Mike Ronanye writes:
SWPC has just made a change in their solar cycle predictions in the middle of the month without any preannouncement. Both Sunspot and F10.7cm predictions were altered significantly.
See the following links:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
The off-cycle update is in this week’s PDF report which contains the altered graphics:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/weekly/pdf/prf1747.pdf
You can see the last monthly summary here which I have been complaining reporting about, here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/weekly/pdf/prf1745.pdf
This should have been the January 2009 summary but SWPC recycled the December 2008 summary.
I looked for but was unable to find any press releases. Please search for any additional information and post it here. If you downloaded any SWPC data or graphics hold on to it. I will be updating my SWPC Sunspot animation.
I wonder why do these people get paid for?
No one has been able to be right with their predictions so far.
That means none of us have any idea of what’s really going on with the sun.
I was one (of probably many) that emailed them on Feb. 18th asking why the graph had not been updated yet. I received the following reply the same day:
They could have at least moved it far enough ahead to make it believable.
Do they really expect the Sun to do a 60 degree turn and head up?
That’s just the SSN graph.
There is also the Flux graph which today still looks as bad as it did before they changed it too. In fact, the ISES Radio Flux F10.7 graph looks like a car running a red light hits a suburban in the intersection.
Sooner or later they will need to change the shape of those predicted curves, not just the position.
I’ve been waiting for the SWPC to weigh-in, before the actual observations wedged themselves completely under their hockey-stick projections.
Interesting that when they did finally make an adjustment, it was small and made without comment in the dark of night, so to speak. Hmmm.
In any case, it is likely too little too late, and they’re just going to have to do it again next month.
For example, Sunspot 1013 (first SC24 spot in over a month) appears to be “struggling to stay visible” (not sure how that works, physically, but it sure sounds heroic) after barely 24 hours in the limelight
see http://solarcycle24.com/
Via La Minima de Gore.
You should go back a couple years and show the original ISES prediction for this cycle just for effect.
One more small thing: I have always been confused about historical sunspot counts relative to modern sunspot counts.
On the current heliograph at http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
for example, one would be hard-pressed to pick-out a sunspot withthe naked eye.
Is there any protocol for comparing very old sunspot observations with modern ones, for example, is anyone out there using identical equipment to what was available in say the 1800s in an attempt to correlate the observations?
It strikes me that this last sunspot (1013), for example, may not have risen to the level of “spot” in say 1850.
Just curious.
I’m not suprised by this at all.Thats the wat it is with the global warming crowd.If you don’t get the results you need just change the rules or goal post.Everything is caused by global warming or so we are told.BIGGEST LIE THE MEDIA AND CURRENT GOVERMENT HAS EVER TOLD.This is nothing more than goverment control.
How many times have the predictions been changed for solar cycle 24? Too me this is just another example of the problems with making predictions about things we don’t understand and haven’t been observing long enough to even make an educated guess.
An analogy would be like attempting to predict the final score of a basketball game by watching the tip off (too many variables and too small of a data sample).
They are following the Mayan calendar!!
Looks like they didn’t bother doing anything but move the curves in time. No change in amplitude or length or shape, just changed the start date. Oddly, it looks like they changed the start date (trough) to about October last year and we’re already lagging by a few months. Expect another nonupdate shift this spring.
In an earlier thread, Leif suggested that the 23-24 minimum was about ~6 months ago. If so, would that make SC 23 about 12.4 years, or the longest since SC 9?
I wouldn’t call it a prediction anymore, rather scenarios, unless they have made a breakthrough and are able to predict solarcycles that looks like SC23 and SC24.
Obviosuly we are not able to predict the suns behaviour with very high precission when it does not follow normal patterns.
The in the following updated post I quantified exactly what changes were made by SWPC:
SWPC Moves The Goalpost
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482&page=1#12318
It’s not impossible for sunspot averages to suddenly ‘take off’ as the curve seems to indicate. November / December 1768 saw a sudden increase from 5.7 a month to nearly 20 if observatory records are comparing like with like. Then again, we could be in for a sunspot low run like 1807 to 1813, where monthly averages were almost a total blank for several years.
Source data: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/greenwch/spot_num.txt
“SWPC Moves The Goalpost”
I believe the ‘physicist’ in Solar Physicist is an honorific, more dignified than the descriptive ‘wonk’.
The peak appears about the same, just a little later, and a steeper angle. Is this just hope or do they just not want to see what Lief and other see?
Not sure what the pay packet looks like for the prediction job in NASA ?
But, it would seem to be a great job. You can spend all day fishing and relaxing, then once a month move the prediction graph to reflect what was observed.
Where can I apply ?
Both SWPC predictions have solar cycle 24 ramping up immediately, when their model for the ramp up of solar cycle 24 has already been falsified many times over. These people are NOT scientists. They refuse to incorporate new information.
Note that their predictions are not based on any kind of physical model. (I wrote about this last april.) It is a purely statistical extrapolation, but they are not extrapolating from past anomalous behavior. They are looking at the typical solar cycle. The correct extrapolation at this point is from past anomalous behavior, but Hathaway et. al. refuse to do it.
There is at least a chance that we are entering a grand minimum. That chance ought to be included in SWPC’s range of predictions but if Hathaway mentions grand minima he would have to talk about the likely implications, which would destroy his AGW agenda. Imagine the government’s top solar scientist describing to the press the historical correlation between grand minima and plunging global temperatures:
Instead the question is:
Does Dr. Hathaway have an answer?
Hank, They did change the shape of the curves, they had to: The new curve starts lower but the peak is at the same place! What they need to do is move the peak down somewhat.
Seems that a solar minimum is harder to guess than a solar maximum. What’s the relation bwtween maximum and minimum? Maybe that could help.
Dr Svalgaard will be so relieved. For years he has been saying that TSI variations through the solar cycle aren’t enough to explain climate change, and that therefore there is no point in looking at an invariate Sun. Well, Nir Shaviv has done the work and I quote “We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.” This is the link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml
It’s better to say “I don’t know” than it is to continually prove it.
What i love about all this is that those of us who are not in favour of turning the global economy upsidedown to reduce carbon emissions need DO nothing. The facts will speak for themselves over the next decade or so. It will (in my opinion) become blatently obvious that the world is not warming (whatever the figures as produced by Hansen say) becasue the ice will not have melted, the sea will not have risen, the world will not have ended.
Similarly the sunspot count will continue on its merry way, and if, as is possible, we are entering a grand solar minimum, that will become obvious fairly rapidly too.
As the likelihood of the world actually doing anything serious about AGW in the next decade is virtually zero, due to a) the emerging nations wanting to have nothing to do with it all, and b) the economic crisis currently taking up all politician’s attention, we just need to sit back and wait. AGW will be exposed as a massive fraud within 10 years. We can see the shrillness of the claims for AGW rising now; think how they will be when facts that everyone can see are going against them!
too bad these scientists didn’t have their pensions linked to the accuracy of their forecasts. The way it is now, they can flog what ever agenda they feel is right and suffer no consequences.
They clearly are not objective. Promoting fear, hiding anything that puts their cherished AGW theory into question isn’t science, it is propaganda.
So, from month to month,
peak SC24 in 2013-06 to 2013-10 becomes more and more a possiblity.
(but this opinion still does need peer review by Leif)
Klaus
I feel very strange track the solar cycle (24) almost daily.
Dr Leif is really getting closer to reality.
Dr Dave still has a chance.
Sorry Dr. Hathaway. (Game over???)
the_Butcher
>I wonder why do these people get paid for?
Gripegut
>How many times have the predictions been changed for solar cycle 24? Too me this is just another example of the problems with making predictions about things we don’t understand
gary gulrud
>I believe the ‘physicist’ in Solar Physicist is an honorific, more dignified than the descriptive ‘wonk’.
Alec Rawls
>These people are NOT scientists.
Dr Sun says: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Solar Physicist!
This time for sure!
(Or “Never say anything more predictive than ‘watch this’ when turning on a demonstration apparatus.”)
Where did the new sunspot go?
Is it gone already?
Jim H (12:32:13) : “What i love about all this is that those of us who are not in favour of turning the global economy upsidedown to reduce carbon emissions need DO nothing. The facts will speak for themselves over the next decade or so.”
True, but by then they’ll have taken away our firearms.
gary gulrud (11:50:04) :”I believe the ‘physicist’ in Solar Physicist is an honorific, more dignified than the descriptive ‘wonk’.”
I think Physics, in the NASA sense, is the art of giving a physic, which the sun could surely use about now.
Dr.Archibald have you seen Franz Heeke´s theory? : http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/article1.html
Anthony,
Interesting off-topic about China using cloud seeding to promote snowfall
Adolfo Giurfa (10:47:53) :”They are following the Mayan calendar!!”
The Mayans–aren’t those the same guys who believed in sacrificing people to the Sun God?
Jorge
Jim H, a serious reexamination of the thousand-year temperature reconstruction is still necessary.
Even once the oceanic oscillations and contributions are straightened out, there’s still an unexplained longer term 1C/century trend.
Prior to Mann, that portion was “clearly” a rebound from the LIA. With the Hockey Stick as the input data, there is effectively no LIA. So it gets lumped into “Other Causes” and the search for trends that match that data proceeds.
Sloar/climate link in peer reviewed research from Israel
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N8/EDIT.php
Solar/Climate link from Israel, more here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/nir-shaviv-solar-fluctuations-are.html
We need more thinking out of the box and this is an example of it.
The problem with all the sunspot predictions is that they are based on trends derived from the last sunspot cycle. They are looking in the rear view mirror to predict the present.
If there are factors that vary or if there are factors not understood or not accounted for, then such predictions will eventually fail.
There are trends that may last for 40 -100 years but we clearly see that those trends do change. Relegated to using past trends highlights that they lack a complete understanding of how the sun works.
Alan S. Blue Check out Climate Audit. As Leif checks in here on all things solar,
Craig Loehle chimes in there on temp reconstruction. If you google him on CA there are some 1700+ entries for his name. Here is one of his reconstructions, I believe w/o Mann’s favorite bristlecones, or any dendrology as it is suspected of being more responsive to water than temps. I also overlaid the infamous HS without the observation dataset spliced on the end for comparison (to scale). I believe this ends c. 1995. http://i39.tinypic.com/2q3arlw.jpg
Space Weather Prediction Center, a division of NOAA, the fine folk that bring you your local terrestrial weather SWAG – I mean forecast.
Will they ever get it right?
Variations in CO2 Growth Rate
Associated with Solar Activity
Dr Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm
According to the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (2003) “The high growth rates in 1983, 1987/88, 1994/1995, and 1997/1998 are associated with warm events of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The anomalously strong El Niño event in 1997/1998 brought about worldwide high increases in 1998. The exceptionally low growth rates in 1992, including negative values for northern high and mid-latitudes, were caused by low global temperatures following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.” As this connection could be of great import (Kuo et al., 1990; Metzner, 1996), it is subjected to a detailed analysis.
Naturally, this first result does not yet provide striking evidence, but it opens new perspectives that should be explored by further investigations that yield more details. Hopefully, such additional results will make it less difficult to find a physical explanation of the potential relationship. As to models that generally explain the Sun’s impact on climate change in different fields there is progress. I refer to the AGU Monograph “Solar Variability and its Effects on the Earth’s Atmosphere and Climate System,” edited by J. Pap et al., which is about to appear, and especially the chapter “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate” by Brian A. Tinsley and Fangqun Yu.
A lot of this commentary strikes me as mean-spirited. As far as I can tell, Hathaway has been among the most willing of our government scientists to say “we don’t really know”. That his predictions have been wrong is clear, but that’s pretty consistent with the whole “we don’t really know” thing.
Do you want him to make the “New Maunder Minimum” call today? Should he start talking about the possibility? And if he did, and honestly said something like “we don’t know what that would mean for those of us on Earth, or how likely it is, but the research I’m familiar with indicates that solar variability has relatively little impact on climate”, would you then hammer him for not endorsing the coming New Little Ice Age?
He studies the sun (which is currently taking him through one of its teaching moments), and as far as I can tell he tries to stay out of the politics of global warming – “Anne Hathaway” and “Berkshire Hathaway” get orders of magnitude more hits on google in conjunction with the phrase “Global Warming” than “David Hathaway” does. If his predictions are wrong, then they’re wrong. You know, he knows, and if he’s trying to hide it, then he might want to stop making explicit quantitative predictions in public. But he hasn’t.
Sorry for the screed, but I’d much rather see someone ask him, politely, what he thinks about the predictive value of the models he’s using, and what probability he’s subjectively placing on this cycle being way out of the norm than read a bunch of folks ragging on an apparently honest scientist.
My expert eyeballing indicates that they didn’t move the goalposts far enough, LOL.
Jim Steele (14:33:26) Quite right. And you know what: there’s word for it, its called Astrology, trying to predict the future from the past without any knowledge or understanding of how the future relates to the past. Or perhaps in this case: Heliology (or is it Solarology? Well, some kind of ology, for sure). It’s quite clear that nobody really understands whether the solar magnetic activity is on holiday or not, and if so why.
Mighty interesting, though, from an empirical point of view: we’re bound to learn something new.
I notice they assume the same curves and amplitudes, but have just moved them out in accordance with the delayed interregnum.
I don’t see this as an application of science, rather an application of CYA.
From these [snip] assessments, I can make a guesstimate of when will tSC24 peak and what will be its value. This is based upon a smooth eye-balling curve fit of their guestimates:
Around about 60 in 2013.
Take this to the bank.
Lief,
I will donate another $100 if my peak is not within 10% and my time frame out by more than 6 months. (That means between July 20012 and June 2014).
Comments by Morgan, re Dr David Hathaway, are the most civilised and decent sentiments I have seen here for some time. What a breath of fresh,clean air. That is the level at which debate should be conducted! (And not, for example, in imitation of the bad reality TV show that is parliament here in Australia). I am sure that David Hathaway is just as intrigued to see what happens next as the rest of us.
And re the recent scourging of the curious Dr Hansen, what was the saying? “Treat the failings of others as gently as you would your own..”
Robert Wood (16:57:24) :
I will donate another $100 if my peak is not within 10% and my time frame out by more than 6 months. (That means between July 2012 and June 2014).
Last thing to be determined is how the peak and its timing are set. The standard way is by the smoothed monthly sunspot number. Since there can be multiple peaks, you may want to stipulate that all peaks be with your ranges, which you then may want to widen a tad 🙂
My money is on 75+/-8 and max in 2013.5
David Archibald (12:08:10) :
Dr Svalgaard will be so relieved. For years he has been saying that TSI variations through the solar cycle aren’t enough to explain climate change, and that therefore there is no point in looking at an invariate Sun. Well, Nir Shaviv has done the work and I quote “We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.” This is the link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml
Looks interesting….perhaps someone can gain a copy and we can debate the paper on a dedicated post?
Larry,
I wholeheartedly concur with your (and Morgan’s) defense of Dr. Hathaway.
I am less in accord with your defense of Dr. Hansen. I base that on the latter’s promotion of mass civil disobedience. There is a philosophical line that separates science from rude political advocacy, and Dr. Hansen has crossed it. He is fair game for derision and condemnation.
Surely these bumbling fools will be sacked THIS time ?
I can not think of any other field of endeavor where continued failure is accepted again and again on this scale. We`re not talking about minor failures once or twice – these people have failed stupendously, and each time their epic failure gets more colossal with each iteration.
David Archibald (12:08:10) :
“Dr Svalgaard will be so relieved. For years he has been saying that TSI variations through the solar cycle aren’t enough to explain climate change, and that therefore there is no point in looking at an invariate Sun. Well, Nir Shaviv has done the work and I quote “We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.” This is the link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012989.shtml”
David,
I have a second link.
The study is peer reviewed but is in need of confirmation.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N8/EDIT.php
More on Nir Shaviv can be found here:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/
Come on guys this is “predictive science” or best guess. Cut them some slack, at least they are moving the posts instead of altering the scoreboard.
We all know that when the facts change you adjust your position, looking at you Dr.Hansen, that is what reasonable people do.
Science marches on.
David Archibald (12:08:10) :
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations
Looks like he is confirming that TSI doesn’t do much, but that he thinks there is something else that gives the ‘signal’ he claims. Somebody find a link to the paper that works, then we can see.
Mike D,
Thanks for your concurrence. I wasn’t actually defending Dr Hansen though. I was defending common decency and rational scientific debate.
I haven’t followed Dr Hansen’s work for long enough or closely enough to judge it (my main reaction to his strange video performance was to wonder if he was just very uncomfortable on camera or possibly medicated). But is he sincere and genuine in his beliefs and actions? Or is he just a cynic with a personal interest?
Either way, I am sure that the USA is robust enough to cope with a little riot outside a power station, and provided that no-one is too badly hurt, it can only add to the fun of things: the same faction of society that rioted in favour of sub-economic coal mining in the UK in the 1980s, now rioting against profitable coal-fired power generation in the USA in the 2000s, possibly to the deep embarrassment of those who would profit from the underlying political agenda.
The thing that I do enjoy about the AGW / Natural GW debate is that it is a genuine raging scientific controversy, alive in our times, on a par with that of the ‘flat earth’ or the ‘sun as the centre of the universe’ (and it’s not hard to see how the egos and financial interests of the Mediaeval church got so hot under the collar that they resorted to execution to ‘prove’ their point).
And it is a consequential debate, the outcome of which matters, which amusingly enough, will be settled not by ego or opinion, but by incontrovertible reality, a reality that will be demonstrated with hard work and integrity by scientists such as David Hathaway.
(My instincts and geological background suggest that AGW is probably just another Y2K, and that its chief promoter, AG, is just another politician running on ego and lining his pockets en route. But I may be shamefully wrong about both).
Leif,
All the links work, including a link to the University
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/
Ron de Haan (19:03:35) :
All the links work,
parts of the site has not been updated for many years. I can’t find the latest paper there.
Leif:
“Looks like he is confirming that TSI doesn’t do much, but that he thinks there is something else that gives the ’signal’ he claims. Somebody find a link to the paper that works, then we can see.”
That was what I would call a chicken shit response. He has suggested possible mechanisms, and you seem to be ignoring those.
Well, I blurted out too quickly. Let me say it more politely: Leif, I value your sound judgement and knowledge, but this time, it appears to me that you blurted out too quickly, too. 🙂 You must admit that Shaviv has a point!
The only thing that has changed is the data on the left side of the graph, it continues doing what it has been doing: Leveling off and skipping like a rock across a pond.
What’s on the right side of the graphs are last gasp projections that get shoved aside as time goes on.
Whatever happened to “go with the flow” here?
Broken in the Box.
For crying out loud, fellas, at least make it look plausible.
jae (19:44:10) :
He has suggested possible mechanisms, and you seem to be ignoring those.
The abstract ends with:
“existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one”…
But I’ll confess that I have not read the paper yet.
Larry Kirk (19:02:08) :
Larry, it’s interesting that geologically oriented mind think in similar terms. The Earth is robust, has not shown “runaway” anything, ever. Look at the rocks, the IPCC never did!
Relax, we know that the main job of these guys is to observe because they just don’t have enough information and theory yet. I respect them for having issued predictions at all, as now the predictions help lay the groundwork for further study.
Let’s hope that the delay in posting their observations was due to excessive meetings to figure out what is going on (on the Sun as well as in the science).
Robert Bateman (20:00:41) :
For crying out loud, fellas, at least make it look plausible.
Not much hope of that is there? given their track record.
SIDC can’t get it over their heart to do it right either: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfjmms.html
Lief,
I thought your response was measured and look forward to the discussion. Geoff Sharp had a similar suggestion. I wonder if Nir Shaviv’s ears are burning?
I reviewed your 1978 paper that you had linked to a response yesterday. Thank you for the glimps into your contribution to the world of solar physics 30 years ago.
I am also interested in the mechanisms alluded to in the abstract. My hunch is that the paper may well suggest that cosmic rays, magnetic fields, and/or ozone changes here on Earth are related to the Sun’s more cyclic parameters, but the paper will not propose a plausible, well defined mechanism. It will, however, suggest more research into these possible connections.
Thanks to Anthony for providing this site, and Leif, I am beginning to understand that a search for possible solar mechanisms that have not already been studied, much like a treasure hunt when you don’t know what the treasure is, does not make for good science. A plausible, modeled mechanism should lead us where, and how, to look. Simply heading for the Sun and trying to find a yet unknown mechanism, “here mechanism, here mechanism”, without even having a clue as to what it might look like is plain silly.
Pamela,
So right. The IPCC established a firm standard for all interested in objective science to forever avoid. Where would we be if we performed as IPCC and latched onto CO2, or in this case a potentially false solar proxy, and spent a fortune modeling it with backcasting assumptions out the gazoo.
On the other hand, alot of data has accumulated over the course of our current ice age of the last 2.5 million years with its 20 or so periods of glaciation. We have many clues of potential causations, but no clear answers. Some patterns have emerged while others are more deeply hidden. The quest continues, but I don’t think its silly to probe.
Leif: SIDC’s isn’t quite so bad as ISES. Still, there is a statement about the pride in one’s work, and I would expect a professional site to make the effort.
After all, it’s what the world sees.
In reply to Morgan’s question of what I would like Dr. Hathaway to do:
If I were in his position, I would issue a lengthly press release analyzing the present minimum (and length of SC23) in the context of the past minimums (and cycle lengths). I would state that there is a chance, small but growing, that we are entering a prolonged minimum. I would go on to discuss the effects of past minimums and state that I would be providing further updates on a regular basis.
Solar cycle 23 (as of the last 23 sunspot) is 12 years and 11 months old.
Madman (06:07:17) :
If I were in his position, I would issue a lengthly press release analyzing the present minimum (and length of SC23) in the context of the past minimums (and cycle lengths).
No need to do that. This is all well known and well-trodden ground. And lots of other people have already done that [many of them incorrectly, though]. The point is that from minima and cycle lengths you cannot confidently predict the next cycle. There are other, better, ways to do that. Hathaway is fully aware of all this as is everybody else ‘in the business’. In the specific case of Hathaway [and thus NASA], the method they like has repeatedly been shown not to work. That they still cling to it is a psychological [and perhaps political] problem and not a scientific problem. To Hathaway’s credit he has now seen the light [some of it – he still has some way to go] and adjusted his prediction down. And not because of the length of SC23 or of the state of the present minimum.
Alex (08:05:57) :
Solar cycle 23 (as of the last 23 sunspot) is 12 years and 11 months old.
And cycle 22 was 13 years old by that same standard [from first spot to last spot].
But we don’t know whether to have a birthday party or a wake!
Adolfo Giurfa (13:38:26) :
Dr.Archibald have you seen Franz Heeke´s theory? : http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/article1.html
Fascinating… Now I’ve lost another afternoon as I ponder this (and I owe you another beer… ) Keep this up and I’ll owe you a whole night on the town!
Alan S. Blue (13:48:10) :
“Jim H, a serious reexamination of the thousand-year temperature reconstruction is still necessary.”
Even once the oceanic oscillations and contributions are straightened out, there’s still an unexplained longer term 1C/century trend.
That is because there is an underlaying 1500 year cyclicality. We don’t know why it is, but it is. That has to be accounted for or folks are just skiing on that 750 year slope wondering why the moguls have a trend to them…
From me, earlier:
Then explain, please, Bond Events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
Leif Svalgaard (19:34:16) : parts of the site has not been updated for many years. I can’t find the latest paper there.
Leif, this isn’t it? It looks complete.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0811/2007JA012989/
Also in pdf:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0811/2007JA012989/2007JA012989.pdf
Somebody find a link to the paper that works, then we can see.
I have Shaviv’s newest paper in pdf and will email it wherever it needs to get to. I’m sure the moderator has my email address – I’m hesitant to post it (I already get enough spam).
DAV (13:38:46) :
http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/ja0811/2007JA012989/2007JA012989.pdf
There it is. I can read it in my office at Stanford [because we have a subscription], I wonder if others can…
I fear what we may discover, when we come to understand other vectors and / or amplification mechanisms besides TSI. But discover we must, even if it’s bad news.
Shaviv’s:
The critical figure is Figure 4. And the correlation doesn’t look all that great. The biggest problem is that the data stops in 2002. The 6 years after that could prove to be of great interest. And the deltaT [lower panel of Figure 4] over the cycle is still about the 0.1C that everybody can agree on. What’s the big deal? No LIA from that kind of deltaT.
jorgekafkazar (13:25:42) :
Jim H (12:32:13) : “What i love about all this is that those of us who are not in favour of turning the global economy upsidedown to reduce carbon emissions need DO nothing. The facts will speak for themselves over the next decade or so.”
“True, but by then they’ll have taken away our firearms.”
And, we will have gps units in our cars which allow the government to track our mileage for tax assesment, the gps units will also allow the government to know exactly where we travel and when, thermostats in our houses will be adjusted by beaurocrats, natural gas for heating houses will be carbon-taxed to the hilt, light bulbs will glow when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, and there will be no jobs as our economy will be shot.
That’s all!
markm
And the correlation doesn’t look all that great.
Shaviv acknowledges this in [32] then waves his wand in [34] to get a better view. SLR gives a better correlation.
At the end of [55] he states the “hazard” of using this data to quantify the seperate solar components; rather he is attempting to quantify, in aggregate, that the total solar impact is larger than explained by TSI alone.
He says he gets there. I’m still trying to get from what appear to be weak correlations, to “it must be more than just TSI.” On my first read I don’t see it.
Can I be on the prediction panel? I can not know what I’m doing every bit as much as they don’t. And I’ll take 1/2 the money they are getting for it….
Just a thought for those discussing solar and SST variability.
Most times, during an analysis of the effects of TSI on global temperature or global SST, etc., the first two things they remove from the global datasets are the effects of volcanic aerosols and ENSO. The latter always bothered me since ENSO is ultimately fueled by the sun.
But how else could they try to analyse the data, looking for climate sensitivity, with all that ENSO noise?
Perhaps a hungry government has an influence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51P4Q920090226
They’re obviously quite sure of themselves, and they know ENSO isn’t the climate sensitivity they are looking for.
I hate to see that evening sun go down,
I hate to see that evening sun go down,
‘Cause my lovin’ baby done left this town.
Leif Svalgaard (15:34:37) :
It asks for a subscription.
Gosh, I had no idea you were so close. I live near Cupertino. Do you ever give lectures that are open to the public?
crosspatch (01:50:52) :
Gosh, I had no idea you were so close. I live near Cupertino. Do you ever give lectures that are open to the public?
Not any more.
Morgan said: Sorry for the screed, but I’d much rather see someone ask him, politely, what he thinks about the predictive value of the models he’s using, and what probability he’s subjectively placing on this cycle being way out of the norm than read a bunch of folks ragging on an apparently honest scientist.
——————————————–
Yea well, honest scientist don’t manipulate their data, besides, anyone pushing AGW has pretty much been labeled a Fraud.
Not to mention; We were told the Ice Caps were melting, they are not. We were told El Nino was warming, it was not. We were told Sun Spots had no effect on GW, they do.
NASA , IPCC and NOAA have all been caught fudging their data. What does that say about their organizations ? And , what does that say about a bunch of folks ragging on an apparently honest scientist ?
Well, show me an apparent honest AGW Scientist and we will stop ragging.
Ya a couple weeks ago i sent them an email asking them why they haven’t updated those predictions recently given the sunspot numbers remain in the crapper when they’d predicted wed be at 50 sunspots by now. No response, of course, maybe this is the result….
As an ardent capitalist, I have to say that IMHO any academic papers intended to sway public policy should be put in the public domain and public record.
And the sun is gone
Forever out of this game
And the sun is gone
Her eyes will never be the same
She lost her soul
Caught in the demon’s eyes
She lost her soul
And there are no ears to hear her cries
The sun is gone
Could someone please help me to get a continuous orange-colored photo of the Sun in its peak activity, with abundant dark spots?
“continuous” should read “continuum”. Sorry.
tokyoboy (23:11:07) :
Could someone please help me to get a continuous orange-colored photo of the Sun in its peak activity, with abundant dark spots?
Go to
http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query
select MDI continuum, a date of 2003-10-31, mark ‘display images’
Leif (23:25:38) Thanks!
Can anyone with expertise on this subject tell me whether the South Atlantic Anomaly (the closest convergence of the earth’s magnetic field to the planet) might have anything to do with warming of the oceans and a disruption of the thermohaline circulation?
It seems too much of a coincidence that increased penetration of solar radiation just happens to coincide with precisely the region that scientists say is responsible for determining the climate on our planet. I really know very little about the science of either, so I’m hoping someone can set me straight on it.
From Heliogenic Climate Change
“The Younger Dryas, also referred to as the Big Freeze, was an abrupt and unexplained relapse into a glacial cold climate when the earth was emerging out of the last ice age. The dip is clearly seen in the traces below at about 11-12,000 years before present. …
The shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation is usually blamed, but this paper from 2000 suggests solar mediated cosmic ray flux could be responsible. …
“These records indicate that the maximum in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations in the early Younger Dryas was smaller than previously believed, and might have been caused by variations in solar activity. If so, there is no indication that the deep-ocean ventilation in the Younger Dryas was significantly different from today’s.”
We have been looking at the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) theory of Nir Shaviv in the last few posts. CRF can vary relatively rapidly, when the sun shuts down its sunspot activity, or from cosmic sources. The scale is consistent with abrupt climate change. I don’t want to make the same mistake as climate liberals, and start blaming everything on the latest convenient explanation. But given the high concentration of atmospheric 14C during the Younger Dryas cold episode appears widely supported, does this not suggest an increase in CRF as the cause?”
http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/
Apologies for not providing information immediately. We now provide some text which explains what we changed about the solar cycle plots on our website, with a link from the top of our front page http://www.spaceweather.gov There was no role of the Prediction Panel in making this change. The main issue is that solar minimum has clearly moved past March, 2008 and the later minimum needed to be accounted for in the plots.
Dear Dr. Biesecker,
Thank you for posting the notice on the recent changes which have been made to the SWPC predictions for Solar Cycle 24. I should point that two sets of changes were made to the SWPC Solar Cycle 24 predictions. Last Tuesday, February 24, 2009 the High and Low Predictions for Sunspot and F10.7cm data were moved back by five (5) months. Today Monday March 2, 2009, the High and Low Sunspot Predictions were pushed back another month, as was the Low F10.7cm Prediction. The High F10.7cm Prediction was unaltered from last week.
If it was your intention not to alter the High F10.7cm Prediction all well and good but you may want to review the F10.7cm changes which were made today.
I want to go on record as expressing my disappointment with SWPC over the last several months. I have held your organization in very high esteem and have stated so publically many times. I don’t know what the issues are at SWPC but reestablishing lines of communication is a good start towards correcting any problems.
As a suggestion, you need better coordination when releasing changes. Today’s new prediction graphics were posted well in advance of the notice on the SWPC page and your post on WUWT. I have also communicated via Email with SWPC, about quality control problems in the monthly updates over the last several months. I have gone through 10 years of SWPC reports and could find no fault until very recently. I wish the NASA prediction team had the same quality of documentation.
Even when they could not address all of my concerns, the SWPC staff has always been extremely helpful, courteous and responsive to all my inquiries. I can report exactly the same experience when communicating with other units in NOAA.
At http://solarcycle24.com/, you may want to review the following posts about recent SWPC problems.
SWPC Moves The Goalpost
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482
SWPC Posts Wrong Monthly Solar Activity Report
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=449
Michael Ronayne
Michael Ronayne (18:14:46) :
To Doug: you may want to review the following posts about recent SWPC problems.
Doug, while we are at it, the is a problem with the ap-values reported here:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
I grant that these values are preliminary and therefore subject to change [although I have never seen that happen]. The problem is with the truncation of the values rather than [the correct] rounding: for example:
2008 12 1.3 0.8 0.62 -1.0 -1.0 69.2 -1.0 2 -1.0
The plot for ap clearly shows that the Dec. 2008 value was close to 2.9, yet it is reported as ‘2’. Several other such cases are apparent. The truncations make geomagnetic activity artificially lower than it should be. At this minimum where there is intense interest in these matters, such inaccuracy should not occur, but I trust [and hopefully expect] that they can be easily corrected.
Leif Svalgaard (17:58:47) :
If my prediction of SC24 bears out [and it does look pretty good now], then you can compute the polar fields [PF in uT] from the size [Rmax] of any following cycle like this: abs(2*PF) = Rmax/0.63. That gives very many more cycles against which to test Vuk’s formula. Too bad it is so garbled that I can’t use it.
There has been a serious concern about validity of my formula (while I was away and unable to verify details). I have done that now. It appears that problem was caused by inaccurate interpretation of – sign on my part, for which I apologise.
Factor (Ax-1940.5-3) as shown on the chart only, was inaccurately replaced by (Ax-1937.5), result of my ‘muddled’ thinking. This information on the chart has now been rectified, with the appropriate entry for MS Excel added.
Suffice to say, the actual graphic (red curve) and correlation were accurate all the time, since the Excel had accurate entry.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
Perhaps the epithet of ‘an illiterate’ of ‘superior ignorance’, may have not have been far of the mark. To get every detail correct (among the bunch of unruly formulas and graphs) is prone to occasional mistake, after all as saying goes, Rome was not built in a day.
Dr. Svalgaard was interested in calculated values of polar fields (by the formula) at the times of the previous minima;
Excel has come up with following (pole to pole):
1944.1 – 203 no measurements available
1954.3 – 256 #
1964.9 – 270 Mount Wilson SO (falling trend in early 1967; 260 to 220)
1976.5 – 222 as measured
1986.8 – 216 #
1996.6 – 195 #
2008.7 – 100 #
Considering that the polar fields measurements contain significant annual variations which have to be filtered out (Dr. L.S. has an excellent review of the problem), prone to significant amount of noise and averaged over period of time, then errors of up to 10-20% can be expected.
From the above could be concluded that polar fields (according to the formula) may have been relatively flat for prolonged period of time, displaying only significant drop in intensity only during current minimum.
Question is: Is the Sun entering prolonged period of inactivity ?
This is email content received from Mr. Vukcevic (still away)
Leif Svalgaard (17:58:47) :
If my prediction of SC24 bears out [and it does look pretty good now], then you can compute the polar fields [PF in uT] from the size [Rmax] of any following cycle like this: abs(2*PF) = Rmax/0.63. That gives very many more cycles against which to test Vuk’s formula. Too bad it is so garbled that I can’t use it.
There has been a serious concern about validity of my formula (while I was away and unable to verify details). I have done that now. It appears that problem was caused by inaccurate interpretation of – sign on my part, for which I apologise.
Factor (Ax-1940.5-3) as shown on the chart only, was inaccurately replaced by (Ax-1937.5), result of my ‘muddled’ thinking. This information on the chart has now been rectified, with the appropriate entry for MS Excel added.
Suffice to say, the actual graphic (red curve) and correlation were accurate all the time, since the Excel had accurate entry.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
Perhaps the epithet of ‘an illiterate’ of ‘superior ignorance’, may have not have been far of the mark. To get every detail correct (among the bunch of unruly formulas and graphs) is prone to occasional mistake, after all as saying goes, Rome was not built in a day.
Dr. Svalgaard was interested in calculated values of polar fields (by the formula) at the times of the previous minima;
Excel has come up with following (pole to pole):
1944.1 – 203 no measurements available
1954.3 – 256 #
1964.9 – 270 Mount Wilson SO (falling trend in early 1967; 260 to 220)
1976.5 – 222 as measured
1986.8 – 216 #
1996.6 – 195 #
2008.7 – 100 #
Considering that the polar fields measurements contain significant annual variations which have to be filtered out (Dr. L.S. has an excellent review of the problem), prone to significant amount of noise and averaged over period of time, then errors of up to 10-20% can be expected.
From the above could be concluded that polar fields (according to the formula) may have been relatively flat for prolonged period of time, displaying only significant drop in intensity only during current minimum.
Question is: Is the Sun entering prolonged period of inactivity ?
Radun (03:17:25) :
This is email content received from Mr. Vukcevic (still away)
There has been a serious concern about validity of my formula
Not the validity as such [which is a different question] but the very formula itself was garbled. What is the corrected formula?
Excel has come up with following (pole to pole):
1944.1 – 203 no measurements available
1954.3 – 256 #
1964.9 – 270 Mount Wilson SO (falling trend in early 1967; 260 to 220)
1976.5 – 222 as measured
1986.8 – 216 #
1996.6 – 195 #
2008.7 – 100 #
Considering that the polar fields measurements contain significant annual variations which have to be filtered out (Dr. L.S. has an excellent review of the problem), prone to significant amount of noise and averaged over period of time, then errors of up to 10-20% can be expected.
The annual variation is not noise and is not present in the difference from pole to pole.
From the above could be concluded that polar fields (according to the formula) may have been relatively flat for prolonged period of time, displaying only significant drop in intensity only during current minimum.
From the above it may be concluded that the formula does not work. Especially the value for 1965 is off by about 100 uT.
In this table the 1st value is the year, the second Vuk’s formula, the 3rd the Pf calculated from Rmax/0.63, the 4th the observed or estimated value:
1944.1 – 203 — 241
1954.3 – 256 — 302 === 300
1964.9 – 270 — 168 === 170 <==== biggest error
1976.5 – 222 — 246 === 245
1986.8 – 216 — 249 === 250
1996.6 – 195 — 190 === 201
2008.7 – 100 — 119 === 115
Question is: Is the Sun entering prolonged period of inactivity ?
Since SC24 is likely to be small and small cycles often occur together, solar activity will likely be low for some decades to come. To call it ‘inacivity’ is going far beyond what the data shows.
What is the corrected formula?
I believe that the corrected formula is (with the minor numerical correction) on the chart at:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
Flux of both polarities are transported towards the poles, but only one polarity makes it.
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Presumably, the transport mechanism is the solar conveyer belt.
If intensity of the polar fields is related to the speed (transport efficiency) of the conveyor belt than it would be implicit that the polar fields would have similar tendency.
Speed of the solar conveyor belt was mostly constant during the second half of the last centaury, followed by a sudden drop to half of its value over the last few years.
It follows: (168 === 170 ) is odd one out in this respect.
I also understood from the previous posts, there were no reliable measurements prior to 1966, thus value at the end of 1964 could only be an estimate or a back projection and possibly as such not reliable.
Radun (13:13:22) :
What is the corrected formula?
I believe that the corrected formula is (with the minor numerical correction) on the chart at:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
What is the correct formula? Have you tried it? The one on the chart is wrong.
Presumably, the transport mechanism is the solar conveyor belt.
The ‘conveyor’ belt is an oversimplification. The is a meridional circulation, but the transport is not due solely to that, but also to the available flux [random diffusion – the original Babcock-Leighton mechanism] and simple happenstance.
I also understood from the previous posts, there were no reliable measurements prior to 1966, thus value at the end of 1964 could only be an estimate or a back projection and possibly as such not reliable.
Blame the data if the formula doesn’t fit 🙂
According to the formula in 1965.0 the polar fields, PF, should have been the strongest of all. We have good evidence that it wasn’t.
1) Although the PF does decrease once the new cycle kicks in, it does not decrease that much. On page 12, you can see that at the beginning of 1967, the MWO PFs were very weak, ~50, and a decrease from 270 to ~50 in two years is unprecedented, especially since there was not much flux in the weak cycle 20.
2) Severny [at the Crimean Observatory] was trying through the 1960s in vain to measure the polar fields [page 11 of idem]. The noise level of his instrument was about 100 uT, so the polar fields must have been lower than 200 (less than 100 from each pole). I discussed this with him in 1976 and agree that he should have been able to see the polar fields in 1965 with his instrument [he did in 1976, BTW, where the PFs according to the formula should have been weaker than in 1965].
3) The corona was extremely flat in 1954 [page 9 and 10 of idem], but not so in 1965. A strong polar field flatten the corona. Right now the polar fields are weak and the corona has, accordingly, not flattened. See Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
4) The polar fields spill out into the heliosphere and at minimum make up most of the magnetic flux [there is not much left on the Sun], but the IMF in 1964-1965 [5.07 nT] was just a tad higher than in 2007-2008 [4.35 nT].
5) The A(t) index is a measure of the polar fields [and more generally the large-scale magnetic field of the Sun] http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20A(t)%20Index.pdf and shows the same weak PF in 1965 as all the rest indications. The A(t) index is defined in Makarov and Tlatov, Astronomy Reports, vol 44 page 759, 2000 and is derived from H-alpha maps.
6) Last but not least, ever since good data became available the polar fields divided by Rmax for the next cycle have shown a remarkably constant variation [page 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf , updated here: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields%20Normalized%20to%20Next%20Cycle.pdf so, yes, this is a back projection, to accommodate a high PF in 1965 not fitting the pattern would require the special pleading that the PF pattern changed just when we became capable of observing them.
7) The polar faculae depends on the strength of the polar fields and. In ‘A Century of Polar Faculae Variations’ by Sheeley, N. R., Jr.
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 680, Issue 2, pp. 1553-1559, 2008, Neil shows that the PF in 1965 were as weak as all the other indicators show. His abstract reads: “The numbers of faculae at the poles of the Sun have been estimated from white-light images obtained at the Mount Wilson Observatory during 1985-2006 and combined with prior estimates extending back to 1906, when the observations began. The combined data show an 11 yr cyclic variation with faculae maxima occurring during sunspot minima in each of the past 10 sunspot cycles. Also, these numbers of polar faculae are well correlated with the line-of-sight component of the polar magnetic field measured at the Wilcox Solar Observatory since 1976.”
For all these reasons, we believe that the PF in 1965 were weak and that therefore the formula fails.
Just a short note on polar faculae
According to Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics article:
http://www.chjaa.org/Papers_Accepted/08072_arnab_v2.pdf
Faculae were at beginning of cycles 19 and 20 strongest ever, which is in line with formula’s numbers for these cycles.
Cycle —————-Polar faculae number
Number—————at beginning of cycle
———————–FN———-FS
15 ——————-28.3 ———31.6
16 ——————-53.9———49.4
17 ——————-25.2———30.6
18 ——————-51.5———33.0
19——————- 64.8———44.1
20 ——————-66.2———36.9
21——————-24.5——— 29.2
22——————-23.6 ———26.3
23——————-16.0 ———16.3
24——————–6.7———10.8
Radun (15:06:38) :
Just a short note on polar faculae
According to Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics article:
http://www.chjaa.org/Papers_Accepted/08072_arnab_v2.pdf
Faculae were at beginning of cycles 19 and 20 strongest ever, which is in line with formula’s numbers for these cycles.
You can see Sheeley’s paper here http://www.leif.org/research/Sheeley_Polar_Faculae_apj_050208.pdf Figure 6.
The spike in 1960 and 1961 did not build up the polar fields. Such spikes occur from time to time. A sudden increase in the number of south polar faculae in 1974 was associated with a poleward
surge of flux from the southern-hemisphere sunspot belt, suggesting that the large transient variations observed earlier in the century may also have been caused by poleward surges of
flux. The field from these surges does not last. And BTW, the Vuk formula does not predict a large spike in 1960-1961, but a value near zero. Such selective picking is not good science.
Radun (15:06:38) :
Just a short note on polar faculae
According to Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics article:
http://www.chjaa.org/Papers_Accepted/08072_arnab_v2.pdf
Faculae were at beginning of cycles 19 and 20 strongest ever, which is in line with formula’s numbers for these cycles.
Interesting Radun, some doubt is now cast over the accuracy of the early pole strength measurements, esp SC19. Maybe we will see poles with significant differences in strength in the next 2 cycles?
Leif Svalgaard (17:33:54) :
The spike in 1960-1961 in the North is also seen by Japanese observers:
http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/image/faculae.gif
In general the faculae data differ considerably between observers and evidently must be taken with a grain of salt.
We also had some comments on the polar faculae in http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf [especially in Figure 1].
Geoff Sharp (21:21:36) :
Interesting Radun, some doubt is now cast over the accuracy of the early pole strength measurements, esp SC19. Maybe we will see poles with significant differences in strength in the next 2 cycles?
The doubt is more with the [difficult] polar faculae counts.
Svalgaard
7) The polar faculae depends on the strength of the polar fields and. ……….The combined data show an 11 yr cyclic variation
with faculae maxima occurring during sunspot minima in each of the past 10 sunspot cycles. Also, these numbers of polar
faculae are well correlated with the line-of-sight component of the polar magnetic field measured at the Wilcox Solar Observatory
since 1976.”
The spike in 1960 and 1961 did not build up the polar fields. Such spikes occur from time to time.
These two statements appear to contradict each other.
Cycle ————PF sum ——–V’sformula———- Dr.LS
18 ————– 84 ————– 203 ————– 241
19 ————– 109 ————- 256 ————– 302
20 ————– 103 ————- 270 ————– 168
21 ————– 54 ————– 222 ————– 246
22 ————– 50 ————– 216 ————– 249
23 ————– 32 ————– 195 ————– 190
24 ————– 17 ————– 100 ————– 119
From the table above table can be concluded that the formula has the same trend as the polar faculae sum (for both poles) or measured values for field strength. Only one value totally out of line is 168 (minimum preceding cycle 20).
Further doubt at this value is cast by the early measurements by Crimea and Mount Wilson SOs, but I will leave this to Mr. Vukcevic (who informs me is back now) to pursue.
For my part, I do not put much credence to any of the prediction methods, and that includes the V’s formula. His formula shows exceptionally high correlation between two, up to now considered unrelated, natural events,
i.e. Solar polar magnetic fields and two largest planets of the solar system with the strongest magnetic fields.
Task of science is to investigate (especially where high correlation exists, above 90% in this case), rather then summarily reject, in defence of a, not totally reliable or widely accepted, prediction method.
Here I rest my case (for time being).
Radun (02:19:48) :
“The combined data show an 11 yr cyclic variation
with faculae maxima occurring during sunspot minima in each of the past 10 sunspot cycles.”
“The spike in 1960 and 1961 did not build up the polar fields. Such spikes occur from time to time.”
These two statements appear to contradict each other.
1960-61 was not at sunspot minimum, thus no contradiction.
20 ————– 103 ————- 270 ————– 168
From the table above table can be concluded that the formula has the same trend as the polar faculae sum (for both poles) or measured values for field strength. Only one value totally out of line is 168 (minimum preceding cycle 20).
Further doubt at this value is cast by the early measurements by Crimea and Mount Wilson SOs
“This” value that is doubtful, is the 270, not the “168” as the SOs measured a low value for that minimum.
The formula value for SC20 is totally out of line as you notice.
I just noticed that Hathaway has just moved his goalpost today as well. Looks like he slid Cycle 24 about 3-months to the right, but it has the same shape and size. He’s sticking with his maximum prediction so far (dropped only from 104.9 to 104.0).
I’d been expecting this sometime soon, as he previously had Cycle 24 starting in Aug ’08 (if they do indeed start at minimum smoothed SSN). With a dominant 9.3 (SIDC value) from March ’08 rolling completely off the smoothed calculation for Sep ’08, he would have needed at least a 9.7 from them for this March to keep the smoothed value from going lower yet. At this point, that would have required a small sunspot group every day for the rest of the month (or a big proliferation of them later on). Now he’s bought a bit more time, with the minimum smoothed at Nov ’08.
Sorry about error in previous post. Should have said that the 9.3 from March ’08 loses half of it’s impact on the Sep ’08 smoothed value. It rolls completely off for the Oct ’08 value.
In his March 2009 sunspot prediction Dr. David Hathaway of NASA push the Solar Cycle 24 prediction back another 3 months. According to Dr. Hathaway, solar maximum will now occur in Jan.-Feb. 2013. For some unknown reason solar maximum Solar Cycle 23 (yes 23) was also moved forward by one month. The new report can be found here as an update to my earlier post.
Re: Dr. Hathaway Moves the SC24 Goalpost Again
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=350&page=6#13121
Based on the recent multiple changes made by both NASA and SWPC, we now appear to be in Solar Cycle 24 prediction freefall.
Mike