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.
Just The Facts says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm
FYI, this version appears to be out of date:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn%20B.png
It is now included in:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png”
Invariant says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:26 pm
* Or would it be more reasonable to expect considerable temperature variations at many frequencies? (Years, decades, centuries and millennia…)
would be my choice
Leif Svalgaard
What do you think about this hypothesis?
“Mechanisms to explain the Sun-volcano link probably involve induced changes in the basic state of the atmosphere. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the Earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.”
http://blog.chess.com/Rickj/volcanoesearthquakesmagnetic-fields-and-climatric-impacts
Just The Facts says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:57 pm
What do you think about this hypothesis?
Not much…
“Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the Earth’s spin.
I don’t believe that
decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum
I don’t think any such connection has been demonstrated
Leif Svalgaard says: July 17, 2010 at 12:34 pm
It is now included in:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png”
I know, but it doesn’t make sense to keep an out of date version on your site, it should be kept current or deleted.
Just The Facts says:
July 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm
it should be kept current or deleted.
it is
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 11:28 am
I think this is ordinary [and correct] practice. The weather service also [as they should] updates the weekly forecast every day taking into account the latest data.
Well, to begin with, they obviously didn’t. They slid the curve downwards to meet reality.
By sliding it to the right, they are saying that they expect the cycle to be longer than the normal 11 years. I would really like to know where they get the evidence for that.
Its MUCH more likely that there will just be a much reduced cycle peak.
PJP says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:16 pm
They slid the curve downwards to meet reality.
Just like the weather service does to update the weekly forecast to meet reality. Same thing.
By sliding it to the right, they are saying that they expect the cycle to be longer than the normal 11 years. I would really like to know where they get the evidence for that.
Smaller cycles are usually longer, that’s why.
As long as the solar polar field strength does not flip to positive territory, we will predict that current solar minimal behavior trends will continue? And we never get a peak in SC24?
The question is how long we will observe the curve crossing the zero axis? Needs 70 years to complete it like the period of the Maunder Minimum?
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
rbateman says:
July 17, 2010 at 11:11 am
Leif:
Do you have a latest L&P update?
You can trust this one:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Peter Pan says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm
As long as the solar polar field strength does not flip to positive territory, we will predict that current solar minimal behavior trends will continue? And we never get a peak in SC24?
It is the peak in SC24 that causes the polar fields to reverse. The new activity we are seeing has already eaten away about 25% of the polar fields. At this rate, they will reverse in 4 years time.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:55 pm
It is the peak in SC24 that causes the polar fields to reverse. The new activity we are seeing has already eaten away about 25% of the polar fields. At this rate, they will reverse in 4 years time.
======================================================
The newest activity means later than June 22?
Is that reversed sunspot contributed somehow?
Peter
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:55 pm
The new activity we are seeing has already eaten away about 25% of the polar fields. At this rate, they will reverse in 4 years time.
I should be more specific: the decrease will accelerate and comparing with previous cycles one can ask: when 25% has been eaten away, hoe long to reversal? that’s were the four years come in, but it is only a rough estimate.
Peter Pan says:
July 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm
The newest activity means later than June 22?
Since 2007. See response upthread.
Is that reversed sunspot contributed somehow?
No, that’s a drop in the bucket.
@Just The Facts says
‘What do you think about this hypothesis?’
Shouldn’t you actually make or state an actual hypothesis before you ask someone what they think about it?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 11:09 am
Here is a few to look at, I know there is more, perhaps Leif has some on file.
———————————————————-
Those do not claim there were no reversals and show no data in support. One speculates that there were no reversal in one hemisphere and the last one explicitly says: “the Sun had retained the polarity reversal through the prolonged sunspot minimum period.”
So it looks like your references were based on wishful thinking.
There goes that other universe thing. Plus cherry picking a statement out of context is not a good look.
“The situation may have been extreme in the Maunder Minimum where the northern hemisphere most probably did not have polar reversals during several cycles, while the southern hemisphere may have had some”
One paper cited isotope evidence for this occurrence for other grand minimia also.
I am not going to do the usual pointless back and forth on this one. People can read the links and make up their own minds.
Geoff Sharp says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm
“The situation may have been extreme in the Maunder Minimum”
As I said: speculation only. And as one of them said: “the Sun had retained the polarity reversal through the prolonged sunspot minimum period.”
Peter Pan says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:48 pm
That graph has nothing to do with L&P. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Geoff Sharp says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Plus cherry picking a statement out of context is not a good look.
It is not cherry picked out of context, it is their conclusion:
“3. Conclusions
In both of the carbon-14 records for the Maunder and the Spoerer minima, twenty-two year structure is detected. It suggests that the Sun had retained the polarity reversal through the prolonged sunspot minimum period. By analyzing the detailed variation of the twenty-two year cycle, it may be possible to determine the polarity of the Sun in the past when the observational records are no longer available.”
But, as you say, the readers can see that for themselves, without your distortions.
Ric Werme says:
July 17, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Peter Pan says:
July 17, 2010 at 3:48 pm
rbateman says:
July 17, 2010 at 11:11 am
Leif:
Do you have a latest L&P update?
You can trust this one:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
That graph has nothing to do with L&P. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
========================================================
Since there were so few sunspots but spec, I guess L&P had a difficult time to do their work, it is a complete new situation that there are no enough samples to satisfy accuracy statistically.
Counting on SSN nowadays,on the other side, become so controversial because the authentic readings and definitions are debatable and sometimes too artificial.
But the sunspots indeed is a magnetic phenomena of the sun activity. Its cycle length, polarity and intensity are correlated and proportional to the observed individual sunspot magnetic field strength, and more general, to the total solar polar field strength.
As L&P method goes on to 2015 that can not measure anything since sunspots magnetic intensity drops below 1500 Gauss, then what? Do nothing.
But the solar polar field strength readings at that time still can tell us things:
Since we can tell the solar polar field strength curve crossing the X axis at cycle of 22 years, currently we may see way beyond 22 years with much low magnetic strength (as low as 0.5 Guess at peak instead of 2 Guess).
It indicates solar activity is getting low, and the cycle is getting longer, it may hint the minimum coming. L&P method can get same conclusion.
Leif said the current cross through the X axis maybe 4 years later, that is telling us the cycle would be 30 years long (assume the shape of the curve should be symmetrical) instead of average 22 years, this is a significant elongation of sunspots cycle. Such long cycle definitly will affect climate.
Robinson says:
July 16, 2010 at 3:17 pm
I truly don’t understand your apparent determination to tear down scientific literacy in the U.S.
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?
______________________________________________________________
If scientist are doing what they are supposed to be doing; developing “conceptual representations” then testing them against reality and chucking the ideas that do not work, I doubt anyone really has a problem. I for one honor Hathaway because he owns up to the fact his predictions were wrong and hopefully is learns something new.
Hathaway’s problem is NASA also has those who are not decent scientists but are instead political advocates. This has tarnished NASA’s reputation and Hathaway gets a bit of collateral damage as a result.
1DandyTroll says: July 17, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“Shouldn’t you actually make or state an actual hypothesis before you ask someone what they think about it?”
No, we are in the exploratory stages of this process, Leif is a great filter, so when I come across someone else’s hypothesis, i.e. “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequence”:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
which I can’t readily refute, the most expedient path forward is to toss it to Leif and let him take care of it. The reason that it is important that Leif be careful with his words, is that on many matters, I, and many others, consider his opinion to be fact.
Peter Pan says:
July 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Leif said the current cross through the X axis maybe 4 years later, that is telling us the cycle would be 30 years long (assume the shape of the curve should be symmetrical) instead of average 22 years
From 1990 to 2014 is 24 years, not 30…
Just The Facts says:
July 17, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Leif be careful with his words, is that on many matters, I, and many others, consider his opinion to be fact.
Fact, as far as I know [there is always that implicit qualification].
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 17, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Plus cherry picking a statement out of context is not a good look.
It is not cherry picked out of context, it is their conclusion:
“3. Conclusions
In both of the carbon-14 records for the Maunder and the Spoerer minima, twenty-two year structure is detected. It suggests that the Sun had retained the polarity reversal through the prolonged sunspot minimum period. By analyzing the detailed variation of the twenty-two year cycle, it may be possible to determine the polarity of the Sun in the past when the observational records are no longer available.”
But, as you say, the readers can see that for themselves, without your distortions.
Some of the links I presented (at 4am) I may have misinterpreted their use of the term “22 year periodicity” The first link is probably the only one of relevance. There are conflicting proxy reports on this issue.
These links deal directly with non reversing poles:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999ESASP.448..117M
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/21/193-196.pdf
It’s early days but the southern hemisphere is showing a reluctance for pole reversal according to the WSO. Are you ruling out the possibility of one or both failing to reverse polarity during SC24 and if there is a failure, how will this affect your views on the Babcock-Leighton theory?
Geoff Sharp says:
July 17, 2010 at 10:39 pm
It’s early days but the southern hemisphere is showing a reluctance for pole reversal according to the WSO. Are you ruling out the possibility of one or both failing to reverse polarity during SC24 and if there is a failure, how will this affect your views on the Babcock-Leighton theory?
The polar reversal is a direct consequence of B-L. In fact was what got Babcock onto the idea in the first place. What happens is that the follower spot polarity moves to the poles and first ‘eats’ the existing field there, then adds its own reversed flux. If there are not enough spots [more precisely: no active regions] in a given hemisphere there will be no polar field reversal in that hemisphere, but there could be one in the other hemisphere, provided there are enough active regions. Then the sun could end up with the poles having the same polarity [this, BTW, has happened for a few years at some of the recent maxima]. If the poles do not reverse, their flux slowly decays and the cycle basically dies [probably not to be resumed]. This would also mean that solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays would cease. Since we know, that the modulation was as vigorous during Grand Minima as now, the cycle didn’t die and the poles must have reversed. That leaves the question why there were no spots to be seen. The simplest explanation for this would be L&P. Granted that we still need an explanation for L&P, I consider that a separate problem, possibly linked to changes in temperature profile. This is still to be worked out.
Since most of the activity during SC24 has been in the north, it is no wonder that the south polar fields have not decreased as much as the the north [if at all]. The essential point is that activity and polar fields are linked in the B-L paradigm, which is why we think we can use the polar fields as a predictor of activity.
SC24 will be an important test of all this.