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
Leif (08:32:22) Well, if the sun stayed at baseline wouldn’t it also be possible to conjecture that no heat was being stored in the ocean, and that there would be a steady cooling off of the globe? If the earth maintains a somewhat steady average temperature as the flux alternates between lowest and highest, then that average temperature represents the flux at an average position, and flux constantly at the baseline would lead to global cooling. Or have I been picked off base?
================================================
Rob (09:04:23) :
You are barking up the wrong tree. Nobody argues anymore that the sunspot numbers were not low back then. There is one little fly in the ointment that is a problem. Most people would agree that solar activity influences cosmic rays and in turn the production of radioactive isotopes 10Be and 14C. By looking in ice cores and tree rings we can infer this magnetic cycle back in time and [here comes the problem:] that magnetic cycle was operating as usual during the Maunder and Spoerer minima. The magnetic cycle was not appreciably suppressed during those times. Let me say one more time [to forestall a piling on]: nobody questions the low sunspot counts back then. One more time: nobody questions the low sunspot counts back then.
kim (11:37:09) :
flux constantly at the baseline would lead to global cooling.
Imagine that starting right now, some mechanism would double the baseline, would the Earth cool even more? [after the initial wild [short-lived] swings due to the doubling]
Leif (11:57:55) Why no, the Earth would warm up a lot!. Perhaps I’m so far off base that I don’t understand the question.
The sun’s average output is between the baseline(minimum) and the maximum. If the sun’s output directly modifies temperature, then staying at minimum would cool the earth and staying at maximum would warm it. I think that integration of length and strength of cycle can give a representation of where that integrated output is relative to the average, and that cycles where the sun ends up above average would warm the earth and cycles where the total is below average would cool it. Perhaps I’m not perceiving the problem correctly.
===========================================
Leif,
Let me ponder this as I really struggle with the concepts and perhaps reply on the Svalgaard #8 thread on Climate Audit rather than take up space here on Anthony’s website.
Just a few comments:
When I started this ~3 months ago, I was just playing with a possible way of integrating complex relationships (which could not be defined by a formula) with an image program essentially by counting pixels. Since I was interested in climate/sun relationships I chose TSI. I just was playing around when I compared the result with Hadcrut. One thing led to another basically thanks to Kim pointing me to Svalgaard #2. Now I am in a way over my head – thanks Kim!! :-]
I have never made any assumptions re the Ocean, physical reasons for things, heat content etc, etc.
Leif
What did you mean by “this is a very telling graph” – just assume for sake of argument the graph was valid.
“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.”
I didn’t make this assumption. If I made any assumption at all, it was that (T-To) had some influence over GMT which I know that you disagree with (and by the way I am 90% sure you are correct – the left over 10% is the skeptic in me 🙂
I need some time to ponder this so if I have more questions I’ll see you on S #8
Leif I love your graphic challenge – the “cheshire cat grin” spots being 7 times as bright as fullmoon – that really puts sunspots in perspective for me. Thanks.
Mark (09:37:25) : http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/wp.html. According to the above link, 10 million house sized comets are hitting the earth every year. Is that enough water to have a noticeable affect on the ocean levels?
Oceans are 360,000,000 km^2 = 360 x 10^12 m^2. Say the “house” size of each comet is 360 m^3, water precipitated in a year by 10m “houses” = 360 x 10^7 m^3, and it would take 100,000 years for sea level to rise 1m. Or if the “houses” were 30-40 tons as another post said, say 36 tons, this would take a million years for sea levels to rise 1m.
Or if AGW get onto this, it will only take 100 years for this cosmic apocalyptic water to raise sea levels 1 metre (95% certainty)…
kim (13:04:04) :
that cycles where the sun ends up above average would warm the earth and cycles where the total is below average would cool it.
To make things clear, one has to be specific. Many discussions here are not. So, the baseline is the solar output with no spots and the actual value above the baseline in a given year is simply a measure of the number of spots [1 W/m2 is ~100 spots]. So the sum of all excess [over the baseline] values is simply the total number of spots in a cycle [appropriately weighted with observing cadence]. If all cycles had the same number of spots, then the number of spots per year [which is just the average sunspot number] would vary inversely with the length of the cycle. This is, of course, part of the reason that [on average] strong cycles are short and low cycles are long. But in reality there is some variation, some cycles do have more spots than others and Pete’s and Steve’s plots are simply the number of spots per cycle. My plot was the total amount of energy delivered per cycle. Both numbers are somewhat meaningless as what counts is the number of spots or energy per unit time, which is simply the SSN or TSI. But I think this has gone on for long enough time, so we may go an steal McIntyre’s bandwidth instead, if you wish to continue fabulating 🙂
Scott R. (09:17:52) :
The reason that only models with human activities correctly match polar temperatures, is that such models heavily weight the affect of human factors and neglect the affects of other factors.
Models are not programmed that way. They can not freely choose the weight of each factor. They will have to operate within the boundaries of known science.
Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)
[…] Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA Reposted here: October 30th, 2008 by Warwick Hughes […]
My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.
nobwainer (17:52:17) :
My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.
And if what you doesn’t happen, then you must drop your belief in planetary positions having effects. Here and now is the place and time to state that scientific attitude. Agree?
“Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)” So, obviously, man is responsible.
When the Earth cools will there be a known mechanism for the cooling? And when the Earth cooled and warmed in the past, before man, did the inhabitants know the mechanism? Maybe if those inhabitants had been a little smarter they, could’ve blamed themselves.
The Earth cools and warms, always has. We haven’t figured out all the whys and wherefores, but still the Earth will keep cooling and warming until the sun sputters and dies, with us or without us.
Why must we think we are so smart?
Lucy,
If house sized comets are hitting the earth…
A 360 m3 ball of water hitting the earth at 37 km/s would release about 246,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. I am not sure, but I think that might be detectable by some really sophisticated sensors… Maybe that is why the Earth is warming :).
nobwainer (17:52:17) :
“My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.
Reason for my prediction: Similar planetary positions.”
Nobwainer,
What is the mechanism by which planetary position influences sun spot cycles? Sorry if this has already been answered, but I am new to this… field … (ok, bad pun). I really am curious and this stuff fascinates me!
Leif Svalgaard (18:58:19) :
And if what you doesn’t happen, then you must drop your belief in planetary positions having effects. Here and now is the place and time to state that scientific attitude. Agree?
Agree…if there is no major slowdown like say the Dalton then the theory is busted. If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
Science is the pursuit of knowledge…whatever it turns out to be.
Old Coach (21:32:38) :
Nobwainer,
What is the mechanism by which planetary position influences sun spot cycles? Sorry if this has already been answered, but I am new to this… field … (ok, bad pun). I really am curious and this stuff fascinates me!
I have noticed when Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter are aligned, and Saturn on the opposite side of the Sun, we have had Grand Minima in the past. It seems Neptune and Uranus give Jupiter an extra “pull” that only comes along every 178 years.
Here’s a WIP report i am working on.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf
At least 1007 is still visible on the Continuum image at solarcycle24.com and at IPS White Light image.
nobwainer wrote:
“I have noticed when Neptune, Uranus and Jupiter are aligned, and Saturn on the opposite side of the Sun, we have had Grand Minima in the past. It seems Neptune and Uranus give Jupiter an extra “pull” that only comes along every 178 years.”
Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.
And if things WILL happen according to your prediction, that will prove nothing. Suppose that I have the following silly ‘theory’:
“This morning I had trouble with my stomach; this shows that it will rain next Friday in Chicago.” Well, if it indeed rains in Chicago next Friday, does that prove my ‘theory’ to be valid?
Mike Bryant (20:34:42) :
“Currently there is no known mechanism by which the rise in temperature over the past century could have been caused by the sun. (If you agree that temperatures have risen)” So, obviously, man is responsible.
No, that is not what I said, and not what is being said.
Whatever hypothesis you put forward, if you don’t have the evidence to support it, it is worthless. If your hypothesis is that man is currently changing the climate, then you must support it by evidence. If your hypothesis is that the sun is currently changing the climate, then you must support it by evidence. If you don’t have the evidence, then you should say: “I don’t know what causes climate change”.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.
Lets talk about partial line ups Jean…during the Maunder as you know we had an exceptional lineup…not far off a straight line and what a minimum it was. Then we look at the Dalton, its not quite as good, so a weaker minimum. Then we have the much looser 1970 lineup as Uranus begins to get close to Neptune and we have a very poor sunspot number with global cooling. And now we have a lineup probably weaker than the Dalton so I would predict this grand minimum to be somewhat more lively than the Dalton in sunspot numbers altho could go on quite long, even past 2030.
But as i said before its make or break…its a theory on the table that can be proven either way in the next decade or so….what do you have to offer?
Mike Bryant (20:34:42) :
On second thought, I would like to comment on this remark too:
When the Earth cools will there be a known mechanism for the cooling? And when the Earth cooled and warmed in the past, before man, did the inhabitants know the mechanism? Maybe if those inhabitants had been a little smarter they, could’ve blamed themselves.
Man has certainly blamed himself in the past for natural disasters. They were usually considered the wrath of the gods. They did this not because they were stupid, but because they were ignorant. In the past centuries, science has established that volcano eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, epidemics have natural causes. Instead of blaming ourselves for those disasters, we can now feel free and protect ourselves. I am glad those people didn’t think like you: “Why must we think we are so smart?”
Sunspot 1007 gets an extra kick….exciting stuff
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
nobwainer wrote:
“But as i said before its make or break…its a theory on the table that can be proven either way in the next decade or so….what do you have to offer?”
I have nothing to offer. Sunspot is not predictable.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
“This morning I had trouble with my stomach;…”
I’m sorry to hear you had trouble with your stomach. 🙂 BTW, it’s a nice sunny day here, let me know the next time you have trouble and I’ll let you know if it’s sunny again.
Jean Meeus (00:56:50) :
“Nothing will convince you that your ‘theory’ is untenable.
If things will NOT happen according to your prediction, you will invoke one or the other reason, for example that the planets were not exactly aligned.”
Jean,
This looks like reasonable science to me. Nobwainer has postulated a correlation between planet position and the sunspot cycle. It is a testable hypothesis. In fact, it has a fairly specific prediction for the upcoming cycle. If the cycle agrees with his predictions, in no way does it prove his theory, however it is one more point that supports the correlation. It would mean that the theory should be pursued further. However, if the cycle does not agree with Nobwainer’s prediction, this is just as good. Now he has evidence that the theory is untenable and he must scratch his head and devise a new theory. We should reserve judgment until the data are in and we see his response.
Nobwainer,
I looked at your data and see where you may find a correlation. What I am curious about is the proposed physical mechanism (if any). In other words, why does the alignment of the planets influence sunspots. This is where I am having trouble…
nobwainer (21:55:14) :
Agree…if there is no major slowdown like say the Dalton then the theory is busted. If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
No, that is not good enough. You had some very specific predictions:
“My prediction for SC24 is that it will look like a tail end of SC23 and fizzle out before a new weak SC25 begins 2013-2014. SC23/SC24 will mirror SC4 (peak around 1790) ie they will become one long cycle that lasts for 14-15 years.”
And claimed that those specifics came out of the planetary alignment ‘theory’. Those are the ones that need be validated, not just that solar activity will be generally lower. Lots of people, including me, argue for much lower activity from sound physics. So, again, if your specifics are not borne out, e.g. SC25 beginning 2013-2014, then your theory is bust?