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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
POP QUIZ
Sea levels are…
__RISING?
__FALLING?
__STATIC?
__ALL THE ABOVE?
Crib sheet…
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
Pamela Gray (08:42:26) :
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.
This one is updated daily: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
You may see that it seems SC24 has begun [if ever so weakly].
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.
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/
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….
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
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.
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.
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?
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! ☺
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.
Oh dear!
It is JUST a prediction. You cannot chastise them for getiing it wrong!
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.
Here´s a tool to predict Nasa sun cycle 24 predictions…
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/nasacycle24.gif
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?).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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