More revisions to the NASA solar cycle prediction

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

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.

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! ☺

Here´s a tool to predict Nasa sun cycle 24 predictions…
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/nasacycle24.gif

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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?

gvheard (08:58:56) :
gv
You might be interested in my comments on glaciers in The Story of Glaciers here… http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=88

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…

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

@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.

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

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

This newspaper article shows how the Netherlands is in dire danger of being flooded by frozen canals rising up out of their courses.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding

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.

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!).

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.

Mike Smith:
The only February global temp update I’ve seen so far is the NCDC’s based on their ERSST.v3b data:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo/aravg.mon.land_ocean.90S.90N.asc
It’s from this directory:
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersstv3b/pdo
And I posted the February OI.v2 SST data a few days ago:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/february-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html

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

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.

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

Anyone else see the cold water building in the Nino 1+2 region?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.5.2009.gif
SOI is still very positive last month.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml

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

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?

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”

put that on some bread and you’ll have a bologna sandwich

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.

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.

Smokey (16:53:53), beautifully said. The family is nodding in agreement. You’ll be quoted often in the coming months.

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

“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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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