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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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…