From the Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Hathaway’s page:
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 58 in July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.
Additionally, the monthly data plots are out, and there’s been little change from last month in the three major solar indexes plotted by the Space Weather Prediction Center:
h/t to WUWT reader harrywr2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The solar cycle is actually progressing faster than the NASA prediction shows. Check the fourth column (which ends in Avg) of this site. DO NOT use the last column, as the values produce a curve that is too shallow on any time in the last 9.5 months or so (the last column is very similar to a 19-month smoothing of the values, and does not include the future values that are needed to properly compute it for those months). I’m thinking maximum is around March 2012 (+/- 9 months), with a smoothed max around 30 (+/- 10).
We live in interesting times.
Bowen,
Here’s a chart of all the cycles back to 1750
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg
Yes. Your microwave oven generates microwave flux at a frequency of 2.45GHz. The Sun’s 10.7cm microwave flux is a little higher in frequency: 2.8GHz
Of course, the Sun generates RF at virtually every wavelength (from “DC to Daylight” and beyond into x-ray/gamma), but the flux at 2.8GHz has a special significance, because its intensity (“SFI”) correlates very well with overall solar magnetic activity.
Read Arthur Covington’s paper: “Solar Radio Emission at 10.7 cm”. He was the first to classify the different types of solar flux back in the 1940’s
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969JRASC..63..125C
Don B says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:53 am
You state that F10.7 flux is the best measure of solar activity; is it the best measure of solar magnetic activity?
The F10.7 flux has two parts, one that depends on the density of the corona [which indirectly depends on the magnetic field] and one that depends directly on the magnetic field, so F10.7 is a good measure of the magnetic field in the corona.
Tom Rowan says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:40 am
Because Layman’s count compares to the last solar minimum during the Little Ice Age, we can test the many theories regarding the sun’s space weather pattern.
The LSC has no bearing on the solar minimum around 1800, so has no value for any comparison.
Bad predictions — based on bad theories — from government agencies
perhaps should result in a loss of digit. That is a loss of digit in the
funding. IE from $10 billion to $1 billion. Make mistaken predictions
for a while and the funding drops to zero.
okie333: I bless the graphs with all my heart . . . It soothes the thinking brain . . .
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
There are judgments in science related to scientific value. Does a claim meet minimum standard in justification? If not, it is ‘junk’. As a practicing scientist I am qualified to judge what is good and bad science. You are, of course, welcome to ignore my judgment; your loss.
I’m sorry to have to point this out, sir, but this is the exact same authoritarian claptrap we have been hearing from the climate alarmists for the last decade; “Don’t question my judgments, boy; I’m a SCIENTIST!”
As a practicing scientist, you are qualified to judge what in your personal opinion may be good or bad science. But as a practicing scientist, you should also have to present the evidence upon which you are basing that opinion, if you want your judgment to be taken as anything more than a personal opinion.
You spoke of hubris earlier in this thread; the phrase “As a practicing scientist I am qualified to judge what is good and bad science”, when offered absent proof, in my humble opinion smacks of the same thing.
The argument-from-authority is a logical fallacy, regardless of who makes it.
I’m a practicing engineer; but I don’t try to discount the work of others without having numbers backing me up, regardless of their status as a ‘practicing’ anything.
me: Perhaps one of the things that is so disturbing about Landscheit et al is that they set forth a model in which the sun is not an island unto itself, but is actually being influenced in perceptible ways by the massive objects which it holds in orbit.
LS: The influence can be calculated and is extremely small, simply because the outer planets are so far away from the Sun. Were the planets much closer or much larger there would be observable consequences, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1730
First, thanks for the detailed responses.
But are you saying, then, that the correlations mapped by Landscheidt et al. between sunspot cycles (since the “real” factor of F10.7 flux doesn’t go back that far) are mere coincidence? I’m afraid that to my untutored ear this would sound a lot like the rejection of the very well established correlation between sunspot cycles and global temps on the basis that the difference in solar radiation is too slight to produce the known effects. This argument of course leaves out of count entirely the possibility that the causal relation is real but the mechanisms of influence are merely poorly understood (as in Svensmark et al). I feel confident in the latter case that the mainstream view is simply, to employ my own wild adjective, preposterous — its tunnel vision to conclude to that, because the mechanisms are misunderstood, the correlation must be a coincidence.
I’m less sure about Landscheidt, but the process by which the alternative to the status quo is rejected seems to be remarkably similar: a compelling pattern is wished out of existence because the understanding of process is deemed to be complete, authoritative, and final. Isn’t it possible that the the mechanisms of influence are misunderstood?
Also I’d really like to hear Geoff’s response to this question.
Sarge says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:55 am
I’m a practicing engineer; but I don’t try to discount the work of others without having numbers backing me up, regardless of their status as a ‘practicing’ anything.
My judgment is based on hard numbers for all to see. All my work is documented and accessible, but you’re welcome to treat it as claptrap [BTW where are your hard numbers backing up that assertion?], if you like.
So now that we can see both sides in stunning 3-D reality, it seems that the sunspot numbers will go down; most likely because they will be paired up, one from side A, and one from side B to make a stereo pair.
Well at least their predictions are headed in the same direction as the actual past recorded facts; whcih would be a change for the better in itself. As for what it all means; I have no idea; but I must say, it does give me something to watch on a longer time scale, that the annual drama of the Arctic ice dancing. I’m sure Leif will explain it all to us, after it has happened. I will say that man is cautious, and doesn’t often predict a lot of things that haven’t happened yet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
. . . .ignore my judgment; your loss. . . .??
Want to know only the difference between Leif Svalgaard and God?
God doesn’t think he is Leif Svalgaard . . .
REPLY: that was uncalled for- take a time out – Anthony
Dr. Svalgaard,
Thanks for the PDF presentation. This is probably a foolish question, if we were to roll back to the 1780 TSI range, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a similar duration of time to return to the present range?
Historic TSI plots — pick your range:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
One further thought:
psi says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:42 am
Geoff’s site does is set forth some very falsifiable implicit or explicit predictions about current trends in solar activity, and hence climate.
The issue is not the predictions. but simply the Layman’s Sunspot Count. It is supposed to be closer to Wolf’s original method.
Well, that is the issue to you — and I can see why you want to focus on that. The point of my post was not, however, to defend Geoff’s method as such (I am unqualified at present either to defend or critique it), but to point out that you seemed to be cherry picking your methods of critique and approbation. Personally I think you would be more credible if you admitted that the NOAA got it really wrong, and that therefore this indicates an underlying problem with the causal models used to generate the predictions. One can follow this and claim that its good science anyway, because researchers are resolutely attempting to diagnose the source of the error and are working to think outside the box to arrive at a better model, one that can produce results which don’t require being “falsified” by the evidence of nature. But are they really doing this? It appears to me that they are not, simply because they are operating in a rather hermetic institutional environment which is relatively impervious to correction from within. You do realize those places exist, right – even in Western democracies?
I am afraid that I must therefore reluctantly conclude with Sarge that
“this is the exact same authoritarian [beep] we have been hearing from the climate alarmists for the last decade” and that “the phrase ‘As a practicing scientist I am qualified to judge what is good and bad science’, when offered absent proof, in my humble opinion smacks of the same thing.”
Its just an opinion — but maybe because I am especially alert to how such modes of reasoning have deformed rational discussion in my own field, and come here partly to study the dynamics of reasoned debate on topics in which I have no special qualification beyond an interest in epistemology and method — one that I can’t presently avoid.
To your credit, I will also say, however, that you do often offer solid reasons, and certainly do so with more grace than the average proponent of “standard science,” even when you are responding to folks like myself who lack the particular technical qualifications you bring to the discussion and hence are regarded by some of your more imperious colleagues as tools of big oil who are beneath their notice and contempt. In doing so you are helping to prevent modern science from simply become another institutionalized religion. I just suspect that maybe you have more learn from people like Landscheidt or Svensmark than you’re willing to admit.
Just a thought, from a guy who regularly confuses weather with climate and still hasn’t figured out where one is supposed to end and the other begin…:)
Discussion is never much fun when everyone agrees on everything, is it?
psi says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:05 am
But are you saying, then, that the correlations mapped by Landscheidt et al. between sunspot cycles (since the “real” factor of F10.7 flux doesn’t go back that far) are mere coincidence?
In essence, yes. And the correlations are not all that good [otherwise we would not be discussing this].
I’m afraid that to my untutored ear this would sound a lot like the rejection of the very well established correlation between sunspot cycles and global temps on the basis that the difference in solar radiation is too slight to produce the known effects.
And that correlation is not very good either. For example, solar activity now is down to where it was a century ago, but temperatures are not. Of course, you can always invoke various [even varying] time lags [although Svensmark’s theory does not allow any].
Isn’t it possible that the the mechanisms of influence [Landscheidt] are misunderstood?
Simpler than that: there is no mechanism proposed. Add to that that the there must be another mechanism generating the ordinary solar cycle with its magnetic polarity changes. The planetary hypothesis posits but a modulation of what is generated by internal processes on the Sun. The planetary hypothesis was once considered seriously, but the magnetic field changes [and the generally poor correlations that always failed eventually] was the death knell to that, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rise-and-Fall.pdf
John from CA says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:21 am
if we were to roll back to the 1780 TSI range, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a similar duration of time to return to the present range?
I do not even understand the question …
Historic TSI plots — pick your range:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
There is no evidence for the rise from 1900 to 1950. The current ‘trend’ in TSI-reconstructions are converging on there not being any such rise:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Leif says: The trend lines are not really physically significant as they are just numerology [curve fitting] and simply adjust to the data.
So the short answer then is to take them out if they have no value.
The longer question is, I look at your kindly-provided graph daily, and the F10.7 average curve took a radical curve change on the addition of a single data point: from flat, descending towards 80, to up towards 90. It was very curious behavior. I saw the radical jump as I manually refreshed the graph.
It looked like a different (longer) filter period was substituted, because the one in use was starting to provide “nonsense” predictions (the mean intersecting the min). I don’t necessarily disagree with either before/after curve, but I’d like to know why the change (if any).
If you’re going to put the curves in there, can you provide the algorithm, and notify if there are changes to it?
Bowen says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:18 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
. . . .ignore my judgment;
Scientists make value judgments every day, it is called peer review.
An interesting thread with some heavyweight contributors.
Some questions :
i) The Lanscheldt approach seems to have anticipated the current solar quietude. How could that have happened ?
ii) The L&P effect seems to cause the sunspot numbers (SSN) to diverge from the 10.7 flux numbers but currently both SSN and 10.7 flux numbers are equally low so what does it matter ?
iii) The sun is currently behaving like a ‘dead parrot’ as compared to the run of cycles 17 to 23 so does anyone really expect a zero effect on the global energy budget ?
iv) I have proposed elsewhere that the key issue is not radiative physics but atmospheric chemistry responding to a varying mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun as solar activity changes. Can anyone exclude that as a plausible explanation as to how levels of solar activity can influence the Earth’s energy budget ?
John A. Fleming says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:35 am
Leif says: The trend lines are not really physically significant as they are just numerology [curve fitting] and simply adjust to the data.
So the short answer then is to take them out if they have no value.
they have value if you do not over-interpret them and think they represent something the Sun must do.
if you’re going to put the curves in there, can you provide the algorithm, and notify if there are changes to it?
The dashed line is just a second order [used to be third order, that was the change you saw] polynomial fit to all the points. The full line hugging the bottom is a third order fit to the lowest point in each month.
The lines serve my judgment of the short-term ‘trend’, or can be viewed as my guess of where it is going the next few months. If you don’t like them, ignore them.
I have re-analysed the past 300 years of sunspot records. Having corrected for the poor quality of the historic records, pasteurised the results using the latest statistical analysis techniques (which I am not at liberty to divulge), repeatedly run the program on my multi-giga super-computer, I can, with a 95 % confidence level, announce that cycle 24 will be an all-time record. My work has been peer reviewed by both my brother-in-law and Mr Al “could have been President, but wimped out for an easy life in order to save the planet” Gore. I do hope that all you deniers at WUWT will now finally concede that the science on AGW is settled.
Leif Svalgaard said Scientists make value judgments every day, it is called peer review.
Therein lies the rub, sir . . . I can find no record of you anywhere and I have looked . . .
I can find your web sites but no bio. Could you enlighten us/me.
As for me, I am not a scientist, I am a ‘student’ of the sciences. But some of the smartest people I’ve known in my life never had a degree or even a lot of formal education . . .
“February 10, 2011 at 7:53 am
You state that F10.7 flux is the best measure of solar activity”
Doesn’t the solar spectrum change with energy levels? As such, that suggests to me that a measurement at any one frequency could be misleading. The intensity at any one frequency could remain the same, but the energy levels reaching earth could change dramatically due to a frequency shift in the sun’s spectrum.
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that fit experiments. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity:
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
i) The Lanscheldt approach seems to have anticipated the current solar quietude. How could that have happened ?
Anybody looking at http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfaml_small.png would come to that conclusion. No model or approach needed.
ii) The L&P effect seems to cause the sunspot numbers (SSN) to diverge from the 10.7 flux numbers but currently both SSN and 10.7 flux numbers are equally low so what does it matter ?
It matters if you want to compare the coming cycle with other cycles.
iii) The sun is currently behaving like a ‘dead parrot’ as compared to the run of cycles 17 to 23 so does anyone really expect a zero effect on the global energy budget ?
dead parrots have but little effect
iv) I have proposed elsewhere that the key issue is not radiative physics but atmospheric chemistry responding to a varying mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun as solar activity changes. Can anyone exclude that as a plausible explanation as to how levels of solar activity can influence the Earth’s energy budget ?
The variations you invoke are minute [e.g. particles contribute less than a millionth of the total output], so on energetic grounds it is implausible that the changes you have in mind have a significant effect.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:32 am
John from CA says:
if we were to roll back to the 1780 TSI range, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a similar duration of time to return to the present range?
I do not even understand the question …
Historic TSI plots — pick your range:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
There is no evidence for the rise from 1900 to 1950. The current ‘trend’ in TSI-reconstructions are converging on there not being any such rise:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
=========
Thanks,
I misinterpreted the meaning.
“Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age:
• Unless the Climate is Extraordinarily Sensitive to Very Small Changes…”
TSI data, as presented in the lasp.colorado.edu link above, was used in the IPCC 2007 AR4 report. I mistakenly concluded IPCC was projecting a TSI minimum as the reason for the GHG effect lag — per AR4, observed GHG effects are due to start about 2060 (Curry).
So, if we take solar input out of the climate equation (because its actually a constant), past climate changes like the MWP or LIA become even more difficult to explain in terms of what we currently know about the climate system?