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?
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….
It’s more complicated then that.
For insurance companies, future loss cash reserves are ‘non taxable’.
Just imagine if you could deduct from your present taxes the amount of money you might lose if an earthquake or flood damaged your home at some point in the future.
I’m pretty sure that if I could take the same deductions as an insurance company, at tax time Al Gore would be the worlds pre-eminent scientist.
Leif, at 8:31 pm yesterday:
Re the statement that the insurance industry wanted a high sunspot number; here is another example:
Pielke, Jr. has commented on a Florida newspaper article that an insurance organization brought together scientists to predict higher hurricance landfalls, so as to raise rates.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/disasters-wanted-math-of-capitalizing.html
Yikes!
If you compare the Hathaway/NASA/MSFC — http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif — prediction to NOAA/SWPC data — http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt — we end up with a NASA prediction of even less HIGH sunspot activity than NOAA. Both appear to use LOW activity of zero for 2018 and 2019.
Its worse than we thought but at least it gives the MET Office a few years to stock up on snow shovels to hand out down the road. : \
Robin Kool says:
December 28, 2010 at 6:14 am
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.
The purpose of the LSC is supposedly to get a sunspot number that Rudolf Wolf would have counted. Wolf did not [on purpose] count the smallest specks and pores. Later observers pointed out that the decision on what not to count was then very arbitrary [as there was no precise definition of what not to count]. A better method [and that is used by everybody since the 1880s] is to count everything you can see [with a given telescope]. Since different people have different acuity [and experience] they would still count differently, but that can be measured by comparing with others.
Wolf used a 8 cm aperture refractor at magnification 64 in the 1850s. This telescope still exists and is still being used. Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum [almost nobody did] and the sunspot number he reconstructed for that time is mainly based on counts of aurorae and simple interpolation between the very sparse actual observations.
From 1861 on, Wolf mostly used an even smaller telescope [handheld and portable – as he was often on travel]. He determined that he needed to multiply the counts with that smaller scope by 1.5 to match what he would count with the 8 cm ‘standard’ telescope. His assistant, Wolfer, was using the 8 cm in parallel with Wolf for 17 years and determined that to get to the same count as Wolf, he would have to multiply his own counts [which included everything] by 0.6. So now we have this convoluted scheme: Wolf counts 20 [say] with the small handheld scope, multiplies that by 1.5 getting 30 and claims that that is what he would have counted with the 8 cm. Wolfer using the 8 cm [counting everything] counts 50, then multiplies by 0.6: 50*0.6 = 30, as an estimate of what Wolf would have counted. With me so far?
The Wolfer count is the better method [as it is better defined], but Wolfer wanted to stay compatible with the old [already published] Wolf list, so the 0.6 factor has become the ‘conversion’ factor between the ‘all count’ and the Wolf count. Now, the LSC people think that the Wolf number ‘is under threat’ [by some conspiracy it seems] and want to restore the count to ‘what Wolf would have counted’. The reason for this seems to be the desire to show that we are entering a Dalton-type grand minimum, and the official count is claimed to be [nefariously] too high, so needs to be reduced to fulfill the prophesy. The way to reduce the official count is to remove groups that are too small [below a ‘threshold’] and subtract their contribution from the official SIDC sunspot number. So, here is what is wrong with the LSC:
1) Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum, so there are no ‘Wolf numbers’ to reproduce
2) The threshold [for throwing out groups] is uncalibrated. I.e. there were no comparisons on which the threshold is based other than ‘it seems to be a good number’
3) The factor 0.6 that is used by SIDC already takes into account the conversion from Wolfer to Wolf
4) The notion that the modern counts by SIDC is too high [for political reasons] while, in fact, comparisons with hundreds of other [amateur] observers and even with the NOAA count show that the official SIDC count since ~2001 has been slightly [~12%] too low.
Jcarels says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:14 am
There already have been moments during SC24 when there where 6 active regions visible on the magnetograms.
The prediction is about the smoothed average number. The actual number visible on a given day will vary a lot from day to day, say from 0 to 15.
On September 5, 2010 I emailed NASA with a suggestion for their Solar Cycle Progression graph, that they maintain the red prediction line in place, rather than move it forward each month, so that viewers could compare the cycle with the latest projection more easily. (And, that they include a one standard deviation band of the predictions to show the range of opinions.)
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
I was pleased to receive a prompt reply from a gentleman at customer support who wrote that he thought it a good suggestion, but that “due to resource constraints and other priorities, this one is not likely to happen any time soon.”
He helpfully added, “The cycle is tracking the original prediction very well, with maybe a slight lag of a few months.”
Check out NASA Expert Criticizes Bush on Global Warming Policy (NY Times, Oct. 26, 2004) in which Dr. James Hansen claims “a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures.” Google “Bush interference global warming” and you will see a spate of charges, between 2004 and 2007, by Global Warming alarmists that the administration tried to tamp down the supposed dangers. If true, this indicates the administration had better instincts on CAGW than Hansen and other climate science experts responsible for the alarmist predictions. It seems there were political manipulations by both the alarmist scientists and the skeptical administration. We now know who was right.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 7:19 am
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?
We don’t have two ‘official’ groups. There is no NASA prediction. What people refer to as the NASA prediction is Hathaway’s own private prediction. His work on this is not even funded any more. For actual operational use, NASA relies on ‘our’ prediction [by ‘our’ I mean the one issued by Ken Schatten using the method we [Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard, Wilcox] suggested back in 1978.]
—
The insurance influence was, of course, rumor and speculation and should not be taken for more than that. As I said, I was there, and while there was pressure for a prediction that would follow recent ‘breakthrough’ research, that was it. One can argue that a prediction based on actual physics-based calculations should be better than the eyeballing many of the other predictions were, so it does make sense to place more weight on the Dikpati et al. calculations. BTW, I was a reviewer of their paper and recommended publication. My report is here http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
My conclusion was: “With some well-chosen, clear, and simple clarifications the paper can be improved to the point where its publication would be justified as marking an early (and definite) prediction which should be able to either vindicate or refute the theory or the approach. “
An interesting time to be a solar scientist, eh Leif?
Here is another Pielke, Jr article on Florida hurricanes and reinsurance rates. $82 billion dollars made it worth the effort to “tweak” the science.
http://thegwpf.org/science-news/1861-the-82-billion-prediction.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
We don’t have two ‘official’ groups. There is no NASA prediction. What people refer to as the NASA prediction is Hathaway’s own private prediction. His work on this is not even funded any more. For actual operational use, NASA relies on ‘our’ prediction [by ‘our’ I mean the one issued by Ken Schatten using the method we [Schatten, Scherrer, Svalgaard, Wilcox] suggested back in 1978.]
=======
Thanks Lief,
I knew that had to be some reason for all the odd things on the NASA page which appears to use a smoothed International prediction instead of NOAA’s.
The NASA page also says Boulder (one can only hope this is not NOAA) is reporting daily numbers “typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number”. What’s the point of inflating sunspot numbers beyond an International prediction?
If you click on the link at the base of the NASA prediction page (“Current values for F10.7 can be found at: http://www.spaceweather.ca/sx-4-eng.php “) it takes you to Space Weather Canada.
WUWT, Why is NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center steering viewers to Canada instead of NOAA for current Space Weather — especially since NASA isn’t even involved with solar prediction or responsible for the daily numbers?
Our tax dollars at work : (
Robin Kool says:
December 28, 2010 at 6:14 am
• • 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.
=====================================================
Leif states he compares today with these, very latest scopes of the 1850`s , the daulton ended around 1825, the scopes around that date were considerably inferior.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/refractortelescope.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Wolf-Telescope.png
He should compare with these,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
The latter half of the 20th century was a period of increased solar activity unmatched since recording began. The peaks may have decreased somewhat in the last 20 years BUT were still far above the average of the last 400 year period, If you apply the heat steadily say from 1850 the temperature will rise, leave the heat on high say from 1940 and the temperature remains constant, I don`t think so.
Leif,
Thanks for your participation and good will. And also thanks to others in good faith who think of and ask questions.
I always learn something.
Twenty-eleven is looking like an even more interesting time than was twenty-ten.
Thanks, everyone.
David Corcoran says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:24 am
An interesting time to be a solar scientist, eh Leif?
The most exciting thing is the possibility that Livingston might be correct. If he is, predictions of the sunspot number become useless or even meaningless as predictions of ‘solar activity’. F10.7 will probably still be good.
82.Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
My conclusion was: “With some well-chosen, clear, and simple clarifications the paper can be improved to the point where its publication would be justified as marking an early (and definite) prediction which should be able to either vindicate or refute the theory or the approach. “
********************
I guess we know how this turned out already. I wish the AGW crowd would be so kind as to supply a hypothesis that can proved/disproved so readily.
I love the idea of publishing well-thought out hypotheses which come with good observations, data, and well articulated reasonable hypothesized mechanisms. Leif’s final comment on his review, “…its publication would be justified as marking an early (and definite) prediction which should be able to either vindicate or refute the theory or the approach.” is exactly the kind of blind justice all research should be subjected to during the peer review and publishing endeavor.
Well put, Leif.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
I was a reviewer of their paper and recommended publication. My report is here http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
I thought peer reviewers were nameless.
At the time when Dr. Hathaway was making his prediction of a huge SC24, I emailed my formula and solicited his opinion.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
His view was that it was irrelevant.
Perhaps. A year or two later same formula was modified to
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
giving even better correlation for polar fields used by Dr. Svalgaard, reffered to in Dr. Hathaway’s interview.
Not that I expect that either of two scientists would ever acknowledge it, if it was in the future accepted as credible.
An amateur has no chance, but then no risking career reputation either.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:03 am
“An amateur has no chance, but then no risking career reputation either.”
==========
Consider writing an article on WUWT vukcevic.
Fascinating topics, “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”, Geomagnetic field influences and temperature in the Arctic, Geomagnetic Equator, etc.
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
The NASA page also says Boulder (one can only hope this is not NOAA) is reporting daily numbers “typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number”. What’s the point of inflating sunspot numbers beyond an International prediction?
The NOAA people do it right. The problem is with the rest of the world 🙂
There should be no need to maintain the 0.6 conversion factor that is used to be compatible with Wolf. We should simply revert to the original idea: SSN = 10*Groups + Spots, all referred to the 8 cm x64 telescope and counting everything that we see. NOAA is not ‘inflating’ anything, just not ‘deflating. So if there are two groups with three spots, the SSN should simply by 10*2+3 = 23, and not 23*0.6 = 14 [which looks like one group with 4 spots].
Robuk says:
He should compare with these,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
I know you are enamored by those old telescopes, but you miss the point completely [and seem to be resistant to learning]. We use ALL the data we can get our hands on from those early days, then try to harmonize, torture, adjust, revise, fake, guess, etc what they would have been compared to modern data [taken with an 8 cm refractor at magnification 64]
temperature remains constant, I don`t think so.
The temperature record has nothing to with calibrating the sunspot record.
Robuk says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:47 am
hought peer reviewers were nameless.
We all have names, and many journals will publish the name unless the reviewer explicitly requests to remain anonymous.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:03 am
the time when Dr. Hathaway was making his prediction of a huge SC24, I emailed my formula and solicited his opinion.[…]
His view was that it was irrelevant.
And right he was. In addition your ‘predictions’ are already wrong: All cycles have the same length [10.86 years]. Cycle 20 was predicted to the very large and it was small, etc. Your ‘work’ is just numerology, even contradicts other people’s numerology.
[snip]
[Reply] Your point is made. No need for Ad hominem attacks. RT-mod
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.
Leif, you had my respect but now no longer, Layman’s count is done scientifically,
not subjectively. It is to bad that you show your immaturity like this to every one here. you will see that nature follows god, and man follows nature and NOT the other way around.
Tim L
John from CA says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:45 am
Consider writing an article on WUWT vukcevic.
Fascinating topics, “Evidence of a multi-resonant system within solar periodic activity”, Geomagnetic field influences and temperature in the Arctic, Geomagnetic Equator, etc.
Thanks John from CA
But those are only tip of the ‘iceberg’; the large part below the surface is here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NPG.htm
but need to be well written and documented.
jeremy says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:29 am
We really should stop arguing over predictions in science. This is a completely worthless activity and doesn’t advance knowledge any.
I disagree. Scientists should always make predictions & when they’re wrong they should be forced to abandon their poor hypotheses on threat of loss of funding & publication. & if they’re wrong often enough they should be given funding to predict where the 100% beef patty will land when turned with a stainless steel spatula 40cm long. $6.75/hr should be enough for that sort of research.
Leif Svalgaard says on December 28, 2010 at 8:13 am: The insurance influence was, of course, rumor and speculation and should not be taken for more than that. As I said, I was there, and while there was pressure for a prediction that would follow recent ‘breakthrough’ research, that was it.
Dear Leif,
Thank you for your retraction of your capitalist conspiracy theory. I am relieved to hear that moneyed interests and other wheeler dealers are not bending NASA science to fit their political agendas. [/sarc]
PS to Cassandra — joke status has already been achieved.
Tim L says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:56 am
Layman’s count is done scientifically, not subjectively.
I don’t know what ‘scientifically’ means there. The threshold was not based on any quantitative comparison, and the LSC is a ‘correction’ to the subjective official count.