Hathaway's November Solar Prediction

By David Archibald

Joe D’Aleo asked for my comments on NASA’s James Hathaway’s latest solar prediction, available here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

When I read May 2013 for solar cycle maximum, I thought “That is my prediction”.

But then at the bottom of the page, they provide text files of their sunspot number prediction and F10.7 flux prediction.  So I downloaded the data and plotted it up, and I found that NASA is providing a number of predictions re the month of solar cycle maximum:

image

The F10.7 flux data plotted is less the magnetic floor of 64.

Firstly, their actual peak by the numbers is February and March 2013.  Secondly, their forecast peak of F10.7 flux is September 2013.  Sunspot number and F10.7 flux should be in lockstep.

So it total, NASA have provided three estimates of the timing of Solar Cycle 24 maximum in the one release.

What I find more interesting is what their F10.7 flux profile implies if it is correct.  It suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be a very long cycle with the 24/25 minimum in 2021 or even 2022, making it 13 to 14 years long – possibly up to 18 months longer than Solar Cycle 23.

With the solar cycle length/temperature relationship of 0.7°C for the US – Canadian border, the NASA profile implies a further cooling of perhaps 1.0°C in Solar Cycle 25.

In terms of neutron count, things aren’t all that different from previous cycles:

image

This figure shows the first four years of average Oulu monthly neutron count for the last five solar cycles, aligned on the month of solar minimum. While Solar Cycle 24 is currently providing 17% more neutrons than the super-hot Solar Cycle 22 at the same stage, it isn’t all that different from the other three cycles to date.

By comparison, the Ap Index has just recovered to the levels of previous solar minima, three years into Solar Cycle 24:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AnonyMoose

Looks like you miscoded the insertion of the Ap Index graph at the end of the article. I don’t see it. (you may delete this reply when the article is repaired)

Ian

it is all a guessing game..just like so called agw…

NASA’s latest solar prediction
As we have discussed so many times, this is not NASA’s prediction, just David Hathaway’s private opinion.

MrX

I always did hate the Soprano’s ending.

Crispin in Waterloo

What is the longest cycle seen to date?
What was the temperature response during and immediately afterwards?
It is often shown that Cycle 24 will be relatively long as will the one immediately after it. Is this a typical scenario for a De Vries Cycle? Is it a De Vries Double-Dip?
Thanks
Crispin

LOL Leif…. do you say the same thing about Hanson’s predictions?

Also, David, I can’t see how you could say the neutron count isn’t all that different over previous cycles. it looks to me as if its been running steadily 6-8% higher for a several years now…

rbateman

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm
NASA’s latest solar prediction
As we have discussed so many times, this is not NASA’s prediction, just David Hathaway’s private opinion.

The press will quote Hathaway as if NASA were predicting it, so that the average person reading it won’t know the difference. Might as well be, Leif, because Hathaway does effective markteing through judiciously constructed eye-candy. Got to give him credit: He’s good at it.

Jgfox

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
When you can’t predict, stop predicting!
I lost track of the many revisions to Cycle 24’s peak monthly sunspot count.
Please, Hathaway, stop making a fool of yourself and just admit that you are clueless and just report the “number” when Cycle 25 begins!
“Oh, the ,humanity!”

David Archibald

Crispin in Waterloo says:
November 6, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Solar Cycle 4 was 13.6 years. They were a bit longer again in the Maunder Minimum.

David Archibald

Crispin in Waterloo says:
November 6, 2011 at 8:44 pm
The De Vries cycle looks very reliable in the record. The only period that seems to have missed one is the Medieval Warm Period. But good sunspot data only goes back 300 years so only one De Vries cycle in the sunspot record. The important thing is that solar activity is much weaker, as predicted. One of NASA’s November predictions will end up being more correct than the other two. If that is the F10.7 flux prediction, then prepare for major multi-decadal cooling. If Solar Cycle 25 is longer than 24, then the first chance for a reversal of the cooling trend will be over Solar Cycle 27, assuming that 26 is shorter than 25. Solar Cycle 27 might start in the early 2040s – thirty years away.

Jgfox says:
November 6, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Please, Hathaway, stop making a fool of yourself and just admit that you are clueless
Hathaway’s forecast is a fit to the cycle so far, it is updated as the cycle progresses, the same way a weather forecast is updated in real time.
I lost track of the many revisions to Cycle 24′s peak monthly sunspot count.
I presume you have also lost track of how many times your local weather man has changed his forecast.

David Archibald says:
November 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm
One of NASA’s November predictions
You have been told so many times that this is not NASA’s prediction but Hathaway’s personal opinion that one might presume you would have gotten the message and stop referring to ‘NASA’s’ prediction.

Carolyn Jarrett

The thing about Marshall Space Flight Center’s flux prediction is that NASA actually uses it for atmospheric drag predictions for the International Space Station. This, among other things, determines how much propellant will be required to maintain a proper altitude over the coming years, and is constantly measured against actual results. The NASA engineers who depend on this data for ISS projections would complain loudly (internally, of course) if political inclinations rendered the flux predictions unreliable. They may not be perfect, but they are generally quite reliable.

Leit, take your “doesn’t speak for NASA” directly to NASA and leave the rest of out of it.
Whoever is making the prediction is doing it under the masthead of
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
…. Sounds pretty official to me, whether or not Hathaway has highjacked it for his own personal ego trip.

ferdberple

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm
As we have discussed so many times, this is not NASA’s prediction, just David Hathaway’s private opinion.
Are you denying this is NASA’s prediction? A prediction made by a government employee on a government computer? Paid for by the public?
“plausible deniability”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs, and the lower rungs are often inaccessible, meaning confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.

David Archibald

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. I love it when I push a button and get the desired response. With respect to your assertion that Dr Hathaway’s work is his private opinion, I note that he is an employee of NASA and his work is published on a NASA website. A casual observer might quite reasonably come to the conclusion that he might be employed to produce predictions of solar activity for NASA, in which case NASA owns the predictions so produced. Please explain how this is not so, how Dr Hathaway makes these predictions in his own time and how NASA, through the kindness of its heart, makes one of its websites available for the dissemination of these private predictions, but without any caveats or indication that the opinions are those of a private individual. If you can explain that to us, you might provide a very illuminating insight into the whole global warming alarmism construct.

From http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
“April 25, 2008 The official,/i> NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel on April 25, 2007. The Prediction Panel included members from NOAA, NASA, ISES and other US and International representatives.”

From http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html :
Why NASA Needs a Prediction of the Solar Cycle (PPT) – W. Dean Pesnell, NASA GSFC
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Pesnell.ppt

I try not to make predictions about things I have limited knowledge about. I have been following sunspots since I was in high school (a goodly number of cycles ago). I still don’t make predictions about them except in the most general or terms. I see no harm in anyone making predictions about anything. Any rational person would simply ignore the foolishness anyway.

StuartMcL

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2011 at 10:31 pm
From http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
“April 25, 2008 The official,/i> NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel on April 25, 2007. The Prediction Panel included members from NOAA, NASA, ISES and other US and International representatives.”
====================================================
Using that as an argument that the NASA prediction is just Hathaway’s private opinion is like saying:
that because there are Federal Laws then State laws are not official – they are just the personal opinion of the State’s governor
Sorry, doesn’t wash. If is published as Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2011/11/02) under the masthead “Solar Physics” on the official NASA website – that’s good enough for me..

D. Patterson

Someone e-mail NASA and ask whether or not the agency is publishing Hathaway’s information as official an NASA prediction or forecast.

Glenn

Leif, this argument of yours is unbecoming. First of all, NASA is not NOAA. Second, NASA does have a team that issues predictions. Hathaway is one member of that group. Your attempts fail to show that this prediction originates with one man and that it is not an official NASA prediction. You also fail to show that the NASA participants agreed with the NOAA prediction.
It also serves to disparage efforts to provide timely predictions, since the NOAA panel’s last prediction was over two years ago in 2009, only about a year into the cycle. It is now over two years later.

This one from 8 years ago has done it .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

There is more to the solar act than the sunspot count:
Take a good look at this :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
– Orange line is sunspot number
– Red line is an independent process, pertinent to the high latitudes of the North Atlantic
Red & orange lines have a good correlation since 1880s (good records available on both)
– Blue line (bold) is directly derived from the CE temperatures (light blue)
Blue and Red have good correlation going back to 1650s.
Some may dismiss the CET as a purely regional affair, that may be so, but CET is a near carbon copy of the N. Atlantic SST, which defines (when de-trended) the AMO.
One of rare useful things that came out from the BEST team was their finding (actually backed-up by a proper analysis):
We find that the strongest cross-correlation of the decadal fluctuations in (global) land surface temperature is not with ENSO but with the AMO.
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations (pages 4&5).
It is left to reader to decide on the bases of the above is there possibility of a climate change link associated with the solar activity.
I do no not think it is the TSI, UV or CR, but that that is not all to the sun-earth link.

Jim Cripwell

I have asked this question before, but have not had an answer. When it comes to hurricanes, there is the number of hurricanes, but also the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE). With sunspots, there is the sunspot number. Is there any equivalent to the ACE value? The accumulated flare intensity count, or whatever?

Allan MacRae

WHAT IF EARTH IS COOLING, NOT WARMING?
Heresy 1 (Stone the leper!) :
Based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, I wrote in an article published in the Calgary Herald on 1 Sept 2002 that global cooling should soon return.
“… these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity….
… If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This timing estimate was based on the Gleissberg cycle.
IF the PDO is a better approximation of timing, global cooling could occur sooner.
Heresy 2 (Drown it, to see if it is a witch!) :
Tim and I co-authored (with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist) an article in the November 2002 PEGG concluding that ““the alleged warming crisis does not exist” (Is this a suitable null hypothesis?).
http://www.apegga.com/members/Publications/peggs/Web11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Ultimate Heresy 3 (Burn it, burn it, drive out the Devil!) :
In 2008, I wrote that CO2 LAGS temperature by 9 months, at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
More specifically, I wrote that (annualized) dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 lags temperature by 9 months (so the alleged Cause LAGS the alleged Effect – Go Figure!). The standard response is that this is a `feedback effect – a religious argument for which there is no compelling evidence.
Last Rites (Confessions of a Climate Heretic) :
I submit that the IPCC and NASA (specifically Hansen and Hathaway, but not Leif) have exhibited little or no record of predictive skill.
I further suggest that the science of Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) is in its infancy – we don`t even know what is cause (more likely global temperature) and what is effect (more likely atmospheric CO2)!
This rancorous global warming debate has now lasted more than a decade.
As a result of global warming political science, our society has squandered over a trillion dollars on energy nonsense such as wind power, corn ethanol and CO2 credits.
I do expect that Earth will experience some global cooling in the near future that will help focus the debate (but some parties are already saying that increasing humanmade CO2 is causing cooling – as well as warming – Quelle Surprise)!
I do believe that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature rather than leads it, although there may be a significant human component (or not).
I expect that when global cooling does occur, there will be a flattening or even a decline in year-to-year atmospheric CO2.
In a rational world, we would be much more concerned about the negative impacts of natural global cooling on food production and human wellbeing, than false fears about manmade global warming.

el gordo

‘With the solar cycle length/temperature relationship of 0.7°C for the US – Canadian border, the NASA profile implies a further cooling of perhaps 1.0°C in Solar Cycle 25.’
If correct the ramifications will be shocking, but clearly if David Archibald is having trouble getting traction here then you can be sure the wider world doesn’t have a clue.
I’m betting he’s on the money.

Gail Combs

Allan MacRae says:
November 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
WHAT IF EARTH IS COOLING, NOT WARMING?
Heresy 1 (Stone the leper!) :
Based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, I wrote in an article published in the Calgary Herald on 1 Sept 2002 that global cooling should soon return.
“… these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity….
… If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This timing estimate was based on the Gleissberg cycle.
IF the PDO is a better approximation of timing, global cooling could occur sooner.
I submit that the IPCC and NASA (specifically Hansen and Hathaway, but not Leif) have exhibited little or no record of predictive skill…..
I expect that when global cooling does occur, there will be a flattening or even a decline in year-to-year atmospheric CO2.
In a rational world, we would be much more concerned about the negative impacts of natural global cooling on food production and human wellbeing, than false fears about manmade global warming.
_______________________________________
I am sure the Gleissberg cycle is well know in political circles and was part of the Scam. The impact of global cooling on food production is also well known and the basis for the next economic boom for the wealthy.
We can already see the politics behind that economic boom with the 1995 WTO Agreement on Agriculture that wiped tariffs These tariffs protected the national agricultural base especially in third world countries from the Multinational Corporations. The WTO/UN written regulations called “Good Agricultural Practices” are then implemented in first world countries to wipe out the independent farmers. The last step is the world wide land grab added by the housing market collapse.

…..As co-founder of Ceres Partners LLC, a Granger, Indiana-based investment firm, Vieth oversees 61 farms valued at $63.3 million in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Tennessee. He’s so enthusiastic about the investments that he quit a job in 2008 overseeing $7 billion in fixed-income assets at PanAgora Asset Management Inc., a Boston-based quantitative money management firm, to focus full time on farming….
Investors are pouring into farmland in the U.S. and parts of Europe, Latin America and Africa as global food prices soar. A fund controlled by George Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund manager, owns 23.4 percent of South American farmland venture Adecoagro SA.
Hedge funds Ospraie Management LLC and Passport Capital LLC as well as Harvard University’s endowment are also betting on farming. TIAA-CREF, the $466 billion financial services giant, has $2 billion invested in some 600,000 acres (240,000 hectares) of farmland in Australia, Brazil and North America and wants to double the size of its investment…..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html

……Harvard and other major American universities are working through British hedge funds and European financial speculators to buy or lease vast areas of African farmland in deals, some of which may force many thousands of people off their land, according to a new study.
Researchers say foreign investors are profiting from “land grabs” that often fail to deliver the promised benefits of jobs and economic development….
The new report on land acquisitions in seven African countries suggests that Harvard, Vanderbilt and many other US colleges with large endowment funds have invested heavily in African land in the past few years. Much of the money is said to be channelled through London-based Emergent asset management, which runs one of Africa’s largest land acquisition funds, run by former JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs currency dealers.
Researchers at the California-based Oakland Institute think that Emergent’s clients in the US may have invested up to $500m in some of the most fertile land in the expectation of making 25% returns….
Research by the World Bank and others suggests that nearly 60m hectares – an area the size of France – has been bought or leased by foreign companies in Africa in the past three years…..

http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/us-universities-africa-land-grab-0
What is interesting is that Pres. Clinton signed the five banking bills leading to the housing market collapse in the USA. Clinton ratified NAFTA and WTO. Meanwhile VP Al Gore stated during the presentation of awards to Future Farmers of America that the kids should get out of farming because it was being shifted to the third world.
And just looky Al Gore is president of New Forest a company buying up land in Africa…. because it was being shifted to the third world.
“FOLLOW THE MONEY”

David Archibald

Jim Cripwell says:
November 7, 2011 at 2:53 am
The area under the curve of the F10.7 flux may be the closest thing to what you seem to be looking for.

Jason Calley

@ M.A.Vukcevic, November 7, 2011 at 1:10 am
Pardon me for asking what is probably a very simple question, but I am trying to get a good conceptual model of things. You say that CET mirrors Atlantic SST, which in turn correlates to AMO, and that (per BEST) AMO, more strongly correlates to global land surface temperatures than ENSO. Are we just looking at a system with various ill-timed resonances in it? Do you think that the AMO just happens (because of size, depth, currents and shape of the Atlantic Ocean) to be more closely in phase with the cycles of solar output — and hence more closely reacts to and mirrors the same solar forces that drive global surface temperature? Similarly, do you think that the ENSO is just too short, but is part of a longer (because the pacific is so much larger) cycle which has a poorer match to solar output changes?
As in the Goldilocks story of the bears, ENSO is too short, long term Pacific is too long, and AMO is just right. Help me out here, Vukcevic, I am not sure if I am facing the light or just seeing more fog!

Jason Calley

@ Gail Combs, November 7, 2011 at 5:11 am: “FOLLOW THE MONEY”
At the risk of being thought a member of the tin-foil hat brigade, yes, I have wondered about the same thing and considered pretty much the same scenario. If one were wealthy and powerful wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a carbon tax in place for all fossil fuel use while the world drifted into a cold phase? Wouldn’t it be nice to buy agricultural land cheap prior to a global food shortage?

General P.Malaise

…but how will this affect my tomatoes? they don’t do well in frozen ground.

Stephen Wilde

“and AMO is just right”
and
“Do you think that the AMO just happens (because of size, depth, currents and shape of the Atlantic Ocean) to be more closely in phase with the cycles of solar output — and hence more closely reacts to and mirrors the same solar forces that drive global surface temperature? ”
Good points.
I think the north Atlantic responds first and most to the top down solar changes which alter the intensity of the polar vortices so as to shift the surface prssure distribution latitudinally. Thus altering global cloudiness and albedo and the rate of solar energy input to the oceans.
The north Pacific is busy responding to ENSO events which modulate the top down solar effect and introduce delays in the atmospheric response to solar changes.
The north Atlantic is partly insulated from the ENSO events by the American and Eurasian continents and so can respond more directly to solar variations.

Stephen Wilde

“I do no not think it is the TSI, UV or CR, but that that is not all to the sun-earth link”
I think it is the variable quantity of various ozone destroying wavelengths, chemicals and particles descending through the polar vortex. An active sun destroys more ozone above 45km whilst an inactive sun destroys less ozone above 45km.
That is a separate process to the creation of ozone above the tropics when the sun is active.
The effect is maximised at the poles where the polar vortex descends. When the sun is active ozone is depleted above 45km at the poles and that ozone depleted ‘air’ descends down through the vortex to deplete ozone at lower levels nearer the poles as well, hence a larger Antarctic ozone hole when the sun is more active.
The mesosphere and stratosphere above the poles both cool due to less ozone above 45km so that the descending air is focused in a single high pressure cell over or close to the poles. That descending air then feeds the mid latitude low pressure cells which shift poleward allowing more equatorial air to move across the mid latitudes. As seen in the MWP and recently.
When the sun is less active the mesosphere and stratosphere above the poles warm so that there is resistance to the downward flow of cold upper air through the vortex. That warmth diverts the downward flow away from the pole itself and divides it to form 2 or 3 polar high pressure cells some distance from the poles leaving an area of relatively low pressure over the pole.
Those high pressure cells migrate into the mid latitudes (the mobile polar high of Marcel Leroux) and push the polar air ahead of them thereby forcing the mid latitude jets equatorward as seen most notably in the LIA.
There are differences in the way it plays out in the Arctic and Antarctic due to the differing landmass distributions.
Meanwhile oceanic cycles modulate the process from below by warming or cooling the equatorial air masses to provide variable resistance to the solar induced equatorward/poleward movements of the polar high pressure cells.
Conceptually that all fits together rather well and will be demonstrated or rebutted by ongoing direct observations of the atmospheric responses to the ongoing solar variability.

@M.A.Vukcevic Your extrapolation of Polar Field Strength 7th Jan 2004 : It confirms the situation we are in these “interesting times”:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

jlurtz

Leif,
Now that we have modern measurement techniques, is the10.7cm Flux is that closely correlated to the Sun Spots?? What is the modern relationship??

Gail Combs

Jason Calley says:
November 7, 2011 at 6:24 am
@ Gail Combs, November 7, 2011 at 5:11 am: “FOLLOW THE MONEY”
At the risk of being thought a member of the tin-foil hat brigade, yes, I have wondered about the same thing and considered pretty much the same scenario. If one were wealthy and powerful wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a carbon tax in place for all fossil fuel use while the world drifted into a cold phase? Wouldn’t it be nice to buy agricultural land cheap prior to a global food shortage?
________________________________
Would it not be nice to have something like the Committee on Economic Development (founded in 1942) “to advance sound public policies that promote long-term and broad-based economic growth…..” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Economic_Development
The war against independent farmers is documented in this well researched article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

@Gail Combs.:The war against independent farmers is documented in this well researched article.. The “elite” knows from old that crop prices increase when it happens a solar minimum, that is why they have acted in consequence.
See: William Herschel On Sunspots And Wheat Prices In The 17th Century:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/william-herschel-on-sunspots-and-wheat-prices-in-the-17th-century/
“Land Reform” succeeded in depriving from their property to the local elites of many countries, to be bought by the international elite.

Dr. Lurtz says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:08 am
Now that we have modern measurement techniques, is the10.7cm Flux is that closely correlated to the Sun Spots?? What is the modern relationship??
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf
On NASA and Hathaway:
Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62) ✆
7:52 AM (0 minutes ago)
to leif
Yes
—–Original Message—–
From: Leif Svalgaard [mailto:lsvalgaard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 9:52 AM
To: Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
Subject: Re: Help me out with this one.
In that your prediction is yours and not the official NASA prediction?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
wrote:
> You are absolutely correct.
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Leif Svalgaard [mailto:lsvalgaard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:28 PM
> To: Hathaway, David H. (MSFC-VP62)
> Subject: Help me out with this one.
>
> There is the notion out there that the solar cycle prediction you make
> on the http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml website is
> NASA’s ‘official’ prediction. I thought the US govmnt prediction is
> the one from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ could you clear that
> up for me? Thanks.

Allan MacRae

RE : “Follow the money”
For me, it Is difficult enough to follow the science.
The unscientific nonsense emanating from the IPCC and NASA/NOAA (Hansen et al) can be managed by assuming that everything they say is wrong.
That assumption is an over-simplification, but it saves considerable time, and has been demonstrated to be more correct than incorrect.
Every dire prediction these parties have made has failed to materialize.

David Archibald
Your observation on apparent longer length of cycle 24 is very interesting:

It suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be a very long cycle with the 24/25 minimum in 2021 or even 2022, making it 13 to 14 years long – possibly up to 18 months longer than Solar Cycle 23.

Edward Fix modeled the sun in damped oscillation moving about the barycenter (center of mass of the solar system. Fix’s model “predicts two consecutive, weak solar cycles, each eight years long”.

“As long as the output is held to zero through 2008, every run showed Cycle 24 with a delayed start, amplitude ranging from weak to entirely missing, and short duration, with Cycle 25 starting up around 2015-2016. The polarities continue to alternate as shown.”

You can read Fix’s paper “The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-Concept Simulation,” in Evidence-Based Climate Science 2011 Don Easterbrook ISBN 9780123859563 Ch. 14, pp 335-349. (Search for “barycenter” or “quail” or “beavercreek” or go to page 335.) See especially Fig. 6 and Fig. 10.
The implied length of NASA’s model is 69% longer than Fix’s model. It will be interesting to see which of these two very different predictions work out.
GravitySimulator looks interesting for exploring the barycenter behavior.

Jason Calley
Stephen Wilde

The CET mirrors both the AMO, which is the N. Atlantic currents dependant, and the NAO, a direct atmospheric tele-connection to the Icelandic Low. The IL moves polar jet stream trajectory which in turn affects large region of the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
The NAO’s northern component (Icelandic Low) appear to be directly related to downwelling of warm currents in the N. Atlantic (thermo-haline circulation). Heat is released at rate of several hundred W/msq, resulting in a deep water convection, which moves from Irminger sea (winter) to Nordic seas (summer) and vice versa.
Warming in the N. Atlantic (SST/AMO) appear to be real since the excess heat from equatorial region (which otherwise would be re-radiated) is moving poleward across Greenland – Scotland ridge; this is the true variable at the root of changes in the N. Atlantic. I happen to think there is a good reason for its long term change, which is loosely synchronised to the solar activity, but the science is not currently prepared to move in that direction, while it is suffering from the CO2 infection (some symptoms of recovery are already visible).
On the ENSO go by what experts say (see the Bob Tisdale’s posts and website, there is enough to satisfy anyone’s curiosity).
The TSI, UV and GCR do have effect, but by most accounts not large enough, to account either for the MWP, LIA or MWP2 (modern warming period ~1900-2000) at least not in the CET area.

Enneagram says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:05 am
Re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
It’s simplicity and elegance is by the curtsey of Nicholas Copernicus.

Paul Westhaver

Leif,
I am interested in the rate of change in the predictions.
I saved links of older prediction (not the image themselves) in hopes that I could produce a time-varying animation over the last 24 months or so of the predictions by David Hathaway as you put it.
Leif, do you have those images? The active links on Anthony Watts’s solar page shows the current plots not the historical prediction plots.

Tom in Florida

For those that are newer to this blog, Dr Leif Svalgaard was (is?) a member of the 2007 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel. If I recall he disagreed with the official position and predicted a SSN max of 70. Please correct me if that is not accurate.

SteveSadlov

Compare the actual range envelope of Cycle 23 with the forecast one for Cycle 24, versus the Cycle 24 range to date. Based on that, Cycle 24 will be even weaker than currently forecast.

phlogiston

Hang on a minute – back in June, “3 lines of research were pointing to a sunspot cycle shut down”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/
These three lines were:
1. Zonal flow no show for cycle 25
2. Livingston and Penn, linear decline in magnetic field strength
3. Poleward march of magnetic activity – not observed
So what has happened in the meantime? – have the zonal flows and the poleward march belatedly started? Is the L&P magnetic field decline continuing or not?

On my computer, I read:
Sunspot number: 144
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 06 Nov 2011
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 821 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 06 Nov 2011
Where in any of the graphs shown in the above article does this long run of spotless days show up – and when did Solar Cycle 23 end and cycle 24 start?
Are we meant to forget or over-look something here?

D. Patterson

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:55 am

Thank you for contacting Dr. Hathaway for his direct response.