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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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].