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.
Leif Svalgaard (12:57:06) :
“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.
with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?
Leif Svalgaard (11:43:32) :
to
vukcevic (10:50:52) :
“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.
with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?
Any astronomer would know that one: J-S conjunctions are separated by 120 degrees heliocentric angle.
For both of the above see:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64
top page one (the very first entry)
or my original article from 2004:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
There I had to drop any reference to the planets to be published, apparently they were not taking contributions from field of astrology.
I do not fiddle anything, and fiddling is dishonest.
Of course you do, everybody has to,
Do you consider yourself an exception?
to make things fit if there is no theoretical explanation.
I have publicly pronounced my total inability to provide verifiable explanation.
I noticed that Dr. Hathaway does the same:
“Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway.
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.
It is your idea (is that a fiddle as well ? ); the polar fields precede SC max by 4 years, 3 or 4 makes little difference, if it works for your hypothesis, then it should do for mine.
I hope you do not consider my formula serious competition because it can look further forward.
Since NASA is advertising for help (I did same on WUWT blog some 2-3 weeks ago), I gather that you are back at Stanford and Wilcox SO, with your contacts there, you could gather a team of young enthusiasts of a free thinking indisposition, to apply for the grant, you (they) can have free hand with my formula, as long as my name is somewhere in the acknowledgments.
Or, is it not a grant for astrology?
I am off to see TV news.
Michael Roynane
…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…
I have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems like Dr. Hathaway’s predictions follow a curve-fit along the entire length of the data (which has been starting back in Jan ’97). I’ve noticed before as his Cycle 24 prediction has changed, that earlier parts of the curve have moved as well. Could it be an artifact of his polynomial coefficients changing to fit to lower and later curves later on?
niteowl (14:02:40) :
Dr. Hathaway’s predictions follow a curve-fit along the entire length of the data (which has been starting back in Jan ‘97).
Yes, he does use a ‘sliding’ fit. Nothing wrong with that.
Leif Svalgaard (08:05:14) :
A hallmark of science is its ability to predict or compute or explain effects from identified and quantified and codified causes.
You might be leaving yourself open here. You state your method is only good for one cycle and that will be tested this cycle. The dynamo theory cannot prove the 11 year cycle, polar reversal, grand minima or solar modulation strength over any length of time, thats why NASA has put its hand up and rightly so.
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.
Once again you show your lack of knowledge in this area, but good to see you plotting angular momentum. Jose did not have the understanding of angular momentum as we do today, but was close in his prediction (SC20) but he like you was not aware of the different phases and strengths of the angular momentum that comes along every 172 years avg. We now understand that area and can predict future grand minima and solar cycle strength more accurately. So the 2 periods are very different and cannot be compared.
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.
Its not the job of science to sensor or ban, but to disprove. So far you have been unable to do so and I invite you to try again. Here is my Solanki/Sharp spreadsheets with all data and graphs included.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/solanki_sharp.xls
vukcevic (05:01:58) :
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.
You find the software here, if you need it
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
vukcevic (13:45:35) :
“with that said, where does the 2pi/3 come from?”
Any astronomer would know that one: J-S conjunctions are separated by 120 degrees heliocentric angle.
Astrologers may know that, astronomers know that the separation on average is 117.1543 degrees, for a difference of 2.845788 degrees per 19.86478 yr period which over the 310 years since 1700 comes to 45 degrees, severely shifting the phase of your curves. But that is not the biggest problem. The 117 d shift is accumulative and thus a function of time, but in your formula it appears as a one-time shift, equivalent to simply omitting the 2pi/3 and using COS(2pi*(t-1947.641)/23.742) instead, and why would you want to be 6.5 years away from the J-S conjunction?
I have publicly pronounced my total inability to provide verifiable explanation. I noticed that Dr. Hathaway does the same:
“Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient. We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway.
But as Hathaway is finding out, it doesn’t work any more; which is what happens if you don’t know why.
It is your idea (is that a fiddle as well ? ); the polar fields precede SC max by 4 years, 3 or 4 makes little difference, if it works for your hypothesis, then it should do for mine.
Your shift is 1941 to 1943.5 for 2.5 years or is it 1941.5 for 2.0 years?, which does make a significant difference from 4 years [try to plot and compute correlation for 1945 or 1945.5 instead of 1943.5 and report the difference], so the 3 years is what we call a fiddle, and nothing wrong with that, since as you say you have no idea what goes on.
I hope you do not consider my formula serious competition
don’t worry it isn’t and I don’t.
Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
You might be leaving yourself open here.
If you are not open, it is not science.
You state your method is only good for one cycle and that will be tested this cycle. The dynamo theory cannot prove the 11 year cycle, polar reversal, grand minima or solar modulation strength over any length of time
Yes it can, we just cannot predict it over any length of time for the same basic reason that we cannot predict the weather [or climate for that matter].
thats why NASA has put its hand up and rightly so
I don’t think so. We just want to study the current minimum in some detail.
so the hypothesis fails that test.
he like you was not aware of the different phases and strengths of the angular momentum that comes along every 172 years avg.
‘different phases and strengths’ is pure voodoo. I showed a plot of the strength, and the AM does not have ‘phases’.
Your spreadsheet is just poorly done wiggle matching.
Its not the job of science to sensor or ban, but to disprove.
No, to weed.
Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
‘different phases and strengths’
You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ‘strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.
Leif Svalgaard (17:24:50) :
Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
‘different phases and strengths’
You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ’strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.
All of those questions are answered on solarcycle24.com. That forum is more suited to this type of discussion. Rather than clog up this thread, readers interested can view at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15
Leif Svalgaard (17:24:50) :
Geoff Sharp (15:40:54) :
‘different phases and strengths’
You have not defined, described, or quantified ‘the strengths of the disturbances’. As we can put a number on the AM, so you must put a number on the ‘disturbances’ in order to be able to do science on the ’strengths of the disturbances’. So, I would expect to see a spreadsheet with three columns: year, AM, Disturbance. If you cannot do that, then there is no discussion and ‘no beef’.
All of those questions and others are answered on solarcycle24.com. That forum is more suited to this type of discussion. Rather than clog up this thread, readers interested can view at http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15
Leif,
Using spotless days this should make it a RMax of around 60 and some would say as low as 45 but I will stay with 60 using SC13 and SC15 as the guide (for lack of a better term).
Leif Svalgaard (15:28:35) :
Thanks for the input. I certainly was not trying to imply there was something wrong. These are his predictions to do with as he will, and do not form the basis for determining timing and magnitude of the “official” maximums and minimums (although I am interested in learning the definitive source of this). I was merely proposing an idea as to why sometimes his past prediction lines do change a bit along with the future ones.
Leif,
Only slightly OT but is that a coronal hole on dead center in SOHO ETI 171 and 284?
Jim Arndt (19:13:18) :
Using spotless days this should make it a RMax of around 60 and some would say as low as 45 but I will stay with 60 using SC13 and SC15 as the guide (for lack of a better term).
Then all you need to do is to bump the 60 up by 20% to 72, because SC13 and 15 were listed about 20% too low: http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Jim Arndt (19:42:43) :
Only slightly OT but is that a coronal hole on dead center in SOHO ETI 171 and 284?
Yes, and its associated high-speed stream will arrive in 3-4 days. This particular hole is long-lived and has been with us since at least 2004, faithfully coming back every 27 days.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:58:16) :
You find the software here, if you need it
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
If your still around, is the sim1 version still available?
Reply: “you’re” ~ charles the grammar nazi moderator.
Geoff Sharp (01:54:50) :
If your still around, is the sim1 version still available?
Reply: “you’re” ~ charles the grammar nazi moderator.
Oh crap…it keeps gettin harder.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (15:58:16) :
to
vukcevic (05:01:58) :
You find the software here, if you need it
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim2/
Thanks for the link. I will certainly look at it, another point of interest is 1780-1810 where a phase shift occurred (the SC4&5 ).
Leif Svalgaard (16:46:10) :
to
vukcevic (13:45:35) :
For charts where centauries rather than decades are concerned it is rounded of to 1941, 1940.5 is for higher resolution charts, if you looked at the chart you could see it there.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields_Vf.gif
Most of these arguments are turning into trivia, is it 120 or 117 degrees, is it 1940.5 or 1941, it doesn’t really matter great deal, since all the numbers used are backed up by astronomical values; and what is important they work.
As Svalgaard / Cliver would have it in:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
….We find that Rmax24 = 75 achieves this nicely. We subscribe to the principle of uniformity.
I will just say: My formula has excellent correlation, and since 2pi/3 and 1941(1941.5) achieve this nicely, and I (as well) subscribe to the principle of uniformity, I will use them in all my other formulas, and as it happens that works just nicely as well.
If you wish call it a fiddle in my formula, but since we all subscribe to the principle of uniformity, perhaps we should call it a fiddle elsewhere.
To conclude: I think you spare no time or effort trying to derail the formula, which not only amuses me, but inspire with even greater confidence in its importance.
For some months now, under relentless assault from the Goliath of the solar science, this little David, an anonymous insignificant amateur, with his formula is still standing upright.
More you try to fault it, more I am convinced there is something more to it, than just a coincidence, borne out of my daughter’s homework some years ago.
Is there a solar bookmaker out there who’s kept a record of who made what prediction when for SC24?
It’d sure be interesting to see who, if anyone, predicted this 3 years out.
Either they were just lucky or they would’ve been on to something….
vukcevic (04:39:05) :
all the numbers used are backed up by astronomical values; and what is important they work.[…]
I will just say: My formula has excellent correlation
Both Vuk and nobrainer claim excellent correlation with the sunspot number. We can check that using the Solanki reconstruction also used by nobrainer. This reconstruction is of solar cycle averages, so we also calculate cycle averages using Vuk’s formula. Here is the result (I scaled down Vuk’s numbers by a factor of 3 to make the curves easier to compare):
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-nobrainer-1.png
doesn’t look too hot to me. Clearly the claimed correlations can’t BOTH be excellent since there is little correlation between them:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-nobrainer-2.png
You should follow nobrainer’s example and take your discussion to http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64&page=15
Leif;
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.
Leif;
I understand your definition, but doesn’t it make my point that why should a speck is given as much weight as a spot that can generate the effects on the atmosphere and communication systems on the Earth as you stated just because it is cooler than the surrounding area.
Perhaps an additional inclusion to the definition should be length of time to the spot or speck. I would venture to guess that in the past spots as drawn from telescopic observations were in fact longer lasting AND more than likely generating the type of effects on the planet as you stated. Specks were ignored or not observed at all.
Rhys Jaggar (06:49:04) :
Is there a solar bookmaker out there who’s kept a record of who made what prediction when for SC24?
yes, Dean Pesnell is the ‘official’ bookmaker:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/977561/Why-NASA-Needs-Solar-Cycle-Predictions
Rhys Jaggar (06:49:04) :
Is there a solar bookmaker out there who’s kept a record of who made what prediction when for SC24?
yes, Dean Pesnell is the ‘official’ bookmaker.
But Jan Janssens has a good list as well:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Vinny (07:09:20) :
but doesn’t it make my point that why should a speck is given as much weight as a spot […]
Perhaps an additional inclusion to the definition should be length of time to the spot or speck.
Both a spot and a speck are just ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The ‘active region’ that contains the spot/speck is what counts. In deciding whether to count a spot/speck its lifetime is taken into account [at least 12 hours, seen by more than one observer, etc], so the observers do try to compensate for all these effects [telescope, lifetime, size, etc] and to produce a ‘homogeneous’ series. This is not easy, but they try hard.