Australian Space Weather Agency Revises Solar Cycle 24 Start, Adding 6 Months

do you and basil have something new in the works regarding solar cycles?

Back in January Hathaway was quoted :
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
I’ve seen revisions to his estimates but never a retraction. Has S24 begun or has it not?
At the end of the article there is the following footnote:
Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

Back in January I saw this quote:
Jan. 10, 2008: Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm?list32237
I’ve seen Hathaway’s revisions but not a retraction. Has S24 started or has it not?
There is a little CYA in a footnote on this article:
Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

This is an over-reaction. Solar physicists may disagree, but that does not mean that they are clueless. ……The reason is that we do not yet know enough about the interior of the Sun [but that is improving] and the prediction of SC24 is a way of ruling out [or in] some of the assumptions that we therefore are forced to make. This is normal science and is as it should be.

Replace “solar” with the equivalent “climate” terminology and you’ve just defined the situation in that field also.

Richard deSousa (08:08:30) :
“It appears to me that the solar scientists and astrophysicists are venturing into the unknown. None of them knows why the sun is so quiet and none of them have a clue on how long this hiatus will continue.”
Agreed that this is unknown territory, and there are far more questions than answers. Everybody is hoping that the sun will provide a definitive answer, one way or another.
There is a new satellite solar observatory, SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory), being assembled even as we speak, that should be the best yet.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Scheduled launch date is December 2008. I really, really hope all goes well with this whole SDO program. If so, we could be getting super high-quality data even before the IPS 6 month wait-and-see period is over.
“…Their hubris is breath taking and some of them should honestly tell us they just don’t know what the hell is going on with the sun.”
I cannot agree that there has been hubris. I have seen no hubris from any of the prominent solar forecasters.
Leif Svalgaard is probably the most outspoken, and he actively discourages hubris, from professionals and amateurs alike. He has a sound physical basis for his forecasts, and is awaiting developments just as we all are.
Jan Janssens maintains a comprehensive page with the published solar forecasts
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
ordered according to whether the forecasting method is physical, statistical, or combined.
The sometimes maligned David Hathaway at NASA is quite correct when he says, “…I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
In the last solar minimum, in 1996, there was a spotless streak of 42 days, in the top ten longest streaks since 1849!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
I do believe you are correct in saying no one knows why the sun is behaving as it is, why Solar Cycle 23 is already over 12 years long, why Solar Cycle 24 seems unable to produce anything but ephemeral “sunspecks.”
Does the present and recent behavior of the sun lend additional credence to the forecasts predicting lower solar activity, including those predicting something like a Grand Solar Minimum?
The intuitive answer would be yes, but exactly HOW do those models account for the actual solar behavior? Is it a case of being “right for the wrong reasons,” i.e., “accidentally” getting it right? How will the sound physical underpinnings of the now more intuitively correct models be factually demonstrated? (Or as teacher used to say, “please show your work.”)
It isn’t as though no one’s trying. Ken Schatten, completely hubris-free, wonders if the unusual (for solar minimum) frequent appearance of low-latitude coronal holes allows magnetic energy to escape into space with the solar wind, and thus be unavailable to produce sunspots.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032658_2007033016.pdf
In Janssens table of predictions
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
number 8, by Maris et al, predicts low Cycle 24 activity on the basis of energy released as solar flares during the declining phase of Cycle 23 (and in fact, there were HUGE flares – God Bless Jan Janssens, he has a table for this too
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Flares/Powerflare.html
(Note: I have only seen the abstract of the Maris et al paper, NOT the paper itself!)
I personally have deep concern that none of this will end well. The only “silver lining” I see is the knowledge gained, which will be gained only AFTER we go through whatever it is that is in store for us.
Maybe you’re right about the hubris after all. It seems a lot of people went into the business of forecasting Solar Cycle 24 thinking it was going to be fun and easy and a chance to cover themselves with glory.
As the months drag on and the questions pile up while the answers don’t… well, the Greeks knew what always happens after hubris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
“A forecaster’s heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger meddleth not with its joy.” – Sir William Napier Shaw

I hate to keep referencing a sci-fi show on a science themed blog, but Data (day-tuh) once told Captain Picard that the first rule in wisdom is to admit when you don’t know something. I realize that must be terribly hard for scientists, after all they are supposed to know if anyone does, but nonetheless the rule applies. I have seen appearances of it, scientists actually admitting they don’t understand yet what is going on, but not enough of it. When somebody in charge doesn’t know something, and it is clear they don’t but they will not admit it, then of course you are going to get accusations that said person is clueless. I think a formulation such as the one Clark used in his post would be appropriate.
But, please, stop making media-based forecasts if you’re not going to explain the reasons for change in the media. I think that is largely what most of the people here are asking for. Even the NHC (National Hurricane Center) gives reasons for changes in forecast (e.g., with the expected track of Fay) under its Forecast Discussion link for the storm (and every storm). Changes with new data are inevitable, and people understand that. But people can also see through it when a change is made because: a) the intial prediction clearly did not happen or b) the initial prediction is clearly running out of time to occur and continuing conditions to do not make it likely to occur. This is what I meant when I talked about having control over a target.
To use the (now revised) government contract analogy it would go something like this:
“When you are guys going to start on the new job?”
“In about eight months.”
“That’s a switch. Why the change?”
“Because we’re not done with this one yet.”
“Yes, but what’s taking so long? You said you’d be done a month ago.”
Silence.
“So how do you know that you’ll be ready to start on the new one in 8 months then?”
“Because that’s when we’ve said we’re going to start.”
“Even though you don’t know if you’ll be done with this current job by then?”
More silence.
“So, basically, what you are telling me is that you’ll be done here and starting on the new job in eight months simply because you say so and for no other reason?”
Yet more silence.
Now, the above may be unfair but that is perception. I work in hospitality myself, so I know a fair bit about perception versus reality. Solar scientists may have some but not all of the answers in order to give an explanation that the general public can understand, but if they do they sure are not letting anyone know. And when you try to BS people because they aren’t experts in your particular field and “don’t need to know,” people usually can figure that out. And if nobody else does, that is the way I feel things are going with this particular forecast.

John-X: I don’t have any problems with a scientist if he admits he doesn’t know because there’s a lack of data to formulate a hypothesis or theory. But when they substitute computer prognostications as substitute for answers then I’m a little uneasy. It reminds me of Michael Crichton’s speech at Cal Tech when he was talking about global warming and consensus in science. I think I’ve posted it before but to refresh one’s memory here it is again:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Whoops — I omitted the link —
Also from SWPW, here’s a link to a page which graphically shows that latest status of all identified disturbances (regularly updated). It’s still blank and has been each time I checked today.
http://raben.com/maps/index.html

Leif Svalgaard (11:55:29) :

The problem is not the science, but when science [any field] becomes hijacked for political or other reasons. but such is human nature, there will always be bad boys out there.

Exactly.