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.
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!