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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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/
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.
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.
a nice blog 🙂
thanks for info 😡
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