A few years ago, the best solar models predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would be larger than Solar Cycle 23. Here is a plot from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) during those heady days, this one being from April 20th, 2007. Note the predicted ranges in red:
Now, compare that prediction in 2007, to this plot of actual values today:
Sunspot Number Progression
Note that the current values plotted above still fall far short of the updated predictions that were made to account for a much lower Solar Cycle 24.
Back then NOAA said:
May 8, 2009 — Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
June 27, 2008 During the annual Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, CO in May, 2008, the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel released an update to the prediction for the next solar cycle. In short, the update is that the panel has not yet made any changes to the prediction issued in April, 2007. The panel expects solar minimum to occur in March, 2008. The panel expects the solar cycle to reach a peak sunspot number of 140 in October, 2011 or a peak of 90 in August, 2012.
April 25, 2008 The official 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. Press Briefings and presentations at the SEC Space Weather Workshop, plus additional announcements and information from the Panel are linked below. The Panel expects to update this prediction annually.
The Panel considered all Predictions of Solar Cycle 24 they found in the literature or received directly from an author. The May 24, 2007 List shows the predictions considered.
So much for “consensus” based predictions. Not just a basic consensus mind you, but a supermajority, like, ummm 97% or something like that. They even wrote a paper about that consensus, which you can read here.
Our resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard was in the 3% that said no.
But even in that super-majority, there wasn’t really a true consensus on the numbers for Cycle 24, as this graphic illustrates:
They wrote then, bold mine:
Cycle 24 Maximum Prediction
• Will peak at a sunspot number of 140(±20) in October, 2011 (F10.7 = 187 sfu) Or
• Will peak at a sunspot number of 90(±10) in August, 2012 (F10.7 = 141 sfu)
– The panel is split! – The next cycle will be neither extreme, nor average
Svalgaard presented these graphs in a presentation made in Lund, 20 September 2005:
Svalgaard also published a paper in GRL with this title:
Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?
With the exception of Svalgaard, the panel of consensus scientists were all wrong, and Cycle 24 is turning out to be a complete forecast bust, and the the lowest in 100 years, and it was neither extreme, nor average.
So much for consensus based science!
References:
April 25, 2007 NOAA Press Release
NOAA’s Press Briefing document: Solar Cycle 24 Consensus Prediction
Svalgaard’s Cycle 24 Prediction Lund.pdf (Lund, 2005)
Svalgaard’s GRL 2005 paper Cycle 24 Smallest 100 years.pdf
Meanwhile, other indicators besides the sunspot number show cycle 24 remaining in a slump.
F10.7cm Radio Flux Progression
AP Progression
At the top is the Sunspot Number, in the middle, the F10.7cm Radio Flux, and at the bottom, the Ap Index (a measure of geomagnetic activity) history.
In all of the plots, the black line represents the monthly averaged data and the blue line represents a 13-month smoothed version of the monthly averaged data. For the Sunspot Number and F10.7cm, the forecast for the rest of the solar cycle is given by the red line.
For those of you who need a primer in understanding any of this at the slightest degree:
https://youtu.be/_kZ6HSPkf8U?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcJj_9clLz7Bggso7qg2PDj
I don’t understand the reasoning behind the sequence of videos in the above, perhaps weeding out the non-interested, but I think the 6th episode will have the most impact on why you should learn more about space weather:
https://youtu.be/_qMQ1Y_7SOg?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcJj_9clLz7Bggso7qg2PDj
It’s very compelling!
““I wonder what consensus was telling Neville Chamberlain””
Consensus from a population that endured WW! was that war is a tragic business with wide reaching, unpredictable consequences and no happy ending, and is best avoided… Experience of WW2? war is a tragic business with wide reaching, unpredictable consequences and no happy ending, and is best avoided…. What was the question again….
One of Churchill’s hidden problems was that the vast majority of England’s elites supported Hitler and argued that he didn’t mean what he said about jews – and if that seems familiar, it should: that’s the concensus the Obama people claim about Iran’s intentions toward Israel and the entire non muslim world.
“How do the Earth and Heliosphere respond?
Our planet is immersed in this seemingly invisible yet exotic and inherently dangerous environment. Above the protective cocoon of Earth’s lower atmosphere is a plasma soup composed of electrified and magnetized matter entwined with penetrating radiation and energetic particles. The Earth’s magnetic field interacts with the Sun’s outer atmosphere to create this extraordinary environment.
Our Sun’s explosive energy output forms an immense, complex magnetic fields structure. Hugely inflated by the solar wind, this colossal bubble of magnetism known as the heliosphere stretches far beyond the orbit of Pluto, from where it controls the entry of cosmic rays into the solar system. On its way through the Milky Way this extended atmosphere of the Sun affects all planetary bodies in the solar system. It is itself influenced by slowly changing interstellar conditions that in turn can affect Earth’s habitability. In fact, the Sun’s extended atmosphere drives some of the greatest changes in the near-Earth space environment affecting our magnetosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere, and potentially our climate.”
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/big-questions/what-are-the-fundamental-physical-processes-of-the-space-environment/
plasma soup composed of electrified …
This is a misrepresentation [although often found] of the facts. The solar wind plasma [or any plasma for that matter] is not ‘electrified’ or ‘charged’ but is electrically neutral, like a copper wire you can hold in your hand.
Extrapolation is the way to do it
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0816.gif
See alsohttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Extrapolation fails because it is not based on valid physics. If you were honest, you would extend your graph to the beginning of the data series in 1749.
Remember the old Danish proverb doc ?
http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
@v
seems to me like William Arnold was right
there is a correlation between the position of the planets and solar activity
I am not sure if it is causal or caused
but it would help in predicting the next solar cycles
do you agree with me?
The 11 year solar cycle signature on wave-driven dynamics in WACCM
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Cullens, Chihoko Y.; England, Scott L.; Garcia, Rolando R.
2016-04-01
This study describes the influence of the 11 year solar cycle on gravity waves and the wave-driven circulation, using an ensemble of six simulations of the period from 1955 to 2005 along with fixed solar maximum and minimum simulations of the Whole Atmospheric Community Climate Model (WACCM). Solar cycle signals are estimated by calculating the difference between solar maximum and minimum conditions. Simulations under both time-varying and fixed solar inputs show statistically significant responses in temperatures and winds in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) during austral winter and spring. At solar maximum, the monthly mean, zonal mean temperature in the SH from July to October is cooler (~1-3 K) in the stratosphere and warmer (~1-4 K) in the mesosphere and the lower thermosphere (MLT). In solar maximum years, the SH polar vortex is more stable and its eastward speed is about 5-8 m s-1 greater than during solar minimum. The increase in the eastward wind propagates downward and poleward from July to October in the SH. Because of increase in the eastward wind, the propagation of eastward gravity waves to the MLT is reduced. This results in a net westward response in gravity wave drag, peaking at ~10 m s-1 d-1 in the SH high-latitude MLT. These changes in gravity wave drag modify the wave-induced residual circulation, and this contributes to the warming of ~1-4 K in the MLT.
http://www.science.gov/topicpages/y/year+solar+cycle.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_SH_2016.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/19/a-dalton-like-amplitude-for-solar-cycle-25/#comment-2075866
Here is a compilation of predictions for SC24.
As you can see, there are 45 of them, more than enough to fill a roulette wheel, and they are “all over the map”, so somebody had to be close.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Not sure that this supports any conclusion, except fundamental concepts of probability. 🙂
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!
Does anyone want to try predicting SC25?
I say SC25 will be about the same as SC24.
I also say that two consecutive low SC’s will probably cause measurable global cooling, starting by 2020-2030.
We originally made this global cooling prediction in an article published in 2002. I hope we are wrong. Warm is good and cool is bad – for humanity and the environment.
it is easy
if you know that the Gleissberg is exactly 86.5 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2016/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2016/trend
it follows that sc 25 will be more or less equal to sc 17
2014 was a turning point
hence you could also argue that sc 25 will be more or less sc 22
sc 23 was a record low in 87 years.
sorry
sc 24 was a record low
I say SC25 will be about the same as SC24.
See slide 24 of http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf
It looks now like SC25 will be stronger than SC24.
SC24 had a peak average (monthly smoothed) SSN of 80. My prediction for SC25 is 80±10 (70-90), i.e. should not be very different from SC24.
Those that predict a Solar Grand Minimum are out of luck.
The SC25 roulette wheel is filling up…
While there is still space and time…
Ladies and germs, faites vos jeux!
🙂
Allen, pay attention to the technique as that is what is all over the map. Only one used a technique that was correct. I believe that is two cycles in a row where that has been correct. One more and perhaps we have a winner.
Ah, come on. A 97% versus 3% split suggests there are at least 33 of these “solar physicists”. Only one comes to mind. I am unconvinced that the 97% are real…
henry said
hence you could also argue that sc 25 will be more or less sc 22
sorry again
must be the brandy again
should be:
hence you could also argue that sc 25 will be more or less sc 23
Alan says
I also say that two consecutive low SC’s will probably cause measurable global cooling, starting by 2020-2030.
Henry says
It is not going to happen this time around. Two consecutive lows, I mean.
We already had the switch [in 2014] that puts the sun in its reverse [from cooling to warming]
Sadly, most of the experts did not even notice.
However, there are indications [from the SSN record] that would suggest that it sometimes can happen that the switch [some electromagnetic force induced by gravity/centrifugal power?] does not happen leaving us in either a double warming period [no problem] or a double cooling period [e.g. LIA]
[every Gleissberg is divided into two halves of 44 and 43 years respectively]
In 2008 I predicted that solar cycle 24 would be the smallest in the past 100 years.
Besides my prediction that solar cycle 24 would be the smallest in the past 100 years, I also predicted that solar cycle 25 will be virtually non existent and anecdotal evidence is pointing towards another Dalton Minimum. A Dalton Minimum is a miniature version of the infamous Maunder Minimum, where the number of sunspot groups drop to a below normal level and corresponding total energy output of the Sun also drops. This would bring on a mini ice age for a period of 30-50 years.
I made both predictions on February 1, 2008 at http://www.wcflunatall.com/propagation4.htm but the web page is no longer up.
I also predicted that solar cycle 25 will be virtually non existent
Unfortunately, it seems that there will be a healthy SC25.
Should have been:
I [Giella] also predicted that solar cycle 25 will be virtually non existent
Unfortunately, it seems that there will be a healthy SC25.
Leif’s Slide 24 (see above for url) says:
“If this holds up, cycle 25 might be stronger than SC24.”
Apophenia. Svalgaard at his best.
Geomagnetic activity indicates large amplitude for sunspot cycle 24.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/hathadh/HathawayWilson2006.pdf
Geomagnetic activity is only a predictor during [or just prior to] solar minimum, and 2003 was 5 years before the minimum, and sure enough the prediction was wrong.
“All four of these predictions are based on different
methods. The prediction of a small cycle 24 by Svalgaard et
al. [2005] is based on a correlation observed between
directly measured polar fields and sunspot number for the
last three cycles, following the method of Schatten et al.
[1978].”
The polar fields extends into interplanetary space and influences the magnetic field near the Earth, causing geomagnetic activity.
So,
it’s decreasing.
Allan MacRae September 11, 2016 at 11:29 am
The SC25 roulette wheel is filling up…
While there is still space and time…
Ladies and germs, faites vos jeux!
——————————————————————
Dr. S., is the 5th bar from the left. Was a total newbie to the sunspot cycle or any cycles when I first saw the graph below. (2009)
They coined it the piano plot. lol
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/03/31/01apr_deepsolarminimum_resources/pianoplot.jpg
Magnetic flux transport.
Changes in pressures, affecting magnetic flux transport?
But there is an absence of magnetic flux?
Or the magnetic flux can’t emerge due to irregular hemispheric pressure changes?
Or an evolving change in hemispheric pressure?
Which changes meridional wind flows affecting magnetic flux transport?
You got me under pressure.. under pressure…
Of course these pressure changes couldn’t be interstellar in nature.
Magnetic flux transport.
Much simpler. The flux is transported by plasma moving from equator towards to polar much like air is moved in the Earth’s atmosphere. The cause being a small difference in temperature between equator and poles.
There were many, many predictions of Sunspot Cycle 24. Some right. Some wrong.
I’m convinced that no person alive yet knows what lies ahead(at least not for a few years).
If you want to be embarrassed, bet for or against future solar activity. Nature bats last.
I’m convinced
One cannot argue with people who are ‘convinced’.
lsvalgaard says
Unfortunately, those two series do not match by various aspects, inducing confusions and contradictions when used in crucial contemporary studies of the solar dynamo or of the solar forcing on the Earth climate.
henry says
that would be a good reason not to fiddle around with it.
What you have done now is mess everything up, just like they did with the T records.
Like I said before: you cannot compare the T data from the past 40 years with those from before that time because of different recording and calibration techniques.
The same applies to SSN. As the technology changed, so did the numbers change. I can see from my own results that this did happen like that. You must understand the results from the way they were measured.
This is similar to an argument that I had the other day. You must read and understand the bible in the time where it was written, given the knowledge that was available at the time. Moses put the creation of the sun only at the 4th day. Obviously, we know different, and I am sure he did this because the Egyptians believed that Ra was God and that all power and life came from Ra. In a way, they were right [about that]. However, Moses had understood that there was a power behind Ra putting it at a lower scale of importance.
hence, better to keep the weights of scale as they are and understand them from the time where they came from.
As the technology changed, so did the numbers change.
You clearly have not even read the paper carefully. If you had, you would know that the technology has not changed. Sunspots are counted by eye using small telescopes [even the original ones used by Wolf in the 1840s].
I will study the relevant reports when I get the time for it and be sure to get back to wuwt to give you my explanations as to why we have differing SSN records that “do not match by various aspects”
You should have studied them before commenting on them.
Remember that the sunspot records were revised by going back to the original sources in centuries past.
For my study I would need all original sources.
What a lame excuse.
Here is a sample: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-X.pdf
and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Hjorter-1747.pdf
and http://www.astronomicalimages.group.cam.ac.uk/database/detailed/File1283.jpg
etc
the last two links are rubbish
the wolff schwabe info is useful
Seems to me an extraordinary low SSN was measured at the beginning of 1843 {lowest SSN by my count}
exactly like we had now, at the beginning of 2016.
do the maths
2016-86.5-86.5=1843
Here we are.
The Gleissberg is real and we are now in 1930.
Only 2 years before the big drought coming up and every climate scientist in the USA is fast asleep.
It would be nice to hear your opinion on Gleissberg. Seems to me you never denied its existence?
It would be nice to hear your opinion on Gleissberg. Seems to me you never denied its existence?
The last 400 years, there has been a quasi-cycle of length about 100 years. No sign of the Gleissberg.
http://www.sidc.be/images/wolfaml.png
your SSN results do not even, by far, correspond with the wolf schwabe paper that you quoted to me
i.e. you say the max. in 1837 was almost 250
wolf said is was ca. 160
you said SSN max. in 1849 was ca. 210
in fact, according to wolf schwabe it was scarcely 140
some ‘correction’ you guys made. Unbelievable.
what a disaster…
I hold you and all who made these corrections responsible for the fact that no precautions were taken for the drought time coming up to the great plains of america
You have not understood [or even read] the revision paper. When Wolfer in 1893 took over the sunspot record maintenance he changed the counting rule, resulting in a reduction factor of 0.6, that is: Wolf and Schwabe did not count the smallest spots. Wolfer and modern observers count all they can see. The difference is a factor of 0.6. The revision does away with this artificial factor, basically dividing the earlier values by 0.6 to make them compatible with modern counts. Hence the difference. You should read and understand the paper before you put your foot in your mouth again.
you have not understood the message I was trying to convey…
so here we are again
arguing
“how big is a spot”
“what magnification do we use’
‘how good is the eyesight of X compared to Y or Z?’
better to stick with some exact measurement only….
like the solar polar magnetic field strengths
even if it goes back only 50 years!
you have not understood the message I was trying to convey
The message you are conveying is that you have not [will not] study the literature on the revision. Your motive may be that it destroys your delusion. If you think that you can deduce an 86-year cycle from 50 years of data, then there is no hope for you.
‘how good is the eyesight of X compared to Y or Z?’
Today we measure that with this kind of chart:
http://cdna.allaboutvision.com/i/eye-charts-358×338.gif
It is called a Snellen chart. Instead of The Es, any collection of figures will do, e.g. sunspots of different sizes. So by comparing how many spots Observer A sees compared to Observer X, we actually measure how good his eyesight is [when looking though his – possibly different – telescope].
your arguments actually prove my point
we cannot rely too much on SSN if we take it too far back in the past.
this is just like the global T record which has similar problems if we take it back too far to the past.
the wolf schwabe paper that you quoted to me does however point to a min. of SSN at 1843 which proves the Gleissberg at 86.5 years.
there are several sources that I can quote again in support of Gleissberg at 86.5
I suggest you go back to the thread under henryp to find them.
as for me, I have data for the half cycle [43 years] both on maxima and minima and on the solar polar magnetic field strengths and other factors, like ozone [increasing since 1995] , planets, etc., I think I counted 6 separate factors in total supporting the Gleissberg at 86.5
I am sad you do not see what I am seeing
best wishes
henry
the wolf schwabe paper that you quoted to me does however point to a min. of SSN at 1843 which proves the Gleissberg at 86.5 years.
The 1840s were actually a period of high solar activity, so no Gleissberg minimum there:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-19th-C.png
That would be going by the 2 or 3 x corrected version;
not at all if we go by the original data…
The original data are one a different scale than the modern data. It is as if you want to argue that if some early data were in Fahrenheit and the modern data are in Centigrade, that we should not convert the early data to Centigrade. Such is the power of your ‘logic’.
That is exactly your logic. Not mine. I am an independant non profit non biased investigator who is looking at the results as reported.
So you would not convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade if they were reported as Fahrenheit.
Let me put it to you this way: it is worse than I thought.
Yes, I can understand that you are dumbstruck by seeing your theory demolished.
It does not affect me. I never trusted ssn before 1927.
It is you and yours that i pity..
It is common for losers to blame the data.
there is no ssn continuous daily/monthly record going back to the times you say or quote
In his notes (1985) W.Arnold said:
In 1844 Heinrich Schwabe demonstrated periodicity in sunspot numbers with a laborious 19-year record, concluding “the sunspots have a period of about ten years.” This half-wave alternation of the sunspot cycle was during maximum years when a lower average is consistent with cycle lengths which tend to lengthen during minimums. It was not until 1848 that Rudolf Wolf organized a number of European astronomical observatories into recording monthly “Wolf” sunspot numbers. In 1887 Gustav Sporer noted the amplitude or number of spots during maximum years varied sharply. He noted particularly the 1600s which exhibited historically low amplitudes but a persistent periodicity. He also noted the 1400s and the 1600s were times in which world temperatures experienced a “severe dip of cold.” In 1890 E. W. Maunder published a summary of Sporer’s analysis, entitled “A Prolonged Sunspot Minimum.” In astronomical circles these respective eras are known as “Minimum Periods” for their dual nature of minimum temperatures and also minimum sunspot activity.
end quote
What I understand from this discussion is that Schwabe only discovered the 10-11 year solar cycle in 1844 after 19 years of observation.
The paper from Wolf [that you quoted to me and then I quoted to you] builds on this by reporting the complete solar cycle with min. in 1843. His daily data ran from 1826-1848. It clearly shows the GB minimum exactly where I expect it to be.
What puzzles me how he could have observed this even on days when it was overcast?
there is no ssn continuous daily/monthly record going back to the times you say
Continuous daily records go back to 1818 and month;y records to 1749.
It clearly shows the GB minimum exactly where I expect it to be.
As I showed, the 1840s was a GB maximum.
What puzzles me how he could have observed this even on days when it was overcast?
The record is a composite of several observers’ data. Perhaps you didn’t read Wolf’s paper after all.
that seems difficult to believe
namely different observers in different cities, and even so, the weather in Europe is almost always overcast.
Your comment shows how little you know about weather and climate.
And Mother Nature does not care about your difficulty believing.
not at all if we go by the original data
First of all: why would we? as they are on different scale.
But here is a plot of Wolf’s original data for 1770-1882:
http://www.leif.org/research/Young-SSS-Decl.png
Made you Young in his 1882 book ‘The Sun’.
The sunspot curve is the full-drawn line. As you can see the 1840s were not at all a low-activity period, but rather one of the most active in the 19th Century.
Again: no sign of your Gleissberg, with or without old/revised SSNs.
http://www.leif.org/research/Young-SSN-Decl.png
the last two links are rubbish
It is not up to you to call the original data ‘rubbish’.
assuming 1843 was in fact similar to 2016
namely – looking at the sun –
2016 = 1930
[big ‘dust bowl’ drought starting in 1932]
2016 = 1930 = 1843
In which case drought starting in 1845
So I just googled ‘drought USA 1845’
this is what I got:
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/habitat/documents2/Woodhouse.pdf
assuming 1843 was in fact similar to 2016
All solar minima are similar to each other. BTW 2016 is not yet at minimum.
I am sure we will find that 2016 was the year with the lowest ssn, just like 1843.
yes, the minimum will carry on for another few years, like it did in 1843, with values close to the 2016 minimum.
Hence the predicted drought time starting in 2018 or 2019.
I am sure we will find that 2016 was the year with the lowest ssn, just like 1843.
You being ‘sure’ does not mean anything.
And the 1840s were years of maximum solar activity. No sign of your GB cycle.
well you being sure does not mean anything [to me either]
anyway, I have added overcast conditions to my list of problems with ssn observations [in the past] and your explanation of filling in missing data from data from other cities does not really wash with me. W-Europe is usually overcast 80% of the time no matter where you go…..
I think the 1845 USA drought exactly corresponding with the 1932 drought time is just too much of a co-incidence.
there is in fact a possibility, like I explained before, that somehow we missed a switch, from cooling to warming or vice versa which might go some way to explain the gaps [that I am trying to explain to myself]
If the correlation I find with the position of the planets is not caused [by the sun] but causal to [some of] the manifestations of the sun it means that if for some or other reason the planets do not arrive in time, or if the barycenter of the sun was too heavy [at the time], we could easily miss a switch.
Could I ask you a favor. You seem to have the ability to easily put two solar graphs together – I would like to see the scissors graph of both the solar polar magnetic field strengths overlain together with ssn [from 1969 is good enough for me, as it is exactly half the GB cycle]
W-Europe is usually overcast 80% of the time no matter where you go
I have lived in W-Europe for 40 years and can tell you that you are wrong, but it is simpler than that: if you just look at the Wolf paper I referred you to, you can see how many days there were observations [generally 250 per year per observer, and with multiple observers you get almost continuous coverage]. You see, it only takes a few minutes of clear sky to make an observation.
I would like to see the scissors graph of both the solar polar magnetic field strengths overlain together with ssn
Perhaps you mean something like slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
well, I lived my first 20 years in Holland and would not go back to live there because of the bad weather….
Thanks for that link.
There is a strong correlation there.
There is a strong correlation there.
Of course there is. That is the basis for our prediction of the solar cycle which is not based on extrapolation of trends, or parabolas, but on the physics behind the cycle.
I lived my first 20 years in Holland and would not go back to live there because of the bad weather
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Netherlands/sunshine-annual-average.php
shows that they have 300 days per year with sunshine. It only takes a few minutes each day to count the sunspots.
Quite odd that maxima actually correspond with low field strengths. Have to think about that.
The physical theory says that the polar fields are the seed for the next cycle. It takes about 5 years for the sun to process the polar fields and produce sunspots, hence the delay. This is not controversial nor odd. That is how the sun works. At sunspot maximum, the polar fields reverse and thus go to zero [you have to go through zero to get from +5 to -5].
Wow, sounds a bit like Anthony Watts prediction way back in March 2016 that we would be in the depths of a freezing La Nina event by now…. https://archive.is/QuX9P
No it doesn’t as you apparently did not read the entire story…”… Are we headed for La Niña toward the end of 2016? Looks that way. Will it be a big one? Not sure….”. You eyes somehow missed this… “Will it be a big one? Not sure….”.
All forms of action concerning the determination of the sunspot cycle, Cycle 25 and in particular, who do not know how it will end, means the “target shooting blindly” .No there is no proof of the order, and devices shooting were not appropriate and unfamiliar objects with which aims to hit an invisible and unknown target.
In this kind of conundrum, it is a phenomena that are visible in the sun.
Everyone must know that the planets are an integral part of the solar system and that they are the main causes of changes in the sun, just be logical to conclude that these cycles take place and why.
I am offering my proof of that now do not give up
Cycle sun spots and all you can see in this diagram depends on the four planets and the sun on which they operate. The basic cycle of about 11.2 years, which can be used to form a butterfly diagrams of about 123 years (11×11), where the cycles are much bolder effects can be defined as 17.5 years, 44do 46 years, and strict about 1300 and even 13000 years,
I do not have enough of astronomical data and techniques and these are only approximate data.
If an institution has accepted that this is a detailed treatment, we get all the information for all times and past and future.
Gentlemen, your guesses are accurate, such as when blind chicken key grain.
Ehhhh…
scratch..
something lost in translation….?
where is ur diagram?