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.
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!).
Leif Svalgaard @ur momisugly 12:25:43
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.
To try to put this into perspective for non-tecky types:
The average magnet you will meet in daily life will be between 0.1 and 1 Tesla, or 1,000 to 10,000 Gauss. These are measures of magnetic flux per metre squared.
Obviously, though extremely small, given the size of the Sun, these numbers represent enormous magnetic fields.
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.
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.
Rodger et al 2008
The atmospheric impact of the Carrington event solar protons
extract…
“Recently, much attention has focused upon increasing our understanding of the Carrington event, in order to better quantify what extreme space weather events could do to our current technological society. For example, estimates suggest a potential economic loss of <US$70 billion due to lost revenue (~US$44 billion) and the cost of replacement of GEO satellites (~US$24 billion) caused by a “once a century” single storm similar to the Carrington event [Odenwald et al., 2006]. These authors estimate that 47 80 satellites in low-, medium, and geostationary- Earth orbits might be disabled as a consequence of a superstorm event with additional disruptions caused by the failure of many of the satellite navigation systems (e.g., GPS). Ionising radiation doses from the SPE have been estimated to be as high as 54 krad (Si) [Townsend et al., 2003], levels which are not only highly life-threatening for crews of manned missions, but present a significant hazard to onboard electronics.”
Whilst rare events be under no illusion that in the technological age that it will be business as usual.
”Systems in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are at increased risk because Auroral activity and its effects center on the magnetic poles. North America is particularly exposed to these storm events because the Earth’s magnetic north pole tilts toward this region and therefore brings it closer to the dense critical power grid infrastructure across the continent.’
eg http://www.metatechcorp.com/aps/AAAS_Press_Brief.htm
and here
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/
Mike McMillan @ur momisugly 13:57:23
Although not a monachist, rather a Republican, I truly sing the national anthem when it comes to the bit: “long may she reign”. May she outlive her idiot son.
Pamela,
Among other things, I research health care outcomes. Your “essay” is as true in my career as it is here. Without your objection, I intend to share your passage as a way of illustrating the sometimes folly of my fellows.
Jeff Lewis
Folks, we are witnessing a very interesting, and real, debate between Svalgaard and Vukcevic. This is the way science should be. Just take a minute to donate to them via PayPal. It liberates science from political control.
Leif said.
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.
Rudolf Wolf 1816 – 1893 probably did not count the smallest spots because his predecessors didn`t count them probably because they could not see them with the equipment they had at the time. Galileo 1564-1642 was counting spots not specks, and the Maunda/Dalton minimums had a minimum of spots not specks.
It seems to me that to study apples with apples NO specks should be counted. They were NOT counted in the Maunda or the Dalton minimums therefore there is no reason to count them today. To keep continuity with historical data the same equipment should be used. I believe Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC made that same point. There is no need to fudge anything, I believe all the drawings and sunspot counts are available from Wolf onwards.
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
You can put a hole in any argument, lawyers do it every day. It does not mean that the right conclusion is drawn.
Predictions are a lot easier.
As time goes on, one that is a big whiff at the plate becomes obvious.
Most solar cycle predictions whiffed, save only a few.
AGW record warming is whiffing, and so is the sea-level rise. The ice caps have turned the corner and are several years into reforming.
The IAG (Ice Age Coming) predictions also whiffed, and they found themselves taken out with the trash.
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
It would NOT surprise me to see the AGW hysteria dumped for an equally hysterical resurrecton of IAC. The pendulum, having once been swung, is hypnotic.
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.
Almost all programs in Discovery channel and History channel are about “global warming”, “End of the world”, “Clean energies”, etc. It seems there is a strongly promoted and defended political agenda in the background. Their insistence tell us that “they” (whomsoever they are) are absolutely decided to impose this agenda on every human being on earth. It is really scaring. What will be the next step?. We must take it seriously, if they has already began speaking about “death trains” and “death camps”, we´ll surely witness some of these in the near future.
Last news from History Channel: “Merlin predicted GW!!!!”
May our Lord protect us from that bunch of madmen!
vukcevic (14:02:27) :
<i”What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process.”
Wouldn’t that, as a consequence, make the polar field prediction method very haphazard and unreliable (to my sincere disappointment!) ?
no, the surges stop well before minimum and the polar fields become stable, so make prediction of the very next minimum eminently possible. Because a large cycle has more flux to work with than a small cycle, large cycles will often be followed by other large cycles and small cycles by other small cycles [as is observed], but, and this is the crucial point: not necessarily. Basically, firm prediction more than one cycle ahead is impossible.
Frank Lansner (14:03:33) :
Do you agree with Jansen, that we appear to have a SC10-15 – like solar cycle 24 : That graphis appears rather convincing, or?
I agree, but not because of his graph which is not correctly done, as the scatter is too large. If you plot every cycle and not just the average of both groups you get the bottom graph on page 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf The green curve has red and blue curves on either side and there is nothing convincing about it. This is partly because on should not use the first spotless day, but something like the 5th, or 10th. If you use the 10th, the spread is a lot less [top graph], although the blue and red curves are still pretty mixed the first 40 months.
Robert Wood (14:08:19) :
break the political control of science that has occured since WWII with government (therefore political) funding.
I am beholden to no-one.
vukcevic (14:02:27) :
“What happens is that there is a large amount of randomness in this process.”
Wouldn’t that, as a consequence, make the polar field prediction method very haphazard and unreliable (to my sincere disappointment!) ?
no, the surges stop well before minimum and the polar fields become stable, so make prediction of the very next minimum eminently possible.
gvheard (08:58:56) :
Have you tried the World Glacier Monitoring Service?
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/index.html
The snow reports are more up to date regarding glacier changes. They also can be used to make a reasoned guess about glaciers that are not on anybody’s radar. This data is a good measure of glacier build-up if you follow them through the summer.
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
Robert Wood (14:11:56) :
Just like Catastrophic Global Warming is just a prediction, eh, Ford???
Ha!!
GW has many indicators – glaciers – temperature records – ice on/ice/off – phenological studies these can be checked and proven the sun is less accessible and therefore predictions are less accurate.
Can you point out research that shows GW is false (not papers showing GW theroies to be invalid)
Rob (15:41:56) :
Rudolf Wolf 1816 – 1893 probably did not count the smallest spots because his predecessors didn`t count them
There is some truth to that, although a more important reason for Wolf was that seeing the specks depends too much on the ‘seeing’, i.e. on the weather and such a dependence might introduce a false relationship between solar activity and weather/climate.
In compiling his famous sunspot series Wolf had the problem of calibrating one [long dead] observer’s count to another observer’s count [e.g. his own]. His elegant solution was to use a physical phenomenon that depends on the true count, namely the diurnal variation of the magnetic needle. With this ‘absolute’ reference it didn’t [still doesn’t] matter what size telescope is used, or how/if groups, spot, and specks are counted.
In this way, we can get apples with apples.
There is no need to fudge anything, I believe all the drawings and sunspot counts are available from Wolf onwards.
‘fudge’ was perhaps too strong a word. ‘Intercalibrate’ might be better. And it has been possible to recover a homogeneous series that is apples all the way. That is not the problem. The problem is to get people to use the new series if the old series matched [wrongly] their pet theories better.
Michael Ronayne (15:52:02) :
This is the scientific story of the year!
NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period.
This is big, although also overhyped. The minimum is not ‘that’ unusual.
Retired Engineer (15:58:26) :
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?
A factor does not nicely capture the case of ZERO spots, because no factor can make that number any bigger. But when you make a yearly average then the values begin to make sense, e.g 0.1 spots is reasonable.
thefordprefect:
One more time: the burden is not on skeptics/climate realists to prove anything. The climate is acting as it always has, and it is cycling well within its normal and natural parameters.
Rather, the burden is on those putting forth the new hypothesis of AGW/CO2, which claims that runaway global warming will take off as soon as a vague and mysterious “tipping point” is reached.
None of the ‘indicators’ cited are unusual, unnatural, or new phenomena. They are ordinary climate fluctuations.
This is not to say the globe is not warming; it is, and it has been since the glaciers began to recede at the end of the last Ice Age. If the planet were not warming, Chicago would still be buried under a mile of ice.
But to demand that the theory of natural climate variation must be shown to be valid again and again puts the cart before the horse. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that has been shown to be false.
So now we’re back to natural climate variation. If human activity has a detectable influence on the climate, please quantify it, show where and how it occurs, and verifiably demonstrate what part is natural, and what part is man made.
The burden is on AGWers — not the other way around.
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
My recollection of previous cycles seems to tell me that they are still over-estimating the magnitude of the cycle 24 peak.
Bottomline: plenty more revisions to come
Neo (17:04:16) :
My recollection of previous cycles seems to tell me that they are still over-estimating the magnitude of the cycle 24 peak.
We are talking about calibrating actual measurements, not predictions.