Sol and NOAA predictions have a gap.
Here are some other graphs. The Ap magnetic index is up at least, but radio flux lags just like the spot count.
Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Since NOAA uses this on every press release, I suppose I should put it here.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
h/t to WUWT reader Stephan who says in comments:
OT but D Archibald right on track for SSN 40. The rest as usual way off.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given the potential spanner in the works from L&P, shouldn’t we use F10.7 rather than SSN as a more accurate measure by which to compare predictions?
dang sun, and here I sit waiting for 10 meter to open…
I’d like to refer to my own website at http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html for an extensive list of predictions for the SC24-maximum.
A small number of prediction-methods do forecast a very low maximum for the smoothed sunspotnumber (< 70), whereas a few other methods predict a maximum between 70-90 but with a larger error margin that also do not exclude a low maximum.
So no, in case we're really going to have a low maximum, not everybody will be "way off".
They (NASA) were all predicting a strong solar cycle 24 even though observation was showing something quite different. Is this because they were hoping for a strong cycle? I think so. This is not science, it is politics.
The Detroit Lions almost went to the Super Bowl last season. Well, that isn’t totally correct.
folke says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:31 am
When the sun really is weak like in the graphs, can anybody tell me why it is warm like hell? http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
__________________________________________
Yes
The sun adds energy to the oceans. The oceans act as a huge heat sink/capacitor and it takes a lot time for the energy absorbed during the very active solar cycles (21 & 22) to be discharged. Think hot water bottle. A recent article here at WUWT showed the solar temperature/ocean match was off by about one solar cycle or ten to eleven years.
The difference in Solar energy (insolation at 65° north latitude) between peak warmth and deepest cold was around 55Wm-2;The current value, being only 13Wm-2 above the value at the depth of the ice age, is almost all the way back to ‘cold conditions’; it may be that only stored ocean heat is keeping us out of an ice age (for now).
What no one ever bothers to tell people is:
“…Ice recession was well underway 16 ka ago, and most of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets had melted by 6 ka ago. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic,…” Abstract/reference Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 1679-1715: G.H.Miller et al (23 authors)
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
“… Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.”
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
A recent article here at WUWT showed the solar temperature/ocean match was off by about one solar cycle or ten to eleven years.
Spencer: SST’s headed down – fast
Solar Cycle Linked to Global Climate, Drives Events Similar to El Niño, La Niña
There is also the fudging of the temperature record by NASA-GISS the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998.
Isn’t s a bit disingenuous to compare the raw monthly data against a smoothed predicted curve? Looking at 06, for example, one sees swings of almost 40 sunspot numbers from month to month; assuming (the unlikely) occurrence of a significantly higher sunspot number later in the year, the smoothed actual may “catch up” to the smoothed predicted curve.
Can anyone recommend one or two good books on solar science for the interested layman (whether they be of the text-book variety or more along pop-science lines)? Thx.
The Sun puts out gobs and gobs and gobs of heat producing energy. The tiny bit of change that sunspots offer is just a fraction of change in that energy. Our puny little Earth is so overwhelmed by the Sun’s energy that we do not notice its changes, particularly at the equator. And finally, in terms of relative size, our Earth uses very, very little of the amount of energy the Sun puts out.
The heat we are experiencing has to do with the tail end of El Nino and a warm Atlantic, which are both naturally occurring oscillations unique to Earth. Even the fact that we are cold at the poles and warm in the middle has nothing to do with changes in the Sun. Our seasonal axial changes and just the position of the poles themselves relative to the Sun causes those changes.
It is the Earth itself that sets up the temperature/pressure gradient. The poles are colder so have a higher pressure system than the equatorial areas, which are warmer. This sets up the air flow from the poles to the equator (air wants to flow from high to low pressure areas). The Sun’s steady beam, interrupted by clouds, provides the steady energy needed to keep equatorial pressure low relative to the poles.
Much of the equatorial heat is absorbed by the oceans which, due to the Coriolis affect and trade winds, sends that heat towards the poles where it naturally cools on its way (within a fluctuating system of course). The heat that is not absorbed by the oceans simply follows along in various bands of wind currents that when arriving at the poles, also naturally cools. And so the system is a self-perpetuating flow of high to low pressure. The system is also leaky. So what heat is not used by the Earth can also escape back out to space. Again, our cloud system in the form of storm cells can suck some of that heat out where it dissipates into space.
Greenhouse gasses makes the Earth less leaky in terms of heat loss. The tiny bit of CO2 change we have experienced in the atmosphere, given that it occupies such a small fraction of our air, is in my opinion, similar to the Sun’s tiny change due to sunspots. I just don’t see how it can compare with the much larger affects of winds, oceans, and weather pattern variations.
ShrNfr says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:27 am
We could save a lot of money if we hired an octopus.
===================================
+1 Internets to you!
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:52 am (Edit)
ShrNfr says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:32 am
Also noted in passing, the GCR counts are still above the maximum of the last minimum sunspot cycle per http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
the flux is always higher for minima between odd and even cycles [23 to 24], than between even and odd cycles [22 to 23], so this has no particular significance.
Have the latest obs been able to shed any light on which components of the solar radiation spectrum might account for that Leif? And why that wavelength is deficient in the odd to even cycle transitions?
In 60 years experience I have yet to come across anyone who can predict the shape, height and length of a new solar cycle with sufficient accuracy that would eliminate the discrepancies that we see in these graphs – I’ve come to the conclusion that it can’t be done! (Rather like trying to predict our global climate, isn’t it?!)
I know they have to justify their existence, but the more they hindcast the worse they look.
If you subscribe to their own theory “unprecedented”, then how in this world do they think they can predict the future by looking at the past.
They continue to do it, and continue to look stupid doing it.
DR:
Excellent analogy 🙂
But I thought…
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the oceans to surface of the sun….” ???
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Its still too early to predict, other than its coming in extremely long. We don’t really know what happened way back there in the past except by proxy.
The reason for all the heat and humidity imho, folke, is all the volcano eruptions in the last 3 years. http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
The sulfur gasses have dissipated and dropped from the stratosphere. But the troposhere is very heavily loaded with steam and particulate particularly in the NH and from Eyjafjallajökull.
Something new…
NASA Science News for July 16, 2010
Representatives from more than 25 of the world’s most technologically-advanced nations have gathered in Germany today to hear about a problem that may be too big for any one country to handle alone: solar storms.
FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/16jul_ilws/
You folks really like to ridicule science in general, don’t you? What exactly is there to be gained by mocking the entire scientific enterprise? Do you really want the U.S. to be dominated by the illiterate?
I truly don’t understand your apparent determination to tear down scientific literacy in the U.S. Do you want China, Japan, etc., to leave us in the dust?
MattN says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:33 am
I know a bunch of people (not us of course) laugh out loud at Archibald, but if this cycle comes in at 40-50, he’s going to make a whole bunch of people with letters at the end of their name (Ph.D) look like retards…
The criticism of David Archibald has nothing to do with his ‘prediction’ for solar cycle 24 (though you might like to make it appear so) but for his rather simplistic method for concluding that there will be a 2 deg decline in temperature over the next “few years”.
I havn’t rolled out this embarrassment in a while. Here’s what awful solar forecasting and sensational scientific press releases look like.
Nov 12, 2003: “The Sun Goes Haywire – Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12nov_haywire.htm
Oct 18, 2004: “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
May 5, 2005: “Solar Myth – With solar minimum near, the sun continues to be surprisingly active.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05may_solarmyth.htm
Sept 15, 2005: “Solar Minimum Explodes – Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
Aug 15th, 2006: “Backward Sunspot – A strange little sunspot may herald the coming of one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
Dec 21, 2006 “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec 14, 2007 “Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning? – The solar physics community is abuzz this week. ”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm
Jan 10, 2008: “Solar Cycle 24 – Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
March 28, 2008: “Old Solar Cycle Returns – Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
July 11, 2008: “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) – Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
Sept. 30, 2008: “Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
– Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low – We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
Nov. 7, 2008: The Sun Shows Signs of Life – I think solar minimum is behind us”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07nov_signsoflife.htm
April 1, 2009: Deep Solar Minimum – We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum – This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
May 29, 2009: “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
June 17, 2009: “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved? The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
September 3, 2009: “Are Sunspots Disappearing? – The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
September 29, 2009 “Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High – In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm
We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds work, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best…
folke says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:31 am
When the sun really is weak like in the graphs, can anybody tell me why it is warm like hell? http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
I will take a stab at it…High pressure domes over heat islands and purposely poor thermometer sites.
Above every high tempurature record is a high pressure dome. Venus is hot because of high pressure not CO2. Death Valley is hotter than Mt Everest due to air pressure, distance from the sun be damned. Coastal areas are always warmer because they have more atmospheric pressure than anywhere else at any given time save transient low pressure systems.
The sun warms the planet and CO2 is an inert gas capable of nothing. This is why the sun burns your skin and heavy breathing is just alot of hot air.
Hope that helps!
This is an off topic comment, but I thought it might be of interest to WUWT readers.
I have been challenged to a wager by frequent commenter on my blog. Kevin O’Neill said in a comment…
“The North Pole has never been ice-free; not once in the history of the earth.
… and I can prove it. I’ll wager you $100 to be given to the other’s favorite charity. I suggest we use NSIDC’s 15% as the threshold for ice-free. Do you accept?”
.
I have accepted.
You can see the details at Kevin O’Neill, I accept your challenge
This wager has a tangential connection to WattsUpWithThat. In one of his many recent comments O’Neill said many harsh things about WUWT. You can see his comments concerning WUWT, written on July 10th at 7:19 am here…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/entire-arctic-ocean-melted-as-early-as-august-8th-this-year/#comment-3617
And my reply, written in July 12th at 8:24 am here…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/entire-arctic-ocean-melted-as-early-as-august-8th-this-year/#comment-3643
Best Regards
Tom Moriarty
ClimateSanity
REPLY: Thanks Tom, I note that some people criticize my choice of words/grammar there also, such as who -vs- whom. It might help them to walk a mile in my shoes, being hearing impaired most of my life, now 85% deaf. I’ve had a lot of difficulty with language, mispronouncing a lot of things, and not making proper word choices because of it at times. Sometimes I’d make pronunciation mistakes, huge ones on the air, but once people learned of my disability they stopped demanding I be fired. My boss didn’t care one whit for them anyway. The fact is, like with WUWT, I drew in viewers.
-Anthony
Hathaway and NOAA have absolutely failed in their predictions. They are now making adjustments to fit the real sun conditions. It’s pathetic. They should simply fess up and admit they haven’t the foggiest notion what’s happening to the sun. In not doing so they have become a laughing stock.
@Gary Young P.
>>Somewhat OT depending on your take on Sun activity and weather: The >>Intelliweather map on the sidebar shows by colours the relative N. Am temp:
>>http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/tempcity_nat_640x480.jpg
>>Note that Atlanta is a deep orange (hot) at 77F and Moosonee in Northern >>Ontario is cool at 72F WUWT?
When I go to the link you posted, I see Atlanta at 88F and Moosenee at 72F …
Richard deSousa says:
July 16, 2010 at 10:03 am
They are just trying to survive, not to offend anybody by contesting the official paradigm of a universe only driven by gravity. (A “flintstones universe”). To know about real sun:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
and:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/solar-sys
Anthony: this gap … has been going on for three years now.
To be fair, are the predictions really of the smoothed values? If so, and I think this likely, they can hardly be called far-off at this point. Look at Jan ’01 or ’04 and compare to the smoothed curve. It would be interesting to see how previous predictions stacked up.