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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:52 am
Casper says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:05 am
Is the relationship between sun spot number and radio flux really constant?
It used to be, but is no longer:
You just gently tossed that out there . . . how significant is that?
Sean Peake says:
July 16, 2010 at 5:06 pm
> IQ means nothing. It all depends on what you do with it.
I like to compare IQ with MSG. By itself it’s useless, it just enhances the other aptitudes you’re lucky enough to have.
I respect Hathaway for the fact that he said he was wrong so I ain’t in for criticizing the man.. For all we know DA could be wrong too.. but so far he has outmatched all “them others” LOL. The sun and the data seem to be following his (DA) predictions. Leif is a wonder because I cannot come to grips with the fact he does not seem to think the Sun has any effect on Climate. (or do I stand to be corrected?). I doubt if anyone will ever find a parallel time correlation between weather and one solar activity (SSN, Flux, Geo etc..) God help us if one did.. we would have fried or frozen a long time ago. However I believe the whole sun “package” within time constraints does definitely control the earths climate. Its basic..if you put your hand out on a sunny day it heats up, if its cloudy it doesn’t LOL
David Archibald says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I predict that there will be no reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles at Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
Prediction is about falsification. If what you predict based on your ‘theory’ turns out not the happen, we usually take that the mean that the theory is false. So, if there is a reversal, i means your ideas are false, right? If not, it was not really a prediction, but just speculation. Speculation can be false without invalidating your theory. So, what is it: prediction or speculation?
DRE says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:04 pm
You just gently tossed that out there . . . how significant is that?
We don’t know what it means or is of importance, but always when something does work as it did in the past, it may portend a change out of the ordinary, that should make us cautious.
Stephan says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Leif is a wonder because I cannot come to grips with the fact he does not seem to think the Sun has any effect on Climate. (or do I stand to be corrected?).
You stand to be corrected. The Sun does have effect on the climate, all of a tenth of a degree’s worth.
Yes David, but its not the SUN that’s going to make it cold, its going to be the volcanic activity.
latitude says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:43 pm
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?
=======================================================
Mocking is one way of trying to keep them honest.
This is a good point. Our political and judicial systems are set up to be adversarial. Two opposing points of view presented to the public to be adjudicated by the public. a jury or a judge. This adversarial ‘friction’ tends to produce the best result, at least all sides of a case are heard. Those of us lucky enough to live in a Democracy live with these conflicts daily and we balance out some sort of ‘truth’ from the teasing, mocking and, yes, ridicule.
Why should climate science be exempt?
I don’t think the word “prediction” means what these scientists think it means.
Leif, you noted:
To: “. . . any light on which components of the solar radiation spectrum might account for that Leif?”
If the minima between odd and even solar cycles are “always higher”, that is significant.
Your observation provides the possible physical causation to the finding by:
W.J.R. Alexander
Causal linkages between solar activity and climatic responses Water Resource and Flood Studies March 2006 , University of Pretoria, Dept. Civil & Biosystems Engineering
I recommend using Alexander’s double cycle analysis methodology with alternating positive and negative cycles to help expose impacts of solar cycles on climate.
John Finn says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm
You missed by a mile.
NOAA did not and does not get what the current solar cycle is doing.
NOAA, along with the MET Office, has 2 years worth of blown seasonal forecasts under their belts, and both have been sucked into the C02 warming scare.
But, today, like the last 2 years, they just keep on truckin’ with the hotter than ever forecasts, and when one happens to come along, it’s ‘See…we were right all along’.
As if that is going to gold-plate their credibility.
People, contrary to the opinion of some, have memories.
As for your assertion that skeptics think that AGW’er hope for a massive solar cycle, whatever for? Warmists don’t believe the Sun has any significant influence on the climate, direct or indirect.
Leif Svalgaard says: July 16, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“You stand to be corrected. The Sun does have effect on the climate, all of a tenth of a degree’s worth.”
That seems like a very absolute statement within a very uncertain field. Are you really that sure about the facts?
Ed Murphy says:
July 16, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Do you mean volcanoes will cool the climate, like this?
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SSNvsVOL.JPG
John Finn says:
July 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm
so we can state with some confidence that NOAA and Joe Bastardi do not agree with David Archibald.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Joe Bastardi works off a triple crown of cooling.
1. Ocean cooling.
2. Volcanic activity.
3. Solar slowdown.
Joe uses my site and is a great supporter, he is following this cycle intently as it now starts to track lower than SC5.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2010 at 7:33 pm
David Archibald says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I predict that there will be no reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles at Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
—————————
Prediction is about falsification. If what you predict based on your ‘theory’ turns out not the happen, we usually take that the mean that the theory is false. So, if there is a reversal, i means your ideas are false, right? If not, it was not really a prediction, but just speculation. Speculation can be false without invalidating your theory. So, what is it: prediction or speculation?
A poor “strawman” attempt Leif. We do not know what will happen if we get a grand minimum, we have never measured one before. I also think there might be a phase catastrophe in at least one of the poles, but this condition is not mandatory for the survival of the theory. Two low cycles are all we need to validate the theory to the next level.
Proxy records suggest at least one non reversing pole during past grand minima, its not a huge leap to make this prediction.
If you really had a high IQ and could “out smart” [sic] PHds, then you’d know that there is no apostrophe for the plural of IQ. And you’d know the difference between “loose” and “lose”.
I think those PHds just got tired of your rambling and let you win.
Sheesh!
In some places they did, in others they didn’t. Nothing uniformly global is occurring. You get some regional heating here, some regional cooling there, and some regional mostly stasis elsewhere.
David L. Hagen says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm
scientifically undeniable linkage
I don’t read stuff that claims to be undeniable.
Just The Facts says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm
That seems like a very absolute statement within a very uncertain field. Are you really that sure about the facts?
As sure as everybody else is when they claim there is a correlation between A and B. I can re-phrase my statement: “I expect on simple theoretical grounds that there should be about a 0.1K effect [actually a little bit less, but I don’t deal in hundredth of degrees], and 0.1K is widely claimed to the order of magnitude of the solar cycle effect, so I’ll happily go along with that”.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 16, 2010 at 10:18 pm
We do not know what will happen if we get a grand minimum
That makes it speculation and not prediction
Proxy records suggest at least one non reversing pole during past grand minima, its not a huge leap to make this prediction.
What record and which minimum? And it is not prediction, it is speculation.
Leif,
thank you for your presentation. I’m not a heliophysicist, but I’m keen on astronomy. You are right, something must have happened in 1981. I suppose that this change in the relationship has something to do with that phenomena which was reported by Livinston and Penn.
Something here’s not clear to me: the graphical data is labelled as ‘prediction’, but the comments all imply it’s a projection. Which is it?
My sunspot dartboard 🙂 says SC24 peaks in 2014-2015 at about 50.
13-year cycle at least.
Dave McK (July 16, 2010 at 10:57 am)
Thanks for the link Dave.
I thought that this was a good example of relying on experts and authority.
David Hathaway/Robert Wilson of the Marshall Space Flight Center SC24 prediction in 2006
Guys: That dartboard is on the other wall. 🙂
rbateman says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:28 pm
John Finn says:
July 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm
You missed by a mile.
I didn’t miss anything I just made a comment.
As for your assertion that skeptics think that AGW’er hope for a massive solar cycle, whatever for? Warmists don’t believe the Sun has any significant influence on the climate, direct or indirect.
Another myth. I think you’ll find that they attribute solar activity as one of the main reasons for the early 20th century warming. Do let me know if you need help finding a reference for this. There is also this 2001 paper by Shindell, D.T., G.A. Schmidt, M.E. Mann, D. Rind, and A. Waple (recognise any of those names) entitled “Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum” which examines the response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. See
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Shindell_etal_1.html
The AGWers do not deny a solar influence and never have done. They do, however, claim (with some justification) that there has been no long term trend in activity over the past ~50 years. It is this fact which leads them to conclude that most of the warming since ~1975 is ghg-induced.
Dave says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:59 am
The first 2 ISES graphs are projection corrections that keep getting undercut by the absolute track of the data, with a high degree of consistency.
What the projectors cannot seem to grasp is that the cycle is being eroded as it develops.
First, they have the flux rate of attack overestimated.
Second, they fail to take into account that the SSN is lagging the flux as a separate development, so the SSN graph is a compound misprojection.
It’s not like the L&P progression is a big secret.
Good grief.
John Finn says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:53 am (Edit)
The AGWers do not deny a solar influence and never have done. They do, however, claim (with some justification) that there has been no long term trend in activity over the past ~50 years.
As the last couple of solar threads showed, the solar influence turns up in temp records decade later, so if we look at the trend of the sunspot number 1940-1990 compared to the long term average of ~40:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:1990/trend
There’s your global warming.
Robert Bateman, please explain the eruptions part of your excellent looking graph to us, bud.
. . It now becomes obvious that the floods were not caused by Pacific sea surface temperatures (La Niña), but that the floods and La Niña were both caused by regular, and therefore predictable, changes in solar magnetic activity.
Sounds like the biggest poo ever, magnetics make it rain… naw
Volcano eruptions make it rain, and large, lengthy eruptions make it rain a lot for a long time !