I missed this earlier this week from NASA, I got a bit distracted with other things.
Sixty two – that’s the new number from Hathaway on April 4th, have a look:
They write at NASA MSFC
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 62 in July of 2013. We are currently over two years into Cycle 24. The predicted size would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in nearly 200 years.
It’s quite a climbdown for Dr. Hathaway from his earlier predictions. Let’s give him credit for not trying to “hide the decline”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Why not just add 1300 to all SSN?
Because we are not silly about this.
Indeed, I do get why you are doing this. It’s just that I see the end result being full of unintended consequences, the chief result being increasing uncertaintly as the older records are adjusted. It won’t be that way at first, but I guarantee that, over time, the tendency to assume will grow.
You want a standardized record, but none really exists.
The observers of today are alive and thier means & intentions discovered.
Not entirely true those who are gone, and much of what they wanted those who followed to know is now lost.
I dare say that the dumbing down that takes place today has good reasons behind it.
It’s the lesser of two evils, there being 2 sides to the coin.
If there is no reasoning around to prevent you from convincing others to adjust the past which cannot be 100% verified, there will also be no reason many years from now to prevent others from doing the same. Even worse, data handling that has been subject to adjusting has a nasty habit of losing the original.
Do you understand where I am coming from?
rbateman says:
April 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm
You want a standardized record, but none really exists.
The observers of today are alive and their means & intentions discovered.
Not entirely true those who are gone, and much of what they wanted those who followed to know is now lost.
Already Wolf discovered [and used] an objective and ‘intention-free’ method of getting a standard record, namely the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the magnetic needle. This method has no long-term instrumental calibration problems because an angle does not require calibration, 10 arc minutes are 10 arc minutes and could easily be measured with precision 200 years ago. So, it is possible to standardize the record. There are, of course, always detail that must be cleared up. The magnetic needle is also sensitive to electric currents in the ground so small local differences exist, but we can measure today at the same locations as in the past and correct unambiguously for that. The overhead current depends on the conductivity of the ionosphere which in turn depends on the overall intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field. That field is slowly changing, but again we know by how much, so can also correct for that [small] effect. So, a revised sunspot number will not drift away into the sky as time goes on, but will become better and better as we improve our understanding of how to correct for those [again: small] environmental effects. The magnetic data is not lost, much has been digitized and the rest will follow [and there are active projects aimed at that going on].
I agree, Leif, that new data must be considered and applied to established theory. If the theory is right, the predictions will be rapidly refined.
On the other hand, Hathaway’s initial predictions said SC#24 would be 35% higher than SC#23 and subsequent predictions, based on new data, continually downgraded the peak Sunspot number to the point they now say SC#24 will be 50% lower than SC#23. Doesn’t that show there was something wrong with the theory on which Hathaway is basing his predictions? Do you agree? Hathaway has also changed the predicted peak date from mid-2010 to late-2013, an adjustment of three years for an nominal 11-year cycle. I initially said it would peak in mid-2013 and I now think it will peak in 2014.
Good theories produce relatively stable predictions. While I congratulate Hathaway on his forthright admission that new data required him to change his predictions, tacitly admitting they were way too high and peaked way too soon, his “conveyor belt” theory has not panned out very well.
Your theory and predictions have fared much better than Hathaway’s. I do not believe you have had to change your predictions much, if at all, based on new data. The whole idea of predictions is to predict the future, far enough in advance of the event to make a difference. Does that not prove your theories are closer to the truth than Hathaways?
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Glenn says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:42 am
You would apparently think that all spots should be counted and relevant to the sunspot count. I doubt that would being much to the table.
“Indeed, yes, for studying the Sun that is what one should do.”
Hey Leif, news alert: The sunspot count is and has been a *visible* count from the Earth.. You apparently think everyone should accept any harebrained thing you say, but that just isn’t reality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Glenn says:
“In East Europe we use to multiply all achievements since 1945 and the West’s failures by 2.”
You left out an important part of “everything”, actually *half* of everything. Why, oh why?
“Because that is what was said”
No, Leif, that was only half of what was said. [snip. gratuitous insult. ~dbs]]
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Not wrong, just as in all science uncertain. But you did not read about their method.”
Yes, Leif, predictions can be wrong. And I did read about their method. Would you like me to post it again?
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm
On the other hand, Hathaway’s initial predictions said SC#24 would be 35% higher than SC#23 and subsequent predictions, based on new data, continually downgraded the peak Sunspot number to the point they now say SC#24 will be 50% lower than SC#23. Doesn’t that show there was something wrong with the theory on which Hathaway is basing his predictions?
No, it just shows the danger [as is already known] of early prediction.
Good theories produce relatively stable predictions.
Hatahway’s prediction is not based on any theory, but on the assumption [based on previous cycles] that the shape of the cycle determines its size: if it starts out slow, it will not have time to reach a big cycle once it is time for maximum [Waldmeier’s rule]. Basically what he does is to find a few parameters [by fitting to observed data] that describes the shape of the cycle [so far], then applies that to find the size.
his “conveyor belt” theory has not panned out very well.
first, it was not his theory, second it is not used for his prediction [actually better to call it a forecast, as he is just doing what weather forecasters do].
Your theory and predictions have fared much better than Hathaway’s. I do not believe you have had to change your predictions much, if at all, based on new data.
My prediction depends on the polar fields in a few years before minimum and will thus change slightly if the polar fields change over that time [it is one of the strengths of the prediction that it can adjust]. Fortunately, observations show that the polar fields once well-established don’t change much, and after the minimum, the polar fields begin to decrease because of new-cycle flux getting to the poles, so they can no longer be used for forecasting of the current cycle, hence the prediction is ‘frozen’ at that point.
The whole idea of predictions is to predict the future, far enough in advance of the event to make a difference. Does that not prove your theories are closer to the truth than Hathaways?
My theory is useful some three years before the next cycle. Hathaway’s is not applicable at all until you are some time into the cycle. But once there, his, of course, with time becomes better than mine, because it takes into account the actual evolution of the real data.
Now, the current Hathaway predictions are different than his geomagnetic precursor method used before the minimum. This is not always appreciated, see http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf The difficulty with that method is the ‘pick the right peak’ [see the paper]. Once you do, it works reasonably well. Unfortunately for Hathaway he picked the wrong one. Possibly encourgaed to do so by the Dikpati et al. high prediction.
Glenn says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Hey Leif, news alert: The sunspot count is and has been a *visible* count from the Earth.. You apparently think everyone should accept any harebrained thing you say, but that just isn’t reality.
Yes, but we would really wish to know all of solar activity all over the surface, and one day we will.
Glenn says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm
No, Leif, that was only half of what was said. [snip. gratuitous insult. ~dbs]
You have a reading disability or what? Haven’t you wasted enough of everybody’s time on this?
Glenn says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Yes, Leif, predictions can be wrong. And I did read about their method. Would you like me to post it again?
You only read then dumbed down version for public consumption [but is seemed appropriate for you]. Their paper in the abstract clearly says: “This Combined Solar Cycle Activity Forecast gives, as of January 1999, a smoothed sunspot maximum of 146 plus/minus 20 at the 95% level of confidence for the next cycle maximum”. do us all a favor and educate yourself a bit: here is the paper again: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA900313.pdf To prove that you have read it, tell us what the first word of the text on each page is.
Is it purely a coincidence that the recent upward spike in sunspot number comes at a time when the lower troposphere spiked up on Dr. Spencer’s site?
>>Leif Svalgaard says: April 10, 2011 at 3:23 pm
>>In Hathaway’s description of what he is doing ,
>>we update the prediction every month as new data becomes available
If the model only uses data from the current cycle, then how did they make a prediction before the cycle started?
Also, it is quite obvious that the Sun has cycles that are longer than just one 11-year cycle, and to not utilise any of these other factors in the model for sunspot prediction demonstrates a complete ignorance about the Sun and its inner workings. In fact, it is hardly a model at all. You would do better with a pencil and a squinted eyeball. Perhaps an ouija board might help.
.
Ref – Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Dr. Ira Glickstein, (April 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm) thank you for your comments/questions. Dr. Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your comments and answers. My poorly worded comment/question earlier regarded what both of you just covered so clearly. Again, thank you both. Much clearer now 😉
Ralph says:
April 11, 2011 at 2:09 am
If the model only uses data from the current cycle, then how did they make a prediction before the cycle started?
1) it is not a model, just a description of the shape of the current cycle
2) the prediction before the cycle started was based on a completely different method, namely the observation that variations of the geomagnetic field depend on the state of the solar wind which in turn is influenced by the solar polar magnetic field. Empirically it is found that geomagnetic activity often has a peak just before solar minimum and that the size of that peak is a predictor of the next cycle. Problem is when you have more than one peak: which one to choose? Hathaway chose the wrong one.
“”””” Piers_Corbyn says:
April 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Interesting and useful and bears out what a lot of us have been saying.
However do bear in mind for ongoing cooling it is the odd cycles which count decisively. Even ones, eg SC24, which we are now in normally mean a cooler earth anyway. In odd ones Earth temp is best correlated with solar activity so a weak SC25 will be the ‘cooling clincher’. For such projections see slide 17 in the pdf in my submission to the UK Select committee enquiry into the extremely cold & snowy December 2010 crisis – short link- http://bit.ly/hEmBqG
Thanks, Piers Corbyn “””””
Piers, only reason I can conjure up as to why odd/even cycles would have different solar activity consequences, would be the magnetic factor. Sun’s magnetic field switches every cycle, while earth’s does not, so net local magnetic field should have an odd/even assymmetry. This presumably has a cosmic ray/charged particle effect on cloud formation.
George E. Smith says:
April 11, 2011 at 11:49 am
This presumably has a cosmic ray/charged particle effect
The cosmic ray intensity does have a weak asymmetry between od/even cycles [or rather from solar max to solar max]. See Slide #7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
where the peaks marked with circles are higher and more ‘peaked’ than the intervening GCR maxima, but the effect is second order and its climate effects [if any] would not be noticeable.
Since I cannot understand climate change without understanding solar dynamics, I feel that it is my duty to sit at the feet of the great oracles like Hathaway and learn why SSN predictions have more oscillation that the SNN themselves. I think I’m ready: I just bought a dozen books on the subject…and a Ouija board. I’m also thinking about buying a really warm coat.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Then there is a great disparity opening up between the cooling that Solar/Galactic science allows for and the actual cooling observed.
If the end result of very low solar activity is history repeating itself, did we learn anything?
rbateman says:
April 12, 2011 at 3:46 am
Then there is a great disparity opening up between the cooling that Solar/Galactic science allows for and the actual cooling observed.
Just showing they have nothing to do with each other.
If the end result of very low solar activity is history repeating itself, did we learn anything?
Some people will never learn anything.