Solar Science

A blog of solar physics

Place your bets for SC24

with 19 comments

NASA is in two minds about the next solar cycle, and so it’s time to place your bets:

newnasasunspotprediction.gif

You could approach this as a shoot-out between competing hyptheses of solar variation and watch the fun.

Alternatively, you could choose the Modern Science Method:

  1. Form clique of friends
  2. Announce new “ground-breaking paper” to the press. Announce “result” in soundbite form.
  3. Get papers published peer reviewed by friends
  4. Go to United Nations and declare “the science is settled”
  5. Denigrate other scientists who disagree with you as “Deniers” and in league with [insert scary corporation here]
  6. Praise other “independent” scientific papers written by your friends which miraculously support your hypothesis.
  7. Repeat the above two processes so that you and your friends get lions share of grant money while your opponents are starved of funding and attention.
  8. Hide data/methodology so as to prevent replication. Make sure only copy of data is on a floppy disk and never, ever backed up like normal people.
  9. Start weblog.
  10. When cornered, declare that “science has moved on”

It could go on for years.

Advertisements

Written by John A

November 20, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Posted in Solar Cycle 24

19 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Month of solar minimum will be June 2009, year of SC 24 maximum will be 2013. SC 24 maximum will be 50.

    David Archibald

    November 21, 2007 at 7:59 am

  2. Monthly Solar Minimum August 2009, SC 24 maximum will 2015, SC24 maximum will be 50. It is time for another Dalton like minimum.

    Russell Steele

    November 21, 2007 at 4:15 pm

  3. Monthly solar minimum JUNE 2008, SC24 maximum = 70 on 2013

    #1 a half cycle of

    Demesure

    November 21, 2007 at 5:12 pm

  4. Please change my Minimum estimate to April 2009. I made a math error.

    Russell Steele

    November 21, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  5. Please change my Minimum estimate to April 2009. I made a finger counting error.

    Russell Steele

    November 21, 2007 at 8:42 pm

  6. If Cliverd is to be believed, with a high of 50 or so, looking at cycles where the maximum is around 50, it took about 5 years to achieve that maximum. I believe the minimum was just achieved in October with a confirming low month of November. So my call is 50 and June 2012. If we weren’t going to have such a low maximum then typically we are looking at 3 years from the end to the max which would put that max at 2010.

    dscott

    November 22, 2007 at 6:37 pm

  7. Solar Minimum approx Dec 2008, Solar Max July 2013+-3 months with a high of around 70 or so.

    Carl

    November 23, 2007 at 2:09 am

  8. In addition to the well-known 11 year sunspont cycle, an analysis of sunspot numbers for 300 years
    http://www.mathworks.com/products/demos/matlab/sunspots/sunspots.html
    reveals sum and difference frequencies and strong suggestions of another fundamental periodicity in sunspot frequencies with a period of about 100 years and an amplitude about 40-50% as strong as the more well-knoen cycle. This period was at its minimum in the first or second decade of each of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, so I expect SC24 to be noticeably weaker than SC23, in close agreement with Archibald’s forecast.

    Tom Davidson

    November 23, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  9. I’ll say the retrospective minimum comes in March 2009 with a smoothed SEC sunspot number of 0. Then the cycle 24 max comes January 2014 with a smoothed SEC max of 47. If the crest is clefted, as were 22 & 23, then take the date to be located on the cleft and the max being the highest value achieved overall.
    Based on observations to date I’d be happy with either Carl or David’s estimates but for their resulting cycle 23 lengths of 12.25 and 12.75 years where even multiples of 1/2 year seem to be the norm.

    Gary Gulrud

    November 23, 2007 at 11:26 pm

  10. The last two cycles have been bimodal so it looks like NASA can suck and blow with the next ‘cycle’.

    Dr. Francis T. Manns

    November 24, 2007 at 7:03 pm

  11. Dr Francis:

    The last two cycles have been bimodal so it looks like NASA can suck and blow with the next ‘cycle’

    Yes, but not that much surely? Being that bi-modal would almost be like having two half cycles in 11-years. It may be allowed by Fourier but would be unprecedented.

    (Damn, I’m using the U-word!)

    John A

    November 25, 2007 at 12:02 am

  12. Minimum in Jan, 2008, oh and big meteorite storm same month (from direction in sky roughly where Jupiter will appear) and, umm, just let me take another sip from Nostradamus’ skull… gulp …aaahhh, yes, current pope will die same month.
    Then atomic bomb on June 4th ‘cos sunspot minimum makes people lazy and not paying attention.
    Ah, well, what canyado?
    😉

    ben

    November 25, 2007 at 3:35 am

  13. John A. Please look at cycles 22 and 23, particularly the monthly averages and the raw data.

    Pers. Comm. NASA told me that 22 was bimodal. I saw 23 for myself.

    Having two cycles superimposed may not fit the model, so that’s the place to tease out the cause-effect. Moreover, a long broad bimodal peak is consistent with the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Centre for natural climate change due to fluctuating solar cyclicity. Check their excellent web site. Read “The Chilling Stars”.

    Dr. Francis T. Manns

    November 25, 2007 at 3:51 am

  14. I’ve started reading “The Chilling Stars” but I haven’t finished it yet.

    John A

    November 25, 2007 at 7:24 am

  15. Any comments by yall on oceanic heat retention (due solar radiation absorption, and the heat capacity of seas)as being indicative of the solar effect, via seas, on polar ice melting, from “below”, versus “greenhouse” aspects?
    Also, Dr. Judith Lean put forth an assessment that (if I recall correctly) solar variation is + .4% since Maunder. Being that this is direct effect, enhanced by reduced cosmic rays/reduced cloudcover
    versus
    CO2 augmentation in the past circa 150 yrs being only about .02%
    Q: why is this aspect not widely dispersed?
    Thanks
    PM

    paul marchand

    December 6, 2007 at 5:36 am

  16. PM:

    Why is this aspect no widely dispersed?

    A: Because it cannot be blamed on ExxonMobil and there’s no money to be derived from it.

    John A

    December 7, 2007 at 10:46 am

  17. Although cycle 24 has “officially” started with sunspot #981 being high and polarity reversed, it was small and faded very quickly. We are now at blank again, and I expect it will be slow to climb to a weak peak. Has anyone noticed that the sun’s magnetic conveyor belt is all but moving compared to observable history? This is the belt that moves these sunspots to the surface of the sun. Think about it.

    doug

    January 20, 2008 at 4:16 am

  18. Dave’s latest paper,

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

    reveals on page 12 his use of Jan Janssen’s work as his secret ingredient for the prediction at the head of the list above.
    He did lower his maximum SSN to 45 though so I’m maintaining confidence in my forecast, for now.

    Gary Gulrud

    February 22, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  19. I like your 10 step program, two less than AA. But it apparently works for politicians, particularly Al (Baby) Gore.

    John A. Jauregui

    March 2, 2008 at 6:15 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: