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.
racookpe1978 says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Yes, I would expect that temperatures would behave now (2000 – 2020) as they did then (1900 – 1920)
Except that they clearly don’t.
I erred. (Ah, the benefits, the penalties of open peer-review!)
“(Maxwell’s) famous equations, in their modern form of four partial differential equations, first appeared in fully developed form in his textbook A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in 1873.”
“The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University.”
Drat! Dagumit! Darn! Shucks! Shoot! Heck!
racookpe1978 says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I erred. (Ah, the benefits, the penalties of open peer-review!)
Doesn’t matter, as it was irrelevant anyway.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Any discussion with you is completely pointless. I will leave others to make their own judgment.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Any discussion with you is completely pointless.
Apparently.
@Leif
since solar activity now is what it was in 1900s would you not expect the temperatures to that too? Are they?
Might be different initial conditions. And, does anybody really know what the temperature was doing back then? Hansen clearly doesn’t think they knew how to read a thermometer back then. If fact, he adjusts how dumb they were back then every time he thinks he needs to show the temperature is another tenth of degree hotter now compared to then.
mike g says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:08 pm
And, does anybody really know what the temperature was doing back then?
This has been discussed before and the conclusion was that the temperature record is fairly good, recent adjustments notwithstanding.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 11:50 pm
We don’t do extrapolation of the data. Section 2.2 of http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/ explains how the prediction is made as does our original prediction paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
As we really predict the magnetic field that in turn determine F10.7 one can convert the predicted sunspot number into F10.7 using a standard formula.
= = =
Leif,
A little late to this solar party. I see the bouncers (mods) working this party a little. Leif, hang in there.
Thanks for the two references.
I am working my way through “Solar Cycle Prediction” by Kristóf Petrovay. Also, at same time cross reading your “Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?” (Svaalgard et al 2005) which I had read some time ago.
I am still on a stiff learning curve but a delightful one. Thanks.
Questions to follow but maybe they will be in a subsequent solar post since it will take some time to give the papers a good read and reread.
One of my questions will eventually be related to perceived lack of reasonable argument about the attributing 11-year Schwabe solar cycles (actually 22 yr cycles) as the cause of the cooling/cooler earth periods. Having fun with that.
John
As this has turned into the “Leif” thread, this question isn’t too far off topic ……
I noticed in your http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf on page 14 you show three TSI reconstructions.
Is there any consensus as to which TSI reconstruction is more likely to be closer to reality? Is your relatively flat and constant reconstruction now accepted as mainstream, or is it considered an oddball?
Do you know which reconstruction has been used in the various hindcasts of the Global Circulation Models?
Not everyone is fully up to speed on these things, and a few general comments on this would help put things into perspective for me.
Thanks,
Charlie A
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Any discussion with you is completely pointless.
Apparently.
=====
All discussion is good.
There might be more teenagers following your discussion than you think?
Charlie A says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Is there any consensus as to which TSI reconstruction is more likely to be closer to reality? Is your relatively flat and constant reconstruction now accepted as mainstream, or is it considered an oddball?
There is a clue in the years shown on the graph. Also in this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
As you advance in time, the curves all move towards the ‘flat’ version. So, the idea of a changing [rising] background is losing steam.
Do you know which reconstruction has been used in the various hindcasts of the Global Circulation Models?
Some are using the very old Hoyt&Schatten reconstruction, others the Wang&Lean from 2005 or Lean2000. There is growing acceptance [with as always some holdouts] that TSI does not vary from minimum to minim [and thus also not back to the Maunder ‘super minimum’], see e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
This may also be of interest:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6.01_White_CycleMin.pdf
This presentation discusses the reaction of the models to the two extremes: no secular background change and large background change, so you can see that the ‘no change’ idea is gaining traction.
Not everyone is fully up to speed on these things, and a few general comments on this would help put things into perspective for me.
TFNJ says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:39 am
Email me at david.archibald@westnet.com.au and I will send you the printers proofs of that book.
I am giving a presentation on climate and energy security in Washington on the 22nd.
u.k.(us) says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
Any discussion with you is completely pointless.
=====
All discussion is good.
I would agree, but it takes two to tango. And apparently Geoff does not have any good answers to the points I raised, so have chosen this way out. Vuk often does the same. Such discussion could be educational, but must, of course, be done in a sober, measured, and scientifically correct way [granted that those things are hard for some]
Charlie A says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:27 pm
This presentation discusses the reaction of the models to the two extremes: no secular background change and large background change, so you can see that the ‘no change’ idea is gaining traction.
I forgot the presentation:
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/EDDY2010/Presentations/Wigley.pdf
Dear Dr Svalgaard,
Thank you for answering all our questions with such rapid responses.
Still, I am wondering; Do you or do you not see any correlation betwixt solar minimums and cold weather? Regardless of what you think about LSC; have you definitively and in you own mind excused the sun’s weather and our own climate —or—-do you see a possibility that the obvious correlations may have some scientific merit?
Hate to be such a bother, but I may not be expressing myself on your correct terminology. Set me straight again!
Thanks,
Tom
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I would agree, but it takes two to tango. And apparently Geoff does not have any good answers to the points I raised, so have chosen this way out. Vuk often does the same. Such discussion could be educational, but must, of course, be done in a sober, measured, and scientifically correct way [granted that those things are hard for some]
No…the points have been discussed a million times and you refuse to take any advice or data on board, therefore a pointless discussion. I also prefer not to bore Anthony and the rest of the readers with the sad repetition.
If any other readers have any inquiries I am happy to answer.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Seeing which way the wind is blowing after 2 long & dreary years of “wait & see, we’ll know more in x months”.
Preloaded brakes applied, discussions squelched. Not saying it’s your fault, just that is the way things unfolded.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm
LSC does indeed measure area, and it has a layman’s version of what goes on in Softeria.
GIMP is used to block out all pixels below a threshold value. Then an SSN is assigned according to # of pixels (or spot area).
Geoff’s method is very adept at grabbing the whole spot area, and is more precise than that used by NOAA. To the nearest 10 x 10E6 is a kludge. Now go and look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt and specifically this line:
2011 01 14 79 11 0 0 -999 A9.3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
where a spot is recorded with zero area.
WUWT? The nearest 10E6 rounds to zero, because somebody decided a long time ago to sacrifice precision for ease.
Now look here: ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2011.txt
for this line:
d 2011 01 14 09 52 49 KANZ 0 3 0 1 2455575.91168 -4.22 -4.45
And that is my case for LSC using threshold detection. Nothing arbitrary about it, just that SOHO Continuum makes for much simpler task of finding a workable intensity due to image consistency.
It was you who got us started, as you said it was a good idea.
David Archibald says:
February 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm
I am giving a presentation on climate and energy security in Washington on the 22nd.
Outstanding. Give them your warmest (pun intended) regards.
So, not being a scientist, I read above that UV is not diminished by lack of sunspots, but may be associated with lower flux? Is this partially right?
Tom Rowan says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Do you or do you not see any correlation betwixt solar minimums and cold weather?
I do not see any such correlation.
[…] the obvious correlations may have some scientific merit?
There is no obvious correlation.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:50 pm
No…the points have been discussed a million times and you refuse to take any advice or data on board
I always listen to valid arguments and take them into consideration, but you have not presented any.
rbateman says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm
GIMP is used to block out all pixels below a threshold value. Then an SSN is assigned according to # of pixels (or spot area).
Here is where the method fails. There is no assurance or even analysis to to show that that SSN is what Wolf would have assigned, hence the LSC is uncalibrated.
Nothing arbitrary about it, just that SOHO Continuum makes for much simpler task of finding a workable intensity due to image consistency.
None of this matters because you have no idea what SSN wolf would have assigned to that area. In addition you pretend that that is close to what Wolf would have reported for observations he did not make.
Deb says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm
So, not being a scientist, I read above that UV is not diminished by lack of sunspots, but may be associated with lower flux? Is this partially right?
Sunspots are manifestations of magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are responsible for both UV and solar flux.
Thank you Leif for answering my question on UV.
Not that you want to know, but my question relates to solar oven use. I live at a latitude where UV rays are hard to come by in certain seasons, and wondered what effect, if any, these solar changes could have. Probably minimal- no pun intended, but if it suits…
rbateman says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm
GIMP is used to block out all pixels below a threshold value. Then an SSN is assigned according to # of pixels (or spot area).
And while you may believe that this is so, that is not how the flawed implementation of the LSC works. From the LSC website:
“Basically we use the same sunspot number as SIDC but replace them with zero on days that don’t make the grade.”.
So no assignment of SSN according to spot area, just butchering of the SIDC number.
This is based on the ISES F10.7 graph… Eyeballing it, I’d say that the rise to date of the smoothed data (blue curve) from its min (70) looks to be about half of what was predicted (red curve). I’ll extrapolate one step further. The max was projected to be 140, which is 70 units above the min of 70. Assuming that the 50% ratio holds, the max should be only 35 units above the base 70 value, i.e. around 105. That’s my prediction.
Deb says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Not that you want to know, but my question relates to solar oven use.
The UV rays that vary a lot with solar activity are absorbed very high in the atmosphere so won’t ever reach your solar oven, so not worry.
Hehe, so it’s worse than we thought? 🙂
Mark