Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA. Yes you read that right. Somebody at NASA can’t even figure out which solar cycle they are talking about. Or, as commenters to the thread have pointed out, perhaps they see that cycle 24 has been skipped. We’ll be watching this one to see the outcome. – Anthony
Michael Ronanye writes in comments:
NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23″ have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22″ has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”
See the changed text here:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!
But it gets even better. NASA has just declared that Solar Cycle 24 is over. Read the first paragraph in the above PDF:
1. Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. 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.
Obviously someone made an error when editing the text of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Then, when did cycle 24 really begin?
for what it’s worth…it looks like you misspelled “predictions”
“Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!”
REPLY: See the definition of the word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predication
I don’t know if Mike meant to use that word or not, but it could also fit in the context. – Anthony
If we actually went through a double peaked cycle, no wonder it has been warmer than usual. So, that means that we should disregard or maybe decouple the warming and solar activity to see how much degrees the planet should have warmed up if we had had a normal cycle. In such case, maybe there was no global warming and that is was just exceptional and could only happen again in 150 years or so.
“I am very glad that my work does not generate the reaction that scientists working on global warming must endure. If it did, I would be far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done.”
I would be very happy if the current crop of scientists working on global warming were far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done. They’ve done far too much damage already.
Mike Bryant
You’re right, it would be unfair to evaluate the whole blog based on a typo. I should also have included the following in my evaluation
-A major error in a headline “Global warming linked to gravity.” The story discusses how sea levels are linked to gravity (imagine that!). Global warming and rising seas to have a causal relationship, but it is ridiculous to confuse them.
-A discussion of US temperature trends which no where addresses the obvious question of whether the US is anomalous. That is, what was the world doing at the same time? (Also, what was the US doing over the last decade?)
-A long analysis of a statement made by John Sununu paraphrased (or quoted) as “John Nature will respond to climate change in the future in a self-stabilising way, as it always has in the past.” The statement does not mention that this quote (or paraphrase) is quite obviously false. Climate does not “always” respond in a self-stabilizing way. In the PETM it responded in a highly unstabilizing way resulting in the extinction of most life on earth. Lots of other examples like that.
So, on the front page, you have a major error, a cherry-picked example, and a non-critical quotation of a major error.
Again, Wow.
REPLY:
1. Nothing wrong with the title. The news story talked about melting ice which would be due to “global warming” then comes the discussion on gravity. The linkage is that gravity anomaly will affect global warming caused sea level rise. Relevant text from the article: “As ice thaws, Antarctica would get smaller and its gravitational tug would diminish.” I’m sorry you don’t like the title but your complaint is just a matter of opinion. If you knew anything about the media business, you’d understand headlines better.
2. “A discussion of US temperature trends which no where addresses the obvious question of whether the US is anomalous.” I posted the press release verbatum from NOAA. Regarding your wanting an issue being addressed: that is what our comments section is for. The fact that you don’t see what you expect to see there isn’t a fault of the blog, but that is where you can participate. If you choose not to, don’t ridicule others for not doing so.
3. “A long analysis of a statement made by John Sununu” Again, from another source, Dr. Bob Carter, which I posted in entirety. Again thats what comments are for.
You keep saying how bad this blog is, but you just want to bash and run. That’s OK, we have a few that do that and perhaps that best suits you, but I encourage discussion. You seem to focus on single points. I assure you that your will not find perfection on this blog or any other. But if you don’t wish to engage in conversation, thanks for stopping by with your points of opinion. – Anthony
skeptic (11:18:35) :
I am very glad that my work does not generate the reaction that scientists working on global warming must endure. If it did, I would be far too busy responding to BS to actually get anything done.
Be very sure that if your work had the potential to generate billions in taxes that it would get the same scrutiny climate related stuff gets.
Let’s wait for Leif and solar physicists …
Well, that worked about as badly as I thought — we ignorant guys take a while to learn the simple things.
I just checked Oulu neutron count.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
From what I can see the neutron count is still increasing and set an all time high in the last days as a response of the weak solar magnetic field and remarkably long solar minimum.
You can generate a chart at the botom of the page ranging from 1964 to present.
So if Svensmarks theory is correct we should start to see a slight increase of global cloud cover which could cause cooling.
Is there any site meassuring global cloud cover that has data available on the web?
It looks like this solar minimum and next 2 cycles really are going to reveal what is the major driver on our climate, CO2, natural variations(on earth) or the sun.
I see people talking about something to do with cycle 25 starting… I am not sure if they are joking or not (hopefully they are) because according to sunspot record these so called cycle 25 spots would have to be appearing at the poles NOT the equator, as all these “special” spots have been. therefore they are in fact cycle 23 spots to my knowledge… data shows that new cycle spots appear at high latitudes as cycle 24 spots have been, not near the equator!! This may seem obvious to most but some of these comments do worry me!
lol
Have they fixed it yet?
An honest mistake in the normally strictly QC’d output from NASA
Nothing to see here, move along, move along…
Alex – but how could they explain that every single sunspot has only lasted for less than 24 hours? Shouldn’t a new sclae be used instead based on the area and lifetime of sunspots give us more information than just a number?
I’ll bet any amount of carbon credits that Skeptic works for the government… possibly NASA.
Four out of the five top posts had a) a major error (either made by the author or quoted uncritically) b) were a clear example of cherry-picking data to support a hypothesis, or c) (one case) were solely about a typo. Five posts, four “single points.”
(BTW, another name for my writing technique is “backing up an assertion with evidence.”)
So it seems fairly clear that your blog achieves nowhere near the standards for accuracy that you hold your opponents to. That’s fine– there are no laws that say you have to be accurate– but it means you shouldn’t expect anyone to take you as seriously as we do those you cover.
[Finally, its interesting that your and other responses focus on me personally. I am told I don’t know anything about the media business and am a dull person. While I don’t particularly care about your opinion of me, its fascinating to see how early you employ ad hominen attacks against some stranger you’ve never met.]
1)
I love the quotes! That’s true, but “melting ice” is not the same as “global warming.” Usually “stories” headlines are “related” to whatever the “story” is “about.”
2)
Well, its kind of an obvious point. But, out of curiosity, how many times have you reported on heat-waves? How many times on cold or normal temperatures? That’s what’s meant by cherry-picking.
3)
OK, so your source (or Mr. Sununu) is completely ignorant. I wonder, how often have you posted comments from the mainstream scientific community which suggest that the effects of global warming will be horrific? And when you do, do you simply post them without any commentary?
REPLY: Given that you’ve just called both Dr. Carter and Mr. Sunnunu “completely ignorant” right after complaining in a previous post that you are the victim of an ad hom because I suggested that you might not undestand how media headlines are written, I have resigned myself to it. It wouldn’t matter what I say or didn’t say. You’d have a problem with it. I will say this. Both Dr. Carter and Mr. Sunnunu, whether you agree with them or not, have the courage to stand up and say what they know and believe in, and to put their name to it. You on the other hand, as an anonymous coward, have not that courage, and hide behind a made up name while passing judgment on everyone here. So many like yourself and come here and say similar things that you have are similarly cowardly. I’ve explained my position, and you respond by denigrating Mr. Sunnunu.
Not nice, not rational, but certainly expected. Don’t bother to respond, I have no further interest. So off to the troll bin for you. – Anthony
George E. Smith (09:28:24) :
“When people are talking about hundredths of a degree change, in something that is nothing more than a manufactured climate datum (say GISStemp), and trying to bestow some scientific significance to that; it is just plain silly to ignore the clearly demonstrated solar effect on cosmic and charged solar particles.”
As usual George your spot on.
How many times have I seen/read climatic averages calculated to the n th decimal place which are then used to give trends of +0.00 …. something!! Yes you are right this is about trying to bestow some scientific significance on something which can be explained by some other well known effect.
CO2 is measured in millionths and CH4 is measured in billionths.
Yet a trend can be obtained about their varying atmospheric amounts and the media can have a field day.
Are there really trends or is it human imagination?
Which reminds me of the work done by James Hutton in his “The Theory of the Earth”. All his work was based upon what he observed and what were established demonstrated facts. He made it clear that human imagination must not be allowed to change known facts.
And that was during the Scottish Enlightenment in the mid 1700’s.
Today any modern James Hutton would use a computer to calculate trends in “fluor” and show that these trends have a negative aqueous trend. Where as simple observation would show that fluor/fluorspar is not soluble in water.
Your correct “it is just plain silly to ignore the clearly demonstrated …. effect”.
Jerker Andersson
Chicago – for more than a year, they have set a number of cloudy day records. On the web? I doubt it.
Adolfo Giurfa (11:26:25) :
Then, when did cycle 24 really begin?
Probably Oct. ’08, but it could take a while before they know for sure, possibly even two years.
skeptic (11:18:35)
Wow.
I decided to check out Watt’s up for the first time recently, to evaluate the quality of “skeptics” arguments.
A whole post, and dozens of comments, about a typo.
Not just any typo, “skeptic”, but it encompasses the title and the entire subject of the PDF, which is pretty funny when you think about it – oh, wait, you AGWers have no sense of humor, that’s right. Never mind.
Hint: try another thread if this particular one displeases you. You might find one that lives up to your obviously high standards.
Adolfo Giurfa (08:15:31) :
“Usokin on the last LOST CYCLE:
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf
”
This piece is for me very interesting. Normaly we see a good correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. but then it seemed to me that the cooling of DALTON MINIMUM just started a little early. I have asked here at WUWT howcome this could be, and i actually got the answer that it was because that the solar activity did not have much influence on temperatures… Despite all the superpe correlations in general.
But then comes this writing and it appears, that the reason for this “late low solar activity of the Dalton minimum” might be caused by wrong interpretations of data? That definetely makes things match better, thanks for link.
B Kerr said:
I think the first of these is measured in parts per million and currently stands at around 380, so that would be measured in the 10,000s, not millionths.
Richard, I am a little mathematically challenged, could you help me out here? Does not 380 “parts per million” mean 380 millionths? If not, why not? Please explain…
No more comments about Skeptic, just a link to a pretty good web-site dealing with our planet’s thermostat.
http://www.solarcycle24.com
Richard Sharpe (13:19:18) three point eight 10,000ths seems like a peculiar nomenclature for 380 millionths