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.
Robert Bateman (17:28:14) :
What all this ado looks like to me:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SolarMin.htm
You have to careful with using the flux plots from Alvestad as he plots the observed flux [which is important for amateur hams] which is not the real solar flux, as it is modulated 7% by the varying distance to the Sun.
That would be the seasonal adjustment you have spoken of, Leif. It wouldn’t account for the similarites of the two prominent trough sequences, and the quiescence of the 2nd set (2008)
which is the lower set of graphing in the jpeg.
2007 run of flux should match up well to 2008 as the seasonal variation would be identical.
Did I get that right?
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes.
That’s the part that has me fascinated.
Robert Bateman (21:34:57) :
2007 run of flux should match up well to 2008 as the seasonal variation would be identical.
Did I get that right?
Not quite. The annual variation is a multiplier. So, if 2007 is higher, its 7% variation is correspondingly higher. But, in any case the difference is not large. Just something to keep in mind.
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes. That’s the part that has me fascinated.
This is simply a consequence of 2008 being the minimum year and 2007 not yet. The flux varies by a factor of two between minimum and maximum.
Your enthusiasm is touching. As Jean Meeus pointed out, no matter what, you will find some reason for the discrepancy.
I thought my arguments were soundly based…there are only very small windows of opportunity to work within (when the line ups occur). Grand minimia in my view is a sustained level of low sunspot activity over at least 2 cycles with SSNmax <50.
A Grand Minimum would only be an argument for the planetary theory if no other explanation [of which there are several] could be offered.
I am getting an ever so faint hint that you think there is “something” to it, but dont expect you to say so 🙂
a faster equatorial speed increases the differential between equator and pole, unless you assume that the speed at higher latitudes increases even more.
Yes the theory suggested the poles rotation speed would be at a higher percentage than the equator thereby reducing the differential. I didnt mention any planetary theories in my emails to GONG etc but I am surprised that little work has been done in this area. I would have thought current satellites would have been able to achieve this.
nobwainer (22:10:24) :
I thought my arguments were soundly based
Well, they have no physical basis, so where is the ‘soundness’?
I am getting an ever so faint hint that you think there is “something” to it, but dont expect you to say so 🙂
No, my statement was just the standard fare regarding if an ‘experiment’ is discriminating. If there are five different theories that claim a result, and the result happens, none of them can claim they have exclusively been vindicated.
Yes the theory suggested the poles rotation speed would be at a higher percentage than the equator
what theory? what does ‘higher percentage’ mean?
I would have thought current satellites would have been able to achieve this.
The Sun is a very messy place, and you need a century+ of data to beat down the noise.
2008 is a lower and quiter version of 2007, for all intents and purposes. That’s the part that has me fascinated.
This is simply a consequence of 2008 being the minimum year and 2007 not yet. The flux varies by a factor of two between minimum and maximum.
That part I got. 2008 is the downward trend continuation of the mid 2006 SC24 that never materialized as expected. Not even 1954 was this quiet of noise. The minimums I have plotted out don’t seem to (so far) match 2008 for it’s graveyard silence. I’ll try to get the rest of them plotted out for comparison soon.
The deathly silence of noise I see in 2008 graph of flux reminds me of a very well sampled series of images where the background noise is sanded down though dithering
techniques. The seasoanal variation is the particular seeing of the seasons, and the maximum to minimum 2x variation is the RA arc is the sky brightness though which I image.
A single image is as rough as a cob even after calibration.
So, I must ask, has there been any significant change in instrumentation 2007 to 2008?
Robert Bateman (22:37:57) :
So, I must ask, has there been any significant change in instrumentation 2007 to 2008?
No, the difference is definitely solar in origin.
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
page 5 shows 10.7 flux since 2005 and 2008 just follows the general trend downwards.
nobwainer
I think that Dr. Svalgaard is made in one of those Nordic steel companies. You can fire at him as many projectiles as you wish; they do not leave even a smallest imprint. As far as he is concerned, all the “planet-arists” are just “trashing empty straw”. Even Johann Rudolf Wolf would not get anywhere; he also believed in a planetary link as he stated in his letter in 1859 to Mr. Richard Christopher Carrington of Royal Astronomical Society.
Ok, now I can aslo see a recurring pattern of activity on a yearly basis (from your page 5) extending back to 2005.
The purple smoothed line makes it show up so much nicer on your graph Daily values of the F10.7 cm radio flux at 20 UT from page 5.
Take 2005-2006, reduce the amplitude by dividing the values by 2, draw a line through the lower third (Make a noise floor) and 2008-2009 looks just like it.
Ok, so the 66.5 to 71.155 10.7cm flux floor is the ‘noise’ we cannot see below when recording our daily values. It would be our skyglow factor (not literally, just figuratively) that is our limiting magnitude.
There may be longer wavelengths that do allow us to see further “below’ the noise floor, but most likely we would be seeing only that which is a repeated pattern, my guess.
It would be at the cost of lower resolution, these longer wavelengths.
How long and how reliably have magnetograms been performed where a separate sunspot count (or a different recorded means) could be reconstructed?
Would they look the same as the sunspot and flux graphs but have a lower noise floor?
wolfson (04:49:35) :
Even Johann Rudolf Wolf would not get anywhere; he also believed in a planetary link as he stated in his letter in 1859 to Mr. Richard Christopher Carrington of Royal Astronomical Society.
As Wolf was a good scientist he eventually realized [and admitted] that the planetary link did not fit the facts, as he states on page 410 of his Handbuch der Astronomie, vol. 4, 1893. I still have to see any of the modern enthusiasts having the same scientific courage.
Robert Bateman (04:59:45) :
Ok, so the 66.5 to 71.155 10.7cm flux floor is the ‘noise’ we cannot see below when recording our daily values.
Well, even when there are no sunspots the Sun is still producing radio waves at 10.7 cm. The 66 flux unit floor is not ‘noise’, but a real emission from the hot solar atmosphere.
How long and how reliably have magnetograms been performed where a separate sunspot count (or a different recorded means) could be reconstructed?
Since 1917 ! ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1917/dr170104.jpg
The letters ‘R’ and ‘V’ stand for Red and Violet and refer to the two magnetic polarities.
Would they look the same as the sunspot and flux graphs but have a lower noise floor?
The Sun would have its 66 flux unit floor at all times, probably even during the Maunder minimum. We think this is so, because solar activity was VERY low a hundred years ago, yet the ‘magnetic network’ that produces the emission [and which we can see in Calcium lines] then looks indistinguishable from what it looks like today. [we have photographs since of those: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ulrich/MW_SPADP/index.html ]
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
Long-term predictive assessments of solar and geomagnetic activities made on the basis of the close similarity between the solar inertial motions in the intervals 1840–1905 and 1980–2045
Charvátová, I.
New Astronomy, Volume 14, Issue 1, p. 25-30. 01/2009.
DOI: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.04.005
Abstract
The solar inertial motions (orbits) (SIMs) in the years 1840–1905 and 1980–2045 are of a disordered type and they are nearly identical. This fact was used for assessing predictive capabilities for the sizes of three future sunspot cycles and for the time variation of the geomagnetic aa-index up to 2045. The author found that the variations in sunspot numbers in the interval 1840–1867 and in the interval 1980–2007 are similar, especially after 1850 (1990). The differences may be ascribed to the lower quality of the sunspot data before 1850. A similarity between the variations in geomagnetic aa-index in the intervals 1844–1867 and 1984–2007 is also found. Moreover, the aa-index in these intervals have the same best fit lines (the polynomials of the fourth order) with close positions of the extrema. The extrema of the best fit line for the aa-index in the interval 1906–1928 which corresponds to the first half of the ordered, trefoil interval of the SIM have the opposite positions to them. The correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1984–2006 is 0.61. In contrast, the correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1906–1928 is ‑0.43. Cautious predictions have been made: the author believes that the cycles 24–26 will be a repeat of cycles 11–13, i.e. they could have heights around 140 (100), 65 and 85, they will have lengths of 11.7, 10.7 and 12.1 years. The maxima of the cycles should occur in 2010, 2023 and 2033, the minima in 2007, 2018, 2029 and 2041. Up to 2045, the aa-index could repeat its values for the interval 1868–1905. The results indicate that solar and geomagnetic activities are non random processes. If these predictions may come true, then further evidence of the primary role of the SIM in solar variability is established.
Interesting to note that when the data doesn’t fit theory, its the data that’s bad. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:22) :
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
I think maybe you are the one having fun Leif, but must admit I am not a fan of Charvátová. In my opinion he gets it wrong and doesn’t quite understand the complexity of the planetary positions but instead uses the pattern changes when observing barycenter movements. The pattern goes to “unordered” in the periods he mentions but that by itself is not enough because of the slightly changing patterns each 178 years as discussed.
He might be right on the SSN before 1850 and do like this paper proposing a missing sunspot group.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2002GL015640.pdf
To me there is a lot of similarity between SC23 and the “new” SC4 and the Fig1a of the above paper could very well match SC23, SC24 and SC25.
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:22) :
Here is something for the barycenter/SIM/planetary crowd to have fun with:
BTW…what are you doing reading that “stuff” anyway?
nobwainer (21:06:42) :
BTW…what are you doing reading that “stuff” anyway?
As a scientist I read everything in my ‘field’. Not just what I like.
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
BTW, Charvátová is not a ‘he’. I know her. Met her last summer.
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:55) :
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
I forgot to show the data. Gilpin observed the daily ‘swing’ of the compass needle in London during 1786-1805. Here is his result:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gilpin.png
The red circles are mean values for months with actual observations. The continuous line is a fit to those. The size of the swing undergoes a seasonal variation [the full curve] and its amplitude also depends on the sunspot number. There is no sign of a maximum in 1795.
The starting point of this thread was by Warwick Hughes — see his own blog for an update which includes four new graphs by David Archibald which I’m sure WUWT readers will find worth looking at.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=180#more-180
His Be10 graph shows how three minimums coincide with Be10 peaks, supposedly supporting the GCR idea. I note that the Maunder ends with a peak; it doesn’t begin with one. And the Dalton peak isn’t that much bigger than the values at other non-minimum times.
And for the ones who would like to dig up Gilpin’s data, here is the complete cite:
Observations on the Variation, and on the Dip of the Magnetic Needle, Made at the Apartments of the Royal Society, between the Years 1786 and 1805 Inclusive
Gilpin, George
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Volume 96, pp. 385-419, 1806
Leif Svalgaard (22:38:55) :
On the ‘lost’ cycle. Didn’t happen. The sunspot cycle has a geomagnetic signature and we have geomagnetic data for that period and they show no lost cycle.
You know only too well that the aa and 10Be records quite often don’t line up well with sunspot records.
Apologies to Charvátová.
To put Gilpin’s data in perspective: Here is Ellis’ from Greenwich 1841-1877:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ellis.png
Note the solar cycle variation of both the overall level and of the seasonal swing. The latter small at minimum where the level is also small, and large at max where the level is also large. All this is very well understood in great quantitative detail.
Leif Svalgaard (23:07:39) :
There is no sign of a maximum in 1795
I think i can see one….remember the activity is near minimum. One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/lostcycle.jpg
Here’s a couple of graphs showing the difference in aa and 10Be records compared to sunspot records.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/aassn.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/leif10bessn.jpg
Pet Rock (23:15:01) :
His Be10 graph shows how three minimums coincide with Be10 peaks, supposedly supporting the GCR idea. I note that the Maunder ends with a peak; it doesn’t begin with one. And the Dalton peak isn’t that much bigger than the values at other non-minimum times.
These peaks have nothing to do with solar activity or GCRs directly. They are caused by volcanoes. See the Figure on page 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
Volcanoes pump sulphor into the atmosphere [aerosols] and help wash 10Be out, so the deposition of 10Be is larger several years after a large volcanic [and not just any type – must be special sulphor-rich] eruption. Note the 1883+ peak caused by Krakatoa, the 1814+ peak caused by Mayon and Tambora, the ~1700 peak caused by Hekla [and assorted other Icelandic eruptions – close to Greenland, BTW, so large effect].
Volcanoes also cool the atmosphere, so no wonder temps seem to correlate with 10Be. 🙂
It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.
Pet Rock (23:15:01) :
four new graphs by David Archibald which I’m sure WUWT readers will find worth looking at.
As usual, Archibald is not quite ‘candid’ with the data. His last graph, for example, has the green curve mislabeled ‘cycle 24’. It is not 24, but the tail end of cycle 23. And the average curves hide the enormous scatter. To see what an ‘honest’ graph looks like, go to page 7 of:
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
and note that the individual cycles scatter all over the place. It is a bit misleading to compare a single cycle [green curve] to average cycles [red and blue] curves, without indication of scatter or error bars.
nobwainer (00:14:46) :
There is no sign of a maximum in 1795
I think i can see one….remember the activity is near minimum. One thing i cannot see in your graph is the 1788 peak, not enough proof for my liking.
You miss the point: the sunspot record is the unreliable one, the geomagnetic record is solid [there is also data from Paris and Rio de Janeiro]. 1795 has the smallest annual swing and is thus right at the minimum, not the maximum as Usoskin claims. Gilpin’s data show a possible peak in 1787. Close enough. Gilpin’s data is based on many hundreds of measurements. Go read the fascinating paper.
The aa-record before 1868 is somebody’s WAG.
Time to repeat what I just said:
“It is amazing how people only see what they want to see. Not surprising, just amazing how obvious it is.”