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.
Slightly O/T.
After a recent trawl of the British HMCR (Revenue & Customs) website I note that David Archibald’s paper on the likely quietness & lengths of Solar Cycles 24 & 25 has dissappeared completely from that website yet was there a several weeks ago!
Could it be that they don’t want any more internal staff getting a glimpse of this outrageous fiction?
Lief Svalgaard:-) Any remarks/comments or otherwise of Piers Corbyn’s weather predictions which seem to have borne fruit as far as accuracy was concerned – wintery storms at the early part of March to north east, north west England, northern Ireland, & Scotland? All linked to solar activity levels!
Steve M. (06:20:59) :
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.
Yes, we should still see the signatures. Already today we have the foundations for a different count, namely the concept of an ‘active region’. What NOAA numbers [the latest one was 11014] are not ‘spots’ but ‘active regions’. The number of active regions times 13 is close to the standard sunspot number and can be used as the ‘true’ count.
Paul Linsay (06:22:46) :
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.
Well, since the amplitudes don’t match …
Geoff Sharp (06:18:45) :
Maybe you hit the nail on the head, its not perceived as science
for good reasons, I may say.
Leif Svalgaard (07:14:02) :
Geoff Sharp (06:18:45) :
“Maybe you hit the nail on the head, its not perceived as science”
for good reasons, I may say.
A hallmark of science is its ability to predict or compute or explain effects from identified and quantified and codified causes. As an example take the calculated solar system angular momentum since 1800: http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum%201800-2060.png
The situation during the interval 1800-1850 is very similar to the situation 1978-2028 as Jose pointed out, so we would expect that if AM was the cause of or modulated the solar cycle to also find that solar activity 1800-1850 be very similar to the period 1978-2028. As you can see: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot%20Number%201800-1850%20and%201978-2028.png this is not the case, so the hypothesis fails that test. That ought to put the matter to rest. And let us now heed Anthony’s admonition and drop the planetary pseudo-science from the best science blog.
Alan the Brit (07:07:57) :
Any remarks/comments or otherwise of Piers Corbyn’s weather predictions which seem to have borne fruit as far as accuracy was concerned – wintery storms at the early part of March to north east, north west England, northern Ireland, & Scotland? All linked to solar activity levels!
Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested, but I do have a comment that solar activity levels ought to be more global than ‘the north east’.
Piet Hein’s grook comes to mind:
PRAYER
to the sun above the clouds.
Sun that givest all things birth,
shine on everything on earth!
If that’s too much to demand,
shine at least on this our land.
If even that’s too much for thee,
shine at any rate on me.
From: http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~tcstewar/grooks/grooks.html
Leif Svalgaard (06:27:12) :
to
vukcevic (05:01:58) :
one permanent and important factor is year 1941 (1940.5).</i?
I thought you said 1943.5 … ? -1940.5-3 …
Absolutely correct!
1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
-1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields as related to the solar cycles as per YOUR PREDICTION THEORY, which I hope still works, but with exceptions as in my cycle anomalies formula:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
see also:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
vukcevic (08:17:43) :
Absolutely correct!
1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
-1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields
so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.
Lief:
The number of active regions times 13 is close to the standard sunspot number and can be used as the ‘true’ count.
Do you think 13 will stand as a good number through a minimum? I think the sunspot count for January was 2.8, and February was 2.5. 13 seems high, but it might mean revising previous cycles for it to make sense to me.
Leif Svalgaard (08:32:39) :
vukcevic (08:17:43) :
“Absolutely correct! 1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula. -1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields…”
so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.
instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other], or any other epochs 19.9 or 23.7 years apart, as cosines are periodic. So, for the two phases to coincide in 1941 you must postulate a special relationship between them. But, hey, with numerology anything goes.
Steve M. (08:48:58) :
Do you think 13 will stand as a good number through a minimum? I think the sunspot count for January was 2.8, and February was 2.5. 13 seems high, but it might mean revising previous cycles for it to make sense to me.
There were 12 days with active regions out of 59 days total, so 12/59*13 = 2.6
Leif Svalgaard (09:29:45) :
There were 12 days with active regions out of 59 days total, so 12/59*13 = 2.6
Was not quite the way to say it. Correct would have been: there were 12 days weighted by the number of active regions on each day [that happened to be precisely 1 on each of the 12 days] out of 59 …
Leif Svalgaard (05:20:28):
More likely the ‘high’ predictors will get the funding in order to find out where they went wrong.
Dr. Svalgaard,
That is great news; I had not realized that Genetic Engineering had advanced to the point where we could cure stupidity.
Seriously, the high prediction faction has their friends in high places and should not have funding problems. The NASA managers are professional bureaucrats and their primary objective is to never to appear as stupid. The fact that they issued the RFP indicates that they know that they have a problem with their current crop of solar experts. Like the SWPC Prediction Panel there is no longer a consensus.
As they say down on the farm, when the hens stop laying it is time get a new rooster. NASA needs a few new roosters.
Mike
Leif Svalgaard
Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested
Oxfordshire (central England) has detailed climatic records since 1850. A lot of comparing and averaging, then you make a prediction. Here is an example for SC19.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/OxfordRecords.gif
instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other], or any other epochs 19.9 or 23.7 years apart, as cosines are periodic. So, for the two phases to coincide in 1941 you must postulate a special relationship between them. But, hey, with numerology anything goes.
Have you tried it? It works for one but not the other, it has to work for both Cosine functions at the same time, you forgot there is also the Anomaly formula (Maunder minimum equation), and the Amplitude envelope as well as sunspot cycle as well as the Polar fields formula.
The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye.
Don’t know what ‘snake eye’ is, I suppose nothing bad. But why bother with chances when there is an excellent Anomaly formula:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
see also:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
Leif;
Should a definition of a Spot be the emission of some type of burst that can be recorded or measured vs. anything else that would have absolutely no effect on the Earth in anyway or in plainer language an anomaly of insigificant importance.
Just the Truth;
Interesting video. Something to consider 1996 was a very bad winter we had 120 inches of snow when out average is about 40. 2000 was not a particularly bad winter. No effect………. I don’t know.
There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please see: Theory of Super Relativity at Super Relativity Einstein was right!
Leif Svalgaard (08:32:39) :
to
vukcevic (08:17:43) :
Absolutely correct!
1941(1941.5) is the factor deducted for any sunspot cycle equation or formula.
-1943.5 = -1940.5-3, is deducted (brought forward by 3 years) for magnetic polar fields
so you fiddle it as needed. You may ponder the unphysical nature of having the exact same phase in two cosines with different periods.
I missed that comment:
I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest. I may make mistakes, and that is a privilege of an amateur, but not of a scientist.
(1941= J-S-U conjunction)
There is no such thing as ‘same phase in two cosines with different periods’, there is a crossover of two cosine functions with different periods.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
see also:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ solar current link
vukcevic (10:21:48) :
“Corbyn will not tell us how it works, so I’m not interested”…
A lot of comparing and averaging, then you make a prediction.
Since you don’t tell me either, I’m still not interested.
“instead of 1941 you can also use 1960.9 [for one of the cosines] and 1917.3 [for the other]”.
Have you tried it? It works for one but not the other
one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
it has to work for both Cosine functions at the same time
I just showed you that.
you forgot there is also the Anomaly formula (Maunder minimum equation), and the Amplitude envelope as well as sunspot cycle as well as the Polar fields formula.
The more formulae this has to work for, the more of a miracle it becomes and hence the more of a coincidental fitting it becomes.
“The random nature of the flux transport ensures that you get out: you do now and then throw a snake eye”.
Don’t know what ‘snake eye’ is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_eyes
Vinny (10:29:57) :
Should a definition of a Spot be the emission of some type of burst that can be recorded or measured vs. anything else that would have absolutely no effect on the Earth in anyway or in plainer language an anomaly of insignificant importance.
No, a sunspot is the visual manifestation of on area of the Sun that is cooler [and hence dimmer] than its surroundings because it is refrigerated by a strong magnetic field hindering the upwelling of hot material from the Sun’s interior. The spot as such has no influence, but the magnetic fields associated with the spots have all kinds of terrestrial consequences [e.g. aurorae, magnetic storms, cosmic ray intensity, energetic particles, ozone destruction, radio communications, etc, just not a big one on weather and climate.
vukcevic (10:21:48) :
one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
perhaps I should have said ‘subtracting 23.724’ to make it match my example, but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry
vukcevic (10:50:52) :
I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest.
Of course you do, everybody has to, to make things fit if there is no theoretical explanation. This is not dishonest, just an expression of that we don’t know the causes. Moving the polar field plot over by 3 years is an example.
Leif Svalgaard (11:11:23) :
to
vukcevic (10:21:48) :
one cosine says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/23.724) and the other one says COS((2pi*(t-1941)/19.859), so adding 23.724 to ‘t’ in the 1st adds 2pi and COS stays the same, and adding 19.859 to ‘t’ in the second adds 2pi so COS stays the same.
perhaps I should have said ’subtracting 23.724′ to make it match my example, but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry
I think you are deliberately fudging the issue, because you can fault my formulae.
What you are suggesting does not make any sense, these are not abstract values plucked out of thin air, they are precise astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.
It is like arguing that set of triplets should have their birthdays 6.28 years apart. And guess what, I use a Moslem calendar for relevant year (-622) and 1941-622 and get same result.
The point is that all equations, to be meaningful, have to have same independent reference point of integrity. What you are suggesting is fiddling, which I do not do !
but I gather that you realize that adding and subtracting 2pi does not make any difference. If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry
I am disappointed to observe that your arguments are getting a bit trivial, and I am not interested in trivia. .
vukcevic (12:08:37)
That should read
I think you are deliberately fudging the issue, because you can’t fault my formulae.
Smokey (16:53:53):
I, along with others, think your post is right on. However, I think you’re missing something. Religions (and in my opinion, AGW alarmism has many of the attributes of a religion) are based on faith, not science. As someone once said (I forget who), religious believers who use science to establish the validity of their beliefs, are not only engaging in bad science, they’re engaging in bad faith. In essence, almost by definition science has and should have, nothing to do with religious beliefs–faith is necessary and sufficient. To a deeply religious person, the burden falls on you to prove his/her beliefs are wrong; and because his/her beliefs are based on faith, not science, no scientific argument will, or should, change his/her mind.
I’ve never used “tags” before so I hope I’ve used the “” and tag correctly.
vukcevic (12:08:37) :
astronomical values relating to a particular date 1941, J-S-U conjunction.
I missed that little tidbit which I had not seen before. I therefore apologize for my comments on this as they were made without taking this into account.