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.
Mike Campbell says: 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.
Mike:
I recommend The Sun Kings:
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Kings-Unexpected-Carrington-Astronomy/dp/0691141266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279313184&sr=1-1
It’s a history of early solar astronomy. Carrington and Maunder play central roles. You won’t learn much solar science, but it’s a great historical read.
Jim Cripwell says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:20 pm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
Anthony says:
REPLY: Thanks Tom, I note that some people criticize my choice of words/grammar there also, such as who -vs- whom
=================================================
Anthony, if they are criticizing your fingers, it’s because they can’t find anything wrong with your brain. 😉
Well at least we’ve proven beyond any doubt that solar cycle models have little or no skill. Unfortunately it’ll take a lot longer to prove the same about the global climate models.
Interesting. I was just thinking whilst reading the replies that some of them are somewhat over the top.
We all know that models are conceptual representations of real entities, with the emphasis on conceptual. Why would you vilify scientists trying to establish what those concepts actually are? At the very least the lack of identity between the output of the model and the experimental data confirms the null hypothesis. So you’ve learnt something. Back to the drawing board you go….
I suppose the problem comes when you market your predictions as somehow indicative of your level of expertise or authority in any given area. The Met Office have found to their detriment that this can often come back to bite you in the arse.
You obviously have no clue what folks are talking about. We are not trying to “Tear down” any group, we are trying to get them to actually do science instead of pretending they are scientists when they are really making wild ass guesses and waving dead chickens over their head.
The “science” most of these organizations actually do is riddled with elementary errors and poor judgment, and a ridiculous over confidence in their abilities and a total disregard for good practice and recognition of the error limits inherent in the studies they are “attempting” to do.
It is the skeptics who are insisting on high quality science and the so called scientists who are for the most part acting like used car salesmen and over stating precision, drawing faulty associations and causal relationships when the data simply do not support such conclusions and in general doing work that would have gotten me an F in Mechanical Engineering school in 1967.
Just because people call them scientists or have fancy degrees does not in any way mean that they are scientists.
Science is a process with well know rules of how you perform research and if you disregard good practice and those basic rules of the scientific method you are not a scientist no matter what it says on your business card, or what degrees you hold.
Larry
Hey Leif, I have no idea what kind of ccd chip you have on your government grant solar observatory. I had to pay for my solar scope out of my own pocket. I never thought to ask the Gov if they would hold up the tax payers to pay me so go study my hobby.
I can tell from the resolution that they are more than ample for what they are doing.
And cost more than any scope at a star party that I have been to.
The point I made was that they are all at high elevations with 24 computer chips recording them.
The other fact you might want to answer, how did a high school educated boob like me out smart all the NASA solar boys. Maybe they should quit listening to Prince Charles for guidance. I think all you government grant scientist are thicker than thieves.
Do you think your NASA pal Hathaway, helped design that segmented exploding solid fuel booster they used on the space shuttle. Ever wonder why it was not made out of a solid casing like all other solid fuel rockets?
tom gall says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Hey Leif, I have no idea what kind of ccd chip you have on your government grant solar observatory.
4096×4096 pixels.
The other fact you might want to answer, how did a high school educated boob like me out smart all the NASA solar boys.
I don’t think you have, but let me tell you a little story:
A guy was sitting in a park eating apple seeds. Another guy walks up and asks “what are you eating?”, “Apple seeds, they will make you smarter”, “Really, can I buy some of yours?”, “they are $3 each”, “OK, let me have 10”, and the guy forks over the 30 bucks, get his apple seeds and eats them. After a few minutes, he says: “Hey, come to think about it, I could have bought a whole lot of apples for $30 and gotten many more apple seeds…” “See”, says the first guy “the seeds are already working”.
So, how many apple seeds did you buy?
I notice that there is a large contingent of troll type folk over here since Real Climate in one of their comments in a recent post suggested that they come over here to disrupt or somesuch. Sorry cant pinpoint as wasnt taking seriously at the time but should be easy find if you can stomach the trot.
“It turns out that none of our models were totally correct,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA’s lead representative on the panel. “The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way.”
OMFG for real! Not totally correct? Maybe just a little bit? No? Oh well.
David says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:58 am
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?
=============================================================
David, if we had listened to science, the coral reefs would be gone by now, New York would be under water, millions would have starved to death, the world population would be twice what it is right now, we would all be driving George Jetson cars with robots to wait on us, there would be no disease, and everyone would live to be over 100.
Mocking is one way of trying to keep them honest.
Do you really believe that we know enough about weather/climate to predict the future? So far they haven’t gotten it right yet.
NOAA isn’t behind just the Solar Cycle curve, they are also behind the climate curve.
In their climate case, they have too much CO2 on the brain.
But, as far as the Solar Cycle goes, they should have caught on at least a year ago.
They cannot bring themselves to lower their expectations, prior to falling ever further behind.
tom gall says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm
> Do you think your NASA pal Hathaway, helped design that segmented exploding solid fuel booster they used on the space shuttle. Ever wonder why it was not made out of a solid casing like all other solid fuel rockets?
How many solid fuel boosters as long or longer than the shuttle’s are there? IIRC, the SRB segments are designed to fit on to railway cars. How are the ones you’re thinking of transported?
I think if we got Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt to collaborate on counting sunspot numbers perhaps we would see a return to higher solar activity. But I guess they’re too busy fudging the temperature data at the moment.
It must be a conspiracy
Leif
I have a high IQ that I got from my parents for free. I find can usually out smart a lot PhDs.
It happens to be one of my favorite subjects. IQ’s that is.
You want to defend the economics profession? They have lots of PhDs.
My real passion is investing money, want compare how I know when to go short and when to go long, and what to buy and sell. I play with my the money that I spent a life time earning in the private sector, and not money taken from tax payers at the point of a gun.
The only PhD that I know that know how markets work is Marc Farber. And he bets his own money.
Oh just so you know, I flunked 7th grade, but the teacher let me go on. I then flunked 8th math, then algebra 1, next biology and graduated 271 out of 273 in my high school class. Emmylou Harris was the class valedictorian. I then went out to make through 2 semesters before flunking out, in one of the easiest colleges to get into in America. Then went into the USN Polaris program and almost manage to flunk out of basic electronics. Then when the hard classes came, I found I could get B average with out opening a book. Fact is having a big number cruncher down, and 6000 people waiting for it to be fixed was something I enjoyed. Having a Cray divide unit spitting out garbage was a good way to see if you still had it. You loose IQ points as you age. And easy 20 buy the time you are in your 60’s.
Are you old like me?
Geez, Tom Gall, lighten up, man. IQ means nothing. It all depends on what you do with it.
re: “Sun Kings” book recommendation
Thanks Dan in Cali.
Rgds
Mike in Hali(fax)
And Jim, as well. Thx for the input.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:38 pm
tom gall says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Hey Leif, I have no idea what kind of ccd chip you have on your government grant solar observatory.
4096×4096 pixels.
Is it just me, or is that not SIXTEEN megapixels? What were you disagreeing with again Leif?
DirkH says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:13 pm
John Finn says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:59 am
NOAA and Joe Bastardi seem to agree with DA:
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/joe-bastardi-coming-cooling-will-be-coldest-since-early-90s/
Firstly, DA and Joe Bastardi are not talking about about the same thing. Joe is referring to a short term drop in temperatures
due to a shift in ENSO conditions (El Nino -> La Nina) . This may well cause worldwide temperatures to drop from their current highs by a few tenths of a degree. This is from your link:
The Pinatubo cooling in the early 1990s caused a drop in temperatures which was estimated to be ~0.5 deg C – but this was only for a few months. These sorts of fluctuations do happen. After the 1997/98 El Nino temperatures peaked and then dropped sharply in 1999 and 2000 (El Nino -> La Nina). Remember also that temperatures rose very sharply between 2008 and 2010 (La Nina -> El Nino)
David Archibald is talking about something entirely different. He is predicting a sustained long term (decadal) decline in temperatures. Furthermore, he is predicting temperatures that are 2 deg below what they are at present, so we can state with some confidence that NOAA and Joe Bastardi do not agree with David Archibald.
stephan says:
July 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Thanks for H/T…Looks like D Archibald will be right on the temps prediction too! (-2C over next few years would seem to me to be spot on). I reckon it has begun….
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
click on sea surface.
Also lets take note of R Spencer prediction that due to La Nina Satellite temps should be about to start dropping next 2-4 weeks
Indeed – and when La Nina is over temperatures will start to rise again. That is exactly what has happened over the past 30, 50 …100 years. However David Archibald is referring to a sustained decline in the background temperature level due to solar forcing. Roy Spencer and DA are not talking about the same thing.
NOAA hasn’t got a clue, which is the area in which bookies operate. Anybody want to bet that NOAA wrong here? Google”odds on weather conditions” Send me a taste.
rbateman says:
July 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm
NOAA isn’t behind just the Solar Cycle curve, they are also behind the climate curve.
In their climate case, they have too much CO2 on the brain.
It’s a small point but I’ve never quite understood why many readers of this blog think that AGW supporters would wish for recordings of high solar activity. I would have thought it would be quite the opposite. Surely if solar activity were low and temperatures remained high it would strengthen their case. If I were a die-hard AGWer I’d be only too keen to point out that there is low solar activity but no drop in temperatures. I’d be more than happy to play up the low solar activity predictions. If temperatures dropped – I’d have a bit of a wiggle room; if they didn’t drop – I’d claim game, set and match.
The Facts says:
July 16, 2010 at 10:47 am
Just
Your Hathaway quote is quite telling: “And I thought, well, the last few cycles were 10-year cycles. Chances are the next one will be a 10-year cycle.” It is worse than I thought. Hatthaway’s predictions should have been the divination of the gods, but the basis of his prediction was no more than “The trend is your friend.” This is slightly better than reading entrails.
When I started out in climate science in 2005, I said to Bob Foster, who had asked me a write a paper for E & E, that climate is not a random walk and that if we can predict solar activity, we can predict climate.
Clilverd 2005 did a good job predicting Solar Cycle 24 amplitude because he used a model for sunspot number using low-frequency solar oscillations, with periods 22, 53, 88, 106, 213, and 420 years modulating the 11 year Schwabe cycle. The model predicts a period of quiet solar activity lasting until approximately 2030 followed by a recovery during the middle of the century to more typical solar activity cycles with peak sunspot numbers around 120. His estimate for Solar Cycle 24 is 42 with an error range of 35.
That reminds us that the Sun has cycles. The last de Vries cycle event was the Dalton Minimum from 1798 – 1822. There is no reason to suggest that in this perfect world being despoiled by mankind’s CO2 that the Sun would stop having cycles. So predicting when the next cycle will hit is more difficult than finding the last cycle and counting forward from there. The de Vries cycle is a 210 year cycle (Clilverd used 213 years). 210 years after 1798 is 2008. The month of solar cycle 23/24 transition was December 2008. So the next de Vries cycle (let’s call it the Eddy Minimum) has arrived exactly on schedule. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
What is happening on the Sun now is phase destruction as the force that dare not speak its name has gone retrograde against the Sun’s flux momentum. The green corona brightness tells us that year of maximum for Solar Cycle 24 will be 2015. The Sun’s magnetic poles usually reverse at solar cycle maximum. I predict that there will be no reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles at Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
John Finn says:
That last sentence makes no sense. If Joe B and NOAA are “talking about something entirely different” than Dr Archibald, it doesn’t automatically follow that they can not be in agreement on other time scales. If they’re in disagreement about something, it must be over the same thing, no?