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.
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].
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Sol becalmed, just marking time
The viziers foreswear their prophesy past
As the Jovian crew march past in line.
Behold the goalposts moving fast!
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?
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
“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.
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.
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?
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 @ur momisugly 11:01:40, then I don’t see why it upsets anyone.
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.
gvheard (08:58:56) :
“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/”
Try this site http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
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
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.
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…
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
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?
Over at Solaemon
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
There is a list of 45 different predictions for Cycle 24 based on different forecasting techniques.
Pick your style!
Somebody will be right!
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
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.
Frank Lansner asks:
Well, eventually he has to get it right, doesn’t he?
However, it seems clear that the science is not settled, like another area.