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.
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!
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?
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
Dennis Sharp (12:57:02) :
However, it has been known for some time that the complex plasma system which we call our sun is a chaotic system.
Chaos is part of our understanding of the Sun:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.3284v3.pdf
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OFF TOPIC:
Are the February temperatures available?
It is obviously hard to predict something when it does not behave as predicted…
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!) ?
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
Leif Svalgaard @ur momisugly 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.
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!!
Here’s a good paper on sunspot number calibratuion:
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/RHESSI/napa2008/talks/MonI_Svalgaard.pdf
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
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.
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.
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.