so ashamed of the industry and that charlatans that occupy it … I feel that over 40 years is as nothing… honesty? integrity? check in the dictionary of you want to learn about them — do not watch climate scientists and computer modelers…
I am turning in my propeller beanie. It is no longer a badge of honor. I am shredding my pocket protector. I am grinding up my slide rules. I’m a-gonna drive our D8 Cat over all my scientific calculators. I am smashing the living room busts of Tesla and Newton… we are forsaken! alas, alack aday!
We are at the cross-roads at midnight… our fate awaits!

Good for David Hathaway. Doing what the peer reviewers failed to do…reconcile the theory with the evidence.
When I wrote the post I failed to mention the tenses used, unconditional at the start, more and more conditional by the end. CYA in other words.

Engineer Bob says:
March 3, 2011 at 2:43 pm
“…Why not cut these authors some slack?”
Cuz Bob, we’ve been down this road before. You rightly suggest that, “Having the accuracy (and experience) to extrapolate further should be considered highly speculative, IMHO”, but did you read anything that sounded ‘speculative in the article? These guys are opperating according to their standard MO: ‘we have a computer model, and although we still have much work to do, we may be starting to crack the mystery of the spotless sun’ (ok, that sounds slightly speculative but rings of an obligatory closing. IMO).
Next, as hinted by another poster above, we will probably hear that after calibrating this model with another model’s results and filtering through two other computer models after 25,000 runs over two years that the Solar influence on Earth’s climate is negligible and (sarc/on)- not to worry about the 3 feet of snow in April because that’s what “global climate disruption” is all about. We’ve been predicting this icy global warming since the ’80’s -(sarc/off).
We’re just trying to nip this show of shoddy prose and propaganda in the bud, not the actual science. Science is good, models could be good tools if real scientists were administrating them instead of propagandists. We just wish these guys would get on the bandwagon (the real-science bandwagon).
You hit the nail right on the head, think these guys are on that same tack? I would answer in the negative. 🙂

WillR says:
March 3, 2011 at 3:28 pm
“I am grinding up my slide rules.”
WillR, NNNNNOOOOOOOOO DON’T DO IT MAN!!!
Send them to me, can’t find the things anywhere. :0)

I also have a “computer model” that predicts past lottery numbers to 100% accuracy. I wonder if I can get Federally funded?
In investing, there is a well known warning. “Past performance is no guarentee of future success.” Perhaps it’s time to bring that wisdom to science in the dangers of retrocasting.

Do you think I could work at NASA? I enjoy thinking stuff up and I’m excellent at gathering data, I could collect Tera-quads of data and sit about thinking up thousands of theory’s a year and file them on a to-be proven pile, that would take thousands more people hundreds of years to make any sense of them.
I’d especially like to work in NASA’s new “Theory On Demand Department” (TODD) or the “Labyrinth Of Information Department” (LOID) or one of the similar departments of experts that have been appearing all over the planet.
It’s all a farce!!
If they don’t understand the basics… (I’ll let Albert Einstein Explain the rest).
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”
“Information is not knowledge.”
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
“In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”
“Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.”
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it!”
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
“To me the worst thing seems to be a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and the self-confidence of pupils and produces a subservient subject.”
“By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. It is evident that any restriction on academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge among the people and thereby impedes national judgment and action.”
“The only justifiable purpose of political institutions is to insure the unhindered development of the individual.”
“Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions.”
“The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax.” (I believe he would have said “The hardest thing to understand in the world is the Carbon Tax” had he been alive today)
“I never allow myself to become discouraged under any circumstances. The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are first, hard work, second, stick-to-ittiveness, third, common sense.”
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”
“Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.”
“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
“I have no particular talent. I am merely inquisitive.”
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with the important matters.”
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

d says:
March 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Its ironic this article shows up just at the time the sun spot and F10.7 numbers are shooting way up. Funny if NASA will now have to explain why the sunspots are back!!
_____________________________________________________________
“Shooting way up” is a relative term here. 18 months to 2 years before the last Solar maximum (which wasn’t an especially strong cycle in the great scheme of things), the F10.7 number was averaging about 180. Even with it perking up in the last couple of weeks, it is still only running at about 110, way below what we have become used to.

Malaga View says:
March 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm

More bull than Buzz Lightyear:
computer model… magnetic dynamo… conveyor belt… magnetic fields… plasma currents… meridional flows… inner dynamo… amplification zone… ultrasound… buoyant evolution… cosmic rays… space junk… helioseismology…
More moves than John Travolta:
stage was set… slow moving… violent flaring… cool and collapse… plunge inward… pop up again… pull them down… bob up… unfold.. wait.. grind on… works on a pregnant woman…
More scary than Vincent Price:
sunspot corpses… full re-animation… decaying… strange things happen… held at bay… cooled and collapsed… stunted… the remains… rapidly dragged… cracking… dangerous place
To infinitity and beyond belief

Great analysis Malga!
The writers at Nasa obviously went to the same school as our politian’s writers do.
The content, science, or truth of the issue being discussed is relatively un-important.
These articles and speeches have other motives.
They all have words designed to reach us on an emotional level.
So this Nasa article wasn’t really created for Scientists.. or Award winning Science Blogs for that matter.
Its designed for the general population.
Just look at the words Malga has singled out.
These words were not chosen by accident.
The general poulation are supposed to react to this article by:
* Believing there is a problem.
* Re-acting to the problem with Fear.
* Expecting the Government to find a solution.
Its called Hegalian Dialectic.
It is the same method Governments have used to control their people for centuries.

Okay so this new model is great at hindcasting but we have no idea of it’s predictive power and accuracy. Sounds just like the GCMs.

I’ve been building my own model and I think I’ve hit on something interesting. I kept on getting the same image from the modelling software showing no sun spots. then I had an epiphany. Swung the image in 3 dimensions by 180 degrees, and there they were. Clustered on the other side of the sun where we can’t see them.
I know some people will be skeptical of computer model, so as proof, I ran it 28,465 times in succession and got the exact same answer every time. 9 decimal places no less. How much more proof do you need? If I run it another 1,000 times, do you think that will change anything? Of course not!
Next I’m modeling the cause. I’ve found a strong correlation between global warming and farside sunspot migration. I didn’t have access to any actual global warming data, its too hard to gather and collate, but I found another mechanism that is more effective. I ran every IPCC climate model against my sunspot model. Of the 19 IPCC climate models, 15 turned out to be worthless, they didn’t match at all. But once I discarded those, the four that were left were a close match. By applying some very sophisticated statistical techniques, I was able to weight the output of the remaining four models such that their combined results matched the sunspot model 100%
What further proof anyone could ask for that global warming is the clear driver of farside sunspot migration is beyond me.
I even got an email from one idiot asking if it was possible that the relationship was reversed. What are they teaching in science class these days? CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! Unbelievable.

davidmhoffer says: (March 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm)
        What further proof anyone could ask for that global warming is the clear driver of farside sunspot migration is beyond me.
No further proof, David. I believe you have it staked through the heart in the very best traditions of global warming science.

DesertYote says:
March 3, 2011 at 1:14 pm

From the NASA news story:
“… The famous Maunder Minimum of the 17th century lasted 70 years and coincided with the deepest part of Europe’s Little Ice Age. Researchers are still struggling to understand the connection.”

“The only thing researchers (propagandists) are struggling with is to explain away the LIA so as to decouple changes in the suns behavior as a significant contributor to changes in the earth’s weather.”
————-
DesertYote,
The Maunder Minimum (MM) is taken as occurring between ~1645 AD to ~1715 AD. We designate it as a solar grand minimum as compared to the Wolf, Sporer and Dalton minima which were not big enough to classify as grand minima. Rather they were moderate negative fluctuations.
The Little Ice Age (LIA) is taken as occurring between ~1550 AD to ~1850 AD.
If the MM is argued as the cause of the LIA, then there is a problem due to the observation that the LIA was already into its 100th year and near its minimum temperature period before the MM was starting. It is fatal for a causation argument. Any correlation that may exist is rendered meaningless.
Now I need to look at the Dalton Minimum versus earth cooling periods to see if it has the same problem as the MM versus the LIA. I also need to look at the Wolf and Sporer Minimuns versus earth cooling periods. Has anybody already done that?
John

ferd berple says:
There are plenty of models of solar cycles more accurate than NASA, that include the planets in their model.

Such a wonderful video… very simple… very short… very to the point… very easy to remember… but it seems to be totally beyond the comprehension levels of NASA… so I ask myself: how can seemingly intelligent people be so dumb?… the only answer I have so far is: peer pressure… which explains everything you need to know about peer review and peer groups and peer publications
NASA – Nebulous Astronomy with Stupidity and Arrogance

WillR
Please do not dispair.
In the darkest night
there soon comes
A faint glimmer of light.
A new day will dawn.
Here comes – THE SUN

It’s so funny.
They can’t tell you what happens at their doorstep, but pretend to know everything about the sun en detail.
LOL

“Our conclusions are based on a new computer model of the sun’s interior.”
/Facepalm
Computer models shouldn’t be a basis for conclusions. They should be a way to test the mechanism of a theorized system to compare with future data.
Making a conclusion based on a computer model is just navel gazing.

Leif Svalgaard says: March 4, 2011 at 5:49 am
Every complicated question has a simple answer which is wrong.

Except
1) when the simple answer is correct…
2) when the complicated question is the wrong question…

Leif Svalgaard says:
It would seem hard to have a correct answer to the wrong question…

Its very easy to ask the wrong question… many people deliberately ask wrong questions… many people deliberately make things complicated… many people deliberately try to confuse and divert… but the answer will be correct if you ask the right question… and that same answer is still correct even if you deliberately ask the wrong question.

Ref – Malaga View says:
March 4, 2011 at 11:05 am
“Its sad when so much Science has descended into Sophistry…
Sophistry just promotes cynicism and scepticism…”
And versa vicea. It’s a mobius strip.
It’s especially noticeable when “scientists” dabble in politics.
Once they’re on the strip it just goes on and on and on.

@ tallbloke
Looks like your last comment has just been accidented… shame… this NASA press release is a bellyful of laughs… but I think they will be more concerned if you stick around… don’t give them an extra free pass… they already have ones from the government and the main stream media… they really don’t deserve any more.

DesertYote says:
March 4, 2011 at 8:14 am

John Whitman
March 3, 2011 at 11:30 pm

“Thanks John, I was really not commenting on the science, but the language. This NASA press release bears the marks of being written by professional propagandists, e.g. instead of the LIA, they use the phrase “Europe’s LIA”. This is not an accident. You will find example of the careful choice of phrases to invoke a “message supporting” image or impression that is separate from what is being said in all NASA PR that has any impact on the CAGW story.”
– – – – – –
DesertYote,
Yes, I understand the thrust of your original comment was the way NASA might be viewed as minimizing the global nature of the LIA by saying Europe in reference to the LIA. It was a good point. Thanks.
But, because the NASA quote you referenced put the MM and LIA in play then your comment gave me an opportunity interject about the lack of evidence that the MM caused the LIA. There seem to be many commenters and blog posts ( for example by Archibald) that imply there is correlation between events like the MM and LIA, so they consequently imply solar minimums like the MM might be the cause of events like the LIA.
Thanks for your reply.
John

tallbloke says:
March 3, 2011 at 2:15 pm
steven mosher says:
March 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2011 at 12:52 pm
tallbloke says:
March 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm

– – – – – –
tallbloke/mosher/leif,
Personalization is OK when used in the context of cordiality of blog colleagues or just blog acquaintances; a nice thing. When a blog relationship has a history of vehement disagreement then any injection of personalization is usually taken negatively by the parties involved. I think that vehemently disagreeing commenters poking each other in light humorous ways is OK and great entertainment. I suggest they keep it at that level.
I think we need to remember that all commenters have personalities that are reflected in their communication styles. A highly personalized style of commenting may be viewed by some as a negative, but it may not be anything but personality. Be careful, style accompanies content. To me the styles of some of the vehement protagonists on WUWT are very endearing . . . . like very dear old friends. I would sorely miss them if they disappeared.
Regarding models, attack the model not the modeler? OK. Models are fair game!
John

Well, good luck to them. I hope they’re on to something. Right now I’m not sure it isn’t functionally equivalent to “Sun God was sleeping”, just a different meme to frame it.

Ref – Pascvaks says:
March 5, 2011 at 7:52 am
Ref – Leif Svalgaard says:
March 4, 2011 at 12:52 pm
steven mosher says:
March 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“what exactly is the POINT of personalizing this by trying to figure out whether Dr. S is pleased or not?”
It is clearly easier [and somewhat demeaning of the perpetrators] to engage in personal attacks than in the science. Better filtering of such is one way you could improve WUWT.
_________
I don’t think it’s possible to really tweek WUWT much more than it is currently managed/monitored without changing it and turning it into something very different than it is. The “Best Science Blog Award” speaks to how well it’s currently operating. But… Anthony & Co. might consider something along these lines: A Special Debate Blog Item for “Select” Commenters Only (maybe just 2 –debates get confusing if there’s more than 2 people talking about something; the rest of us could ‘read along’ but not ‘participate’ with tomatoes and rotten fruit). Well, it might be worth a shot. Anyway, $.02 from the peanut gallery.
PS: After a little more thought about my suggestion I’d like to add another $.02 –
Once the ‘Back-and-Forth’ between the “Select” Commenters Only folks has pretty much ended it would be nice if the MOD would draw a line and open the comments up to all comers.
[Reply – always glad to have suggestions for Anthony to mull over, and this is an interesting one, although I think the way it would be intended to work and how it would actually work in reality would be quite different.
1. WordPress limitations – I think the choices are between public/private/passwordprotected posts and comments on/comments off. In theory you could have a private post then debate between two people then publish the post and the comments and open up to others.
2. A live debate that only two people could engage in would be interesting (although technically ??? see 1), however if no-one else could comment I reckon chaos would ensue (frustrated commenters commenting on every other thread) and as a moderator I wouldn’t want to be trying to keep order ~jove, mod]

Well, it only cost $.04 and that ain’t much today. Leif’s comment struck a chord and it seemed like a way to initially cut down on noise and background radiation while the BIG GUNS were fencing with each other. Also wanted to say the current method is fine for 99% of the WUWT content –You ARE The Best!!!;-)

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm
On your latest http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png image you have “Welcome to solar max” next to the F10.7 line. Care to say anything further on this?

Leif Svalgaard says:
March 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm
It certainly does make life more interesting (being based upon observation), speculative or not.
The egg is perched on the roof peak.