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:
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:
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:
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)
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.
I always did hate the Soprano’s ending.
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…
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Someone e-mail NASA and ask whether or not the agency is publishing Hathaway’s information as official an NASA prediction or forecast.
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.
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?
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.
‘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.
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.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html
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”
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.
@ 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!
@ 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?
…but how will this affect my tomatoes? they don’t do well in frozen ground.
“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.
“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
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??
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.
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:
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you for contacting Dr. Hathaway for his direct response.
phlogiston says:
November 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
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
……………………..
Hypothesis based on wrong premise is unlikely to produce a good forecast.
Don’t know much about no.1 but consider 2 & 3 non-starters.
Paul Westhaver says:
November 7, 2011 at 10:45 am
Leif, do you have those images?
No, as they are not of general interest. Hathaway simply fits the current cycle to a standard model of the cycle shape [this is not prediction, but just description of the current status assuming past history is a guide]
Tom in Florida says:
November 7, 2011 at 10:49 am
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.
Both I and Hathaway were members. In the beginning my prediction was low [75] and Hathaway’s was high. The final decision ended up low [although a little bit higher than my preferred number].
phlogiston says:
November 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
So what has happened in the meantime?
Not much, too early to tell.
D. Patterson says:
November 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Thank you for contacting Dr. Hathaway for his direct response.
Perhaps some people should tone down the venom a tad. Even apologize.
David Archibald says:
November 6, 2011 at 9:40 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
Understanding why the MWP missed out on a solar grand minimum is one of the keys to understanding what drives and modulates solar grand minima. The MWP is one of the rare times over the Holocene where the 172 (avg) year pattern is broken. The reason for this is the solar path is hardly disturbed because of weaker planetary positions that occur during this interval that directly control the position of the Sun around the SSB.
This diagram prepared by the late Carl Smith (with my annotations) gives a good account of the forces involved.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/995-2985.jpg
David L. Hagen says:
November 7, 2011 at 9:22 am
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”.
Unfortunately in my opinion Ed makes a mistake in trying to align the SSB derived oscillations with solar cycle length. This simply cannot be reproduced over longer time frames. If Ed concentrated on solar modulation and not timing he would be more correct.
From the charts, SC23 appears to have peaked in 2001 so should we not see SC24 peak in 2012?
I feel that K. Denkmayr’s method, yielding SSN max in late 2012, may be slightly more plausible than Hathaway’s prediction. See
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfjmms.html
Paul Westhaver says:
November 7, 2011 at 10:45 am
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.
This link has several of Hathaway’s images.
http://climate4all.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/those-pesky-sunspots/
David Archibald says:
November 6, 2011 at 10:14 pm
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.
==========================
In no doubt similar (but, arguably more benign because Hathaway is a real scientist when compared to Hansen), James Hansen always prefacing his interviews with “My opinions here are of a private citizen.”
Or Gavin’s regurgitation of RealClimate.org.
I mean really, folks….when the “Federal” Reserve has lied to us for 100 years, do you really think that the government machine could not also lie (with boldface) even through its “scientific” mechanisms??
To be expected….
However….expected….but not accepted…or acceptable.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Anyone else notice the predicted peak is at or around December 2012?
Queue the Twilight Zone theme music.
David Archibald says:
November 6, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. I love it when I push a button and get the desired response.
shows what a mean man you are.
A casual observer might quite reasonably come to the conclusion that he might be employed to produce predictions of solar activity for NASA
The casual observer has been told several times that 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.
This is called scientific research and is on NASA time, and scientists are always exposing their work to others for review and the like. Institutions very often provide websites for such activities. This does not mean that the institution ‘owns’ the opinion or endorses it or need to disclaim any of it.
But none of this matters now in view of your new-found knowledge that Hathaway;s predictions are not NASA’s official predictions or are even used by NASA, so we might expect that in future you refrain from spreading this misinformation.
The casual observer does not know about WUWT, Leif, and they don’t know about Hathaway personal Solar forecasts.
They only see the pretty graphic with a Hathaway/NASA/MSFC white text at the bottom, and that is where the attention span ends.
This is just the way it works.
David, you are correct. For all intents and purposes, 9x% of J.Q. Public associates the graphic as if it were NASA’s own.
We may work to change that, but it will take time and much effort outside of WUWT.
This situation is no different than Yeoman’s animated graphic depicting YU55 intersecting Earth Orbit @ 90 Degrees, while JPL orbital simulation has it at 30 Degrees. Which one is correct?
Are they dated leftovers dereft of the latest orbital elements? T minus 24:30 and counting.
Nobody bothered to check if Yeoman’s work jived with JPL simulation, but his graphic is linked in at NASA/JPL and the public is reassured to 100% certainty by Yeoman’s association and stature.
Seems like a problem to me.
So an employee of NASA does work on NASA’s time and forms his own views and then expresses them publicly with NASA’s consent and approval as part of his employment with NASA.
The issue boils down to the definition of ‘official’.
NASA might produce a separate ‘official’ point of view of its own but I don’t see the alternative views of its duly sanctioned employees as any less official in that both points of view are products of NASA and clearly (officially?) associated with NASA.
If NASA does not wish Hathaway’s independent opinions to be taken as duly sanctioned by NASA then he should be instructed not to promulgate them independently of the ‘officia’ NASA viewpoint.
It is sad to see rancour between David and Leif in a situation where both their points of view could be said to have merit due to the desire of NASA to cover both sides of a fence.
NASA’s website
Prediction
It walks like a duck, it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck
Hey, it ain’t a duck it’s Dr.H. musing loud into his beard.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/hathaway_0699.jpg
Why not set up your own website?
or you are welcome to mine at any time:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MVfiles.htm
Leif, where is the disclaimer that Hathaway’s predictions are his private opinion and not official Nasa predictions?
There is no disclaimer on the NASA website at http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml , there is no disclaimer on the graphic itself, and in fact speaking of which, the graphic clearly states “Hathaway/NASA/MSFC”, leading one to the conclusion upon viewing such material that this is in fact official NASA publication.
Lastly, why is private opinion published using NASA resources?
Stephen Wilde says:
November 8, 2011 at 12:39 am
It is sad to see rancour between David and Leif in a situation where both their points of view could be said to have merit due to the desire of NASA to cover both sides of a fence.
David’s view has no merit especially after he has been made aware [several times] that it is incorrect. He uses NASA to make his post look more ‘authoritative’ than it is. NASA as a government agency funded the official sunspot prediction at SWPC [NOAA].
If NASA does not wish Hathaway’s independent opinions to be taken as duly sanctioned by NASA
Nonsense. Hathaway is a scientist and NASA employs many, without any of them having their view ‘sanctioned’. We could use WUWT to educate the public rather than to mislead it for own gain.
Kevin Cave says:
November 8, 2011 at 1:00 am
There is no disclaimer on the NASA website
None is needed. The shoe is on the other foot. If this were the official NASA prediction it would say so. Here is a researcher whose website is hosted by a university: http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/research.htm nobody would think that this would be the opinion of the University. This is clearly the private opinion of Dr. Royer.
Kevin Cave says:
November 8, 2011 at 1:00 am
…where is the disclaimer that Hathaway’s predictions are his private opinion and not official Nasa predictions?
……
Here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MVfiles.htm
Leif, sorry, apples and oranges. Apart from the fact I couldn’t see the site due to maintenance of said site, from the university’s main site it’s clear that the university not funded by the taxpayer – whereas NASA is.
NASA is funded from the pockets of the people via taxation. This university is funded mostly by private fees.
I’m not sure you’re quite apprehending the point that people are making here – including myself – which is that an employee of NASA is placing on a NASA website, predictions of solar activity, which from Joe Public’s point of view does look like it’s a NASA prediction. NASA, being funded by the taxpayer.
The question is; should private opinions on solar activity be;
A) Hosted on a privately run website and made obvious that it is so.
Or
B) Hosted on publicly funded NASA’s website and apparently endorsed by NASA, but is, as you are claiming, a private “opinion”.
If your answer is B , then surely it should be made absolutely clear to Joe Public, that these solar cycle predictions are not endorsed by NASA and that they are a private opinion.
Regards.
M.A.Vukcevic , *chuckle* , I see what you did there! 😉
Kevin Cave says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:02 am
I’m not sure you’re quite apprehending the point that people are making here – including myself – which is that an employee of NASA is placing on a NASA website, predictions of solar activity, which from Joe Public’s point of view does look like it’s a NASA prediction. NASA, being funded by the taxpayer.
That is not the point. The point is that that I have told Archibald several times in the past that this is not an official NASA prediction, but he keeps pretending it is presumably because it suits his purposes.
but is, as you are claiming, a private “opinion”
I’m not claiming that. Hathaway is telling you that..
it should be made absolutely clear to Joe Public, that these solar cycle predictions are not endorsed by NASA and that they are a private opinion.
This is what I’m doing and Archibald should not mislead Joe Public by maintaining against his knowledge that this is an official NASA prediction.
Most scientists are funded by the taxpayer and have IMO a duty to perform outreach; this can be done on a private website [like mine] or a public one [like NASA]. As scientists often disagree their research when hosted on NASA can clearly not be NASA policy or official view.
perhaps Dr. Hathaway could pay NASA $1 every 10 years or so for the added cost of his page to the NASA website? That way the US taxpayer could save $1/10/12/150,000,000=$5.556e-11 per month!
Geesh solar cycle prediction
This cycle is showing reduced polar fields on old Sol and a stronger source surface field at the equator.
According to somethings I have read on the internet this suggests that maybe those source equator fields are of a Parker type field and the polar fields are exhibitting a Fisk type field at this time.
At this time being the polar fields are weaker.
Then ran across the following and am wondering about how the Fisk type field plays reconnection with the galactic magnetic field. How do the two fields mix into interplanetary space off the solar disk? The sun is a messy place..
O. Sternal et al. 2011 ApJ 741 23 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/23
POSSIBLE EVIDENCE FOR A FISK-TYPE HELIOSPHERIC MAGNETIC FIELD. I. ANALYZING ULYSSES/KET ELECTRON OBSERVATIONS
Abstract
The propagation of energetic charged particles in the heliospheric magnetic field is one of the fundamental problems in heliophysics. In particular, the structure of the heliospheric magnetic field remains an unsolved problem and is discussed as a controversial topic. The first successful analytic approach to the structure of the heliospheric magnetic field was the Parker field. However, the measurements of the Ulysses spacecraft at high latitudes revealed the possible need for refinements of the existing magnetic field model during solar minimum. Among other reasons, this led to the development of the Fisk field. This approach is highly debated and could not be ruled out with magnetic field measurements so far. A promising method to trace this magnetic field structure is to model the propagation of electrons in the energy range of a few MeV. Employing three-dimensional and time-dependent simulations of the propagation of energetic electrons, this work shows that the influence of a Fisk-type field on the particle transport in the heliosphere leads to characteristic variations of the electron intensities on the timescale of a solar rotation. For the first time it is shown that the Ulysses count rates of 2.5-7 MeV electrons contain the imprint of a Fisk-type heliospheric magnetic field structure. From a comparison of simulation results and the Ulysses count rates, realistic parameters for the Fisk theory are derived. Furthermore, these parameters are used to investigate the modeled relative amplitudes of protons and electrons, including the effects of drifts.
Can someone tell me why Vukcevic’s solar cycle predictions haven’t attracted interest. His 2004 prediction not only hits the low sunspot number but also approximately 2013, too, as well as cool climate to 2040. It sure seems better than the NASA historical prediction history.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 7, 2011 at 12:38 am
This one from 8 years ago has done it .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Gary Pearse says:
November 8, 2011 at 7:10 am
Can someone tell me why Vukcevic’s solar cycle predictions haven’t attracted interest. His 2004 prediction not only hits the low sunspot number but also approximately 2013, too, as well as cool climate to 2040. It sure seems better than the NASA historical prediction history.
______________________
Good question Gary.
Here is a record of SC24 forecasts from 2008, from my files:
From: Allan MacRae
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Predictions of Solar Cycle 24
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/message/46890
HERE ARE THE PREDICTIONS OF THE EXPERTS(?) FOR SC24 – AS YOU CAN SEE,
THE MEANS RANGE FROM 169 (DIKPAKI ET AL) TO LESS THAN 50. WITH A
RANGE THIS WIDE, SOMEONE HAS TO BE CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL NUMBER, BUT
WILL IT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXPERTS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE?
NOTE THE NEOPHYTES(?) GUESSES HERE TO DATE ARE ALL GROUPED TOWARD THE
LOW END OF THE EXPERTS’ RANGE, TYPICALLY ~80 OR LESS – IF SC24 IS
LOW, DOES THAT PROVE THAT THE NEOPHYTES KNOW MORE THAN THE EXPERTS?
(NO, BUT IT IS AN AMUSING CONCEPT.)
BEST, ALLAN
http://www.lund.irf.se/rwc/cycle24/
Predictions of cycle 24 – (Largest smoothed monthly mean for cycle 23, 120.8)
• D. Hathaway (strong cycle), based on the assumption that a fast meridional circulation speed during cycle 22 would lead to a strong solar cycle 24.
• M. Dikpati, G. de Toma, and P. A. Gilman (Rz = 157-181 (flux-transport dynamo-based tool, sunspot area, and number)).
• G. Ali et al., (Rz = 145 (2011-2012)),based on spectral analysis and neurofuzzy modeling.
• K. H. Schatten (Rz = 100±30), based on the view that the Sun’s polar field serves as a predictor of solar activity on the basis of dynamo physics.
• P. Lantos (RImax 108.4) based on the skewness of the previous cycle.
• J-L. Wang et al,, (Rz = 83.2-119.4), based on statistical characteristics of solar cycles.
• Kane, R. P. (Rz= 105), based on statistical regression analysis of the sunspot number and geomagnetic activity.
• S. Duhau (Rz= 87.5±23.5), based on a non-linear coupling function between sunspot maxima and aa minima modulations found as a result of a wavelet analysis.
• L. Svalgaard et al., (Rz = 75±10), based on the solar polar magnetic field strength at sunspot minima.
• Badalyan et al., (Rz not exceeding 50), based on statistical characteristics of solar cycles.
• G. Maris, et al., (low), based on observing the flare energy release during the descendant phase of cycle 23 (empirical method).
• M. Clilverd et al., (weak cycle), based on the variation of the atmospheric cosmogenic radiocarbon.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
NASA PREDICTION OF SOLAR CYCLE 24 – APRIL 2007
In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.
_____________________________________________
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:38 am
David is not misleading anyone in here, or in the public.
People working for NASA are guilty of this, and they should not be doing such things at my taxpaying expense. NASA Solar, NASA/GISS, NASA/JPL …. how deep does this misuse go?
They don’t disagree in public, they plaster thier opinion on taxpayer funded site and nobody bats an eyelash. What’s even worse, the MSM cites it as NASA sponsored fact: they know this, I know this, and the public is none the wiser for it.
There are NO disclaimers. MSM does not write Hathaway and ask the question you did. You did your fact-checking correctly. MSM does not.
Therefore, I say the practice of using NASA site for personal opinion is wrong.
rbateman says:
November 8, 2011 at 9:08 am
David is not misleading anyone in here, or in the public.
Anybody who is making a statement that they know is false is misleading or worse.
they should not be doing such things at my taxpaying expense
On the contrary, they have an obligation to do outreach and let the taxpayer know what they are doing.
You did your fact-checking correctly. MSM does not
Neither did Archibald. He did something far worse. Saying the prediction was NASA’s when he has been told several times that it is not. And then pretends he is stupid [the casual observer].
Enough, youse guys! Stop throwing sand and let’s talk about the science.
The science is fascinating – the politics, not so much.
Given the wide range of expert opinions on SC24 peak as recently as 2008 (see my post just above), it appears that a Ouija Board would have produced a tighter variance. 🙂
Best regards to all, Allan
Those who inject venom into a discussion reflect badly on their judgement.
Personally I’m strongly in favour of projections of the future, provided they indicate what they predict, why they predict it, and are updated with what the reality turned out to be. i’m strongly sceptical of our ability to foretell the future from the entrails of a computer. I think historically the entrails of a goat have demonstrated better predictive power. But if I’m wrong, records such as those that I ask for, are the essential element for proving it.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 7, 2011 at 1:10 am
Perhaps the AMO is closer to airports than ENSO or PDO. Lots of airports within 1200 km of Atlantic coast.
I feel that Vukcevic is harshly treated by a few. It does appear that there is a harmonic wave for the 11 year cycles. Unfortunately his theory is fiercely opposed by high profile experts that predicted a “big one” of 140+ for SC24 whom have continually updated their predictions, with “no theory”, on a monthly basis. To suggest that there might be a correlation between global temperature and solar activity is also met with opposition by NASA and our CSIRO.
Allan MacRae says:
November 8, 2011 at 8:37 am
So who is closest so far?
To sum up what we have learnt so far in this post, NASA has kindly produced for us the fruits of Dr Hathaway’s solar cycle prognostications in which he curve fits to the data produced to date by Solar Cycle 24. One of those prognostications is for a very long Solar Cycle 24, perhaps longer than the 12.5 years of Solar Cycle 23. The significant implication of that according to Friis-Christiansen and Lassen theory is that the world’s climate will continue cooling for another solar cycle. We thank NASA and Dr Hathaway for the timely warning.
With respect to Dr Svalgaard’s notion that I am mean, one of my biggest sources of joy is tormenting warmers and frustrating their evil plans for world domination. Mine is not a joyless existence because there is plenty of tormenting to do. I also put a lot of effort into healing the sick. My cancer drug has morphed into a swollen prostate drug and we are on track to start at phase 1 trial. And I had other good news last night. A friend of mine near Derby, 2,200 km north of here, told me a month ago that the basal cell carcinoma in his right ear had got into the cartilage, and the whole ear was going to be cut off in Derby Base Hospital. I sent him a preparation (not mine) which fixed his ear and got rid of all the other neoplasias on his face. So I am feeling pretty good about myself – I am healing people from 300 km south of here (benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 2,200 km north. And like Dr Hathaway, I am doing it in my spare time. I think I might be some sort of living saint.
Leif Svalgaard says:
shows what a mean man you are.
+1
AND if his propensity to go off off topic and into his personal life in this and nearly every other post is any guage, a very insecure one.
Tom in Florida says:
November 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm
So who is closest so far?
***********************************
Tom, first we would have to pick a peak prediction for SC24, and this is becoming a contact sport.
Let’s go with the November 2011 NASA?/Hathaway number of 89. Alternative opinions are welcomed.
The range of prediction from ~2008 was very wide – from a low of about 50 to a high of about 180.
So the “lows” have it – the closest to 89 are:
S. Duhau (Rz= 87.5±23.5), and
L. Svalgaard et al., (Rz = 75±10)
But then we don’t yet know if 89 is a good number.
Stay tuned – faites vos jeux.
****************************************************************
Circa 2008 Predictions of cycle 24
(Largest smoothed monthly mean for cycle 23, 120.8)
• D. Hathaway (strong cycle), based on the assumption that a fast meridional circulation speed during cycle 22 would lead to a strong solar cycle 24.
• M. Dikpati, G. de Toma, and P. A. Gilman (Rz = 157-181 (flux-transport dynamo-based tool, sunspot area, and number)).
• G. Ali et al., (Rz = 145 (2011-2012)),based on spectral analysis and neurofuzzy modeling.
• K. H. Schatten (Rz = 100±30), based on the view that the Sun’s polar field serves as a predictor of solar activity on the basis of dynamo physics.
• P. Lantos (RImax 108.4) based on the skewness of the previous cycle.
• J-L. Wang et al,, (Rz = 83.2-119.4), based on statistical characteristics of solar cycles.
• Kane, R. P. (Rz= 105), based on statistical regression analysis of the sunspot number and geomagnetic activity.
• S. Duhau (Rz= 87.5±23.5), based on a non-linear coupling function between sunspot maxima and aa minima modulations found as a result of a wavelet analysis.
• L. Svalgaard et al., (Rz = 75±10), based on the solar polar magnetic field strength at sunspot minima.
• Badalyan et al., (Rz not exceeding 50), based on statistical characteristics of solar cycles.
• G. Maris, et al., (low), based on observing the flare energy release during the descendant phase of cycle 23 (empirical method).
• M. Clilverd et al., (weak cycle), based on the variation of the atmospheric cosmogenic radiocarbon.
Indano says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm
This post just gives and gives. Oh frabjous day, I have upset another warmer! But alas, the Sun is now high in the sky and I must attend to my day job of finding carbon that has been trapped in the Earth’s crust for hundreds of millions of years and releasing it back to the atmosphere from whence it came and where it rightfully belongs, in the process providing energy for my fellow Australians and increasing crop yields in the third world. Let’s not forget that the carbon I will be liberating will take just a little bit off the edge of those cold northern winters. The good that I do in this world is just boundless.
David Archibald says:
November 8, 2011 at 6:01 pm
The world is cooling. No doubt about that. One does not need to be a warmer to object to irrelevant personal claims being cast about like they are going to somehow save you from your own personal oblivion. It is your persistence in bringing irrelevant personal information into this arena that is pathetic and unprofessional. Why do you persist in this at apparently every opportunity? Do you think your personal information impresses or even interests anyone? Please stick to the scientific discussion and leave your personal insecurities at the door. I am sure there is a good basis for these insecurities, but don’t inflict them on those who are simply wishing for scientific discussion, MR Archibald.
David Archibald says:
November 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The significant implication of that according to Friis-Christiansen and Lassen theory
Which has no physical basis and is in conflict with observations, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
one of my biggest sources of joy is tormenting …
Tormenting people of whatever stripe and deriving joy from it is not a very desirable character trait.
Indano says:
November 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm
When referring to the author of the post David Archibald you said:
“It is your persistence in bringing irrelevant personal information into this arena that is pathetic and unprofessional.”
Indano: You are humourless aren’t you? There is a word of which you may not have heard. It is called “levity”. It is what David Archibald is engaging in. There’s plenty of meaty science for you to get your teeth into, if you so desire. But there is more to life than just clinical, unforgiving science.
Sometime ‘sceptics just wanna have fun’. It lightens the place up a little when we are all feeling a little worn down after another hard day of firing killer ammunition at the zombie hypothesis (CAGW) which will just not die. I say, leave the guy alone. Let’s have a little wit and levity. God knows the true believers are as humourless a bunch as you could find.
Stephen Harper says:
November 8, 2011 at 11:42 pm
I am well aware of levity – Lack of gravity and earnestness in deportment or character; trifling gayety; frivolity; sportiveness
While the photos I have seen of David Archibald do incate what one might call levity, if going by this definition of “lack of ernestness in deportment”, his written words, when not focussed on the scientific aspects, are not an example of levity. More they are indicative of boasting, with a bit of meanness and bullying thrown in. Bullies, are by their nature, insecure.
Styephen Harper, are you aware of boasting?
boasting – Talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one’s achievements, possessions, or abilities.
MR Archibald’s personal comments are not levity by any stretch of the imagination. They are boasting with an ever present edge of meanness, as pointed out by DR Svalgaard. They are 100% self-serving while intent on demeaning others. If MR Archibald chooses to boast about something he has done in relation to the matter at hand, then so be it. To drag irrelevant personal claims and information about himself is annoying boasting. The fact that this boasting is a pervasive thread in most of his posts (going way back) in the past indicates he is insecure.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for David to provide evidence that he is not ‘mean’ in response to an allegation that he is ‘mean’.
As for the rest I saw that as playful irony.
Some people don’t appreciate irony.
As a general rule David only makes personal comments when responding in kind to such comments initiated by another.
There is someone else here who frequently lapses into personal comments without such provocation. Actually there are several.
Stephen Wilde:
If you review MR Archibald’s past posts, you will find that he frequently brings up irrelevant personal information in a boasting manner, without any need to “provide evidence” about his character.
For example
David Archibald says:
September 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Erl, a great post which reminds me of a comment I made on Climate Audit four years ago:
Re 101, Dr Svalgaard thankyou for the opportunity to comment on Erl Happ’s work. Of course that is a task that is well beyond my abilities so instead I will say what a great bloke he is. Erl invited me down to his winery, 300 km south of Perth, earlier this year. I took down a case of grand cru champagne and my chainsaw, so you can imagine that it was a great weekend. We broke bread, swam in the southern ocean in mid-winter, cooked on open fires, drank deeply of his prize-winning shiraz. Erl is one of the pioneers of viticulture in that area, and has a great love and depth of knowledge of winemaking.
Uhm….. what is this, but boasting? Who cares? What did this add to the article by Mr Happ? Why tell about bringing a case of wine to a winemaker? Who does that anyway? Regardless of the appropriateness of that supposed gesture, what does it do, but boast to the nature/character/experience/whatever of the writer?
This was from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/13/climate-disaster-declining-rainfall-rising-sea-levels/
The derogatory way he deals with others “dear oh dear…” etc. in posts is suggestive of an insecure person who needs to build himself up at the expense of others.
While he correct in that the world is cooling, his personal asides are boastful, bullying, demeaning, pathetic, irrelevant, childish and annoying unless you are a mindless sychophant of MR Archibald. Do you know what THAT word means, Mr Harper?
Dr Svalgaard, although wrong-headed in his scientific notions. is polite and does not seek to impress others with irrelevant personal information . Nor does DR Svalgaard demean others. Only a sychophant of one view or the other would fail to see the difference in approach, The self assurance of the DR speaks volumes, while those who seek victory by belittling others cries for acceptance that first has to come from within.
“Nor does DR Svalgaard demean others.”
Hmmm.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 9, 2011 at 8:44 am
“Nor does DR Svalgaard demean others.”
Hmmm.
Let me explain the difference:
If I say “Your theory is nonsense and has no physical basis” that is not demeaning [although some people with big ego may think so], but if I say “Dear, oh, dear, Steve, I love to push your button and torment you” that in my book is demeaning. The issue is, however, not about meanness, but about integrity: saying something you know is false to bolster your own claims.
Saying that a theory is nonsense and has no physical basis IS demeaning. Theories are often (admittedly not always) the result of much thought and effort.
What you should say instead is that in your opinion the theory appears to lack a physical basis.Then you should explain why and discuss the issue if the other party has more to say.
It is also demeaning to assert that someone else is saying something they ‘know’ to be ‘false’ to ‘bolster’ their own claims. Actually, that is pretty offensive.
What you should say is that so far as you are aware that which they are saying is false.Again, you should explain why (usually you do but not always).
So, if you do not put it the way I suggest you should have done then you will get responses in the nature of those provided by David. If you (or others on your behalf) respond in similar vein or seek to escalate then the other party can apply the coup de grace such as the form of words that David used.
I hope that is helpful.
Stephen Wilde,
Hmmmm’s aside, I speak on my own behalf. Note that I am not a “warmer”.
I have stated that MR Archibald should stick to the issue at hand and not throw in boastful and irrelevant personal information. His boasts and claims regarding his personal life are not levity or irony. They are self-serving, childish and insecure. They are more annoying as he seeks to tear others down while building himself up. This behaviour degrades the debate. It does not enhance or illuminate anything.
DR Svalgaard is merely an example of how MR Archibald tears others down using bully tactics and insults. I don’t agree with DR Svalgaard on his interpretation of several key sets of data, but don’t think it is appropriate to see people, who, like he, who disagree with MR Archibald, be inevitabily subjected to nonsensical insults from MR Archibald, all while MR Archibald boasts of and trots out irrelevant personal information. This totality of behaviour has its roots in insecurity and detracts from the debate or the “fighting zombies”. Warmer or sceptic, it benefits neither side and harms both.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm
What you should say instead is that in your opinion the theory appears to lack a physical basis.Then you should explain why and discuss the issue if the other party has more to say.
Needless to say that everything I say is my opinion, and a lot of thought has undoubtedly gone into most of the nonsense spouted. I always explain why I think it is nonsense [at least the first time I see it – it becomes tedious to say it every time]. You must make a distinction between a person and what the person says. To say that you are wrong is not demeaning, to say that you are a jerk is.
It is also demeaning to assert that someone else is saying something they ‘know’ to be ‘false’ to ‘bolster’ their own claims. Actually, that is pretty offensive.
Again we should separate that into two parts: 1) saying something that you know is false and 2) the motive for saying so. In case of Archibald, he is guilty of (1), and granted that we don’t know his motive one might infer some from the wording. It certainly makes for a more convincing case to say ‘NASA’s prediction’ than ‘Hathaway’s own private opinion’.
What you should say is that so far as you are aware that which they are saying is false.Again, you should explain why (usually you do but not always).
I have explain that several times in the past, and in the present case brought Hathaway to bear. Yet Archibald barrels on.
the other party can apply the coup de grace such as the form of words that David used.
One would assume that a reasonable person would realize his mistake and even apologize.
I hope that is helpful.
Not at all.
Archibald could do some damage control by asking Anthony to change the title [and the text wherever is need] to “Hathaway’s NASA’s November Solar Prediction”
REPLY: Why wait? done – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Archibald could do some damage control by asking Anthony to change the title [and the text wherever is need] to “Hathaway’s
NASA’sNovember Solar Prediction”Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Archibald could do some damage control by asking Anthony to change the title [and the text wherever is need] to “Hathaway’s NASA’s November Solar Prediction”
REPLY: Why wait? done – Anthony
There are two more instances of ‘NASA’. And I think it is better to use the strikethough tags to make the post intelligible to future readers.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 9, 2011 at 5:51 pm
There are
twothree more instances of ‘NASA’. And I think it is better to use the strikethough tags to make the post intelligible to future readers.Hathaway might need to use the strikethrough tag on his graph?
Indano says:
November 9, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Indano, can I say that in June this year I gave a lecture on climate science in the US Senate? Or is that too much information? When I started out as a neophyte in this climate prediction business six years ago, I thought that the US Senate would be about as far as I would get, and I made it.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 10, 2011 at 2:53 am
Hathaway might need to use the strikethrough tag on his graph?
He doesn’t claim this is NASA’s official prediction, so no need.
David Archibald says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:11 am
I thought that the US Senate would be about as far as I would get, and I made it.
As did James Hansen, so you are in good company.
With daily sunspot number up to 220 today, maybe he better adjust the prediction back up to something like this:
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfjmms.png
Ulric Lyons says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:21 am
i>With daily sunspot number up to 220 today, maybe he better adjust the prediction back up to something like this
Nobody in his right mind would do such a thing [basing a forecast on a few days of data]. Weak cycles often vary a lot, e.g. compare with cycle 14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
BTW the sunspot number today is not 220, but 115 (average over last five days is 114]. [Everybody knows that the SIDC sunspot number is only about half of the NOAA number, well, almost everybody, apparently]. Getting fact right seems to be hard.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:21 am
With daily sunspot number up to 220 today, maybe he better adjust the prediction back up to something like this:
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfjmms.png
________________
Or multiply it by 0.6 to bring it in line with the historical data. October numbers were: SIDC 88.0, NOAA unadjusted 123.5 adj NOAA 74.
220 adj = 132 (historical base)
@Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:52 am
“Weak cycles often vary a lot, e.g.”
eg. http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl9.html
“BTW the sunspot number today is not 220, but 115 (average over last five days is 114].”
Should that not be 162.6 ? http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
Ulric Lyons says:
November 10, 2011 at 10:15 am
“BTW the sunspot number today is not 220, but 115 (average over last five days is 114].”
Should that not be 162.6 ? http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
No, the NOAA numbers are the raw sunspot numbers SSN[NOAA] = 10*groups+spots while the official SIDC sunspot numbers are SSN[SIDCofficial] = k * (10*groups+spots) where k is nominally 0.6, but is not really constant. The average since 2008 is about k = 0.66. So 162.6*0.66 = 107 would be the corresponding SIDC number. But k varies from day to day, so you’ll not get an exact match. Today’s SIDC number can be seen here: http://sidc.oma.be/products/meu/index.php
@Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:52 am
Ulric Lyons says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:21 am
i>With daily sunspot number up to 220 today, maybe he better adjust the prediction back up to something like this
“Nobody in his right mind would do such a thing [basing a forecast on a few days of data].”
Whatever numbers one uses, today`s sunspot count helps to make this forecast look more likely :
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfjmms.png
David Archibald says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:11 am
You have mentioned that previously on WUWT. Why again? How many more times? What does that information add to this discussion? It is not your credentials, or whether you are technically correct that is at issue. Rather your habit of injecting boastful irrelevant personal information into discussions coupled with your insistence on insulting anyone who has a difference in opinion from you.
Ulric Lyons says:
November 10, 2011 at 11:25 am
Whatever numbers one uses, today`s sunspot count helps to make this forecast look more likely : http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfjmms.png
No, because it is based on outmoded statistical models. From that same institution comes this forecast based on better models [Kalman filters]:
http://sidc.oma.be/KalmanOutputs/ML/Current/figKFML.jpg
REPLY: Why wait? done – Anthony
Anthony, I respect Dr Hathaway as a person and a scientist. I have found his stuff useful. That includes the blue background I found on one of his Powerpoint presentations online. I now use that background for my own presentations (including the one I gave to some CIA and State people in D.C. while I was there). The reason that I didn’t mention his name in the post was because providing three forecasts of the one thing at the same time might be considered a little foolish. I know that if I did something like that I would be ripped to shreds. No good purpose is served by linking Dr Hathaway’s name to this NASA-hosted forecast. From memory, I don’t think Dr Hathaway has ever published anything supportive of AGW hysteria despite that having been a way of advancing oneself in NASA. That in turn may explain Dr Svalgaard’s obsessive interest in the paternity of these forecasts. These forecasts are not supportive of the AGW hysteria faction in NASA led by Dr Hansen. So, for the record, I thank Dr Hathaway for his contribution to solar science and the help that has given me in understanding it.
David Archibald says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm
The reason that I didn’t mention his name in the post was because providing three forecasts of the one thing at the same time might be considered a little foolish.
But saying NASA three or four times is less foolish [apart from being wrong]?
No good purpose is served by linking Dr Hathaway’s name to this NASA-hosted forecast.
Yes, there is, namely to underscore that this is not NASA’s official forecast, but must be credited [as is due] to David Hathaway.
That in turn may explain Dr Svalgaard’s obsessive interest in the paternity of these forecasts.
My interest is to tell the truth and the issue is not the ‘paternity’ [which is Hathaway in any case], but to dispell the false notion that this is NASA’s forecast. I have told you this several times and you either don’t learn or deliberately distort [tell us which one it is, please]. Being on the panel that provided NASA’s official forecast gives me an obvious interest in having the record set straight.
(including the one I gave to some CIA and State people in D.C. while I was there).
Can’t resist throwing in some (previously shared, by you) non-related info to give yourself a boost, can you? If anyone is obsessive, it would be you, MR Archibald in your quest to impress readers by repeating irrelevant information. I should do a boast-o-meter on how many times you refer to this non-related thing and that non-related thing. Insecure much?
Paul Westhaver says: November 7, 2011 at 10:45 am
Paul, here is a link to the past predictions as animated images, 2004-2009.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2lj5emh.jpg
Steve Keohane says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Paul, here is a link to the past predictions as animated images, 2004-2009.
After the prediction of the NOAA/NASA panel came out, Hathaway computes his forecast as a weighted average of the offiiclal NOAA/NASA prediction and the actual observations of the cycle with the weight of the observations varying from 0 as the beginning of the cycle to 1 at the end. So halfway through a cycle the forecast is based half on the official prediction and half of the actual sunspot number observed so far.
Indano says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm
You are a hard man to impress, Indano! So how about this one. After DC, I went to the Bahamas. A mate of mine there moved one of his vessels from Fort Lauderdale to Eleuthra Island in preparation for my visit. It is the first time that someone has moved a boat internationally because I was visiting. Too much information, yet again?
David Archibald says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:22 am
You are a hard man to impress, Indano!
Impress us by answering my question:
“I have told you this several times and you either don’t learn or deliberately distort [tell us which one it is, please]. “
Wah..Friday and you guys are still doing the Hathaway/Archibald thing.
C’mon now.
How might a Fisk type polar field affect the formation of sunspots and their flow patterns? And if they are Fisk type ‘polar’ fields, what happened in the southern hemisphere of the sun?
Yeah well Happy Friday anyway and I survived our first major winter storm this week in Wis. Fall winter snow storms this year. Colorado well then the one up the north east US and now Wis. I wondered when our number here would come up for one. Now what to do about all those leaves in the snow. ick
[SNIP: This thread hijacking has gone on long enough and your comments are getting offensive. Stick to the thread topic and not David Archibald’s ego or lack thereof. -REP]
Could you please snip MR Archibald’s last boastful and irrelevant comment? It was obviously irrelevant and intended to provoke.
[REPLY: No. You’ve both been provoking, but David Archibald has been much more civil and does it under his real name. You’ve been hurling insults from behind a mask of anonymity. It stops here. -REP]
Carla says:
November 11, 2011 at 5:06 am
How might a Fisk type polar field affect the formation of sunspots and their flow patterns? And if they are Fisk type ‘polar’ fields, what happened in the southern hemisphere of the sun?
The Fisk polar fields are in the corona and do not influence what goes on below.
So.. you are saying they are detached from interaction with Parker fields.
My brain was seeing an intertwining of the two at lower solar atmospheric levels.
Some have referred to the lower polar fields of this solar cycle as being squashed, that implies compression. Now the brain is seeing 2 huge compressed vortexs one more compressed than the other…
But thanks for the reply Dr. S.
Off to that aurora, climate Scafeta dealeo..
Carla says:
November 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Now the brain is seeing 2 huge compressed vortexs one more compressed than the other…
The polar fields come from below and have nothing to do with the Fisk or Parker pictures of how the field lines go in space away from the sun. Perhaps you are ‘seeing things’, and a bit too vividly. I can recommend cold showers…