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:
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 @ur momisugly 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.