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
Old Coach (06:50:49) :
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…
Thanks for your support and rational thinking. I don’t profess to know the physical mechanism, but would love to research it if proven. There is lots of theories on the mechanism but first we need to prove the theory of planetary influeunce.
Leif Svalgaard (06:58:55) :
No, that is not good enough. You had some very specific predictions:
Leif you are way too harsh…..give me a slight window of adjustment. I have noticed a correlation but don’t profess to be the soothsayer of truth or expert in the field. I see your prediction for SC24 has evolved AND includes a fudge factor 🙂
I am predicting several cycles…you are only predicting the next based on reducing polar strength. Give us a number for the next 2 cycles?
Leif (06:58:55) The theory will bust and the flash of illumination from it will show the true path to the pursuit of knowledge…whatever it turns out to be.
===========================================
kim (13:04:04) :
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.
My thoughts exactly…its not about the baseline unless we are talking about grand minima. Measure the “uptime” which includes duration and quantify what heat enters our oceans and landsinks.
nobwainer: Interesting, I’m very curious, if your theory is right. I saw your work, so if I understand this properly, we could have almost Dalton minimum in near future?
dresi4 (08:16:09) :
nobwainer: Interesting, I’m very curious, if your theory is right. I saw your work, so if I understand this properly, we could have almost Dalton minimum in near future?
That’s how it looks to me….watch this space 🙂
nobwainer (07:25:44) :
Leif you are way too harsh…..give me a slight window of adjustment. I have noticed a correlation but don’t profess to be the soothsayer of truth or expert in the field.
What that means is that your specific predictions is based on nothing more than you just saying that history will repeat itself 215 years later. I thought the theory calls for 177 years [no need for long explanation].
I see your prediction for SC24 has evolved AND includes a fudge factor 🙂
A strength of my prediction is that as more data becomes available, the prediction can be refined. Tell me about the fudge factor, that is news to me.
I am predicting several cycles…you are only predicting the next based on reducing polar strength. Give us a number for the next 2 cycles?
Only one cycle CAN be predicted with some precision. Beyond that it is just the statistical tendency for low cycles to occur in groups [breached by cycle 20, btw]. If I don’t care for being correct, I can predict the next 15 cycles [I have seen a peer-reviewed paper doing just that].
kim (07:56:53) :
The theory will bust and the flash of illumination from it will show the true path to the pursuit of knowledge…
I disagree strongly. No illumination comes from busting a theory that is not even wrong.
Leif (08:41:12) The flash of insight may brighten.
Nobwainer (07:58:10) As Leif gently points out my exact thoughts aren’t very precise. His response about TSI was helpful. I do think there must be something to account for the nice correlation Steve and Pete get, but as for mechanism, square one.
=======================================
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:45) :
What that means is that your specific predictions is based on nothing more than you just saying that history will repeat itself 215 years later. I thought the theory calls for 177 years [no need for long explanation].
As you know its based on planetary positions…if you look how they vary slightly on each approx return of 178 years its apparent how each occurrence can vary , as i have explained. Not sure where you get 215 years from?
A strength of my prediction is that as more data becomes available, the prediction can be refined. Tell me about the fudge factor, that is news to me.
I believe you have a plus or minus figure on the sunspot count?
Only one cycle CAN be predicted with some precision. Beyond that it is just the statistical tendency for low cycles to occur in groups [breached by cycle 20, btw]. If I don’t care for being correct, I can predict the next 15 cycles [I have seen a peer-reviewed paper doing just that].
I think for short term predictions your methods are more accurate than Hathaway etc. But with current knowledge it is the best you can do. You are reporting on whats happening now and cannot predict much further, I have a theory for SC20 as discussed as well as the next couple of cycles. BTW You didn’t answer my suggestion If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”
Rather, he says, “I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175,
kim (09:03:52) :
I do think there must be something to account for the nice correlation Steve and Pete get
Keep in mind, this has nothing to with TSI, even if TSI went in. What they compute is just the sunspot number summed over a cycle [and multiplied by my conversion factor between dTSI and SSN].
Leif:
Would you kindly provide one or more web reference(s) that describe the physics behind your and perhaps Hathaway’s projections for cycle 24? I am hoping to understand the latest thinking on the formation and transport of these flux tubes that manifest as sunspots. Thanks in advance.
Rob (09:25:48) :
I followed the link you provided, and didn’t end up on the Max Planck institute, but a 9 months old page of IBD.They claim that the Max Planck institute has found a 1% increase in TSI over the last 60 years. This is not confirmed by the Acrim and Nimbus satellites. NASA has found is a +0.05%/decade trend in TSI. I could also find no confirmation of these findings of the Max Planck institute.
The article did not provide any references. Do you have a reference to the original Max Planck paper?
nobwainer (09:17:59) :
Not sure where you get 215 years from?
You said SC25 would start in 2013. The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.
I believe you have a plus or minus figure on the sunspot count?
The plus/minus is not a ‘fudge’ factor, but a confidence interval.
BTW You didn’t answer my suggestion If it does happen then perhaps you might also need to reconsider your theory?
I have said many times that if my prediction is not right on, my theory is WRONG. Not that it should be reconsidered, or tweaked, or fudged, or …
pochas (11:15:21) :
Would you kindly provide one or more web reference(s) that describe the physics behind your and perhaps Hathaway’s projections for cycle 24?
The physics behind my prediction is basically the Babcock-
Leighton theory. There are no web references that I know of [but I haven’t looked real close]. Here are the original journal references:
Babcock, H. W. 1961, ApJ, 133, 572
Leighton, R. B. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1547
———. 1969, ApJ, 156, 1
My colleague Ken Schatten has a modern description of the theory [with a twist of his own]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
Here is our original [too brief] proposal:
http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
An overview of the observations is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024%20(Observations).pdf
and our prediction paper is here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
pochas: As usual I forget that WordPress mauls the URLs, so I have to ‘encapsulate’ it to
overview of observations
pochas (11:15:21) :
Hathaway’s projections http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf
There is not much physics behind it. It is basically a correlation that is assumed to hold in the future too. Hathaway even says: “We don’t know how it works”.
I am not very familiar with fluid dynamics, could anyone suggest a reference article on the causes for the solar “differential rotation”. Any historical records available?
vukcevic (13:00:25) :
I am not very familiar with fluid dynamics, could anyone suggest a reference article on the causes for the solar “differential rotation”.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2005-1/
We are looking for a class A1 flare possibility today. Looking at the scale, that’s about a close to a breath above zero as it gets. At this rate of ‘increased’ activity, we might be able to make maximum in 6-8 yrs.
How about we forget about the models and try some explanation as to the long and winding Solar Flux trough that extends from April 08 to present? I have been admiring it’s magnificent symmetry for about a month now.
Any takers?
(hey mr. moderator man: How can I post the long graph from Alvestad’s work?)
Thanks Dr. Svalgaard
What all this ado looks like to me:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SolarMin.htm
And it underscores the label of pathetic I ascribe to recent solar spots.
Anemic at best, drowned out by the noise of flat stats at worst.
Leif Svalgaard (12:13:25) :
You said SC25 would start in 2013. The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.
Fantastic….great pickup and here is the reason for the stepout out from departure of the 178 year trend. First of all lets look at Carl Smith’s graph at http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/sunssbamcycles.jpg
If we compare the shape of the curves at 1790 and 1970 we see the different effects of Neptune/Uranus. As discussed earlier the configuration does not return exactly. At 1790 there is stronger influence than 1970 which is enough to start the “phase catastrophe” possibly because of the weak polar strength as is happening now, once in that mode the next 2 cycles are reduced by the instability and further backed up at 1830 with the next pass of Jupiter and Saturn apposing before climbing out around 1840. Why there is a recovery in 1840 and not a return to unstable conditions is a good question and needs further research.
To see this from a planetary position go to http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html and plug in the years 1790, 1970 and 2010. The 1970 alignment was not quite strong enough to enter a “phase catastrophe” (would like to see the solar polar strength for that era) , at 2010 it is far stronger and must initiate a catastrophe to prove the theory in my opinion. So its not about exactly what date SC25 starts to prove the theory, but whether a catastrophe happens now or in SC24 that’s important, i am simply reliving 1790 in my predictions but the effects could be different but still cause a Grand Minimum.
I have said many times that if my prediction is not right on, my theory is WRONG. Not that it should be reconsidered, or tweaked, or fudged, or …
I probably shouldn’t have used the word “reconsider” as we possibly share theories on the effect of reduced polar strength but if we do get a grand minimum maybe you would consider the planetary theory with more acceptance, if a grand minimum does not occur then I will join you and argue against the theory.
I have read that the rotation speed at the solar equator could possibly increase at times of grand minimum reducing the differential rotation speed at the poles thereby reducing torque and polar strength, but I have been unable to find any scientific measure to confirm this. I have emailed GONG and the National Solar Observatory but without reply.
Does anyone know where I can obtain such data.
nobwainer (09:17:59) :
Not sure where you get 215 years from?
nobwainer (17:56:01) :
“The transition from Sc4 to 5 took place in 1798, so 2013-1798 = 215.”
Fantastic….great pickup and here is the reason for the stepout out from departure of the 178 year trend.[…]
Your enthusiasm is touching. As Jean Meeus pointed out, no matter what, you will find some reason for the discrepancy.
if we do get a grand minimum maybe you would consider the planetary theory with more acceptance,
Why should I? 1st, what is a Grand Minimum? SSNmax < 75? or < 50? or < 25? 2nd, many people [e.g. Schatten and Tobiska, Clilverd, even me, depending on definition of G.Min] argue that a Grand Minimum may be coming. A Grand Minimum would only be an argument for the planetary theory if no other explanation [of which there are several] could be offered. And most importantly, the planetary theory has no physical basis whatsoever. I feel somewhat silly having to say that again and again. The usual way to deal with this is not to dignify the theory with rebuttals, so maybe that’s where we should go…
nobwainer (18:09:40) :
I have read that the rotation speed at the solar equator could possibly increase at times of grand minimum
What little evidence [and it is weak] there is points to a faster rotation at low solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
reducing the differential rotation speed at the poles thereby reducing torque and polar strength,
a faster equatorial speed increases the differential between equator and pole, unless you assume that the speed at higher latitudes increases even more. There is probably a good reason GONG and NSO didn’t answer your emails [see above].