Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
Reposted here: October 30th, 2008
by Warwick Hughes
The real world sunspot data remaining quiet month after month are mocking the curved red predictions of NOAA and about to slide underneath. Time for a rethink I reckon NOAA !!
Here is my clearer chart showing the misfit between NOAA / NASA prediction and real-world data.
Regular readers might remember that we started posting articles drawing attention to contrasting predictions for Solar Cycle 24, way back on 16 December 2006. Scroll to the start of my solar threads.
Then in March 2007 I posted David Archibald’s pdf article, “The Past and Future of Climate”. Well worth another read now, I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007 from NOAA / NASA
NOTE from Anthony: We now appear to have a new cycle 24 spot, which you can see here:
See the most current MDI and magnetogram here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
Is this at the distance of the Earth to the sun or just 7 times the luminosity of a full moon?
Jim Arndt (15:20:13) :
Is this at the distance of the Earth to the sun or just 7 times the luminosity of a full moon?
That is as seen by farmer Jones standing in his field.
Leif,
This is how I did my calculations:
I summed Column 2A between 1798-3 and 1809-9; 1809-10 and 1822-12 etc, etc for each cycle (5 to 23).
I summed Column 3A for exactly the same intervals (ie each cycle)
Col1A Col 2A Col 3A
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
1798 1365.649 0.059
1798 1365.642 0.052
…….. etc ad nauseam
These are the results:
Col1B Col 2 B Col 3B
Cum. Sum Cum. Sum
Cycle Column 2A Column 3A
5 189845.949 28.94
6 217513.479 24.67
7 173474.713 44.78
8 162574.807 69.6
9 202181.248 73.93
10 184415.391 60.74
11 188518.02 66.6
12 172107.471 43.13
13 208983.429 48.16
14 185757.634 37.39
15 163916.337 45.54
16 172107.66 43.32
17 168027.841 60.27
18 169395.017 61.86
19 166677.533 75.55
20 184412.442 57.79
21 170768.267 69.52
22 172129.584 65.24
23 198071.005 60.45
Why do they give different graphs? Column 3B integrates simply the variation in TSI (ie the sun’s output) for each cycle. There is no dividing going on here. Why is the graph from Column B no longer “telling”?
Kim,
Thanks for your helpful summary.
I take it the microwave satellite system “reads” something we do not see, but records it in pixels like a t.v. screen? Is it correct to say this is a reading of the polar albedo?
How is it possible? This energy is short-term?
Oops Let’s see if I can make that data clearer:
Col1A Col 2A Col 3A
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
1798 1365.649 0.059
1798 1365.642 0.052
…….. etc ad nauseam
These are the results:
Col1B Col 2 B Col 3B
Cum. Sum Cum. Sum
Cycle Column 2A Column 3A
5 189845.949 28.94
6 217513.479 24.67
7 173474.713 44.78
8 162574.807 69.6
9 202181.248 73.93
10 184415.391 60.74
11 188518.02 66.6
12 172107.471 43.13
13 208983.429 48.16
14 185757.634 37.39
15 163916.337 45.54
16 172107.66 43.32
17 168027.841 60.27
18 169395.017 61.86
19 166677.533 75.55
20 184412.442 57.79
21 170768.267 69.52
22 172129.584 65.24
23 198071.005 60.45
[…] Original post: Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA « Watts Up With … […]
Steve Hempell (16:24:19) :
Yr TSI Col2A-1365.59
1798 1365.643 0.053
Ah, if you subtract a number that is larger than the smallest of the TSI values, you ‘invert’ part of the area under the curve and the integral is no longer the accumulated effect. And in any case you shouldn’t subtract anything. Example:
1 4
2 6
3 4
4 2
sum is 16 which is indeed the accumulated effect. Now subtract 5 from each:
1 -1
2 +1
3 -1
4 -3
sum is -4, which is rubbish because we know that the accumulated effect is 16. Note how the values for 1 and 2 cancel out, this was not intended, of course. We don’t want values to cancel when we add them up for effect. So, don’t subtract anything. If you do, then you are saying that values above what you subtract [1365.59] have a certain effect, while values under that have the opposite effect. I don’t think that is what you want.
Bill P (16:20:36) :
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
How is it possible? This energy is short-term?
If I shine powerful flashlight at you, the energy that hits your eyes is short-term and disappears when I turn off the light.
Can somebody make the calculation that leads to the above result? Come on now, show some brilliance 🙂
Leif,
I know the data presentation was bad and I don’t know how to fix it so you might have found it confusing.
I don’t think your criticism is valid here(I agree with it’s premise) as there are no values in the TSI data from 1798 less than 1365.59. I checked my Excel sheet by formatting negative numbers as red and none appeared.
Also remember I am getting the same result using ImageJ which, by the way, I have checked against calculated values by creating cycle like shapes with a formula and calculating the intregal and comparing to ImageJ results.( X^2 SIN(5x)^2 and it’s integral X^3-1/20SIN(10x)x^2-1/100COS(10x)x+i/1000 SIN(10x) +C if your interested).
Perhaps I should send you a spreadsheet with the data and my work as then maybe it will be clearer what I have done.
Dr Leif:
Look at this. (please)
Not me.
I was preparing your response.
Missing the area of sunspeck.
surprise to me:
http://nov55.com/steph.html
The latest sunspot is petering out pretty fast…looks like a here today, gone tomorrow spot
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:45) :
Well, let me approach it sort of backwards, starting from numbers I have faith in.
Given that the full Moon is about magnitude -12.5, and the Sun is magnitude -26.7, the difference is 13.2, and that’s a factor of about 200,000. This means that 1/200,000 of the solar surface is as bright as the full moon. The sun has an angular size of 30 arc-minutes, for small angles that size, we don’t need to deal with spherical trig, so 30′ x sqrt(1/200,000) would be a size adequate to match the full moon, or 30′ x 1/450 = 4″.
4 arcseconds is easy to resolve in a small scope, and the total area of the current spot this AM was somewhere around there. The relative dimness of the spot would require a bit more (4th power of ratio of temperatures of normal solar and spot surface), but yeah, I could see a sunspeck equal a full Moon to within an order of magnitude.
The closest thing I got to a total solar eclipse was the annular eclipse over a decade ago. I was in the center of the path, and it never got really dark. The light did get really weird, and glancing at the sun with dilated pupils was not pleasant. Way too brilliant. Solar filters for telescope and unaided views were greatly appreciated.
4 arcseconds
I was going to say about the size of a small gnat splattered against the windshield of an SUV travelling at about… 55 mph… as viewed from the back seat…
But I think your metric is more precise.
Is the energy short term.
“If I shine powerful flashlight at you, the energy that hits your eyes is short-term and disappears when I turn off the light.”
My question was not clear.
Getting away from “calculate the size of the bug hitting the windshield” (although I vote for a fully-laden South TX mosquito hitting an SUV’s windshield at 70 mph), I understand this sunspot would count for an October sighting, and would give a total of 4 spots for Oct, 1 for September, and 1/2 for August.
Trend could be going upwards, if true.
Steve Hempell (17:39:19) :
I don’t think your criticism is valid here(I agree with it’s premise) as there are no values in the TSI data from 1798 less than 1365.59. I checked my Excel sheet by formatting negative numbers as red and none appeared.
OK then, but why subtract anything at all? By subtracting a value [any value] from TSI, and then integrating, you are subtracting not just a constant, but 10 times that constant if the period is 10 years, 11 times that constant if the period is 11 years and so on. So the result becomes very dependent on the cycle length, which is why that shows up in the plot: you fold the length in with the sum, which makes no sense physically. If it does to you, please explain it to me.
Ric Werme (19:00:25) et al.
My numbers may differ slightly from yours, but this is approximate only, so let me. Here goes:
The spot had an area of 30 millionth of the disk. The sun is 400,000 times as bright as the full moon, one millionth of the Sun is then 0.4 times as bright as the full moon. That times 30 is 12 times as bright, but a sunspot is cooler than the Sun so only radiates half as much, hence 12/2 = 6. I got the 7 by using more accurate numbers, but you get the idea.
Leif Svalgaard (17:27:45) :
“the sunspeck alone [without the rest of the Sun] will be seven times brighter than the full moon…”
Can somebody make the calculation that leads to the above result? Come on now, show some brilliance 🙂
Leif, where am I going wrong (dusts off cobwebs from brain).
I am assuming that this sunspot is about earth sized, so roughly 12,500 times smaller in area than the sun. Since it is at 4500 K, it has an intensity of ~23,000,000 W/m2, and a peak wavelength of 644 nm. The sun, at 5,777 K, has an intensity of 63,000,000 W/m2 at a peak wavelength of 501 nm. Looking at wavelength/intensity distributions for blackbody radiation, it looks like the visible light spectrum of 4500 is giving me between 10 and 20 percent less area than the 5,777. I just eye balled this, I did not integrate my intensity distrubution over the visible light wavelengths. So, I estimated that the sun should be about 45,000 times brighter than the sunspot (12,500 area, times the percent increase in visible light emissions, times the intensity increase from temperature difference)
This translates to a difference in brightness of 11.61, meaning that the sunspot has a relative brightness of -15.12 compared to the sun’s -26.73. The moon’s is -12.6, giving me a difference of brightness of 2.51, which translates into about 10x brighter.
So, I am coming up with Joe Farmer seeing the sunspot as 10 times brighter than the full moon. Are any of these assumptions way off?
Fernando (18:18:20) :
http://nov55.com/steph.html
The piece states: “Virtually everything in physics is in error”.
I don’t have the time nor inclination to counter that.
Bill P (10:14:23) :
Painter versus Housewife:
Painter has just finished painting a house with 2,000 square feet of wall and ceiling.
The extent of the painting is 2,000 square feet.
The housewife has noticed some spots where the paint is thin and is allowing some of the undercoat to show through. After going through the house, the housewife has determined 200 square feet of walls and ceilings are “underpainted”.
Thus, the area of painting, or properly applied paint, is 1,800 square feet.
Likewise in the Arctic, the extent of ice is greater than the area of ice because nature has “missed” some spots.
Hope this helps.
Taken from a link referencing a story about Antarctic warming due to ozone hole created by man:
“…for the first time that anthropogenic climate change is responsible for warming at the Arctic and Antarctic.”
I know that they’ve been referring to it as “climate change” instead of “global warming” to encompass any and all climate trends/events that occur, just wondering…does this indicate a shift from AGW to ACC? Do we have to change our references going forward?
Jim
Leif (23:50:33) OK, I’m on very thin ice here, because I’ve really not been able to follow what you two are doing, but why shouldn’t length effect the result? This is an integration of both strength and length. It seems to me that Steve’s method of subtracting the baseline simply adds more usefulness(exaggerates the differences between peak and base output) to the remaining data, possibly demonstrating a correlation that is less obvious when you don’t subtract. Or am I way off base, here?
==========================================
And besides, if the method is in error, why does it show such a magnificent correlation with the (admittedly poor) temperature data. I can answer that, but I’m curious what your answer would be.
=========================================
kim (07:44:37) :
It seems to me that Steve’s method of subtracting the baseline simply adds more usefulness(exaggerates the differences between peak and base output) to the remaining data, possibly demonstrating a correlation that is less obvious when you don’t subtract.
If that were the case, the wiggles should still correlate. Maybe this will help. What Steve calculates is this: S = sum(T – To) = sum(T) – sum(To) [To is the baseline]. The physical reason for doing the summing in the first place was that it was suggested that for assessing the influence of TSI over a cycle one should consider the total amount of radiation received over the cycle, sum(T), as that is what would be stored in the oceans. Suppose that we were in such a deep minimum that TSI was sitting at the baseline all the time, then T = To and Steve’s S would be zero. Would that mean that no heat was stored? Of course, not. The baseline is also heat and is also stored.
Or am I way off base, here?
Yes.
Leif said,
Rob (13:03:42) :
I ask why the observations from these very dedicated early scientist are mistrusted
Nobody mistrusts the early observers, their result is accepted. There are a few quibbles like when an observer in London in 1666 says: “I didn’t see a single spot all year”. In the Hoyt/Schatten tabulation of their group numbers, that figures as 365 observations [one every day] of zero spots, which is clearly wrong as there has never been a year in London where you could observe the Sun on every day.
The observations were not taking place solely in London, few spots were observed elseware from 1645 to 1715.
Spörer (1887) constructed a table of all the sunspots noted between 1672 and 1699. He found less than 50, whereas in any typical 30-year interval during the past hundred years there have been between 40,000 and 50,000 spots reported. As well as the low levels of activity before 1715, there are well attested reports, notably by La Hire in France and Derham in England, of the surge in sunspot activity which occurred during and after that year, in which sunspots returned to the solar surface in the quantities which we take to be normal today.
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html
1645-1715: Sunspots vanish
Sunspots observations continued in the seventeenth century, with the most active observers being the German Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687) and the French Jean Picard (1620-1682). Very few sunspots were observed from about 1645 to 1715, and when they were their presence was noted as a noteworthy event by active astronomers. At that time, a systematic solar observing program was underway under the direction of Jean Dominique Cassini (1625-1712) at the newly founded Observatoire de Paris, with first Picard and later Philippe La Hire carrying out the bulk of the observations. Historical reconstructions of sunspot numbers indicate that the dearth of sunspots is real, rather than the consequence of a lack of diligent observers. A simultaneous decrease in auroral counts further suggest that solar activity was greatly reduced during this time period.
Fewer aurorae were recorded during the 70-year period of the Maunder Minimum than in the 70 years immediately preceding it, and the 70 years succeeding. In England/France/Germany/Denmark/Poland, where observations were usually made, we would normally expect anywhere from 300 to 1000 occurrences in a 70 year period in that region alone. From 1645 – 1715, only 77 aurora occurrences were recorded in the entire world.
To me these are solid reliable observations by dedicated scientists and with no Tiny Tims, I believe this historical evidence clearly links solar activity to past and present global warming/cooling.
Explanation of Landsheidt’s first paper,
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/landscheidt/