Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Santa brought us a new Sunspot prediction to be added to NASA’s incredibly high series of at least five ill-fated predictions starting in 2006. NASA’s latest peak Sunspot Number for Solar Cycle #24 (SC24) is down 60% from their original, but it still seems a bit too high, judging by David Archibald’s recent WUWT posting that analogizes SC24 and SC25 to SC5 and SC6 which peaked around 50, during the cold period (Dalton minimum) of the early 1800’s.
According to Yogi Berra “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Team leader Dr. Mausumi Dikpati of NASA’s National Center for Atmospheric Research and Solar physicist Dr. David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center have most likely learned that lesson well, having predicted, back in March 2006, that SC24 would start by the end of 2006 or early 2007 and would peak 30% to 50% higher than SC23, which would yield counts of 156 to 180. The latest prediction is 64 (I love their precision :^) but I predict it will have to be reduced further, kind of like an after-Christmas sale :^)
[NOTE added 28 Dec 9:45PM. See clarification comment by: John from CA, December 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm. I was mistaken in conflating NASA with NOAA in the graphic and discussion, wrongly assuming they coordinated their Sunspot predictions. The base chart, as labeled, is from NOAA but the predictions are from Dikpati and/or Hathaway at NASA, but later ones, on a NASA website, may be personal, not official. Thanks John from CA and sorry for my ignorance of government organization. Ira]
My graphic traces the downward progression of NASA Sunspot predictions, superimposed over NASA’s NOAA’s latest chart of actual Sunspot Numbers. SC23 is shown from its peak in 2000 to its demise in 2009, along with the rise of SC24 up to the latest November 2010 data. The red hoop, peaking at 90, is left over from their previous prediction and should be replaced by their new prediction in January. [Click graphic for larger version].
As indicated, SC23 peaked at a count of 120 around January 2000. It is instructive to read NASA’s March 2006 predictions (and somewhat humorous until you realize we paid for it). Some direct quotes [emphasis added]:
“The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” [Dikpati] says… Dikpati’s prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of future maxima—and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun…
Hathaway … explains: “First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun’s inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a ‘corpse’ of weak magnetic fields.”…
“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!
All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”
When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Did Dikpati and Hathaway honestly believed they had cracked the Sunspot code that had eluded science for two centuries? In hindsight, we all know they were wrong in their heady predictions of a “doozy”. (A doozy, according to Webster is “an extraordinary one of its kind”. NASA expected SC24 to be extraordinarily intense. But it is shaping up to be extraordinarily weak, so they at least get credit for using the correct word :^)
But, were they being honest? Well, Hathaway had long been aware of the relationship between Sunspot counts and climate, writing:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Is it possible that their prediction was skewed to the high side by the prevalent opinion, in the Inconvenient Truth year of 2006, that Global Warming was “settled science”. Could it be that they felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell?
It seems to me that NASA has a long history of delayed Sunspot predictions, particularly when the trend was downward. They seem to have waited until the actual counts forced them to do so.
Have a look at the graphic. SC23 SC24 [thanks Steeptown December 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm] was supposed to start by early 2007, but it did not. Yet, it took them until October 2008 to revise their prediction of a later start and lower peak (137) and then they dropped it further in January 2009 (predicting a peak of 104 to occur in early 2012).
I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots, yet it was clear to me, nearly two years ago, that 104 was way too high so I predicted a peak of 80 and moved the date of that peak to mid-2013. NASA eventually reduced their peak to 90, and just this month down to 64, and they moved the peak date to mid-2013. My latest prediction is 60, to occur in early 2014, but I believe I may still be a bit too high.
With apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don’t know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?
We are just getting around to studying the sun the SDO, SIM and TIM and all the rest. We should have done this instead of the ill fated ISS. Science has shown over the years that data always oveerturns the old paradigms held dear by the old profs that created them (and control the peer reviewed journals) and they will stick to their stupidity to the end.
We do not understand even basic solar output according to recent SIM and TIM data, do not understand sunspots, and do not understand the primary drivers of solar wind. We are idiots – the old guys need to get over themselves and admit it.
By the way, the real solar guys say they are still nine months out from any ability to predict anything with precision.
The real news to watch is Livingston and Penn magnetic data that might show a coming true great minimum – and then we will know if the hard winters are going to get worse in coming decades.
Leif, I printed off you pdf to study it carefully. Nice to have a real expert instead of NASA PR announcements. Thanks for draining my blue ink tank 🙂
Just did some refresher reading, and the cube law is correct. But I’d like to see Lief’s explanation if possible. It’s a bit mind-twisting, once you step outside of the equations.
My observations are this. 98% back test accuracy and a failure in prediction of this scale is cast iron proof that the models used are drastically flawed and are probably nothing more than a glorified curve fitting exercise.
Second, there does seem to be a change going on. From what was a regularish cycle, it does come across as broken.
Sun and the major planets determine events in the solar system. Earth as part of this system and slotted between these major players, it is inevitably under the influence and subject to the gravito-magnetic interactions.
Gravity makes ‘things go around’, magnetism provides links, via powerful magnetic storms / ropes.
From Sunspot numbers
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Sun’s magnetic field
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
to the possible effects on the Earth’s climate as in
the latest finding
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETpr.htm
can be demonstrated by using simple calculations with the astronomic data alone.
This posting is a crock. You only need to look at the number and spread of ‘serious’ predictions for the cycle from five years ago to understand that there is no good understanding about how we can make predictions about the sun’s cycles. As a collection, the predictions have very little predictive power (even Leif’s method which seems to be coming good – did that have any history of blind testing?).
Ascribing motive when there is no need just de-values your own argument.
Everyone who is now claiming their methods are being proven – was it luck, or was there any strong evidence when the claim was made that your model parameters were better than anyone else’s?
Leif Svalgaard says:
Now, we are really predicting 6 active regions [and statistically in the past the sunspot number is 12 times the number of regions]. If Livingston and Penn are correct, some of those regions might not be visible [except on magnetograms], so who knows what the sunspot will be. In a sense, the number of visible spots is not a good measure of solar activity. Rather the magnetic regions [and the attendant F10.7 and UV] are.
There already have been moments during SC24 when there where 6 active regions visible on the magnetograms.
Sean Houlihane says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:09 am
This posting is a crock. You only need to look at the number and spread of ‘serious’ predictions for the cycle from five years ago to understand that there is no good understanding about how we can make predictions about the sun’s cycles. As a collection, the predictions have very little predictive power (even Leif’s method which seems to be coming good – did that have any history of blind testing?).
Ascribing motive when there is no need just de-values your own argument.
Everyone who is now claiming their methods are being proven – was it luck, or was there any strong evidence when the claim was made that your model parameters were better than anyone else’s?
There is the no small detail that NASA is charging the taxpayers of the USA a very great deal of money to make these predictions and they are not just wrong within the acceptable variables, they have been shown to be dead wrong, utterly wrong and yet these predictions were sold as the latest and greatest all the bells and whistles satisfaction guaranteed product. A taxpayer funded organisation that makes so many errors and mistakes and consistently outputs an embarrassingly poor product should be held to account, the federal government chooses not to do this so someone has to. We seem to lumbered with national institutions so inept and incompetent it is hard to fathom why no action to rectify the problems isnt being considered.
We are constantly informed that these national institutions are the very finest money can buy, they cost a great deal of money and yet the product clearly and obviously fails the most basic standards of quality and reliability. A case in point is the UKMO/CRU/UEA as it bleeds hundreds of millions out of the taxpayer for such appallingly poor end product that it has become a worldwide sick joke. NASA is taking the same route as the UKMO and will plummet to joke status soon.
[Thanks Cassandra for your reply to Sean. I could not have said it better myself. Ira]
My prediction has been constant at 42 since April 2008. It was based on a “birds eye view” of the science, pseudosciences, failed curve-fitting predictions etc., plus a realisation that solar grand minima indeed occur from time to time. And as we know, 42 is the answer to everything.
Anyone with a hunch could do it. This time, NASA didn’t have it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Robin Kool says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The Layman’s Sunspot count for November was 15.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count is junk, engineered to support an agenda.
++++++++++++++++++++
Sneered like someone with an agenda to support.
This entire line of analysis seems to be like the celestial spheres but Kepler has yet to come forward and be acknowledged. One thing that is striking is the comment about other steller systems. One wonders what Kepler would have done had he not had to contend with several planetary orbits. Solar science has expended enormous efforts on measuring a single, aging star. Underscore “aging”. Underscore “single”.
In some regards, this seems to be similar to bioscience developing theories about genetic diseases by only studying a single person, as that person aged while only being able to observe others using a hand held telescope from the other side of an ocean. One or more researchers will almost certainly guess “mostly right” about the cause but will not be able to predict how the disease will progress until afterwards.
Tobias, as Lief pointed out, may very well be right. One can only do so much with one steller body.
NASA are just a joke!
I agree with Mike D. Accusing un-named insurance companies without citing evidence is akin to charging CAGW skeptics with being in the pay of big oil. Where is the proof?
We really should stop arguing over predictions in science. This is a completely worthless activity and doesn’t advance knowledge any. If you want to be able to predict something, learn first. We’re putting the predictions ahead of the learning here, and it’s sad to watch.
I’m confused by the insinuation that the early high predictions were some sort of conspiracy with the global warming agenda folks.. wouldn’t a high sunspot number give the denialists ammo for the warmth vs. CO2? Not to mention we’re talking about something completely measurable within a short time frame. I think you guys are giving these scientists more credit than they deserve in terms of political manipulation abilities…
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:14 am
Werner Brozek says:
December 27, 2010 at 11:23 pm
the tidal effect vary inversely as the cube of the distance. Is that correct?
Yes
~
Well if I learn nothing new today than that above, ok by me.
And Geoff, wish you would take the time to read this in its entirety. Your little solar cycle problem in the 60’s could be addressed by a TSAS.
~
“Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere over the past 60,000 years:
Impact of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux
at Earth”
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
Oct 21, 2010
..the galactic environment of the Sun changes rapidly. From upwind to downwind,
interstellar velocities in the solar inertial system (”heliocentric”, HC) are –28.4 km s−1
towards 36 Oph, 26.3 km s−1 in the inner heliosphere, and 23.4 km s−1 towards χ1
Ori. If all other cloud parameters are the same, there is a 50% difference in the ram
pressures of these clouds, which alone leads to a significant distortion of the heliosphere..
…Not all nearby clouds are warm and diffuse. Tiny scale atomic structures (TSAS)
are observed throughout the ISM, with typical sizes 30 AU,..
..TSAS are associated with warm tenuous ISM, and may form in converging interstellar flows.
The Leo cloud occurs where the S1 and S2 shells may collide (Frisch 2010).
~
Wondering aloud.. if we can’t see sunspots below 1500 gauss how would we realise a galactic size, scale magnetic flux tube if the sun were to pass thru one say starting with solar cycle 19 and ending ABRUPTLY DURING SOLAR CYCLE 23’s ending? Oh the sizes of galactic magnetic flux tubes surrounding super shell boundaries. Lions and tigers and bears.. oh no..
Yes, the gravitational tidal forces follow an inverse cube law. Here’s why:
As everyone knows, gravitational attraction follows an inverse square law, but tidal forces are not the same as straight, unadulterated attraction. Tidal forces are the result of gravitational attraction being stronger on one side of an object than the other. For instance, the side of our Moon that is closer to earth experiences a stronger attraction to Earth than the lunar far side. That difference in force is tidal force, a stretching of the moon into a slightly oblong sphere pointing toward the earth. If the Moon were to be placed into a VERY close orbit around the earth, the stretching would become so pronounced that the Moon would be pulled into bits. So, where does the inverse cube come in? Since we are discussing a force that is simply a difference of attraction from one side of an object to the other, we need to know how that attraction is changing over distance. In other words, what is the rate of change of attraction as a function of distance? This is nothing other than the first derivative of gravitational attraction, the rate of change of an inverse square. First derivatives of inverse squares are inverse cubes — actually a negative inverse cube. That negative indicates that the tidal force is not pulling the object together, like normal attraction, but is pulling it apart.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 10:27 pm
In a sense, the number of visible spots is not a good measure of solar activity.
No but it is a good indicator of the climate sun link, at present you don`t have any more of a clue what the mechanism is than did Galileo.
For me I can`t believe that the continuous high sunspot count and short solar cycle length since around 1940 can`t cause a continuous warming over that time even if there is just a flat trend, especially when it`s linked to a 30 warm phase of the PDO. Put that together with the dodgy UHI corrupted temperature data and what have you got about 0.4C warming, not much room for co2.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/pdo-1.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/reconstructedTSI.jpg
• • Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Robin Kool says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The Layman’s Sunspot count for November was 15.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count is junk, engineered to support an agenda.
=======================================================
The people who create the Layman’s Sunspot Number state that they want a number that is comparable with the numbers from the 1700s, when the sun was observed with very weak telescopes.
Right now we have powerful telescopes with which we see very little specks that the scientists in the 1700s didn’t see. Sounds very logical to me.
And I too want as a long series of sunspot numbers as possible, to get an idea of the relationship of Sunspot Numbers and climate.
All we have to compare the activity of the sun now with the 1700s are Sunspot Numbers. So that’s really a big thing in the whole climate discussion.
If the Layman’ Sunspot Number is junk, you would do us all a huge favor by taking a few minutes of your valuable time to explain us why.
And if they have an agenda other than they state – the desire to compare Sunspot Number fairly with the 1700s – then I invite you to tell us what that agenda is.
Unsubstantiated accusations on this forum leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth. We get so much of that from the alarmists, let’s make a habit of not doing that ourselves
LOL, “With apologies to Pete Seeger”
– It looks like the Prediction Panel only meets once a year?
– Who is on the Prediction Panel? I checked over their site but didn’t see any panel information.
Solar Cycle Progression
Presented by the NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center
“May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.”
How long until the good folks at NASA say the spots are really there, just hidden by the low contrast (Livingston/Penn)? Another triumph for the models!
The layman sunspot people want to count sunspots like in the 1700 that’s why they use today’s SOHO and SDO images…
Besides that they never observed the sun with a telescope of that time for a long period of time. How do they that their comparison holds up? They even never looked at the sun through an telescope of that time!
An recent telescope has different glass types and coatings than the old ones. If they want to do it properly they have to use an original telescope of that time.
Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC)
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html
Isn’t SWPC part of NOAA? How does NASA (other than launching solar satellites) fit into the prediction panel?
Leif Svalgaard says: {December 27, 2010 at 8:31 pm}
“Nonsense, I was on that prediction panel and know he did not. If anybody leaned, it was the insurance companies who wanted a high, government-sanctioned peak, so they could charge satellite operators more in premiums….”
I recall the post that Dr S said this very thing. His position of 75 spots was overruled by the panel and the “official” count was higher.
The reasoning seemed to be that an error on the low side keeping insurance premiums down would be financially devastating to the insurance companies but erring on the high side would not.
Ira,
I followed up using your “new Sunspot prediction” link and found myself on a NASA site that’s making predictions and using information that’s different from the NOAA/SWPC graph you’re presenting.
I guess the obvious question is why do we need 2 solar prediction groups in different government agencies who don’t appear to be coordinating over their incorrect predictions?
NOAA
http://www.noaa.gov/about-noaa.html
“NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them.”
NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html
“NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”
“To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world — and off of it — for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What’s out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?”