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.
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