More revisions to the NASA solar cycle prediction

ssn_predict_anim_nasa

Above: step by step animation of solar cycle revisions since 2004

Michael Roynane writes:

On March 4, 2009 Dr. David Hathaway issued a new sunspot prediction for March 2009 which includes sunspot data through the end of February 2009. After no changes in the February 2009 prediction, solar maximum for Solar Cycle 24 was pushed back an additional three (3) months from 2012/10-2012/11 to 2013/01-2013/02. The predicted sunspot number at solar maximum was reduced from 104.9 to 104.0.

Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (February 2009)

Year Mon 95% 50% 5%

2012 07 128.0 104.0 80.0

2012 08 128.5 104.5 80.5

2012 09 128.8 104.8 80.8

2012 10 128.9 104.9 80.9

2012 11 128.9 104.9 80.9

2012 12 128.8 104.8 80.8

2013 01 128.5 104.5 80.5

2013 02 128.1 104.1 80.1

Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (March 2009)

Year Mon 95% 50% 5%

2012 10 126.9 102.9 78.9

2012 11 127.4 103.4 79.4

2012 12 127.8 103.8 79.8

2013 01 128.0 104.0 80.0

2013 02 128.0 104.0 80.0

2013 03 127.9 103.9 79.9

2013 04 127.7 103.7 79.7

2013 05 127.3 103.3 79.3

What is very strange about the revised March 2009 prediction is that the smoothed value for Solar Cycle 23 was also pushed forward by one (1) month with no change in the sunspot number at solar maximum.

Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (February 2009)

Year Mon 95% 50% 5%

2000 08 141.6 117.6 93.6

2000 09 142.0 118.0 94.0

2000 10 142.3 118.3 94.3

2000 11 142.4 118.4 94.4

2000 12 142.4 118.4 94.4

2001 01 142.2 118.2 94.2

2001 02 141.9 117.9 93.9

2001 03 141.5 117.5 93.5

Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (March 2009)

Year Mon 95% 50% 5%

2000 07 141.6 117.6 93.6

2000 08 142.1 118.1 94.1

2000 09 142.3 118.3 94.3

2000 10 142.4 118.4 94.4

2000 11 142.4 118.4 94.4

2000 12 142.2 118.2 94.2

2001 01 141.9 117.9 93.9

2001 02 141.5 117.5 93.5

I have no idea why this change was made but welcome input from the members. The new animation, with viewing instructions, can be found here.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSN_Predict_NASA.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/SSN_Predict_NASA.gif

With these changes by NASA, the variance with the high SWPC prediction remains significant. As the new SWPC numbers are now quite impossible, I expect to see more changes from both NASA and SWPC over the coming months. With each NASA revision the predictions more closely resemble those of Dr. Svalgaard who is on the low-end of the SWPC low prediction faction.

Advertisements

260 thoughts on “More revisions to the NASA solar cycle prediction

  1. From following this story for the past couple of years I have but one conclusion. The scientists are behaving like accountants, they have their head in the past as they back their butts into the future. Their prediction methods have declined down to just statistical in nature. We could hire a high school science class to count spots and spend the research money on how to get more oil out of our tire old oil fields.

  2. In total, that’s a major revision. peak moving from about 2010 to about 2013+. And this may not be the last of it.
    And this major change in solar activity will not have a substantial impact on climate?

  3. The Gore effect not only dominates the weather – but the all powerful sun too!
    It’s turning out to be one awfully big pile of doo doo these AGWers have stepped into.

  4. An exciting time, to be sure, for solar scientists. Even if they’re wrong in their predictions, this will provide for valuable insights into solar activity. The good thing is that we probably won’t be taxed to ‘fix’ an imaginary problem on the sun.

  5. The ramp-up of SC24 in their latest revision still looks awfully steep to me. It think the SC24 peak will be revised again to occur at 2014 or 2015 (if a peak occurs at al).

  6. Kudos to Mr. Green above for his unique summary of the situation. But for a different slant, Santayana once wrote that the failure to remember the past condemned one to repeat it. Maybe Mr. Hathaway should start looking at his many failed predictions and come up with something better. In the case of Cycle #24, one needs to look even further back than the recent past, to 200-300 years ago. I hope that we don’t have to look further back than that.

  7. Now Jack Green has had a light bulb of an idea. Wish I would have had a high school like that! (Maybe I could have stayed awake.) Reality is mankind deserves to be in this oil situation. If high school would have been what it should have been we would certainly not need oil at all by now or very little most things should be running on air. Or some form of air. The jetsons did not have to be fictional, it’s just that the greed of oil squashed reality! Or should I say what our futures could have been with the economy and the environment and now everyone expects superdollars to rescue everywhere and they have lost their cape!

  8. Why does NASA keep trying to predict solar cycles as if their theories are laws?
    Give it up already.
    –Mike Ramsey

  9. It seems there is a general prediction failure in many science fields. For me this is linked with the overwhelming use of computed models. Computational predictive models, however complex they may be, are prone to curve fitting issues.
    To sum it up, take a briliant, heavy, complex, multi-variable model, and adjust it until it’s results fit exactly the past. Then it becomes useless for prediction.
    The best it fits, the worst it is able to predict the future. This is a very common problem in finance, and often they have to give up the model and go back to simple statistics.

  10. Sorry for the OT.
    6 page article in the Age about an emergency summit in Copenhagen to emphasise that climate change is happening faster than predicted.
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html?page=1
    From the article..
    “UNSW Climate Change Research Centre co-director Matthew England, one of the summit’s key backers, says it is likely to find that the raw measures of climate change — global average air temperature, global sea-level rise and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations — are all happening at or above the worst-case IPCC scenario.”
    To date I’ve seen only data which is falling short of the IPCC predictions. If anyone can show me where the data is which oversteps the IPCC I’d like to see it.
    This might be a good one to pick apart on the blog Anthony?


  11. juls (06:17:39) :
    It seems there is a general prediction failure in many science fields. For me this is linked with the overwhelming use of computed models. Computational predictive models, however complex they may be, are prone to curve fitting issues.

    Juls,
    Good point. We know how well financial models have worked lately.
    –Mike

  12. Dear Anthony,
    Up to the middle of last year it was gernerally accepted that there had been no warming since 1998 (some said early new millenium).
    In 2007 The Hadley Cente when challenged by Prof Bob Carter admitted that there had been no warming for a few years, having previously derided and attacked him.
    Not only that we understand that the Aqua Satellite found no hotspots over the Equator, which it should have done if the computer models were correct.
    We now appear to be in the midst of warming hysteria again but the planet has been getting colder and the ice has returned to the Arctic .
    Underpinning this is a change in the Sun cycle something that the AGW’s never mention., especially the UK Met Office who continue to get their long range forecasts incorrect, whilst the solar physicists invariably get them right.
    Faced with all this one might have thought the AGW’s would at last be on the run and subject to scrutiny if not ridicule.
    But no….quite the opposite.
    Today Prince Charles has said we have 100 months to save the planet.
    Hansen’s data gets more and more bizarre as do many other submissions where positivesa are hyped and negatives ignored.
    One could call it fraudulent science.
    Am I right to think the game is up and what is going on is one last desperate attempt to shut up the sceptics before the truth finally breaks out?
    I am totally bemused as to why the media have not at least asked a few questions.
    What is yout take on it all?
    James,

  13. Lela (06:09:18) :
    “Now Jack Green has had a light bulb of an idea. Wish I would have had a high school like that! (Maybe I could have stayed awake.) Reality is mankind deserves to be in this oil situation. If high school would have been what it should have been we would certainly not need oil at all by now or very little most things should be running on air. Or some form of air. The jetsons did not have to be fictional, it’s just that the greed of oil squashed reality! Or should I say what our futures could have been with the economy and the environment and now everyone expects superdollars to rescue everywhere and they have lost their cape!”
    Lela,
    I don’t understand your remark.
    Currently the whole world runs on air. Hot Air.

  14. I see the latest sun speck has disappeared, barely any remants in the amgnetogram either. Well, that lasted all of a day. And it qwas cycle 23.

  15. I think the mismatch between predictions and reality has to do with what our biased beliefs are and the degree to which we get excited over being the one, or one of the ones, to find some hidden “truth”. This leads us down the primrose path in many, if not indeed most, areas of our lives, even while swearing on a bible that we are not biased, we are objective. The way we think and deal with our families, careers, religion, belief and nonbelief, assumptions, stereotypes, and science are all affected by our biases. Even when the tide is turning to some other idea, we stay on ours, not wanting the journey to end without finding at least something.
    It is an age old problem. Just because it does not look like a mythical idea (IE the goddess in the cave making the Sun rise), does not make it less biased. I believe that is where our current ideas of “It’s the Sun stupid” or “CO2 pollution is causing the planet to warm” come from. Those assumptions are made in much the same way subconsciously that the goddess in the cave assumptions were made, “This coincides with that, therefor this causes that”. All we have to do is find the secret mechanism so all efforts are concentrated on that search. Multiple theories around the secret are suggested and tested (or even said outright to be the cause and no further testing is needed) as to this secret-related drawing board mechanism or that one. The other thing about assumptions that have a “secret or tiny mechanism with a large affect” is that it is very glamorous work. A treasure hunt if you will. This desire to find some secret treasure could be what happened between the early part of this decade, when several scientists were studying oceanic oscillations (a big trigger with a big affect) with published work, and now, when CO2 is the more glamorous endeavor. The pearl of great price. The one lost lamb. The holy grail. Jesus’ cup. Who wants to find a rock on the beach that has been sitting in plain site forever, when you could be on the hunt for a magical mythical one.

  16. Headline at the BBC web site:
    “March Arctic ice nears record 2003”
    OK Just kidding 🙂

  17. Big Mc (06:08:23) wrote : Maybe Mr. Hathaway should start looking at his many failed predictions and come up with something better. In the case of Cycle #24, one needs to look even further back than the recent past, to 200-300 years ago. I hope that we don’t have to look further back than that.
    My feelings precisely, without mentioning the Minima Whose Names We Dare Not Speak. I can envision getting through a Dalton-like minimum without too much, as economists say, “dislocation”. but another Maunder might be tough with the current world population and our current relatively Just-In-Time food stocks.
    Come to think of it, if we aren’t going to call this one the GORE MINIMUM (can’t see why not, but the name seems to lack traction) perhaps we could call it the Voldemort (“flight of death”) Minimum. Just a thought. At least the kids (mostly oblivious to the latinate translation) would like it.
    Right now I have to send a Note Of Disabuse to Tad Cook, who does the American Radio Relay League (ARRL; ham radio) “propagation newsletter” form Seattle. As y’all may be aware, higher frequency (shorter than about 80 meters wavelength) radio propagation gets much better with an ionized troposphere, which requires SUNSPOTS. No sunspots, very disappointed Hams (I haven’t been on the radio in two years).
    Tad from Seattle is a bit of an AGWer, so he is SHOCKED SHOCKED that radio propagation has sucked for so long, and there appears to be a bit of an “unscheduled solar event” happening. You nght even say that he’s a bit of a DENIER. Ha!
    I figure it’s our job to get to them one at a time, starting with the smart ones.

  18. james griffin (07:02:44) said :
    Today Prince Charles has said we have 100 months to save the planet.
    Am I right to think the game is up and what is going on is one last desperate attempt to shut up the sceptics before the truth finally breaks out?
    I am totally bemused as to why the media have not at least asked a few questions.
    What is your take on it all? James
    Great points James
    (a) Re: My Remaining 100 Months, Well now I really AM afraid. I guess I need to be calling some folks, Gotta make a list. Good thing I had that Last Will and Testament done last year. Too bad nobody will be around to execute it. [BTW, haven’t the people of Britain just about had enough with these dottering dim-witted in-bred Germans (I refer to the House of Hannover, er, Windsor)? Where’s Guy Fawkes when you need him? To The Moderators; these are NOT ad hominim attacks unless there’s actual proof that the Royals are indeed sentient. If so, show me ]
    (b) Yes exactly where ARE the mainstream media? Aren’t they supposed to be rooting around causing trouble with the established orthodoxy? Apparently AGW is now actually MORE powerful than the Roman Catholic Church; the former is never challenged in the mainstream press, the later is attacked incessantly.

  19. Please can we call what is happening on the Sun what they are they are…..Sun specks!!. They appear to have no influence on the Earth in anyway as if……They aren’t even there. This has been going on for months now.
    I think we need a better definition of what a sunspot is vs. a speck, and again I doubt in the past they could have seen 1014 as a spot. It’s becoming a joke.

  20. To Pamela Gray; nice thinking on the Holy Grail instinct in human existence. From literature, try reading (and I mean word-for-word) The Wasteland by TS Eliot, THEN The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald. If you read carefully enough, you’ll be shocked.
    Can’t speak for anyone else here, but my interest in this topic is exactly the OPPOSITE of finding the Holy Grail, or the Unified Field Theory, or any other overarching theory, scientific or religious or even “substance-induced” (thank you Sweat Lodge People).
    I just want these people to leave me alone. Period.

  21. Pierre Gosselin (05:57:21) :

    In total, that’s a major revision. peak moving from about 2010 to about 2013+. And this may not be the last of it.

    Every delay means it will be even more interesting to watch the sunspots (maybe) fade from view by 2015 per Livingston/Penn. We may already be a point where it would be nice to have a steady supply of spots to monitor.

    And this major change in solar activity will not have a substantial impact on climate?

    I tend to defer to Leif on that one. The PDO seems to be doing pretty well on its own.
    A year ago I was waiting until solar minimum before spending much time on CC issues. I wanted to see how long SC23 was going to be in hopes that would suggest solar-related cooling. Then at a gathering where I had suggested we try to get Joe D’Aleo to talk, he pointed out that SC23 was already a long cycle and that the PDO had flipped negative.
    Good thing I didn’t decide to wait longer, I would’ve missed a lot of neat stuff!

  22. Pamela Gray
    Ever programmed? Hang on to those beliefs too long and you will never find the bug. On the other hand hold on to untested beliefs and you will never write a program that works. Seems like Hathaway is clinging to his beliefs, the untested ones.

  23. Vinny (07:58:37) said :
    I think we need a better definition of what a sunspot is vs. a speck, and again I doubt in the past they could have seen 1014 as a spot. It’s becoming a joke.
    I agree. What exactly IS the definition of a SUNSPOT, that is, for the historical record? Would 1014 have been a SPOT in 1800? 1850? 1900? 1950? Heck, I’ve had dinner parties that lasted longer than 1014. (you know, the ones where at NOON the next day you count the wine bottles and divide by the number of people, but then some folks left early so they only count as half a person?)
    Anthony? Leif? Sunspot Boys?

  24. Why bother? There is a lady down on the corner that will deal some cards and tell you the same thing, for a lot less money.

  25. Sadly modern day society seems to believe that only computers can think. What else would one expect robots to believe? After all, statistics models provide us with all of the necessary theories, don’t they? Surely the emperor is wearing clothes — the computer models tell us so.

  26. hareynolds (07:41:00) :
    Maybe Mr. Hathaway should start looking at his many failed predictions and come up with something better.
    It seems to be time to point out that the Hathaway/NASA/Dikpati predictions of a supercycle are not the only predictions that have been issued. Several predictions based on the Sun’s polar field have consistently come out for a very weak cycle [“the smallest in a 100 years” http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ]. The polar field based prediction have been largely correct since we first used the method [back in 1978] and are based on solid physics, so we are not totally in the dark.

  27. hareynolds (08:16:46) :
    What exactly IS the definition of a SUNSPOT, that is, for the historical record?
    A sunspot is a sunspot that could be counted by Rudolf Wolf through THIS telescope on page 3 [or 11 on the web] of this paper http://www.leif.org/research/Friedli2005.pdf
    Wolf did not count the smallest spots [on purpose]. His successors did and do, so a fudge factor of about a half is introduced to reduce the modern counts to be compatible with Wolf’s.

  28. Leif, I have a bookmark to your updating graphs and check them every week or so. You have done much to expand my understanding of that sparkly globe.

  29. Lela (06:09:18) :
    “If high school would have been what it should have been we would certainly not need oil at all by now or very little most things should be running on air.” … “…. it’s just that the greed of oil squashed reality!”
    I think it’s not so much diminished High School science that got us where we are, although that is a contributing factor. I think it is mainly corruption of the political process. That corruption was caused by expansion of federal powers over states rights which then set us up for a key point failure in our system. That key point was the susceptibility of individuals in Congress and the Executive branch to be swayed by special interest money and the dream of being able to play with their ideologies in the real world.
    Also regarding the “greed of big oil”, I think that this description creates an emotional charge that takes away from being able to objectively understand the situation. My view is that oil companies, per se, are just acting in their self interest like most entities do. It is up to the Government to look out for the greater good (theoretically the Governments’ self interest) by considering local and National interests. In the case of energy (oil), the biggest National and Economic Security actions would have been tightening energy efficiency standards (considering technical limitations), allowing access to our domestic oil reserves (with optimal environmental regulations), developing clean coal, and funding basic research into alternate energy. The latter being with a long term focus, because out fossil fuel supplies are not going away tomorrow.

  30. Interesting that, yet again, the Hathaway prediction moves out compared to older predictions. I find it fascinating that scientists are among the worse to admit when they are wrong.
    An idea becomes “property” and it becomes a personal slight if anyone contradicts the orthodxy. We have, in the AGW group a mix of people that are all operting on the Groupthink Principle. Many are starting to think that there are reasons, other than CO2, why the world warmed in the 20th Century, but are afraid to say anything as they were sucked in by the rhetoric that convinced people that temperature was increasing faster than it really was.
    I remember, in the early70’s that the fear was a new Ice Age, a theory proposed by Professor Lamb of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), the forerunner of the Hadley Centre. At some point the AGW people took over and the rest is history, if you are not in the consenus group, you do not get funding. I think that Lamb was closer to th etruth, I also remember being confused when the CRU suddenly started warning on Global Warming, what that convinced me was that THEY DO NOT KNOW
    Good Science is NOT Consensus, if it was, we’d still think the Sun went round the Earth.
    Can anyone here give me information on where I can find Glacier data that is reasonably up to date? I would like to follow Galcier data over the next few years, as I believe we may see the reversal of the receding trend. My comments on glaciers are here
    http://thurgarton.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/2009-the-year-the-glaciers-started-growing/

  31. whoops, spelling
    n the AGW group a mix of people that are all operting on….
    should be
    n the AGW group a mix of people that are all operating on….

  32. Anthony,
    I think your second set of tables is mislabeled as cycle 24 prediction when you mean 23 (historical?), given that the second set of tables shows spot counts for years 2000 and 2001.
    REPLY: Those are from Mike Ronayne, I’ll check with him, since it is his content I don’t want to change it without asking. – Anthony

  33. Kudos to Pamela Gray — a very insightful comment. The same type of thinking results in the entirety of the “health food/health fad” industry as well – taking the secret magic elixir or avoiding the secret poison.
    My thought on the current ranting of AGW proponents is that they are being hit with a cognitive dissonance — the facts are beginning to seriously contradict their proclaimed “reality” — their found secret — and it has begun to drive them around the bend.

  34. Slightly OT but I notice a lot of comments about Computer Modelling. If you want a good read buy “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It explains why computer modelling doesn’t work.
    The turkey thinks you are its friend for the 1000 days that you feed it; doesn’t it get a BIG surprise on day 1001. Thats computer modelling for you basing future predictions on the past.

  35. Okay, this is just eyeball modeling, but it really does look like both the first and second derivative for the prediction curves are getting way large by historical standards. Is there any actual mechanism for this being proposed?

  36. RE: The Prince’s new statement of doom … 100 months to go
    Twenty years ago David Suzuki wrote, “we have a decade to turn things around.” Okay Dave … maybe call Chuck and tell him. ☺
    Twenty years ago (1989), Harrowsmith magazine in Canada (a liberal, back-to-the land periodical) featured a story about David Suzuki (who the Canadian readers at WUWT will be more than familiar). The article was written by David Lees. It was titled, “The man who cries wolf.” Remember the year—1989. Here is an excerpt. It is not clear what year this refers to, but I assume 1987 or 1988. No matter…about twenty years back.
    ___________________ Start quote from article _______________________
    In one of his last columns in the Globe, Suzuki quoted Ehrlich’s view of public apathy about the perils of economic growth … A few weeks later, when the Star began to publish the column, Ehrlich was featured in it regularly. “Ehrlich concludes that it would be a dangerous miscalculation to look to technology for the answer to [environmental problems]. Scientific analysis points toward the need for a quasi-religious transformation of contemporary culture.” …
    and three weeks after that [Suzuki wrote], “Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich reminds us that … we face a ‘billion environmental Pearl Harbors all at once.’ ” On December 2, Suzuki wrote, “We no longer have the luxury of time … when people like Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University … tell us we only have a decade to turn things around.” And in his Christmas column on December 13, Suzuki wrote, “As eminent ecologist Paul Ehrlich says, ‘the solution to ecocatastrophe is quasi-religious.’”
    ___________________ End quote from article _______________________
    Well twenty years ago they got the religious predictions correct … but little else. In 1989, the eco crowd was saying “we only have a decade to turn things around.” It looks like the end of the planet is being bumped ahead like NASA’s sunspot predictions.
    If anyone wants the article I can email a PDF copy.
    Clive
    From the frozen North where GW would be most welcome today! ☺

  37. Well, at least they are changing the predictions to fit the observed reality rather than trying to tell people they are crazy when they point out that the observations don’t match the prediction as is apparently done in a different area of science.
    It is a good thing Al Gore isn’t a close friend of Hathaway as he would be going on TV wondering why people are still questioning Hathaway’s science. I do have to give him credit for adjusting his predictions.

  38. L. Svalgaard:
    “It seems to be time to point out that the Hathaway/NASA/Dikpati predictions of a supercycle are not the only predictions that have been issued.”
    In fact, I do recall a press release on the subject from NASA stating that there were two different forecasts from two groups of researchers using different methods and that one was significantly lower than Hathaway’s forecast. Thanks for jogging my memory on the subject.

  39. The criticism of Hathaway’s moving goalposts is misplaced. The use of statistical models in empirical science is standard practice and for a good reason – it usually works.
    Where this practice has problems is when something new happens that isn’t factored into the equation or matrix. This where science gets more interesting though. Someone (or ones) get to factor in the new variable and get their name attached to the process.
    Its pretty clear to me that Hathaway is quite aware there is a problem and is likely looking for a solution. I am also pretty sure that others are also looking.
    In the meantime read the caveats of modelers, they tell all about limitations and should be regarded as a warning to not make big plans which are dependent on the model’s accuracy (Are you listening Pelosi?).

  40. NASA is requesting proposals to study the Solar Cycle.
    ROSES-09 Amendment 1: New proposal opportunity in Appendix B.9:
    Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23
    This amendment establishes a new program element in Appendix B.9
    entitled “Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle
    23.” This new program element solicits proposals to study the causes
    and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23. Proposals are
    encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of
    domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and
    planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High
    priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between
    various regimes.
    Notices of Intent to propose are due April 17, 2009, and proposals
    are due June 5, 2009.
    On or about March 6, 2009, this Amendment to the NASA Research
    Announcement “Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences
    (ROSES) 2009” (NNH09ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research
    opportunity homepage at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/ (select
    “Solicitations” then “Open Solicitations” then “NNH09ZDA001N”).
    Further information about the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum
    of Solar Cycle 23 program element is available from Dr. Mary Mellott,
    Heliophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA
    Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; Telephone: (202) 358-0893;
    E-mail: mary.m.mellott@nasa.gov.

  41. Several predictions based on the Sun’s polar field have consistently come out for a very weak cycle [“the smallest in a 100 years”
    …and it certainly seems at this point that Dr. Hathaway could do himself a favor by predicting closer to a solar max of 75 :-). I wasn’t paying attention to all this in 2004, but it seems likely that you probably took some flack for predicting such a low cycle when several others were predicting larger ones than SC 23. Do you still believe it will be 75, or have you revised that prediction since?

  42. The difference between in the transition between the active solar cycles we’ve seen in the past and this one — we know there’s an overlap between spot from the old and the new solar cycle. The overlap takes place over a period of time, and I’ve seen Dr. Svalgaard’s chart on how the shapes of the sunspot curve change based on the frequency of the sunspots on the cycle change, but…
    Is there a time period for this overlap that has differed on this go ’round? Is there a time after the change in solar cycles to where one knows with 99.999% certainty there will be NO more spots from the previous cycle?
    Has there been any discussion concerning the historical minimums about how there may have been spots come up and documented on different parts of the Sun inferring a different polarity, indicating a much longer (or shorter) overlap period of time for spots from the previous depressed cycles?
    In other words, does the overlap period differ when you might go from strong to strong, weak to weak, strong to weak, and weak to strong cycles?

  43. The Hathaway graph looked ridiculous to me a year ago. It still looks like a rocket trajectory. The mission just keeps getting scrubbed and the countdown reset. It’s like that election poster that never got taken down.
    Looks weatherbeaten.

  44. Leif Svalgaard (08:32:05) wrote :
    A sunspot is a sunspot that could be counted by Rudolf Wolf through THIS telescope on page 3 [or 11 on the web] of this paper http://www.leif.org/research/Friedli2005.pdf
    Wolf did not count the smallest spots [on purpose]. His successors did and do, so a fudge factor of about a half is introduced to reduce the modern counts to be compatible with Wolf’s.
    Thanks for that explanation and the link. Good stuff.
    I understand why folks in the past used a “fudge factor” (we call it a “kludge” in FEA and CFD) for the Wolf number, but WHY would we be doing that since at least 1988 when this AGW business started? You solar folks have been front-and-center since then whether you like it or not. Frankly, sorry. I didn’t do it, but y’all have got to live with it.
    For the purposes of reference to historical data, why not use a data set collected with the same instrument by a SEPARATE observer? Call it the Primary Wolf data set.
    For reasons that have become all too obvious, there are a lot of us who are suspicious of manipulated data sets.
    That is, why not clean-up the data? [that question seems pretty fundamental to this site, doesn’t it?]
    But back to the original question: would 1014 (or 1013) have been counted by Wolf hisownself? If NOT, when and where is the auditing that “adjusts by half” the current number?
    And a related note: shouldn’t there be overlapping curves of SC23 and SC24 spots, rather than ONE curve? If not, why not?
    If for example we are still seeing SC23 spots in another 6 months, will you still think that “SC24 has started”? Just curious about the rationale.
    It seems like this cycle is particularly odd for continuing to spit-out these SC23 spots more than TWO YEARS after SC24 was supposed to be up around 100, allowing me to reach Namiba or South Africa on the 20 meter band. heck I can’t get Newfoundland today.
    Ham radio operators say “the bands are dead”. Nice phrase, don’t you think?
    BTW FWIW the ARRL propagation reports are at http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/prop/
    We hams prefer to think we practice excellent amateur science and engineering, AND you don’t have to learn morse code any more to get licensed. Have a look around.

  45. To: George Gillan,
    Dr. Hathaway’s tables for Solar Cycle 24 contain both Solar Cycle 23 and 24 data. You can see the most current prediction table here with both sets of data:
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict.txt
    I have now archiving older versions of this table as I can no longer trust the Wayback Machine and Dr. Hathaway doesn’t archive his records publically. If anyone is interested I can make older predication tables available but I don’t have a complete set. If you look at the animation you can see the SC23 data change for March 2009.
    Mike

  46. MikeU (10:08:38) :
    Do you still believe it will be 75, or have you revised that prediction since?
    75 looks good. Formally, the prediction now stands at 71 [based on the last three years of polar field], but within the error bar there is no difference between 75 and 71.
    And yes, 75 was not met with much enthusiasm by NASA and HAO [where Dikpati works].
    deadwood (10:05:04) :
    The criticism of Hathaway’s moving goalposts is misplaced.
    I agree completely. Hathaway’s methods relies on using the size of the ‘geomagnetic recurrence peak’ that usually occurs just before minimum. He started out by using the peak in 2003. When minimum moved out, it became clear that 2003 was not the correct one to use, as there is a [smaller] peak in 2005-2006 that is closer to minimum. This is peak he now uses, leading to a smaller prediction as the peak is smaller. At some point David will see the light and use the tiny peak at the beginning of 2008, and his prediction will be right on. He is not moving the goalpost, just using the best data as it becomes available as any forecaster does [and must do].

  47. Regarding solar out put, I was wondering where the solar netrino flux figures in all of this? Do we have sufficient data to know if there is any trend, and if so, what is it?

  48. hareynolds (10:34:58) :
    WHY would we be doing that since at least 1988 when this AGW business started?
    We do it in order not to make a ‘break’ in the series. As long as you know what you are doing and why, this is the correct way.
    For the purposes of reference to historical data, why not use a data set collected with the same instrument by a SEPARATE observer? Call it the Primary Wolf data set.
    Friedli and his friend Keller [who used to work at the Zurich observatory] are in fact doing just that using the very same old telescope.
    For reasons that have become all too obvious, there are a lot of us who are suspicious of manipulated data sets.
    All data sets are ‘manipulated’. It is called calibration and is necessary. Like converting Fahrenheit to Centigrade.
    That is, why not clean-up the data? [that question seems pretty fundamental to this site, doesn’t it?]
    ‘clean-up’? isn’t that ‘manipulation’ 🙂
    Anyway, I’m working very hard to do just that http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
    It turns out that there is a lot of resistance against the clean-up. Mainly from the crowd that says ‘it’s the Sun, stupid’ because they need a less active Sun in the 18th-19th-and first half of 20th centuries to explain why it was colder back then. Showing that the Sun then was not any less active destroys that argument, hence the resistance.
    But back to the original question: would 1014 (or 1013) have been counted by Wolf hisownself? If NOT, when and where is the auditing that “adjusts by half” the current number?
    It would not, even if he could see it, because he deliberately did not count the smallest spots. That ‘auditing’ took place a century ago. In modern times I am the self-appointed auditor, but, as I said, any changes are being meet with, at times, fierce resistance.
    And a related note: shouldn’t there be overlapping curves of SC23 and SC24 spots, rather than ONE curve? If not, why not?
    There is: pages 4 and 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf
    If for example we are still seeing SC23 spots in another 6 months, will you still think that “SC24 has started”? Just curious about the rationale.
    yes, SC24 has started, and the two cycles simply run concurrently for a number of years. This is quite normal and has been known for centuries.
    It seems like this cycle is particularly odd for continuing to spit-out these SC23 spots more than TWO YEARS after SC24 was supposed to be up around 100, allowing me to reach Namiba or South Africa on the 20 meter band. heck I can’t get Newfoundland today.
    No, not ‘odd’ at all. Look at the transition between 21 and 22 on page 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf

  49. Clive (09:29:55) :
    “RE: The Prince’s new statement of doom … 100 months to go”
    Clive,
    Who in the world takes this Royal Nutcase serious?
    Last year he only gave us 18 months:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/1961719/Prince-Charles-Eighteen-months-to-stop-climate-change-disaster.html
    We should send all the AGW scare mongers a note stating that we hold them personally responsible for the BS (BAD SCIENCE).
    Same note to the UN, IPCC, our politicians and Prince Charles.
    We only need a lean and mean Legal Office with with a nice letter head.
    This is language they understand the best.

  50. It is becoming rather doubtful that Dr. Hathaway’s prediction for SC24 may become reality; it is questionable if his method could be relied on in the future.
    The other more realistic outcome may be method employing the strength of polar fields at preceding minimum.
    It was my sincere hope that this method may be more reliable, since I have developed formula that (with high correlation) tracks all known measurements of the strength of polar magnetic fields. Strong doubt in this method is raised by SC19 and SC20 incompatibility. Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Models suggest that strong polar fields should follow SC19, the strongest cycle recorded. This was indeed case, as shown by measurements from Crimea Observatory during whole of 1965 (minimum preceding SC20), and early measurements by the Mount Wilson Observatory. All of available results up to date are shown on chart:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields_Vf.gif
    Crimea measurements were made by A.B. Severnii; he produced a large report of some 86 pages.
    Quote from Severnii (page 36):
    Table 5 shows that most S-polarity fields were a t the N-pole (5,3 gs ) ; they are almost equalled (in terms of average weight) by the 4.8 gs N-polarity field at the.S-pole. The average net field at the N-pole was +0,6 gs (s-polarity); and at the S-pole, 0.8 gs (N-polarity); hence, the total average for 1965 is approximate.
    By reducing his averages by 1Gauss of noise and 0.8 Gauss of opposite polarity (4.8-1-0.8 = 3) gives value of 3Gauss, or 300microTesla ( 1 Gauss = 100micro Tesla) of North magnetic polarity at the Sun’s South pole, hence value of -300 on the above quoted chart. This is in line with early measurements obtained by the MWO some 12 months later (see the above quoted chart).
    Short extracts from Severnii report are available on:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SeverniiResults.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SeverniiTables.gif
    or his complete report (translated for NASA)
    MAGNETIC ASYMMETRY AND FLUCTUATIONS OF THE GENERAL MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE SUN
    BY. A. B, Severnyy. From: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Izvestiya Krymskoy Astrofiz. …
    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700074248_1970074248.pdf

  51. Would I right if I assumed that nobody takes any decisions based on the prediction of the next solar cycle? Or are there people whose lives or businesses are affected by the solar cycle to the extent that they will change their policies for the next few years depending on what Dr Hathaway says? I suspect not, but would be interested to know if I am wrong.
    Perhaps Dr Hathaway issues the predictions merely so that he can prove to the world that his theories about the sun are well founded.

  52. I agree with Leif. Being a school teacher, one of the stories we tell children when their experiment fails is that they are following in the footsteps of our greatest scientists. I have made them create a more complete poster, or paper, on the experiments that toppled than the ones that worked. They can plagiarize for the ones that worked. But they have to think for themselves to figure out why their’s failed.

  53. Sol becalmed, just marking time
    The viziers foreswear their prophesy past
    As the Jovian crew march past in line.
    Behold the goalposts moving fast!

  54. He started out by using the peak in 2003. When minimum moved out, it became clear that 2003 was not the correct one to use, as there is a [smaller] peak in 2005-2006 that is closer to minimum. This is peak he now uses, leading to a smaller prediction as the peak is smaller.
    But how does this lead to 5 or more different predictions, if he has used two different SC23 peaks? Are there other parameters that one can varying in the Hathaway model?

  55. Leif, your “defense” of the prediction may very well be correct, but still, considder this:
    After having seen so many changes of predictions, what value can we now put in the latest prediction? What is the odds that this time its correct?
    Would you understand if someone did not put too much faith in the latest prediction?
    K.R. Frank

  56. “Robert Bateman (10:28:23) :
    The Hathaway graph…It still looks like a rocket trajectory… It’s like that election poster that never got taken down.”
    I have the image of the NASA that put men on the moon, and also got Apollo 13 back to earth, in my mind. But with these failed predictions about SC23/24, and with the 20 year track record of failed predictions from another man at NASA (it’s surreal that he works at NASA), that image of awe of NASA is in it’s death throws.

  57. Leif Svalgaard (11:01:40): “He is not moving the goalpost, just using the best data as it becomes available as any forecaster does”. Finally a little on-topic “light”! Thank you.

  58. What really makes Hathaway’s graphs look bad is the tendency to ignore an aspect of nature: no natural randomness. It’s a look & feel sort of thing.
    It looks like a square peg in a round hole, and the splintery nature of it makes one cringe.
    It would look a whole lot better (if he is simply forecasting and not making solar weather predictions) if he took a random number generator and plotted in monthy sunpots numbers to run his smoothed line through. And label it as futuristic optimism.
    Where’s the chance of rain (chance of sunspot ramp) numbers?
    Does he mean 10%, 50%, 90%? What?
    Where’s the explanation that a meteorologist would give when a storm is delayed, weakend, stalled or just plain shoved elsewhere by a stubborn high?
    He could even show a progressive table that outlines his model as each month’s ramp delay changes the output.
    Now, that wouldn’t be so bad, would it?

  59. If such predictions/projections of solar cycle behavior are “if…then…”, then there is no problem with “moving the goalposts,” is there?
    When a scientist says, in effect, “if it works this way, then the next cycle will do this,” it provides a way of testing the accuracy of his “if.”
    If all Hathaway is doing is as described by Leif Svalgaard above @ 11:01:40, then I don’t see why it upsets anyone.

  60. vukcevic (11:31:09) :
    It is becoming rather doubtful that Dr. Hathaway’s prediction for SC24 may become reality; it is questionable if his method could be relied on in the future. The other more realistic outcome may be method employing the strength of polar fields at preceding minimum.
    […]
    This was indeed case, as shown by measurements from Crimea Observatory during whole of 1965 (minimum preceding SC20),
    This is an example of selective cherry picking without understanding the issue. The ‘polar fields’ as defined by me and reported at WSO is the average field strength in the three-arc minute aperture used at WSO. If you use a different aperture as MWO and Severny used you get values that are not comparable. In producing the MWO values, they are first averaged over the WSO aperture which makes them smaller, then multiplied by a scale factor that makes them smaller yet [but so that they become comparable with what WSO would have measured at the same time of observation – this is described in our prediction paper]. The field strength of the individual patches seen at MWO and at Crimea are several times [2 to 3 as stated by Severny] larger. Severny tries to compensate for this effect, and on the bottom of (his) page 36 states that the average net flux at the north pole was +0.6 gauss and at the south pole was -0.8 gauss for a difference of N-S= 1.4 gauss or 140 microtesla. I visited Severny in 1976 (after we had made our first polar field measurements) and he agreed with me that the ~1964-1965 data from Crimea indicated a weaker field than we observed at Stanford. His noise level was just too large to do this accurately. Be careful not to just pick what you like.

  61. Patrick Hadley (11:36:42) :
    Would I right if I assumed that nobody takes any decisions based on the prediction of the next solar cycle? Or are there people whose lives or businesses are affected by the solar cycle to the extent that they will change their policies for the next few years depending on what Dr Hathaway says? I suspect not, but would be interested to know if I am wrong.
    Yes there are such folks. People that build communication satellites and military spy satellites.
    Clark (11:47:07) :
    But how does this lead to 5 or more different predictions, if he has used two different SC23 peaks? Are there other parameters that one can varying in the Hathaway model?
    There are only really two radically different ones, the early high ones above 135 and the newer low ones below105. Some of the smaller differences come about by using different measures for geomagnetic activity. It is not clear a priori which is the best to use.
    Frank Lansner (11:51:38) :
    After having seen so many changes of predictions, what value can we now put in the latest prediction?
    The latest prediction is also wrong, but I just described how Hathaway got where he is. Use my prediction if you need one you can rely on.

  62. To make progress in science one has to at some point admit that you don’t know what the hell is going on and that the methods you are using don’t work…

  63. Ron said re Charles “Who in the world takes this Royal Nutcase serious?”
    I agree he is a wingnut BUT he could be king of England (UK) one day. Wingnut or not he will be another high-level eco weenie that will do more harm than good. I was born in England so feel I can say this and not make any Brits here too angry with me. The UK seems to have more than its share of eco radicals..Chuck being one of them.
    [(snip) contextually that joke made perfect sense, but no calls to violence, no matter how punny they are ~ charles the moderator]
    Clive

  64. Fascinating video footage from SOHO when the sun was more active. Not from now when it has a pimple that goes away in 24 hours. Don’t you wish your pimples when away that fast when you were a kid?

  65. Hi all,
    Just a quick update on the solar minimum as it continues to unfold…
    If we exclude the “Minima which Must Not be Named” as they were
    jokingly referred to a ways up, the average number of spotless days
    in cycles 8 through 24 was 543.88. This minimum has now reached
    566, so it is above average… yay! Before we cheer too much, though,
    the very large standard deviation attached is 252.25. That means we
    are not even 0.1 sigma above the mean. For now, this is still a yawn
    statistically. We’ll stay tuned just in case, however.
    Now, if we add in the D_____ minimum 🙂 the average increases to 691.13.
    Now, this minimum is still below average. The standard deviation increases to 472.47. This means nothing short of 1200 days can be counted as truly remarkable. The current situation is even more low-key if we introduce that other minimum.
    I’m looking forward to this just as much as many of you. It will be a great time to learn a lot.
    Talk to you all soon,
    Paul

  66. No! the sun has no effect on climate. The TSI is very stable whether there are sun spots or not. Even the venerable Dr. Svalgaard will attack any questioning of a sun-climate connection. The oceans just cycle through warm to cold to warm because that’s what they do best. Don’t look for any more reasons than that. We only discuss what is known here, and if you can’t prove it, then you will be diss’ed and swept under the carpet. No! the sun has no effect on climate.
    However, it has been known for some time that the complex plasma system which we call our sun is a chaotic system. There are times when it can be as regular as a clock, and then a little kick here or there can send parts of it into entirely new states. What I have seen from solar scientists is some understanding of the separate parts of the sun, but no one has yet put all the pieces in motion and looked at the sun as the non linear dynamic system that it is. That is why the predictions have been wrong. They are trying to find the state of the sun now, but not understanding the process of how it got to this state. God help them if the sun is still changing from state to state.
    A good introduction to how to think about these problems can be found in a 1973 book entitled “This Cybernetic World of men machines and earth systems” by V. L. Parsegian. Of course the author has died and the book is out of print, but I review my old copy regularly. Also, the science of Chaos theory has evolved since then so that understanding chaotic systems is a lot less chaotic than it used to be.
    Hint: Find the strange attractors for the different magnetic fluctuations of the sun.
    You may yet find the sun has some influence on climate change.

  67. Frank Lansner asks:

    After having seen so many changes of predictions, what value can we now put in the latest prediction? What is the odds that this time its correct?
    Would you understand if someone did not put too much faith in the latest prediction?

    Well, eventually he has to get it right, doesn’t he?
    However, it seems clear that the science is not settled, like another area.

  68. The Wallowa Mountain glaciers are growing as well. It should be interesting to see if the ice makes it down to the lake again, or to the other dry glacier lake bed moraine in the canyon next to it. All the development up into these canyons will be more than just a Swiss inspired hideaway. They could really be hideaways. Under the ice!

  69. Leif Svalgaard (12:25:43) :
    This is an example of selective cherry picking without understanding the issue.

    SC19 was by far strongest ever recorded. Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model says polar fields to follow should have been equally among strongest.
    Is Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model wrong?

  70. To: Deadwood,
    My criticism of Dr. Hathaway is not his theories, which based on their track record don’t inspire confidence, but his apparent unwillingness to document what his is doing and his failure to maintain records which are open to public review. If I had not gone dumpster-diving in the Internet cache the records of the goalpost moves would not now exist; nothing is ever completely deleted on the Internet, where are always ghosts in the machine.
    I believe the count of goalpost moves is now over ten for 2004 and later years but don’t take my word for it, count them for yourself in the animation. If you do count goalpost moves be sure to include per-2004 predictions which are in a different form factor and can be found here:
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SSN_Predict_NASA_Pre2004.gif
    So how may more times will Dr. Hathaway be wrong before he is right? If he is not making long term predictions, why is he showing data out to 2020? I am reminded of some of my acquaintances who play the numbers, believing that one of these days they will make the big score! I am very sure that one of these days Dr. Hathaway will also make his big score but he will not be practicing science.
    Mike

  71. vukcevic (13:16:40) :
    SC19 was by far strongest ever recorded. Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model says polar fields to follow should have been equally among strongest.
    Is Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model wrong?

    What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process. Only 1/1000 of the flux makes it to the poles, corresponding to the flux in about 5 active regions, and this flux reaches the poles in about 5 ‘surges’, not in 1000 little pieces. with so few surges, you could by chance have 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 making a factor of two in the flux.

  72. Pamela: I believe that during the Little Ice Age, more than just a few Swiss villages got plowed off the hill by advaning mountains of ice (glaciers).
    I wonder what archaeologists will think 100,000 yrs from now, after the next Ice Age has come & gone, of the terminal moraines containing pieces of paved road and car parts?

  73. Pamela Gray wrote:
    “The other thing about assumptions that have a ‘secret or tiny mechanism with a large effect’ is that it is very glamorous work. A treasure hunt if you will.”
    The odds of such a mechanism being in play were greatly boosted just before Hansen became entranced with CO2 by the discovery that Freon was responsible for the widening ozone holes at the poles. I remember following news reports about this hypothesis at the time. My recollection is that the subtlety and indirectness of the process, via various knock-on effects, was a mind-boggler and aroused skepticism at first. It took several years for opinion leaders to come around. I suspect Hansen feels the resistance he’s encountered is just a replay of the ozone-hole resistance.
    If anyone can correct me on the details, or flesh this history out, please do. I think there’s a paper waiting to be written (unless it already has been) on the unconscious precedent-template of the ozone-hole controversy on the mentality of CAGW-ers.
    (PS: I corrected “affect” to “effect” in the quote above.)

  74. How about dropping the prediction stuff down a few notches?
    Try predicting the next sunpot or even how many we will get for the rest of March 2009?
    When we get some sort of confidence in 1 month or 2 week forecasts, then we’ll move on to bigger & better things.

  75. So now I see commenters saying predictions don’t matter much. These same commenters better contact the President of the United States and ask him to call off his plans for cap-and-trade which is based on predictions. They also better get in contact the children who can’t sleep good, and see only a future of doom, because of the predictions they saw in Al Gore’s movie.
    You need to convince these children that predictions don’t matter so they can sleep good again.
    YouTube video that has a small segment where children are interviewed.

  76. @Leif: I’m following your updated solar data chart with great interest. Thanks for this!
    Could you say a couple words about the algorithm you’re using to fit the 10.7 cm flux data? It seems to do a remarkably good job.

  77. Leon Brozyna (06:00:43) :
    An exciting time, to be sure, for solar scientists. Even if they’re wrong in their predictions, this will provide for valuable insights into solar activity. The good thing is that we probably won’t be taxed to ‘fix’ an imaginary problem on the sun.

    Whoops – try this on.
    Politician: “Given the lack of output from the Sun and the recent catastrophic weather… it has been decided… in the interests of national security…. and for the welfare of this great nation…. and in the best interests of all members of this wonderful community… to introduce a temporary income tax surcharge… this temporary contribution to the national accounts will only be in place while the current emergency persists… etc, etc.

  78. hareynolds @07:55:49,
    You can say that about the rest, but you will get your nose punched if you said that about Queen Bess in a London pub.

  79. Robert Bateman (13:42:53) :
    How about dropping the prediction stuff down a few notches?
    Try predicting the next sunpot or even how many we will get for the rest of March 2009?

    The shorter predictions are the hardest. I can predict that a commute generally on a Sunday will be shorter than on a Friday, but not if that will be the case next Sunday, because there could be this unpredicted major 20-car pile up.

  80. Ron de Haan (11:27:28) :
    Clive (09:29:55) :
    “RE: The Prince’s new statement of doom … 100 months to go”
    Clive,
    Who in the world takes this Royal Nutcase serious?

    Prince Charles has long been an embarrassment to us baby boomers. I always used to wonder how we could be the same age, because I saw his mom get married on TV. I was 5, and it was actually her coronation.
    I think the waiting is getting to him.
    My own mom made it to 98, and I’m sure we all wish the same good luck to Chuck’s mom.

  81. It is obviously hard to predict something when it does not behave as predicted…

  82. Leif Svalgaard (13:28:06) :
    What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process. Only 1/1000 of the flux makes it to the poles, corresponding to the flux in about 5 active regions, and this flux reaches the poles in about 5 ’surges’, not in 1000 little pieces. with so few surges, you could by chance have 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 making a factor of two in the flux.

    Wouldn’t that, as a consequence, make the polar field prediction method very haphazard and unreliable (to my sincere disappointment!) ?

  83. Leif, you write “The latest prediction is also wrong, but I just described how Hathaway got where he is. Use my prediction if you need one you can rely on.”
    Yes I know your prediction, by far one of the most likely, it seems. I use it here and there.
    Do you agree with Jansen, that we appear to have a SC10-15 – like solar cycle 24 :
    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotlessevolution.png
    That graphis appears rather convincing, or?
    K.R. Frank

  84. Leif Svalgaard @ 08:24:25
    Sometimes, Leif can be frustrating when he puts a hole in an anti-AGW argument; but I am glad he posts here. As I am glad Anthony is pursuing his weather-station quality control project.
    Gather round folks; support these people with a PayPal click. With thousands visiting these sites, only a dollar per month each will help break the political control of science that has occured since WWII with government (therefore political) funding.

  85. thefordprefect (09:32:59) :
    Oh dear!
    It is JUST a prediction. You cannot chastise them for getiing it wrong!

    Just like Catastrophic Global Warming is just a prediction, eh, Ford???
    Ha!!

  86. It seems “hollywood science”, as astronomer Khabibulo Abdusamatov said when asked about Golbal Warming theories. I am sure the initial prediction was a conclusion of serious studies, but the insistence in changing forecast defies reason and seriousness.

  87. This website is a climate website. Prediction – as opposed to observation – of sunspots is a side show – an interesting and fascinating one, but a sideshow nevertheless. The main issue in my mind is the truth – or falsification – of the AGW main argument, namely that CO2 is the main climate driver. On a scientific basis, there are sufficient number of facts that the AGW argument could be considered falsified, the Vostock ice core results showing that temperature leads CO2 concentration by a non-trivial timelag being probably being the most important. However, this and another scientific facts are being drowned out by the huge propaganda machine of the AGW . Gore’s outright dishonest obfuscation of the CO2 time lag in his “Inconvenient Truth” is a good example of what people who rely on honest interpretation of the science are up against. The effect of sunspots on the climate are by no means proven scientifically- although Svensmark and Shaviv made a respectable and promising effort towards proving that Sun’s activity level, as indicated by Sun spots has a major effect on the climate through modulation of Cosmic Ray Flux. More importantly, we are going though a unique and exciting period, scientifically speaking. An era when CO2 concentration is increasing and Sun’s activity is decreasing. The climatic outcome – hopefully – will give a politically -as opposed to scientifically – clear answer to the question: is the Sun, or or CO2 is the main driver of the climate.

  88. Mr. Bateman, if I am reading the topography correctly, along with the boulder scatter pattern, when the next Little Ice Age comes and then goes, those Swiss homes and concrete road beds will not be in the moraine areas anymore. They will be scattered throughout both little flat basins that got scoured out by the last water surge, much like the black speckled white granite boulders are throughout the two valleys. Needless to say, my little group of buildings by the base of Lostine Cemetery hill will be swept down the narrow valley that resulted from river bed meandering. What might happen 100,000 years from now is a misinterpretation of where people lived.

  89. EricH,
    Another good book by the same author is “Fooled by Randomness.” In it, he mentions the same problem Pamela Gray points to, that is our tendency to hold fast to our theories because they are “ours.” The most important idea I got from the book was a reminder of our need for humility. We must always be willing to question our results and be aware of the way we let emotion govern reason (even when we think we’re being scientific!).

  90. Leif Svalgaard @ 12:25:43
    Severny tries to compensate for this effect, and on the bottom of (his) page 36 states that the average net flux at the north pole was +0.6 gauss and at the south pole was -0.8 gauss for a difference of N-S= 1.4 gauss or 140 microtesla.
    To try to put this into perspective for non-tecky types:
    The average magnet you will meet in daily life will be between 0.1 and 1 Tesla, or 1,000 to 10,000 Gauss. These are measures of magnetic flux per metre squared.
    Obviously, though extremely small, given the size of the Sun, these numbers represent enormous magnetic fields.

  91. Leon Brozyna (06:00:43) : says:
    ‘The good thing is that we probably won’t be taxed to ‘fix’ an imaginary problem on the sun.’
    Leon does not nderstand the nature of government.

  92. Patrick Hadley (11:36:42) :
    Would I right if I assumed that nobody takes any decisions based on the prediction of the next solar cycle? Or are there people whose lives or businesses are affected by the solar cycle to the extent that they will change their policies for the next few years depending on what Dr Hathaway says? I suspect not, but would be interested to know if I am wrong.
    Rodger et al 2008
    The atmospheric impact of the Carrington event solar protons
    extract…
    “Recently, much attention has focused upon increasing our understanding of the Carrington event, in order to better quantify what extreme space weather events could do to our current technological society. For example, estimates suggest a potential economic loss of <US$70 billion due to lost revenue (~US$44 billion) and the cost of replacement of GEO satellites (~US$24 billion) caused by a “once a century” single storm similar to the Carrington event [Odenwald et al., 2006]. These authors estimate that 47 80 satellites in low-, medium, and geostationary- Earth orbits might be disabled as a consequence of a superstorm event with additional disruptions caused by the failure of many of the satellite navigation systems (e.g., GPS). Ionising radiation doses from the SPE have been estimated to be as high as 54 krad (Si) [Townsend et al., 2003], levels which are not only highly life-threatening for crews of manned missions, but present a significant hazard to onboard electronics.”
    Whilst rare events be under no illusion that in the technological age that it will be business as usual.
    ”Systems in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are at increased risk because Auroral activity and its effects center on the magnetic poles. North America is particularly exposed to these storm events because the Earth’s magnetic north pole tilts toward this region and therefore brings it closer to the dense critical power grid infrastructure across the continent.’
    eg http://www.metatechcorp.com/aps/AAAS_Press_Brief.htm
    and here
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/

  93. Mike McMillan @ 13:57:23
    Although not a monachist, rather a Republican, I truly sing the national anthem when it comes to the bit: “long may she reign”. May she outlive her idiot son.

  94. Pamela,
    Among other things, I research health care outcomes. Your “essay” is as true in my career as it is here. Without your objection, I intend to share your passage as a way of illustrating the sometimes folly of my fellows.
    Jeff Lewis

  95. Folks, we are witnessing a very interesting, and real, debate between Svalgaard and Vukcevic. This is the way science should be. Just take a minute to donate to them via PayPal. It liberates science from political control.

  96. Leif said.
    Wolf did not count the smallest spots [on purpose]. His successors did and do, so a fudge factor of about a half is introduced to reduce the modern counts to be compatible with Wolf’s.
    Rudolf Wolf 1816 – 1893 probably did not count the smallest spots because his predecessors didn`t count them probably because they could not see them with the equipment they had at the time. Galileo 1564-1642 was counting spots not specks, and the Maunda/Dalton minimums had a minimum of spots not specks.
    It seems to me that to study apples with apples NO specks should be counted. They were NOT counted in the Maunda or the Dalton minimums therefore there is no reason to count them today. To keep continuity with historical data the same equipment should be used. I believe Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC made that same point. There is no need to fudge anything, I believe all the drawings and sunspot counts are available from Wolf onwards.

  97. You can put a hole in any argument, lawyers do it every day. It does not mean that the right conclusion is drawn.
    Predictions are a lot easier.
    As time goes on, one that is a big whiff at the plate becomes obvious.
    Most solar cycle predictions whiffed, save only a few.
    AGW record warming is whiffing, and so is the sea-level rise. The ice caps have turned the corner and are several years into reforming.
    The IAG (Ice Age Coming) predictions also whiffed, and they found themselves taken out with the trash.

  98. To: Doug,
    This is the scientific story of the year!
    I had difficulty locating the NASA document for which you provided navigation links but finally found Appendix B.9 which was not in the main PDF. Based on the red highlight, it looks like this was a recent addition. Here are the direct links:
    TABLE 2: Solicited Research Programs (in order of proposal due dates)
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=177034/Table%202%20Amend1.html
    Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId=%7b542CE21B-E45F-CF2E-67A7-2372232C5045%7d&path=open
    This PDF should be Page One in the New York Times!
    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf
    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
    1. Scope of Program
    In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:
    Causes – Solar output
    * Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
    * Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
    * Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
    * Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22;
    * Effectively no sunspots;
    * The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
    * Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.
    Consequences
    * With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
    * Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
    * Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.
    Thus, we have an unprecedented opportunity to characterize the quiet/background state of the heliosphere when the solar source function is as close to the ground state as it has been in the modern era.
    NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period. This ROSES element thus solicits proposals to study the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (CCMSC). Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between various regimes.
    Taking maximum advantage of this opportunity will require interaction between specialists in different regimes. Selected Principal Investigators will have responsibilities for both their own specific research and for participation in a yearly workshop where all the CCMSC investigators will be brought together to explore the implications of their own work for other regions. Proposals should address both of these responsibilities.
    Read the full PDF. This is very BIG!
    Mike

  99. It would NOT surprise me to see the AGW hysteria dumped for an equally hysterical resurrecton of IAC. The pendulum, having once been swung, is hypnotic.

  100. If there is a ‘fudge factor’ to adjust today’s readings to what was way back then, how many spotless months have we really had? Omitting Tiny Tims and such. How long have we gone without a ‘real’ sunspot?
    Totally OT:
    “Dave L (08:22:05) :
    Sadly modern day society seems to believe that only computers can think. ”
    Given recent actions by government, this seems quite true.
    I gave up thinking a long time ago. Easier to deal with management.

  101. Almost all programs in Discovery channel and History channel are about “global warming”, “End of the world”, “Clean energies”, etc. It seems there is a strongly promoted and defended political agenda in the background. Their insistence tell us that “they” (whomsoever they are) are absolutely decided to impose this agenda on every human being on earth. It is really scaring. What will be the next step?. We must take it seriously, if they has already began speaking about “death trains” and “death camps”, we´ll surely witness some of these in the near future.
    Last news from History Channel: “Merlin predicted GW!!!!”
    May our Lord protect us from that bunch of madmen!

  102. vukcevic (14:02:27) :
    <i”What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process.”
    Wouldn’t that, as a consequence, make the polar field prediction method very haphazard and unreliable (to my sincere disappointment!) ?
    no, the surges stop well before minimum and the polar fields become stable, so make prediction of the very next minimum eminently possible. Because a large cycle has more flux to work with than a small cycle, large cycles will often be followed by other large cycles and small cycles by other small cycles [as is observed], but, and this is the crucial point: not necessarily. Basically, firm prediction more than one cycle ahead is impossible.
    Frank Lansner (14:03:33) :
    Do you agree with Jansen, that we appear to have a SC10-15 – like solar cycle 24 : That graphis appears rather convincing, or?
    I agree, but not because of his graph which is not correctly done, as the scatter is too large. If you plot every cycle and not just the average of both groups you get the bottom graph on page 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf The green curve has red and blue curves on either side and there is nothing convincing about it. This is partly because on should not use the first spotless day, but something like the 5th, or 10th. If you use the 10th, the spread is a lot less [top graph], although the blue and red curves are still pretty mixed the first 40 months.
    Robert Wood (14:08:19) :
    break the political control of science that has occured since WWII with government (therefore political) funding.
    I am beholden to no-one.

  103. vukcevic (14:02:27) :
    “What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process.”
    Wouldn’t that, as a consequence, make the polar field prediction method very haphazard and unreliable (to my sincere disappointment!) ?

    no, the surges stop well before minimum and the polar fields become stable, so make prediction of the very next minimum eminently possible.

  104. The snow reports are more up to date regarding glacier changes. They also can be used to make a reasoned guess about glaciers that are not on anybody’s radar. This data is a good measure of glacier build-up if you follow them through the summer.

  105. This is O/T; but, may be of interest.
    …-
    “Chances of climate change accord ‘are sinking’
    Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
    Two leading climate scientists have broken ranks with their peers to declare that hopes of getting a meaningful deal on halting global warming this year are already lost.
    Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and Professor Trevor Davies, one of the centre’s founders, told The Times that it was time to start looking for alternatives to an international deal.”
    […]
    “Professor Anderson believes that the severity of the likely impacts of climate change has been underplayed, and that to doubt that temperature rises could be limited to 2C is a political heresy.
    He said that scientists had been held back from voicing their doubts. “The consequences of the numbers we come up with are politically unacceptable. It’s difficult for people to stand up. To rock the boat significantly is difficult for them.” ”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5870729.ece

  106. Robert Wood (14:11:56) :
    Just like Catastrophic Global Warming is just a prediction, eh, Ford???
    Ha!!

    GW has many indicators – glaciers – temperature records – ice on/ice/off – phenological studies these can be checked and proven the sun is less accessible and therefore predictions are less accurate.
    Can you point out research that shows GW is false (not papers showing GW theroies to be invalid)

  107. Rob (15:41:56) :
    Rudolf Wolf 1816 – 1893 probably did not count the smallest spots because his predecessors didn`t count them
    There is some truth to that, although a more important reason for Wolf was that seeing the specks depends too much on the ‘seeing’, i.e. on the weather and such a dependence might introduce a false relationship between solar activity and weather/climate.
    In compiling his famous sunspot series Wolf had the problem of calibrating one [long dead] observer’s count to another observer’s count [e.g. his own]. His elegant solution was to use a physical phenomenon that depends on the true count, namely the diurnal variation of the magnetic needle. With this ‘absolute’ reference it didn’t [still doesn’t] matter what size telescope is used, or how/if groups, spot, and specks are counted.
    In this way, we can get apples with apples.
    There is no need to fudge anything, I believe all the drawings and sunspot counts are available from Wolf onwards.
    ‘fudge’ was perhaps too strong a word. ‘Intercalibrate’ might be better. And it has been possible to recover a homogeneous series that is apples all the way. That is not the problem. The problem is to get people to use the new series if the old series matched [wrongly] their pet theories better.
    Michael Ronayne (15:52:02) :
    This is the scientific story of the year!
    NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period.

    This is big, although also overhyped. The minimum is not ‘that’ unusual.
    Retired Engineer (15:58:26) :
    If there is a ‘fudge factor’ to adjust today’s readings to what was way back then, how many spotless months have we really had? Omitting Tiny Tims and such. How long have we gone without a ‘real’ sunspot?
    A factor does not nicely capture the case of ZERO spots, because no factor can make that number any bigger. But when you make a yearly average then the values begin to make sense, e.g 0.1 spots is reasonable.

  108. thefordprefect:

    Can you point out research that shows GW is false…

    One more time: the burden is not on skeptics/climate realists to prove anything. The climate is acting as it always has, and it is cycling well within its normal and natural parameters.
    Rather, the burden is on those putting forth the new hypothesis of AGW/CO2, which claims that runaway global warming will take off as soon as a vague and mysterious “tipping point” is reached.
    None of the ‘indicators’ cited are unusual, unnatural, or new phenomena. They are ordinary climate fluctuations.
    This is not to say the globe is not warming; it is, and it has been since the glaciers began to recede at the end of the last Ice Age. If the planet were not warming, Chicago would still be buried under a mile of ice.
    But to demand that the theory of natural climate variation must be shown to be valid again and again puts the cart before the horse. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that has been shown to be false.
    So now we’re back to natural climate variation. If human activity has a detectable influence on the climate, please quantify it, show where and how it occurs, and verifiably demonstrate what part is natural, and what part is man made.
    The burden is on AGWers — not the other way around.

  109. My recollection of previous cycles seems to tell me that they are still over-estimating the magnitude of the cycle 24 peak.
    Bottomline: plenty more revisions to come

  110. Neo (17:04:16) :
    My recollection of previous cycles seems to tell me that they are still over-estimating the magnitude of the cycle 24 peak.
    We are talking about calibrating actual measurements, not predictions.

  111. Leif Svalgaard (08:24:25) :
    The polar field based prediction have been largely correct since we first used the method [back in 1978] and are based on solid physics, so we are not totally in the dark.
    Although if SC24 goes below 50 SSN we can assume the light bulb is blown?
    Leif Svalgaard (13:28:06) :
    vukcevic (13:16:40) :
    SC19 was by far strongest ever recorded. Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model says polar fields to follow should have been equally among strongest.
    Is Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Model wrong?
    What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process. Only 1/1000 of the flux makes it to the poles, corresponding to the flux in about 5 active regions, and this flux reaches the poles in about 5 ’surges’, not in 1000 little pieces. with so few surges, you could by chance have 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 making a factor of two in the flux.

    I am not sold on this….its more like a leg out for a major hole in the theory. The pole strength has been a mirror of the angular momentum strength as can been seen below. Either the SC19 pole strength proxies are inaccurate or something at a very late stage reduced the pole strength. The meridional flow theory is just that and it is all not known, its too slow to measure by Doppler images and could easily be a product of differential rotation, changing as the speed of the Sun changes, just as we have seen the pole strength of SC23 dive to a very low level coming off a reasonable base. Currently at the equator there is a speed change, is there any theories that explain this phenomena?
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/ssnprediction.jpg

  112. Haha TOUCHE Smokey!
    Way to get the ball back in the other court where it absolutely belongs.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  113. Dr. Svalgaard,
    I agree, we are not yet outside the nominal parameters for a solar cycle but we are outside the conditions established by NASA and the SPWC high prediction faction for Solar Cycle 24. Your predictions are still quite solid as I stated in my original post above.
    I for one am very happy that NASA is starting to think outside the box. It is my sincere hope that Drs. Livingston & Penn and you take advantaged of this opportunity to advance your respective research which has been consistent with what we are now seeing. If Solar Cycle 24 jumpstarts all well and good, if it doesn’t I would like to know that the best minds are working on the problem. As you observed last year “we will know a lot more about the sun in ten years”. It gives me something to look forward to.
    Mike

  114. This minimum dragging on is big news as it is being swept under the rug.
    The lid is either going to come off gracefully, or with a huge bang.
    Take your pick.
    We live in an age of Science being front page news.
    When indicators get pegged either high or low, and it’s kept quiet, the consequences for that silence are highly volatile.
    So, you have to choose whether to keep the pegged indicators hush-hush,
    or tell the world all about it.
    Which way do you want this to hit the front page:
    Science news or Mud?

  115. Robert Wood (14:08:19) :
    Sometimes, Leif can be frustrating when he puts a hole in an anti-AGW argument; but I am glad he posts here.

    I’d rather see 1,000 anti-AGW theories shot down here than an imperfect theory put forward and then shot down publicly by the AGW crowd. There’s some pretty smart people on the other side, and they have the advantage of a swooning media.

  116. You know, its been two years now since we starting thinking the minimum was right around the corner. It has been more than two years since the first geniune cycle 24 sunspot arrived.
    There really hasn’t been a ramp-up of cycle 24 sunspots.
    One has to start thinking we are entering one of those rare deep solar minimum periods – like the early 1900s, the Dalton minimum of the early 1800s, the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 or the Sporer Minimum or the Wolf Minimum.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
    Although Leif won’t like it, I am proposing we start calling the new minimum, “The Svalgaard Minimum”

  117. I think NASA may also be thinking along the lines of being able to prob the Sun’s heliosphere and some of our own ionosphere without getting zapped by the Sun. Is it possible that some of the instrumentation needed to gather data would be rather sensitive to blasts from exploding sunspots? I wish it were me getting sent up there to study the Sun. I could finally get my own video tape of the boiling fireball images I love so much.

  118. Agreed Robert.
    Either those that sweep it under the rug are up to something…
    OR (most likely) they are just reacting as they go along…and they lack the REAL acumen to figure out what is going on.
    Kudos for all of the scientists out there Svalgaard, Sharp, Vukovic, even Hathaway…..who are at least trying.
    Now the rest of us…need to wrest the current long-entrenched bureaucrats out of power and get people in there who understand the times and who know what to do!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  119. Leif Svalgaard (13:22:56)
    Re: the solar cycle as a chaotic process. There is a forecasting technique in nonlinear dynamics first proposed by Lorenz and known as the method of analogs. It’s simple and works just the way it sounds. The is no need to understand the underlying dynamics, but it does assume that all the dynamics are “visible” in the time series. Applying it to the sunspot time series, cycles 22 and 23 when slid along the entire time series best match cycles 3 and 4. This method would then predict that cycle 24 will be approximately like cycle 5, a very weak cycle. The second best match is 8 and 9 with the prediction of a cycle like 10. The average of cycles 5 and 10 would give a peak count of about 80. (These are eyeball numbers off Figure 2 of the paper you reference by Kitiashvili & Kosovichev)
    The difficulty of course, is that there is very little data here, only 24 cycles. If we try to improve the forecast by taking 21, 22, and 23 as the template there is no good match with past history.
    It’s a very simple method, it only took me two minutes to make the forecast, but very powerful for chaotic time series if there is enough data.

  120. Paul Linsay (18:31:29) :
    Applying it to the sunspot time series, cycles 22 and 23 when slid along the entire time series best match cycles 3 and 4.
    It does assume that the sunspot numbers for cycles 3 and 4 are correct. What would happen if the real numbers for those were 30% higher?
    The shape of cycle 4 does not match that of cycle 23, which is much more like cycle 13. Here are the cycle shapes compared:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%20Data%201775-1802.png

  121. Anthony:
    These sunspot postings are getting entirely too long. See what happens when you get recognized?
    hareynolds at (07:41:00) sez:
    Right now I have to send a Note Of Disabuse to Tad Cook, who does the American Radio Relay League (ARRL; ham radio) “propagation newsletter” form(sic) Seattle. As y’all may be aware, higher frequency (shorter than about 80 meters wavelength) radio propagation gets much better with an ionized troposphere (sic), which requires SUNSPOTS. No sunspots, very disappointed Hams (I haven’t been on the radio in two years).
    Tad from Seattle is a bit of an AGWer, so he is SHOCKED SHOCKED that radio propagation has sucked for so long, and there appears to be a bit of an “unscheduled solar event” happening. You nght (sic) even say that he’s a bit of a DENIER. Ha!
    I figure it’s our job to get to them one at a time, starting with the smart ones.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Hareynolds:
    I have also been on Tad’s case for some time, mentioning various minimums whenever we have a spotless week, as I know it gets to him. I made the mistake of also challenging his substitute one week, Carl Luetzelschwab, and he almost blew a gasket when I mentioned Maunder Minimum. Anyway, so far, only Leif has remained on target. But challenging authority has kept me in trouble for over 50 years, and I’m not going to stop now.

  122. A theoretical question for Dr. Svalgaard. A bit outside the box, but hopefully not insane. We know that sunspots (and sunspot numbers) don’t really cause anything per se. They are, at best, considered as co-dependant variables with TSI and global temperatures, and a lot of people disagree even with that. Assuming that Livingston and Penn are correct and sunspots aren’t seen for the next 20 or 30 years, could we still track Solar Cycle 24 (and 25 and 26) via the 10.7 cm flux, or some other metric?

  123. Bill Illis (17:39:37) :
    Although Leif won’t like it, I am proposing we start calling the new minimum, “The Svalgaard Minimum”
    A little off the mark Bill, Svalgaard is not predicting a grand minimum, he says more like SC14. If SC24 does herald a new grand minimum, Jose is the man, he was the one who first saw the 178 yr pattern created by angular momentum.

  124. Walter Dnes (19:09:03) :
    Assuming that Livingston and Penn are correct and sunspots aren’t seen for the next 20 or 30 years, could we still track Solar Cycle 24 (and 25 and 26) via the 10.7 cm flux, or some other metric?
    What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible]. The magnetic fields will still be there, TSI, F10.7, and cosmic rays will still vary with a cycle [we know the latter because 14C and 10Be from the time of the Maunder Minimum do show the cycle clearly].

  125. Geoff Sharp (19:25:28) :
    “Although Leif won’t like it, I am proposing we start calling the new minimum, “The Svalgaard Minimum” “
    The Eddy Minimum
    If SC24 does herald a new grand minimum, Jose is the man, he was the one who first saw the 178 yr pattern created by angular momentum.
    The physics is all wrong [there is no couple between solar rotational and orbital angular momentum] and Grand Minima do not occur with any period [Usokin et al.].

  126. Leif said (regarding Janssens’ SC evolution plots): “…This is partly because one should not use the first spotless day, but something like the 5th, or 10th. If you use the 10th, the scatter is a lot less [top graph], although the blue and red curves are still pretty mixed the first 40 months.”
    I see what you mean. Taking the 10th spotless day as the origin compresses the plots and makes them look orderly. They might look even more orderly if, instead of taking the nth spotless day, we took the point at which the main slope reaches, say, 2:1 (dy/dx, spotless days:calendar days).
    But isn’t either of these alternate approaches arbitrary? Does the reduced scatter come at the cost of some lost information? And how important is simplifying the plot in the x-direction compared to the fact that the SC24 green line is apparently leaving the region of Population A (SC16–23) and moving into Population B (SC9–15) territory? All the action seems to be in the y-direction.

  127. As one of the few left standing, Leif, your name & face are going to be well known. I’m sure they are going to love you.
    They surely won’t know us devil’s advocates, of which I am a habitual offender.

  128. Leif Svalgaard (19:46:56) :
    The physics is all wrong [there is no couple between solar rotational and orbital angular momentum] and Grand Minima do not occur with any period [Usokin et al.].
    The physics is plainly not wrong, just not fitting in with your theories. The current Doppler images as shown by Dr Howe clearly shows the equatorial rotation rate of the sun is increasing. We are also now experiencing a major disturbance in angular momentum, that centres itself every 172 years (Jose not quite right).
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/doppler.jpg
    Usoskin et al has it wrong by leaving out grand minima like the Dalton. Sharp et al have revised Usoskin’s graph which now clearly shows a 172 yr recurring pattern.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp.jpg
    Here is my Usokin/Solanki/Sharp spreadsheet with all the data for those who wish to check the detail.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp.xls

  129. Again the Achilles Heel here of absolutes and assumptions.
    In this day and age, NEITHER hold that much weight.

  130. “What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible].”
    Sorry Leif, no one understands the sun less than I do, but I find it a little humorous that someone is saying that there really ARE sunspots… you just can’t see them because they are invisible… trust us… Look! there’s one now… oops too bad you didn’t look quick enough…
    (just a silly joke, don’t jump on me too hard)

  131. Time to buy another copy of David Bowie’s “The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars”. Opening song: “Five Years”:
    “…Pushing through the market square
    so many mothers sighing
    News had just come over
    we had five years left to cry in
    News guy wept and told us
    earth was really dying
    Cried so much his face was wet
    then I knew he was not lying…”
    http://lyricwiki.org/David_Bowie:Five_Years
    Should be the theme song for this AGW passion play.

  132. I think Global Warming/Climate Change is a government sponsored “red herring proxy” for talking about and dealing with the evolving exigencies resulting from the world peak of oil production in 2004. The production plateau we have be operating on since that time is (or has) broken down into a permanent decline in world oil production. You will find no discussion of this operational or economic reality in the public media. You will find plenty of hype concerning “Global Warming/Climate Change” though. Alice in Wonderland would find this environment quite familar and confortable.

  133. Ok, Eddy Minimum is fine by me. He set out to prove Maunder & Sporer wrong, and totally validated both of them.

    ‘The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt.’
    Can you explain this one? I am thinking it refers to what the corona would look like during a deep minimum. Digging around on the net didn’t get me too far on it.

  134. Michael Ronayne (15:52:02) :
    This PDF should be Page One in the New York Times!
    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

    So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
    Geoff Sharp, get an application in!
    The british Science Research Council withdrew funding from solar research two years ago.
    The irony!
    Worth a separate post surely Anthony.

  135. tallbloke (23:27:19) :
    So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
    Geoff Sharp, get an application in!

    Might be a tall order in the current climate, but will be submitting tomorrow.
    thanks.

  136. Leif Svalgaard (16:05:36) :
    vukcevic (14:02:27) :
    Because a large cycle has more flux to work with than a small cycle, large cycles will often be followed by other large cycles and small cycles by other small cycles [as is observed], but, and this is the crucial point: not necessarily. Basically, firm prediction more than one cycle ahead is impossible.

    ‘not necessarily’ very convenient. A theory provides for all exceptions, Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Modelthis could be only a hypothesis.
    It may explain the polar fields – cycle intensity correlation for short periods of up- or down-trends (eg. SC 14-19) but fails at sudden reversals (eg. SC19-20, SC4-5 i.e. Dalton minimum). Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
    Planetary effects, be it magnetic or gravitational, have a good correlation to be considered as the possible alternative. The fact that current science is not able or willing to provide acceptable explanations does not diminish their significance.

  137. Vinny (07:58:37) : I doubt in the past they could have seen 1014 as a spot. It’s becoming a joke.
    “Becoming”? I think it’s “been for a while” now…

  138. there have been reports that in times of strong solar winds the earths rotation speed slows down and in times of minimum it speeds up by a few milliseconds per day , I’m not aware of any recent reports on this.

  139. Geoff Sharp (00:44:00) :
    “tallbloke (23:27:19) : So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
    Geoff Sharp, get an application in!”
    Might be a tall order in the current climate, but will be submitting tomorrow.

    Don’t forget to include the angular momentum impact on earthquakes and volcanos. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/

  140. voodoo (15:05:42) :
    Leon Brozyna (06:00:43) : says: ‘The good thing is that we probably won’t be taxed to ‘fix’ an imaginary problem on the sun.’
    Leon does not nderstand the nature of government.

    I once got a tax bill for dead people…
    On my property tax bill was a surcharge for cemetery maintenance of some sort somewhere for someone or other who was dead.
    There is no limit on what can be taxed. If you can name it, describe it, or imply it in something else, you can tax it.

  141. vukcevic (02:00:00) :
    Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
    Agree Vuk.
    And the way the Babcock-Leighton gets us into grand minima via the roll of the dice is also suspect, especially as that roll ALWAYS coincides with a particular planetary alignment. History shows we always have a high cycle before grand minimum or attempted grand minima as in SC4,19 & 23 (SC23 on the decline but still high compared with early 1900’s etc). The 11000 yr solar proxy shows the same. Lots of dice rolls going off at the right time is extremely unlikely. And as you say the theory makes it hard to come out of grand minima….might need to throw a 12.

  142. When I had difficulty finding the NASA project “Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23” based on Doug’s post I conducted a Google search and found that the only reference to the project was Doug’s post at WUWT. MS Live had absolutely nothing about the project and still doesn’t as of my post. This was a very good indication that the project was new and had only been indexed on Anthony’s high profile website.
    I just check the creation data on the PDF document at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf and found that it was created on Thursday 3/5/2009 11:37:54AM and last modified on Thursday 3/5/2009 11:38:49AM. This is a new project created late last week and Doug must have received the announcement via Email. I wanted to set the time frame so that we have a clear understanding of just how recent this NASA initiative is.
    This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!
    Given the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars which Washington is about to steal/waste solving problems which don’t exist, this is petty cash but at least there is a project in place to investigate unusual conditions on the Sun. I will be interesting to see who is awarded the research grants. If I were NASA, I would be very carful to include scientists whose research predicted low solar activity.
    Mike

  143. E.M.Smith (02:13:19) :
    Don’t forget to include the angular momentum impact on earthquakes and volcanos. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
    Very interesting area of future research for me…incidentally we experienced a quake of 4.6 magnitude in Melbourne a few days ago, not all that common an event this far away from a fault line. First thing I thought of as I watched the walls shake, was Neptune and Uranus are at it again.
    The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….feel free.

  144. Hi Geoff
    Babcock-Leighton pair, with their dice throwing luck, would have busted Monte Carlo casino.
    The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….
    As you may have noticed, in all my equations (and I have a few), one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).
    In respect of your graphic, which starts 1985,
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg
    I would be interested to know is there anything particular about the 1941. I can find an equivalent that works for an individual formula, but not for all, as this one does.

  145. jorgekafkazar (19:54:26) :
    But isn’t either of these alternate approaches arbitrary? Does the reduced scatter come at the cost of some lost information?
    Yes, but not very much. We are now at ~500 spotless days, so losing the first 9 is not a great loss if it reduces the spread significantly.
    Geoff Sharp (20:11:34) :
    “The physics is all wrong [there is no couple between solar rotational and orbital angular momentum] and Grand Minima do not occur with any period [Usokin et al.].”
    The physics is plainly not wrong, just not fitting in with your theories.

    “where’s the beef?” where is the couple?
    The current Doppler images as shown by Dr Howe clearly shows the equatorial rotation rate of the sun is increasing.
    These show winds in the solar atmosphere, not rotation. The winds are caused by solar activity, not the cause of activity.
    We are also now experiencing a major disturbance in angular momentum
    Explain what a ‘disturbance’ is. Not what its ‘effect’ is, but what the disturbance itself is. The AM going away?, becoming negative? put a number to it. This number means disturbance, that number means normal, etc.
    savethesharks (20:19:50) :
    Again the Achilles Heel here of absolutes and assumptions.
    The absolutes of planetary influences should be enough to make Achilles crumble.
    Mike Bryant (20:21:11) :
    “What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible].”
    Sorry Leif, no one understands the sun less than I do, but I find it a little humorous that someone is saying that there really ARE sunspots… you just can’t see them because they are invisible…

    It works like this: Observations show that when a parcel of solar plasma is threaded by a strong magnetic field it appears dark, by a weak magnetic field the parcel appears bright. It then follows that there must be a magnetic field between the strong and the weak where the parcel is neither dark nor bright, hence cannot be seen. That magnetic field strength is 1500 Gauss which is where L&P’s data show that the spots are headed.
    Robert Bateman (22:27:03) :
    ‘The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt.’
    Strong polar fields bend the magnetic fields in the corona [which shape the streamers] towards the equator, confining the streamers to a narrow belt along the equator. The most extreme case of that was in 1954 when we had the strong polar fields that gave rise to the strongest cycle of all [#19]. This is explained in detail in http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf see Figure 2.
    The very weak polar fields right now does not compress the coronal field that much and so we don’t see such a narrow belt; as simple as that.
    vukcevic (02:00:00) :
    “Because a large cycle has more flux to work with than a small cycle, large cycles will often be followed by other large cycles and small cycles by other small cycles [as is observed], but, and this is the crucial point: not necessarily. Basically, firm prediction more than one cycle ahead is impossible.”
    Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
    The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye. The key is to realize that in a Maunder Minimum the flux is not gone, but [if L&P are correct] just invisible. Or [if you don’t believe L&P] the mechanism that concentrates small spots and pores into larger spots worked less efficiently.
    Lindsay H (02:13:15) :
    speeds up by a few milliseconds per day , I’m not aware of any recent reports on this.
    Because these events were flukes.
    Michael Ronayne (03:57:53) :
    If I were NASA, I would be very carful to include scientists whose research predicted low solar activity.
    More likely the ‘high’ predictors will get the funding in order to find out where they went wrong.

  146. vukcevic (02:00:00) :
    “Because a large cycle has more flux to work with than a small cycle, large cycles will often be followed by other large cycles and small cycles by other small cycles [as is observed], but, and this is the crucial point: not necessarily. Basically, firm prediction more than one cycle ahead is impossible.”
    Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.

    The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye. The key is to realize that in a Maunder Minimum the flux is not gone, but [if L&P are correct] just invisible. Or [if you don’t believe L&P] the mechanism that concentrates small spots and pores into larger spots worked less efficiently. So all the spots were tiny Tim’s [as now] which would be seen.

  147. Robert Wood (15:34:30) :
    Folks, we are witnessing a very interesting, and real, debate between Svalgaard and Vukcevic. This is the way science should be. Just take a minute to donate to them via PayPal. It liberates science from political control.
    At least somebody is paying attention….so many are missing out. I would have thought a science blog would pay more attention to this sort of stuff.

  148. Leif Svalgaard (05:20:28) :
    “where’s the beef?” where is the couple?
    The beef has been provided….if you choose to ignore the Doppler images just recently released showing faster EQUATORIAL rotation and coinciding angular momentum disturbance, then do so at your own peril.
    I am not going to describe the “disturbance” again to you. Its all fully available at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
    Maybe one day you will read it and understand it all.

  149. vukcevic (05:01:58) :
    Hi Geoff
    Babcock-Leighton pair, with their dice throwing luck, would have busted Monte Carlo casino.
    The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….
    As you may have noticed, in all my equations (and I have a few), one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).
    In respect of your graphic, which starts 1985,
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg
    I would be interested to know is there anything particular about the 1941. I can find an equivalent that works for an individual formula, but not for all, as this one does.

    Hi Vuk,
    Carsten doesnt have an image of that era, but you might be able to get a copy of his Sim1 program and generate it yourself (would like a copy myself). But I think you will find that era will subscribe to the normal “trefoil” pattern and not show any wild movements away from the normal course. Around 1940 angular momentum is rising significantly but is not “disturbed”
    http://www.arnholm.org/astro/index.htm

  150. Leif Svalgaard (05:54:36) :
    Geoff Sharp (05:41:55) :
    I would have thought a science blog would pay more attention to this sort of stuff.
    Except it ain’t science.

    Maybe you hit the nail on the head, its not perceived as science by most on here including yourself. Perhaps this might change in the near future, its interesting how NASA seems to have thrown its hands up looking for an answer. Obviously the current “science” is not cutting it.

  151. Leif: What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible].
    With magnetograms and all the other ways we have to look at the sun, shouldn’t we still see signatures for sun spots? Of course, then there’d have to be a new “Wolfe” number, since we’d have a new way to count sunspots.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (18:39:28) The case I described depends on matching 22 and 23 simultaneously to an earlier piece of the sunspot time series. The amplitudes have to match as closely as possible, not just the shapes. If your series differs from the one I looked at the results will likely be different.
    A more sophisticated approach makes several matches and weights them to make a prediction. See, Linsay, P. S. (1991). “An efficient method of forecasting chaotic time series using linear interpolation.” Physics Letters A 153(6,7): 353-356.

  153. Slightly O/T.
    After a recent trawl of the British HMCR (Revenue & Customs) website I note that David Archibald’s paper on the likely quietness & lengths of Solar Cycles 24 & 25 has dissappeared completely from that website yet was there a several weeks ago!
    Could it be that they don’t want any more internal staff getting a glimpse of this outrageous fiction?
    Lief Svalgaard:-) Any remarks/comments or otherwise of Piers Corbyn’s weather predictions which seem to have borne fruit as far as accuracy was concerned – wintery storms at the early part of March to north east, north west England, northern Ireland, & Scotland? All linked to solar activity levels!

  154. Steve M. (06:20:59) :
    With magnetograms and all the other ways we have to look at the sun, shouldn’t we still see signatures for sun spots? Of course, then there’d have to be a new “Wolfe” number, since we’d have a new way to count sunspots.
    Yes, we should still see the signatures. Already today we have the foundations for a different count, namely the concept of an ‘active region’. What NOAA numbers [the latest one was 11014] are not ‘spots’ but ‘active regions’. The number of active regions times 13 is close to the standard sunspot number and can be used as the ‘true’ count.

  155. Paul Linsay (06:22:46) :
    The amplitudes have to match as closely as possible, not just the shapes. If your series differs from the one I looked at the results will likely be different.
    Well, since the amplitudes don’t match …

  156. Leif Svalgaard (07:14:02) :
    Geoff Sharp (06:18:45) :
    “Maybe you hit the nail on the head, its not perceived as science”
    for good reasons, I may say.

    A hallmark of science is its ability to predict or compute or explain effects from identified and quantified and codified causes. As an example take the calculated solar system angular momentum since 1800: http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060.png
    The situation during the interval 1800-1850 is very similar to the situation 1978-2028 as Jose pointed out, so we would expect that if AM was the cause of or modulated the solar cycle to also find that solar activity 1800-1850 be very similar to the period 1978-2028. As you can see: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png this is not the case, so the hypothesis fails that test. That ought to put the matter to rest. And let us now heed Anthony’s admonition and drop the planetary pseudo-science from the best science blog.

  157. Alan the Brit (07:07:57) :
    Any remarks/comments or otherwise of Piers Corbyn’s weather predictions which seem to have borne fruit as far as accuracy was concerned – wintery storms at the early part of March to north east, north west England, northern Ireland, & Scotland? All linked to solar activity levels!
    Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested, but I do have a comment that solar activity levels ought to be more global than ‘the north east’.
    Piet Hein’s grook comes to mind:
    PRAYER
    to the sun above the clouds.
    Sun that givest all things birth,
    shine on everything on earth!
    If that’s too much to demand,
    shine at least on this our land.
    If even that’s too much for thee,
    shine at any rate on me.
    From: http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~tcstewar/grooks/grooks.html

  158. Leif Svalgaard (06:27:12) :
    to
    vukcevic (05:01:58) :
    one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).</i?
    I thought you said 1943.5 … ? -1940.5-3 …

    Absolutely correct!
    1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
    -1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields as related to the solar cycles as per YOUR PREDICTION THEORY, which I hope still works, but with exceptions as in my cycle anomalies formula:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    see also:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link

  159. vukcevic (08:17:43) :
    Absolutely correct!
    1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
    -1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields

    so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.

  160. Lief:
    The number of active regions times 13 is close to the standard sunspot number and can be used as the ‘true’ count.
    Do you think 13 will stand as a good number through a minimum? I think the sunspot count for January was 2.8, and February was 2.5. 13 seems high, but it might mean revising previous cycles for it to make sense to me.

  161. Leif Svalgaard (08:32:39) :
    vukcevic (08:17:43) :
    “Absolutely correct! 1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula. -1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields…”
    so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.

    instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other], or any other epochs 19.9 or 23.7 years apart, as cosines are periodic. So, for the two phases to coincide in 1941 you must postulate a special relationship between them. But, hey, with numerology anything goes.

  162. Steve M. (08:48:58) :
    Do you think 13 will stand as a good number through a minimum? I think the sunspot count for January was 2.8, and February was 2.5. 13 seems high, but it might mean revising previous cycles for it to make sense to me.
    There were 12 days with active regions out of 59 days total, so 12/59*13 = 2.6

  163. Leif Svalgaard (09:29:45) :
    There were 12 days with active regions out of 59 days total, so 12/59*13 = 2.6
    Was not quite the way to say it. Correct would have been: there were 12 days weighted by the number of active regions on each day [that happened to be precisely 1 on each of the 12 days] out of 59 …

  164. Leif Svalgaard (05:20:28):
    More likely the ‘high’ predictors will get the funding in order to find out where they went wrong.
    Dr. Svalgaard,
    That is great news; I had not realized that Genetic Engineering had advanced to the point where we could cure stupidity.
    Seriously, the high prediction faction has their friends in high places and should not have funding problems. The NASA managers are professional bureaucrats and their primary objective is to never to appear as stupid. The fact that they issued the RFP indicates that they know that they have a problem with their current crop of solar experts. Like the SWPC Prediction Panel there is no longer a consensus.
    As they say down on the farm, when the hens stop laying it is time get a new rooster. NASA needs a few new roosters.
    Mike

  165. Leif Svalgaard
    Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested

    Oxfordshire (central England) has detailed climatic records since 1850. A lot of comparing and averaging, then you make a prediction. Here is an example for SC19.
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/OxfordRecords.gif
    instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other], or any other epochs 19.9 or 23.7 years apart, as cosines are periodic. So, for the two phases to coincide in 1941 you must postulate a special relationship between them. But, hey, with numerology anything goes.
    Have you tried it? It works for one but not the other, it has to work for both Cosine functions at the same time, you forgot there is also the Anomaly formula (Maunder minimum equation), and the Amplitude envelope as well as sunspot cycle as well as the Polar fields formula.
    The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye.
    Don’t know what ‘snake eye’ is, I suppose nothing bad. But why bother with chances when there is an excellent Anomaly formula:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    see also:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link

  166. Leif;
    Should a definition of a Spot be the emission of some type of burst that can be recorded or measured vs. anything else that would have absolutely no effect on the Earth in anyway or in plainer language an anomaly of insigificant importance.

  167. Just the Truth;
    Interesting video. Something to consider 1996 was a very bad winter we had 120 inches of snow when out average is about 40. 2000 was not a particularly bad winter. No effect………. I don’t know.

  168. Leif Svalgaard (08:32:39) :
    to
    vukcevic (08:17:43) :
    Absolutely correct!
    1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
    -1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields
    so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.

    I missed that comment:
    I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest. I may make mistakes, and that is a privilege of an amateur, but not of a scientist.
    (1941= J-S-U conjunction)
    There is no such thing as ‘same phase in two cosines with different periods’, there is a crossover of two cosine functions with different periods.
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    see also:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link

  169. vukcevic (10:21:48) :
    “Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested”…
    A lot of comparing and averaging, then you make a prediction.

    Since you don’t tell me either, I’m still not interested.
    “instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other]”.
    Have you tried it? It works for one but not the other

    one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
    it has to work for both Cosine functions at the same time
    I just showed you that.
    you forgot there is also the Anomaly formula (Maunder minimum equation), and the Amplitude envelope as well as sunspot cycle as well as the Polar fields formula.
    The more formulae this has to work for, the more of a miracle it becomes and hence the more of a coincidental fitting it becomes.
    “The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye”.
    Don’t know what ‘snake eye’ is,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_eyes
    Vinny (10:29:57) :
    Should a definition of a Spot be the emission of some type of burst that can be recorded or measured vs. anything else that would have absolutely no effect on the Earth in anyway or in plainer language an anomaly of insignificant importance.
    No, a sunspot is the visual manifestation of on area of the Sun that is cooler [and hence dimmer] than its surroundings because it is refrigerated by a strong magnetic field hindering the upwelling of hot material from the Sun’s interior. The spot as such has no influence, but the magnetic fields associated with the spots have all kinds of terrestrial consequences [e.g. aurorae, magnetic storms, cosmic ray intensity, energetic particles, ozone destruction, radio communications, etc, just not a big one on weather and climate.

  170. vukcevic (10:21:48) :
    one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
    perhaps I should have said ‘subtracting 23.724’ to make it match my example, but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry

  171. vukcevic (10:50:52) :
    I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest.
    Of course you do, everybody has to, to make things fit if there is no theoretical explanation. This is not dishonest, just an expression of that we don’t know the causes. Moving the polar field plot over by 3 years is an example.

  172. Leif Svalgaard (11:11:23) :
    to
    vukcevic (10:21:48) :
    one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
    perhaps I should have said ’subtracting 23.724′ to make it match my example, but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry

    I think you are deliberately fudging the issue, because you can fault my formulae.
    What you are suggesting does not make any sense, these are not abstract values plucked out of thin air, they are precise astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.
    It is like arguing that set of triplets should have their birthdays 6.28 years apart. And guess what, I use a Moslem calendar for relevant year (-622) and 1941-622 and get same result.
    The point is that all equations, to be meaningful, have to have same independent reference point of integrity. What you are suggesting is fiddling, which I do not do !
    but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry
    I am disappointed to observe that your arguments are getting a bit trivial, and I am not interested in trivia. .

  173. Smokey (16:53:53):
    I, along with others, think your post is right on. However, I think you’re missing something. Religions (and in my opinion, AGW alarmism has many of the attributes of a religion) are based on faith, not science. As someone once said (I forget who), religious believers who use science to establish the validity of their beliefs, are not only engaging in bad science, they’re engaging in bad faith. In essence, almost by definition science has and should have, nothing to do with religious beliefs–faith is necessary and sufficient. To a deeply religious person, the burden falls on you to prove his/her beliefs are wrong; and because his/her beliefs are based on faith, not science, no scientific argument will, or should, change his/her mind.
    I’ve never used “tags” before so I hope I’ve used the “” and tag correctly.

  174. vukcevic (12:08:37) :
    astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.
    I missed that little tidbit which I had not seen before. I therefore apologize for my comments on this as they were made without taking this into account.

  175. Leif Svalgaard (12:57:06) :
    “astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.”
    I missed that little tidbit which I had not seen before. I therefore apologize for my comments on this as they were made without taking this into account.

    with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?

  176. Leif Svalgaard (11:43:32) :
    to
    vukcevic (10:50:52) :
    “astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.”
    I missed that little tidbit which I had not seen before. I therefore apologize for my comments on this as they were made without taking this into account.
    with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?

    Any astronomer would know that one: J-S conjunctions are separated by 120 degrees heliocentric angle.
    For both of the above see:
    http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64
    top page one (the very first entry)
    or my original article from 2004:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
    There I had to drop any reference to the planets to be published, apparently they were not taking contributions from field of astrology.
    I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest.
    Of course you do, everybody has to,

    Do you consider yourself an exception?
    to make things fit if there is no theoretical explanation.
    I have publicly pronounced my total inability to provide verifiable explanation.
    I noticed that Dr. Hathaway does the same:
    “Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway.
    This is not dishonest, just an expression of that we don’t know the causes. Moving the polar field plot over by 3 years is an example.
    It is your idea (is that a fiddle as well ? ); the polar fields precede SC max by 4 years, 3 or 4 makes little difference, if it works for your hypothesis, then it should do for mine.
    I hope you do not consider my formula serious competition because it can look further forward.
    Since NASA is advertising for help (I did same on WUWT blog some 2-3 weeks ago), I gather that you are back at Stanford and Wilcox SO, with your contacts there, you could gather a team of young enthusiasts of a free thinking indisposition, to apply for the grant, you (they) can have free hand with my formula, as long as my name is somewhere in the acknowledgments.
    Or, is it not a grant for astrology?
    I am off to see TV news.

  177. Michael Roynane
    …What is very strange about the revised March 2009 prediction is that the smoothed value for Solar Cycle 23 was also pushed forward by one (1) month with no change in the sunspot number at solar maximum…
    I have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems like Dr. Hathaway’s predictions follow a curve-fit along the entire length of the data (which has been starting back in Jan ’97). I’ve noticed before as his Cycle 24 prediction has changed, that earlier parts of the curve have moved as well. Could it be an artifact of his polynomial coefficients changing to fit to lower and later curves later on?

  178. niteowl (14:02:40) :
    Dr. Hathaway’s predictions follow a curve-fit along the entire length of the data (which has been starting back in Jan ‘97).
    Yes, he does use a ‘sliding’ fit. Nothing wrong with that.

  179. Leif Svalgaard (08:05:14) :
    A hallmark of science is its ability to predict or compute or explain effects from identified and quantified and codified causes.
    You might be leaving yourself open here. You state your method is only good for one cycle and that will be tested this cycle. The dynamo theory cannot prove the 11 year cycle, polar reversal, grand minima or solar modulation strength over any length of time, thats why NASA has put its hand up and rightly so.
    As an example take the calculated solar system angular momentum since 1800: http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060.png
    The situation during the interval 1800-1850 is very similar to the situation 1978-2028 as Jose pointed out, so we would expect that if AM was the cause of or modulated the solar cycle to also find that solar activity 1800-1850 be very similar to the period 1978-2028. As you can see: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png this is not the case, so the hypothesis fails that test.

    Once again you show your lack of knowledge in this area, but good to see you plotting angular momentum. Jose did not have the understanding of angular momentum as we do today, but was close in his prediction (SC20) but he like you was not aware of the different phases and strengths of the angular momentum that comes along every 172 years avg. We now understand that area and can predict future grand minima and solar cycle strength more accurately. So the 2 periods are very different and cannot be compared.
    That ought to put the matter to rest. And let us now heed Anthony’s admonition and drop the planetary pseudo-science from the best science blog.
    Its not the job of science to sensor or ban, but to disprove. So far you have been unable to do so and I invite you to try again. Here is my Solanki/Sharp spreadsheets with all data and graphs included.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp.xls

  180. vukcevic (05:01:58) :
    The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….
    As you may have noticed, in all my equations (and I have a few), one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).
    In respect of your graphic, which starts 1985,
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg
    I would be interested to know is there anything particular about the 1941. I can find an equivalent that works for an individual formula, but not for all, as this one does.

    You find the software here, if you need it
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/

  181. vukcevic (13:45:35) :
    “with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?”
    Any astronomer would know that one: J-S conjunctions are separated by 120 degrees heliocentric angle.

    Astrologers may know that, astronomers know that the separation on average is 117.1543 degrees, for a difference of 2.845788 degrees per 19.86478 yr period which over the 310 years since 1700 comes to 45 degrees, severely shifting the phase of your curves. But that is not the biggest problem. The 117 d shift is accumulative and thus a function of time, but in your formula it appears as a one-time shift, equivalent to simply omitting the 2pi/3 and using COS(2pi*(t-1947.641)/23.742) instead, and why would you want to be 6.5 years away from the J-S conjunction?
    I have publicly pronounced my total inability to provide verifiable explanation. I noticed that Dr. Hathaway does the same:
    “Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway.

    But as Hathaway is finding out, it doesn’t work any more; which is what happens if you don’t know why.
    It is your idea (is that a fiddle as well ? ); the polar fields precede SC max by 4 years, 3 or 4 makes little difference, if it works for your hypothesis, then it should do for mine.
    Your shift is 1941 to 1943.5 for 2.5 years or is it 1941.5 for 2.0 years?, which does make a significant difference from 4 years [try to plot and compute correlation for 1945 or 1945.5 instead of 1943.5 and report the difference], so the 3 years is what we call a fiddle, and nothing wrong with that, since as you say you have no idea what goes on.
    I hope you do not consider my formula serious competition
    don’t worry it isn’t and I don’t.
    Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
    You might be leaving yourself open here.
    If you are not open, it is not science.
    You state your method is only good for one cycle and that will be tested this cycle. The dynamo theory cannot prove the 11 year cycle, polar reversal, grand minima or solar modulation strength over any length of time
    Yes it can, we just cannot predict it over any length of time for the same basic reason that we cannot predict the weather [or climate for that matter].
    thats why NASA has put its hand up and rightly so
    I don’t think so. We just want to study the current minimum in some detail.
    so the hypothesis fails that test.
    he like you was not aware of the different phases and strengths of the angular momentum that comes along every 172 years avg.
    ‘different phases and strengths’ is pure voodoo. I showed a plot of the strength, and the AM does not have ‘phases’.
    Your spreadsheet is just poorly done wiggle matching.
    Its not the job of science to sensor or ban, but to disprove.
    No, to weed.

  182. Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
    ‘different phases and strengths’
    You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ‘strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.

  183. Leif Svalgaard (17:24:50) :
    Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
    ‘different phases and strengths’
    You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ’strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.

    All of those questions are answered on solarcycle24.com. That forum is more suited to this type of discussion. Rather than clog up this thread, readers interested can view at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15

  184. Leif Svalgaard (17:24:50) :
    Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
    ‘different phases and strengths’
    You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ’strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.

    All of those questions and others are answered on solarcycle24.com. That forum is more suited to this type of discussion. Rather than clog up this thread, readers interested can view at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15

  185. Leif,
    Using spotless days this should make it a RMax of around 60 and some would say as low as 45 but I will stay with 60 using SC13 and SC15 as the guide (for lack of a better term).

  186. Leif Svalgaard (15:28:35) :
    Thanks for the input. I certainly was not trying to imply there was something wrong. These are his predictions to do with as he will, and do not form the basis for determining timing and magnitude of the “official” maximums and minimums (although I am interested in learning the definitive source of this). I was merely proposing an idea as to why sometimes his past prediction lines do change a bit along with the future ones.

  187. Leif,
    Only slightly OT but is that a coronal hole on dead center in SOHO ETI 171 and 284?

  188. Jim Arndt (19:42:43) :
    Only slightly OT but is that a coronal hole on dead center in SOHO ETI 171 and 284?
    Yes, and its associated high-speed stream will arrive in 3-4 days. This particular hole is long-lived and has been with us since at least 2004, faithfully coming back every 27 days.

  189. Geoff Sharp (01:54:50) :
    If your still around, is the sim1 version still available?
    Reply: “you’re” ~ charles the grammar nazi moderator.

    Oh crap…it keeps gettin harder.

  190. Leif Svalgaard (16:46:10) :
    to
    vukcevic (13:45:35) :

    For charts where centauries rather than decades are concerned it is rounded of to 1941, 1940.5 is for higher resolution charts, if you looked at the chart you could see it there.
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields_Vf.gif
    Most of these arguments are turning into trivia, is it 120 or 117 degrees, is it 1940.5 or 1941, it doesn’t really matter great deal, since all the numbers used are backed up by astronomical values; and what is important they work.
    As Svalgaard / Cliver would have it in:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
    ….We find that Rmax24 = 75 achieves this nicely. We subscribe to the principle of uniformity.
    I will just say: My formula has excellent correlation, and since 2pi/3 and 1941(1941.5) achieve this nicely, and I (as well) subscribe to the principle of uniformity, I will use them in all my other formulas, and as it happens that works just nicely as well.
    If you wish call it a fiddle in my formula, but since we all subscribe to the principle of uniformity, perhaps we should call it a fiddle elsewhere.
    To conclude: I think you spare no time or effort trying to derail the formula, which not only amuses me, but inspire with even greater confidence in its importance.
    For some months now, under relentless assault from the Goliath of the solar science, this little David, an anonymous insignificant amateur, with his formula is still standing upright.
    More you try to fault it, more I am convinced there is something more to it, than just a coincidence, borne out of my daughter’s homework some years ago.

  191. Is there a solar bookmaker out there who’s kept a record of who made what prediction when for SC24?
    It’d sure be interesting to see who, if anyone, predicted this 3 years out.
    Either they were just lucky or they would’ve been on to something….

  192. vukcevic (04:39:05) :
    all the numbers used are backed up by astronomical values; and what is important they work.[…]
    I will just say: My formula has excellent correlation

    Both Vuk and nobrainer claim excellent correlation with the sunspot number. We can check that using the Solanki reconstruction also used by nobrainer. This reconstruction is of solar cycle averages, so we also calculate cycle averages using Vuk’s formula. Here is the result (I scaled down Vuk’s numbers by a factor of 3 to make the curves easier to compare):
    http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-nobrainer-1.png
    doesn’t look too hot to me. Clearly the claimed correlations can’t BOTH be excellent since there is little correlation between them:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-nobrainer-2.png
    You should follow nobrainer’s example and take your discussion to http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15

  193. Leif;
    No, a sunspot is the visual manifestation of on area of the Sun that is cooler [and hence dimmer] than its surroundings because it is refrigerated by a strong magnetic field hindering the upwelling of hot material from the Sun’s interior. The spot as such has no influence, but the magnetic fields associated with the spots have all kinds of terrestrial consequences [e.g. aurorae, magnetic storms, cosmic ray intensity, energetic particles, ozone destruction, radio communications, etc, just not a big one on weather and climate.
    Leif;
    I understand your definition, but doesn’t it make my point that why should a speck is given as much weight as a spot that can generate the effects on the atmosphere and communication systems on the Earth as you stated just because it is cooler than the surrounding area.
    Perhaps an additional inclusion to the definition should be length of time to the spot or speck. I would venture to guess that in the past spots as drawn from telescopic observations were in fact longer lasting AND more than likely generating the type of effects on the planet as you stated. Specks were ignored or not observed at all.

  194. Vinny (07:09:20) :
    but doesn’t it make my point that why should a speck is given as much weight as a spot […]
    Perhaps an additional inclusion to the definition should be length of time to the spot or speck.

    Both a spot and a speck are just ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The ‘active region’ that contains the spot/speck is what counts. In deciding whether to count a spot/speck its lifetime is taken into account [at least 12 hours, seen by more than one observer, etc], so the observers do try to compensate for all these effects [telescope, lifetime, size, etc] and to produce a ‘homogeneous’ series. This is not easy, but they try hard.

  195. Leif;
    Thank you very much for your explanations you are excellent at responding and explaining to us novices. Thanks again.

  196. vukcevic (08:50:04) :
    I never claimed excellent correlation with sunspot number. What I claim is the excellent correlation with recorded magnetic polar fields
    Yet you keep showing the sunspot graph back a 1000 years.
    The polar field correlation has too few degrees of freedom to be significant and fails for 1964-1965.

  197. Leif Svalgaard (09:50:20) :
    to
    vukcevic (08:50:04) :
    I never claimed excellent correlation with sunspot number. What I claim is the excellent correlation with recorded magnetic polar fields
    Yet you keep showing the sunspot graph back a 1000 years.
    The polar field correlation has too few degrees of freedom to be significant and fails for 1964-1965.

    I will agree with that, failed for 1 year out of 45 (1964-2009).
    I call that excellent correlation.

  198. Geoff Sharp (01:54:50) :
    Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:58:16) :
    You find the software here, if you need it
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
    If your still around, is the sim1 version still available?
    Reply: “you’re” ~ charles the grammar nazi moderator.

    The sim1 is at http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/ but currently only as screen shots (sim2 is available as windows executable). As there seems to be renewed interest, I shall seek to make also the sim1 executable available for download. Give me a few days. I have also ported sim2 to Linux now.
    Good to know we also have a grammar moderator, I need it sometimes 🙂

  199. vukcevic (14:09:29) :
    “fails for 1964-1965.”
    I will agree with that, failed for 1 year out of 45 (1964-2009).
    I call that excellent correlation.

    This is because you do not [apparently] understand the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. There are not 45 independent values, but only about 5. To take a similar example, if I fail in my prediction of the sunspot maximum, I can say that since my prediction of SSN for 2000 was correct, I correctly predicted the values on Jan 1st, 2000, and on Jan 2nd, and 3rd, and … March 1st, and Oct 21st, etc for all days of 2000, so my prediction fails only once in 366 cases. This is not something we ought to spend a lot of time on here, you have some reading to do about time series with autocorrelation.

  200. vukcevic (14:09:29) :
    I will agree with that, failed for 1 year out of 45 (1964-2009).
    I call that excellent correlation.

    Because the polar field data has a very high serial autocorrelation there are not a thousand points or even 50 points, but only about 5 independent data points that determine the curve. This means that one can very easily find a function with about five parameters that has an excellent correlation with the data. Here is one that I just whipped up:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-1.png
    As you can see it has an even higher correlation than yours. A high correlation does not mean that the formula expresses any physical or significant relationship.
    Most of the point-to-point variation of the PF is just noise and is not significant. You can clearly see the larger noise level of the Mount Wilson instrument before year 10 (years are counted from 1966.67 when we have the first good data point from MWO).

  201. Dr. Svalgaard
    I can only say, thank you for your effort. Your latest contribution is just may confirm once for all, validity of my formula.
    1. If I reproduce your equation I get something totally different, what you show. Regardless of the numbers involved, anyone familiar with basic maths knowledge can observe that your equation is a product of a parabola (goes to infinity) and a sin wave. Product of this is an oscillating bell shape curve going to infinity, and that is exactly what I get if I put your formula into Excel.
    I am sure you will not mind submitting the Excel entry that you used for your chart, so that I, and anyone else interested, can reproduce the curve.
    2. In my case, everyone can see how I devised my formula. It is correct that it has only 4 degrees of freedom (2 orbits, phase shift and the amplitude) and that is that.
    You have not shown us how you have obtained your formula. I can see two ways:
    a) using an algorithm to break my formula into components (in which case is the same formula in different guise), and you have validate my work.
    b) Using available data for a simulating algorithm to produce your formula, which again proves I am correct, since two curves for this time-period appear to be almost identical, and your formula is just expressed in different (less meaningful form), selected by programmer of software used. As you are well aware, same mathematical expression can be shown in many different forms, but selecting most meaningful is the preferable one.
    R=98% and R=97% are not here or there (if you used polar data for algorithm it is slightly better then my numerical entries, perhaps correcting my Saturn orbit as you previously suggested , or as Mr. Sharp suggests using Uranus effect we could get that 1% more, but that is irrelevant)
    Since I have reproduced my formula from 1850-2030 (and can do for any period you whish), I expect you to show us in a graphical form the same.
    To conclude I expect to see following:
    – Excel entry for your formula (mine is readily available)
    – method you used to produce your formula (mine is J-S orbits)
    – show us what your numbers mean in context of the Sun’s properties (mine are precisely defined)
    – Produce a chart spanning period of at least 200 or more years.
    If all of these are not shown in a way that can be verified, I shall assume and perhaps many others, that I have won this argument conclusively.
    All the best in your endeavours.

  202. NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.
    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
    Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23” have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22” has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”
    See the changed text here:
    Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC_clarified.pdf
    Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!
    Mike

  203. Breaking News Update: Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA.
    NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.
    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
    Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23” have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22” has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”
    See the changed text here:
    Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC_clarified.pdf
    Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!
    But it gets even better. NASA has just declared that Solar Cycle 24 is over. Read the first paragraph in the above PDF:
    1. Scope of Program
    In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment.
    Obviously someone made an error when edition the text of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.
    Mike

  204. vukcevic (03:03:52) :
    If I reproduce your equation I get something totally different, what you show.
    The formula is what is shown on the chart. In Excel you replace the ‘year’ with the name of the cell that contains the year, e.g. A5
    The whole point of my little exercise was to show that there are only a few degrees of freedom and that just because to have a high correlation does not mean that you have captured the physics, as surely the parabola is not correct physics.
    If one spends more than just a few minutes on this (like 15 or so) it is easy to produce a formula that has excellent correlation (94%) and even might express some of the physics behind the whole thing. On http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields-2.png
    you can see one example. The red curve shows observed values. The formula is given on the chart. Replace the ‘y’ with the name of a cell in Excel that contains a year to reproduce the plot.
    The two factors are
    1) 215 + 68 * SIN(0.06052*(y-1966.67)+1.74
    2) SIN(0.308*(y-1966.67)-0.96)
    The second factor simply reflects the fact that the polar fields have a 20-year period. 2pi/0.308 = 20.4 years. The first factor simply reflects the fact that there is a long-term variation of solar activity. The values I have used correspond to a period of 104 years: 2pi/0.06052 = 103.82 and was chosen simple to conform to the observed trend (the red points).
    The point, again, is simply to show that it is easy to get a high correlation and that a high correlation does not imply any physics.

  205. Dr. Svalgaard
    Let me first say, I admire your achievements in field of solar science, as well as your efforts to help out to everyone with their questions. I have also personally benefited from your advice, which I value greatly.
    It gives me no particular pleasure to declare that you have not only failed to win (up to now one could have called it a draw), but finally lost this particular argument.
    I do not wish to be too big-headed about it, I knew while sunspot formulae were to complex and to hard to prove, one way or the other, the polar field strength open the door, again thanks to you.
    To anyone of scientific mind it is clear that an alternative formula argument has failed. Your initial attempt was abandoned (to me reasons are obvious), and a new formula has been assembled, which more and more looks like mine, but it does not make a case.
    No serious attempt was made to answer crucial questions I put forward.
    I attach a graphic representation of the attempt to discredit my effort.
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/DrLSReply.gif
    My formula had baptism of fire and survived it with honour.
    As far as I am concerned this matter is now closed, but I would welcome help with hypothesis from anyone who may whish to contribute.
    Thanks again.

  206. Geoff Sharp (15:17:26) :
    Thanks Carsten. I will look out for it.

    Ok, I have updated my pages with the solar motion simulator programs, so you can download and run them both on either windows or linux:
    SolarMotion (=”Sim1″)
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
    SolarMotion2 (=”Sim2″)
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
    For the windows version, you have to be using Win2000 or newer, no Win9x. Be sure to install the MS redistributable.
    The linux versions have been built with Kubuntu 8.04. You need to extract the .tar.gz file and run the .install script in sudo mode. Then start it using
    $ solarmotion (for sim1)
    $ solarmotion2 (for sim2)

  207. vukcevic (09:39:12) :
    To anyone of scientific mind it is clear that an alternative formula argument has failed.
    I have failed to get across that
    both formula fail, as they are just numerology. The sun doesn’t work like that, following strict cycles. You can compare the two formulae here http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-polar-fields.png as well as the sunspot number curve shifted half a cycle. Neither of the formulae are any good [e.g. they both fail in 1965]. The point that I failed to get across is that a high correlation over a limited interval does not in itself ensure that there is any physical reality behind the formula. But, I’ll say good riddance to your departure on this matter.

  208. Leif Svalgaard (13:11:47) :
    The sun doesn’t work like that, following strict cycles.
    And for the same reason that is why doing frequency tests on recurring periods of grand minima is rather pointless. As I have shown there is a recurring 172 yr AVG grand minima period, but the modulation of that period can vary significantly based on the strength of the Jupiter/Saturn position of the era.
    There is a cycle, but like most things in nature is subject to controlling factors.
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/

  209. Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
    based on the strength of the Jupiter/Saturn position of the era.
    You have still not defined and quantified the ‘strength’ in terms of angular momentum, which is all the Sun can see, and which cannot have any effect anyway.

  210. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:15:39) :
    Thanks Carsten, but sorry to be a pain but the sim1 is returning an error and wont start(this application has failed to start because the application configuration is incorrect). I also have trouble with sim2 (it draws diff curves in relation to yours shown on your site). I have the ms redistributable installed but not sure what what to do as far as win2000 is involved, I am running XP pro.
    The information is invaluable but finding it hard to install. If you have time one day could I make a request. It would be great to fill in the missing time frames on your sim1 page, so we have a complete history back to the start of the Oort. It would be a great reference.
    If I manage to get it installed correctly I will do it and post it as a reference on Carl’s Blog.

  211. Leif Svalgaard (15:09:59) :
    Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
    based on the strength of the Jupiter/Saturn position of the era.
    You have still not defined and quantified the ’strength’ in terms of angular momentum, which is all the Sun can see,

    I have, just not in the terms you expect. AM causes the disturbance which is what needs to be quantified, the AM value during the disturbance tells us nothing. Currently this is observed on Carl’s graph and I have summarized the disturbances into 4 categories. Type “A” weak and strong & Type “B” weak and strong. This is also observed in Carsten’s Sim1 and Sim2 programs in the form of altered retrograde motions etc.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/typeab.jpg
    These categories are more than sufficient when working with grand minima strength, but I will progress to a more analytical quantification in the future to keep the boffins at bay.
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg

  212. Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
    ……………..
    There is a cycle, but like most things in nature is subject to controlling factors.

    You are absolutely right. This is clearly shown in:
    http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
    controlling formula, identifying all anomalies since 1600’s, is based on orbital harmonics (4S & J+U, numbers are rounded off). Pronounced minima around 1800, 1910 and a possible 2020, can also be seen as identical paths on the Carsten’s charts. The original formula was published some 5 years ago:
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

  213. vukcevic (23:58:32) :
    Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
    There is a cycle, but like most things in nature is subject to controlling factors.
    You are absolutely right. This is clearly shown in:

    Can we have some comments on why the controlling cycles are so different for the nobrainer and vuk charts? Astronomical cycles tied to the planets should stay unchanged for thousands [if not millions] of years to the accuracy of solar cycles.

  214. Leif Svalgaard (12:05:11) :
    vukcevic (23:58:32) :
    Geoff Sharp (14:53:46) :
    ……………
    Can we have some comments………

    My knowledge on these matters is severely limited. Formulae I developed take the most basic and simplistic view of the Sun plus two major planets, as if they were in a single plane, planets with perfect circular orbits. My understanding is, that is not the case, and their heliocentric latitude/longitude relationship is infinitely variable.
    99.9% of the current scientific establishment rejects possibility of any suggested connection, and in the 0.1% left may be very few with any interest in the matter, and of those who do have, may not whish to jeopardise their good name in associating themselves with such ideas. Possibly someone with sufficient knowledge and interest, may take a plunge and work out theory if physics does allow for it. For now it is not science, just a speculation and no more.

  215. Leif Svalgaard (11:59:54) :
    Geoff Sharp (17:24:58) :
    I have, just not in the terms you expect. AM causes the disturbance which is what needs to be quantified
    disturbance in what?

    The disturbance is in the AM, happening in several places. The top and bottom of the sine wave is generally “shorter” which can be measured but the all important “camels hump” in the sine wave is more difficult to quantify. The AM measurement in the hump is a vertical measurement, so we would have to work out how those measurements deviate from the sine wave in the vertical and horizontal plane. The J/S angle determines the vertical and horizontal position of the hump. A zero angle (J/S directly opposite N/U) places the hump at the very bottom of the AM curve, if we add some positive angle the hump moves up the right hand side of the sine wave creating a type “A”. If the angle is negative the hump is on the left hand side of the sine wave creating a type “B”.
    One of the strongest configurations is shown in this diagram:
    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/bestlineup.jpg
    This is a strong type “A” and is present in all the major grand minima for the last 6000 yrs at least. This cant be a fluke.

  216. Leif Svalgaard (12:05:11) :
    Can we have some comments on why the controlling cycles are so different for the nobrainer and vuk charts? Astronomical cycles tied to the planets should stay unchanged for thousands [if not millions] of years to the accuracy of solar cycles.
    Vuk and I are using different planets. I am using them all (J/S/U/N creating 99% of AM) where Vuk is mainly using J/S if I am not mistaken. My controlling factors are the J/S angles as well as the N/U angle which varies every 172 yrs avg. There is a background cycle but it changes, so your statement is not quite correct, it cant stay unchanged for millions of yrs as it is different every cycle.
    Formula’s are not my forte but perhaps if Vuk’s formula included some of my control factors it would match the power curve of the 11000 yr 14C record and recent sunspot records and mathematically back up my theory.

  217. Geoff Sharp (14:27:44) :
    There is a background cycle but it changes, so your statement is not quite correct, it cant stay unchanged for millions of yrs as it is different every cycle.
    The planetary orbits stay unchanged for that long, e.g. the N/U 172 yr average period will not change appreciably.

  218. Geoff Sharp (14:09:08) :
    The disturbance is in the AM, happening in several places.
    The AM [and hence the ‘disturbance if there is any] for the last two Jose cycle minima are practically identical:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060,%20shifted.png
    yet the sunspot ‘responses’ are completely difficult:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png
    Why must we continue to go over the same ground again and again?

  219. Leif Svalgaard (16:02:12) :
    The planetary orbits stay unchanged for that long, e.g. the N/U 172 yr average period will not change appreciably.
    Of course, but that is one part of the configuration. The J/S being the other that varies every time. This is the crux of the matter and you need to understand this before moving on.

  220. Leif Svalgaard (16:33:08) :
    Geoff Sharp (14:09:08) :
    The disturbance is in the AM, happening in several places.
    The AM [and hence the ‘disturbance if there is any] for the last two Jose cycle minima are practically identical:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060,%20shifted.png
    yet the sunspot ‘responses’ are completely difficult:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png
    Why must we continue to go over the same ground again and again?

    Because you fail to understand the complexity of the theory, but thats ok, it takes time. Its not just about the shape of the disturbance. Its also about timing. In 1830 the disturbance occurred early during the cycle. In 2009 we are at the tale end of the cycle and a grand minimum cycle is expected to follow SC23 just as it did with SC4. There is another timing issue I call “Wilson’s Law” which explains why SC7 didnt continue to produce grand minimum type cycles.
    A full explanation of “Wilson’s Law” can be found here.
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/01/11/does-a-spin%E2%80%93orbit-coupling-between-the-sun-and-the-jovian-planets-govern-the-solar-cycle/

  221. Geoff Sharp (17:16:37) :
    it’s not just about the shape of the disturbance. Its also about timing. In 1830 the disturbance occurred early during the cycle. In 2009 we are at the tail end of the cycle
    If the cycle is driven solely by AM, it is AM that defines the cycle, so the solar cycle timing should follow that of the AM cycle. If you go the other way then you are just after rationalizing which has no predictive power. You ‘complexity’ comes precisely from this need to rationalize after the fact. The AM is not complex at all.

  222. Leif Svalgaard (07:07:00) :
    If the cycle is driven solely by AM, it is AM that defines the cycle, so the solar cycle timing should follow that of the AM cycle. If you go the other way then you are just after rationalizing which has no predictive power. You ‘complexity’ comes precisely from this need to rationalize after the fact. The AM is not complex at all.
    The cycle is not driven by AM. AM is a background engine that modulates the cycle and determines grand minima, the sine waves created by AM do not line up with solar cycles. The 11 yr cycle is controlled by other factors not known to any part of science that I have seen, with the exception of a possible link with JEV tides.

  223. An interesting contribution to the debate.
    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
    (Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
    Abstract:
    The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified.
    By showing that
    (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
    (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
    (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
    (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
    (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
    (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

Comments are closed.