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:
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.