After an exciting encounter last week with some genuine sunspots that weren’t arguable as specks, pores, or pixels, the sun resumes its quiet state this week.
People send me things. Here’s the latest email from Paul Stanko, who has been following the solar cycle progression in comparison to previous ones.
Hi Anthony,
Out of the numbered solar cycles, #24 is now in 7th place. Only 5, 6, and 7 of the Dalton Minimum and cycles 12, 14, and 15 of the Baby Grand Minimum had more spotless days. Since we’ve now beaten cycle #13, we are clearly now competitive with the Baby Grand minimum.
Here’s a table of how the NOAA panel’s new SC#24 prediction is doing:
November 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 83.7)
December 2008: predicted = 1.80, actual = 1.69 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 84.7)
January 2009: predicted = 2.10, actual = 1.71 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 73.2)
February 2009: predicted = 2.70, actual = 1.67 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 55.6)
March 2009: predicted = 3.30, actual = 1.97 (predicted peak of 90 suggests an actual peak of 53.8)
April would require the October data which is still very incomplete. If this analysis intrigues you, I’d be happy to keep you updated on it. Please also find a couple of interesting graphs attached as images.
Paul Stanko
Here’s the graphs, the current cycle 24 and years of interest are marked with a red arrow:
And how 2008/2009 fit in:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
rbateman (13:02:32) :
Gene Nemetz (12:39:57) :
Sun big. Earth small.
Quote of the week !!!!
savethesharks (21:46:51) :
Gene Nemetz (12:39:57) :
“Sun big. Earth small.
Small change on big sun big change on small earth.”
NICE!
h/t Willie Soon.
Leif Svalgaard (18:16:21) : And when it doesn’t work [like in this case] becomes a millstone around your neck, because you can’t let go of it.
Sorry, but this is jumping to conclusion Dr. Svalgaard. I have never said that HMF B is the only influence the temperature on this planet.
Leif,
We are not computers. We are neural networks. We sometimes discover the potential (output) of the neural network by “feel”. We know that people without feelings can’t think. The “feeling” of a well trained neural network allows decision making. For the network to be well trained it is important that mistakes hurt. Very important.
So what is to be done? If you have a “feeling” check the math. i.e. confirm it in the real world.
M. Simon (00:35:26) :
So what is to be done? If you have a “feeling” check the math. i.e. confirm it in the real world.
That’s what we do.
Invariant (15:56:45) :
You are correct there. I would also add imagination to the intuition, which again is a very personal quality, without which science progress would be rather pedestrian.
Here is my example of both:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Vukcevic (04:08:35) :
Invariant (15:56:45) :
You are correct there. I would also add imagination to the intuition
Let me add ‘flights of fancy’. Luckily for science there are enough ‘pedestrian’ scientists around to make sure that both feet stay on the ground. Various people have noticed that “progress is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration”.
Leif Svalgaard (05:36:17) :
Various people have noticed that “progress is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration”.
Or “perspiration”.
Leif Svalgaard (05:36:17) :
You are correct there too. Inspiration and imaginations are gifts that cannot be learned. It is those fortunate ones that make intrusions in ‘comfy’ world of academia, to which is than to shoot ‘flights of fancy’ down, and on rare occasions, sweep cobwebs out of their cupboards, and get on with laborious work of ‘transpiration’ and ‘perspiration’.
It was a JFK’s ‘flight of fancy’ (and he was not a scientist or engineer) that got NASA ‘perspiring’ to beat Russians in space race and put man on the moon.
Not many ‘flights of fancy’ since.
M. Simon
But you can’t let feelings affect your results. “I have a feeling it’s getting warmer this last century.” Then possibly bias your results to get what your feelings have told you.
Vukcevic (07:25:43) :
Inspiration and imaginations are gifts that cannot be learned. It is those fortunate ones that make intrusions in ‘comfy’ world of academia
Most scientists [and in academia] I know have that gift. It has to be tempered with reason and knowledge and peer criticism. Most pseudo-science imaginations and flights of fancy [including your own] are not.
My definition of real science is when people do not know what they are trying to discover, because if they knew they would not need to discover it. Basically real scientists do not know what they are doing!
If we consider two great minds of the previous century, Richard Feynman and Lev Landau, they both avoided reading too many scientific articles or books and they encouraged student to work out the details themselves instead of becoming familiar with the published literature in a field. The reason is obvious, the more we learn, the more limited our minds becomes. Roughly we can divide scientific research and methods into two main groups:
1. Analytical approach based on rational methods and published papers.
2. Intuitive method based on trial and error and standalone calculations.
The more a person practices the second method, the better the intuition is trained, and the faster the person manages to judge whether a new idea is useful. I do not have the point of view as Dr. Svalgaard that 99% of the discoveries are made by the first method. With Feynman and Landau in mind, I think that most brilliant scientists practice both methods 50% of the time – this balance is crucial.
Obviously new ideas do not arise from analysis and existing papers alone, trial and error and solitary work is needed too.
Vukcevic (04:08:35) : Here is my example of both:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Nice paper. If this is correct it could explain the sunspot cycles to some degree.
Invariant (09:08:16) :
Vukcevic (04:08:35) : Here is my example of both:
Nice paper. If this is correct it could explain the sunspot cycles to some degree.
Unfortunately, it is not science.
I do not have the point of view as Dr. Svalgaard that 99% of the discoveries are made by the first method.
No discoveries are made by the first method. You make the discovery using the 1% inspiration bit and then it takes the 99% to make it science.
Invariant (09:08:16) :
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
Nice paper. If this is correct it could explain the sunspot cycles to some degree.
Two most respected solar scientist of our age Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Hathaway are rejecting it as worthless, but for different reasons, which makes me believe there must be some substance to it, since the two most eminent names say it is wrong, but do not agree why.
Their problem is that the numbers used are not plucked from thin air, they are values well known to any astronomer. In order to get paper accepted I had to omit names of the two largest planets of the Solar system. As far as I am concerned, I sit back and wait for either of them or anyone else, to come up with something better.
Leif Svalgaard (09:40:21) : No discoveries are made by the first method. You make the discovery using the 1% inspiration bit and then it takes the 99% to make it science.
I think we have to agree that we do not agree at this point. Obviously there are many viewpoints here….
Vukcevic (09:53:49) :
Two most respected solar scientist of our age Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Hathaway are rejecting it as worthless, but for different reasons, which makes me believe there must be some substance to it, since the two most eminent names say it is wrong, but do not agree why.
We do not disagree as to why. It can be [and is] worthless on many accounts. The problem with the ‘paper’ is that it is in the 1% category, but lacks in the 99% part that makes it science.
And submitting it to xxx.lanl.gov is not ‘having it accepted’. Try to submit it to the Astrophysical Journal [Letters] and report on the result: http://www.iop.org/EJ/home/AP . They accept papers from anybody. I can submit it for you if you feel you cannot.
Leif Svalgaard (10:09:59) :
Try to submit it to the Astrophysical Journal [Letters] and report on the result: http://www.iop.org/EJ/home/AP
They accept papers from anybody. I can submit it for you if you feel you cannot.
You are on. I will correct one or two small spelling errors, or if you are really serious about it, lets go trough to it together, either privately or publicly (I do not mind), not to add or take anything out, but to make the paper more presentable, to give it a fair chance. I trust you would do your best.
Alternatively, if you are not happy to undertake such commitment, anyone else on this ‘the best science forum’ with the experience of writing short science papers is welcome to help.
Original paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
I can be contacted here: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/first.htm
Vukcevic (09:53:49): Two most respected solar scientist of our age Dr. Svalgaard and Dr. Hathaway are rejecting it as worthless.
Please do not give up. And sometimes one should avoid listening too much to respected scientists, simply because sometimes there is a paradigm shift in science and the old school becomes obsolete. For example:
“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.”
– Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project
Regarding your paper, I think it would be a good idea to look into a possible physical mechanism producing the mathematical behaviour you see.
The viewpoint that HMF B does not influence climate at all may at some point be in the same category as the quite above – many similar quotes here:
http://slotvent.com/2009/02/famous-silly-and-funny-quotes/
Leif,
I guess this *is* accepted science, yes?
I’m afraid not.
Eh? Guy has published paper, peer reviewed with award. Is all this bogus?
See also this paper from 1980; ‘abstract’ useless, behind a wall, heavily referenced. Is this a repost of ‘vacuum domain’ concepts?
Please provide links to defs of “accepted science”, “reputable scientist” and explanation of your use of smiley driven innuendo. Not been here a long, a tad confused by your answers.
Thanks.
Geoff Sharp (15:13:52) :
Good, so from now on I wont expect to see you saying the Dalton Minimum had no affect on temperature…we simply don’t have enough evidence to make a statement either way.
While there is no hard instrumental data to back it up, it surely does not mean that other evidence is thereby of no value.
It does not preclude that someday we could know, for not knowing and never being able to know are two separate issues. Perhaps it is to the benefit of some for us to not find out.
The bottom line for the Dalton is that the Literary works and the news of the day is the observation.
Invariant (10:03:42) :
I think we have to agree that we do not agree at this point. Obviously there are many viewpoints here….
I’m a practicing scientist and can only describe my experience. Not my viewpoint.
Vukcevic (10:48:24) :
if you are really serious about it, lets go trough to it together
I’m afraid that I cannot add anything of value that would not diminish your message, so I offered to do the submission for you [although it is not hard – website is easy]. Writing the paper is your job. On the website there are detailed guidelines for how the paper should be written, style issues, and nitty-gritty stuff. Follow those [it is not hard] and when you are ready, we can proceed.
Invariant (10:49:36) :
Please do not give up.
I don’t think he ever will, no matter how many people find the paper worthless. It may even strengthen his resolve, feeling that he is on the forefront battling established, corrupt, outdated mainstream science.
Aligner (11:57:25) :
Vacuum domains as such are a highly hypothetical subject explored in string theory. I don’t think anybody has actually observed one. What you asked about was the work of these two guys:
http://www.math.nsc.ru/directions/Geoeng.htm
And THAT is definitely not part of accepted science. Neither is the ‘resonance project’. That they both refer to vacuum domains is like the theory that gravity from Sirius runs my life. If I point out that that is hardly science, you will respond: “you mean that gravity is not accepted science”.
I often use a smiley for things that I consider dubious. You may still be a firm believer in such things, in which case my opinion hardly matters.
Leif Svalgaard (13:48:24) :
I’m afraid that I cannot add anything of value that would not diminish your message..
Oh well!
It was not matter of ‘adding value’, I did clearly say:” not to add or take anything out, but to make the paper more presentable, to give it a fair chance.”
You did not have to agree with any of it in order to set it out within expected parameters of presentation, after writing countless papers, that should not have been a hard work. I shall indeed have a go, and my invitation is still there. Thanks.
Haven’t had time to read all posts lately, perhaps this has been overlooked:
Svensmark just published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds”
“Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
Vukcevic (14:07:56) :
I did clearly say:” not to add or take anything out, but to make the paper more presentable, to give it a fair chance.”
To make the paper more presentable SOMETHING must be altered.
after writing countless papers, that should not have been a hard work
It is indeed easy, if the subject makes sense. If not, it is VERY hard.
rbateman (13:40:42) :
knowing and never being able to know are two separate issues. Perhaps it is to the benefit of some for us to not find out.
For society it is important to know. For some, including myself, knowing is not the goal. Finding things out is the game and is fun and rewarding. If somebody from the future would come to me and offer to tell me how everything works, I would refuse. Because that would deprive me of the joy of finding it out.
The bottom line for the Dalton is that the Literary works
Of cold brought about by volcanoes. Or just of blind fate.