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.
Michael Ronayne (15:52:02) :
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
So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
Geoff Sharp, get an application in!
The british Science Research Council withdrew funding from solar research two years ago.
The irony!
Worth a separate post surely Anthony.
tallbloke (23:27:19) :
So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
Geoff Sharp, get an application in!
Might be a tall order in the current climate, but will be submitting tomorrow.
thanks.
Leif Svalgaard (16:05:36) :
vukcevic (14:02:27) :
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.
‘not necessarily’ very convenient. A theory provides for all exceptions, Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Modelthis could be only a hypothesis.
It may explain the polar fields – cycle intensity correlation for short periods of up- or down-trends (eg. SC 14-19) but fails at sudden reversals (eg. SC19-20, SC4-5 i.e. Dalton minimum). Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
Planetary effects, be it magnetic or gravitational, have a good correlation to be considered as the possible alternative. The fact that current science is not able or willing to provide acceptable explanations does not diminish their significance.
Vinny (07:58:37) : I doubt in the past they could have seen 1014 as a spot. It’s becoming a joke.
“Becoming”? I think it’s “been for a while” now…
there have been reports that in times of strong solar winds the earths rotation speed slows down and in times of minimum it speeds up by a few milliseconds per day , I’m not aware of any recent reports on this.
Geoff Sharp (00:44:00) :
“tallbloke (23:27:19) : So, NASA is offering $1.5M/year for three years in research grants to those offering alternative theories. Lol.
Geoff Sharp, get an application in!”
Might be a tall order in the current climate, but will be submitting tomorrow.
Don’t forget to include the angular momentum impact on earthquakes and volcanos. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
vukcevic
A theory provides for all exceptions, Babcock-Leighton Solar Dynamo Modelthis could be only a hypothesis.
Planetary effects, be it magnetic or gravitational, have a good correlation to be considered as the possible alternative.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
voodoo (15:05:42) :
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.
I once got a tax bill for dead people…
On my property tax bill was a surcharge for cemetery maintenance of some sort somewhere for someone or other who was dead.
There is no limit on what can be taxed. If you can name it, describe it, or imply it in something else, you can tax it.
vukcevic (02:00:00) :
Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
Agree Vuk.
And the way the Babcock-Leighton gets us into grand minima via the roll of the dice is also suspect, especially as that roll ALWAYS coincides with a particular planetary alignment. History shows we always have a high cycle before grand minimum or attempted grand minima as in SC4,19 & 23 (SC23 on the decline but still high compared with early 1900’s etc). The 11000 yr solar proxy shows the same. Lots of dice rolls going off at the right time is extremely unlikely. And as you say the theory makes it hard to come out of grand minima….might need to throw a 12.
When I had difficulty finding the NASA project “Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23” based on Doug’s post I conducted a Google search and found that the only reference to the project was Doug’s post at WUWT. MS Live had absolutely nothing about the project and still doesn’t as of my post. This was a very good indication that the project was new and had only been indexed on Anthony’s high profile website.
I just check the creation data on the PDF document at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf and found that it was created on Thursday 3/5/2009 11:37:54AM and last modified on Thursday 3/5/2009 11:38:49AM. This is a new project created late last week and Doug must have received the announcement via Email. I wanted to set the time frame so that we have a clear understanding of just how recent this NASA initiative is.
This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!
Given the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars which Washington is about to steal/waste solving problems which don’t exist, this is petty cash but at least there is a project in place to investigate unusual conditions on the Sun. I will be interesting to see who is awarded the research grants. If I were NASA, I would be very carful to include scientists whose research predicted low solar activity.
Mike
E.M.Smith (02:13:19) :
Don’t forget to include the angular momentum impact on earthquakes and volcanos. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
Very interesting area of future research for me…incidentally we experienced a quake of 4.6 magnitude in Melbourne a few days ago, not all that common an event this far away from a fault line. First thing I thought of as I watched the walls shake, was Neptune and Uranus are at it again.
The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….feel free.
Hi Geoff
Babcock-Leighton pair, with their dice throwing luck, would have busted Monte Carlo casino.
The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….
As you may have noticed, in all my equations (and I have a few), one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).
In respect of your graphic, which starts 1985,
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg
I would be interested to know is there anything particular about the 1941. I can find an equivalent that works for an individual formula, but not for all, as this one does.
jorgekafkazar (19:54:26) :
But isn’t either of these alternate approaches arbitrary? Does the reduced scatter come at the cost of some lost information?
Yes, but not very much. We are now at ~500 spotless days, so losing the first 9 is not a great loss if it reduces the spread significantly.
Geoff Sharp (20:11:34) :
“The physics is all wrong [there is no couple between solar rotational and orbital angular momentum] and Grand Minima do not occur with any period [Usokin et al.].”
The physics is plainly not wrong, just not fitting in with your theories.
“where’s the beef?” where is the couple?
The current Doppler images as shown by Dr Howe clearly shows the equatorial rotation rate of the sun is increasing.
These show winds in the solar atmosphere, not rotation. The winds are caused by solar activity, not the cause of activity.
We are also now experiencing a major disturbance in angular momentum
Explain what a ‘disturbance’ is. Not what its ‘effect’ is, but what the disturbance itself is. The AM going away?, becoming negative? put a number to it. This number means disturbance, that number means normal, etc.
savethesharks (20:19:50) :
Again the Achilles Heel here of absolutes and assumptions.
The absolutes of planetary influences should be enough to make Achilles crumble.
Mike Bryant (20:21:11) :
“What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible].”
Sorry Leif, no one understands the sun less than I do, but I find it a little humorous that someone is saying that there really ARE sunspots… you just can’t see them because they are invisible…
It works like this: Observations show that when a parcel of solar plasma is threaded by a strong magnetic field it appears dark, by a weak magnetic field the parcel appears bright. It then follows that there must be a magnetic field between the strong and the weak where the parcel is neither dark nor bright, hence cannot be seen. That magnetic field strength is 1500 Gauss which is where L&P’s data show that the spots are headed.
Robert Bateman (22:27:03) :
‘The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt.’
Strong polar fields bend the magnetic fields in the corona [which shape the streamers] towards the equator, confining the streamers to a narrow belt along the equator. The most extreme case of that was in 1954 when we had the strong polar fields that gave rise to the strongest cycle of all [#19]. This is explained in detail in http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf see Figure 2.
The very weak polar fields right now does not compress the coronal field that much and so we don’t see such a narrow belt; as simple as that.
vukcevic (02:00:00) :
“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.”
Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye. The key is to realize that in a Maunder Minimum the flux is not gone, but [if L&P are correct] just invisible. Or [if you don’t believe L&P] the mechanism that concentrates small spots and pores into larger spots worked less efficiently.
Lindsay H (02:13:15) :
speeds up by a few milliseconds per day , I’m not aware of any recent reports on this.
Because these events were flukes.
Michael Ronayne (03:57:53) :
If I were NASA, I would be very carful to include scientists whose research predicted low solar activity.
More likely the ‘high’ predictors will get the funding in order to find out where they went wrong.
Geoff Sharp (04:28:52) :
E.M.Smith (02:13:19) :
Don’t forget to include the angular momentum impact on earthquakes and volcanos. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
Very interesting area of future research for me…
http://www.virakkraft.com/barycenter-vei.jpg
vukcevic (02:00:00) :
“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.”
Babcock-Leighton could get the Sun’s oscillations into the Maunder minimum but never out.
The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye. The key is to realize that in a Maunder Minimum the flux is not gone, but [if L&P are correct] just invisible. Or [if you don’t believe L&P] the mechanism that concentrates small spots and pores into larger spots worked less efficiently. So all the spots were tiny Tim’s [as now] which would be seen.
Robert Wood (15:34:30) :
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.
At least somebody is paying attention….so many are missing out. I would have thought a science blog would pay more attention to this sort of stuff.
Leif Svalgaard (05:20:28) :
“where’s the beef?” where is the couple?
The beef has been provided….if you choose to ignore the Doppler images just recently released showing faster EQUATORIAL rotation and coinciding angular momentum disturbance, then do so at your own peril.
I am not going to describe the “disturbance” again to you. Its all fully available at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Maybe one day you will read it and understand it all.
Geoff Sharp (05:41:55) :
I would have thought a science blog would pay more attention to this sort of stuff.
Except it ain’t science.
Leif Svalgaard (05:24:22) :
So all the spots were tiny Tim’s [as now] which would NOT be seen.
tallbloke (05:20:30) :
Very interesting graph…would love to see something going back many centuries. It could be done.
vukcevic (05:01:58) :
Hi Geoff
Babcock-Leighton pair, with their dice throwing luck, would have busted Monte Carlo casino.
The Pic on your Blog is one of mine adapted from Carsten’s website….
As you may have noticed, in all my equations (and I have a few), one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).
In respect of your graphic, which starts 1985,
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/carsten.jpg
I would be interested to know is there anything particular about the 1941. I can find an equivalent that works for an individual formula, but not for all, as this one does.
Hi Vuk,
Carsten doesnt have an image of that era, but you might be able to get a copy of his Sim1 program and generate it yourself (would like a copy myself). But I think you will find that era will subscribe to the normal “trefoil” pattern and not show any wild movements away from the normal course. Around 1940 angular momentum is rising significantly but is not “disturbed”
http://www.arnholm.org/astro/index.htm
Leif Svalgaard (05:54:36) :
Geoff Sharp (05:41:55) :
I would have thought a science blog would pay more attention to this sort of stuff.
Except it ain’t science.
Maybe you hit the nail on the head, its not perceived as science by most on here including yourself. Perhaps this might change in the near future, its interesting how NASA seems to have thrown its hands up looking for an answer. Obviously the current “science” is not cutting it.
Leif: What L&P surmise is not that solar activity will disappear, but that sunspots are getting warmer and thus harder to see [invisible].
With magnetograms and all the other ways we have to look at the sun, shouldn’t we still see signatures for sun spots? Of course, then there’d have to be a new “Wolfe” number, since we’d have a new way to count sunspots.
Leif Svalgaard (18:39:28) The case I described depends on matching 22 and 23 simultaneously to an earlier piece of the sunspot time series. The amplitudes have to match as closely as possible, not just the shapes. If your series differs from the one I looked at the results will likely be different.
A more sophisticated approach makes several matches and weights them to make a prediction. See, Linsay, P. S. (1991). “An efficient method of forecasting chaotic time series using linear interpolation.” Physics Letters A 153(6,7): 353-356.
vukcevic (05:01:58) :
one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).</i?
I thought you said 1943.5 … ? -1940.5-3 …