Comments on: Ken Tapping: Still no sign of the next cycle http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/ A blog of solar physics Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:44:55 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sean Houlihane http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-745 Sean Houlihane Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:15:56 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-745 I updated my graph for the holidays. Seems like the trend is much slower than the start of 23 (not counting December). Vs. my guess above, the actuals were 70.4 (70.6), 69.0 (71.3), 71.2 (72.0), 71.8, 72.0 http://www.houlihane.co.uk/blog/2009/12/18/solar-flux-graph-update/ I updated my graph for the holidays. Seems like the trend is much slower than the start of 23 (not counting December).
Vs. my guess above, the actuals were 70.4 (70.6), 69.0 (71.3), 71.2 (72.0), 71.8, 72.0
http://www.houlihane.co.uk/blog/2009/12/18/solar-flux-graph-update/

]]> By: John A http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-613 John A Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:24:46 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-613 Sean That's fair enough. The observations will tell whether you're on the right track or not. Sean

That’s fair enough. The observations will tell whether you’re on the right track or not.

]]> By: Sean Houlihane http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-612 Sean Houlihane Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:27:22 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-612 John, I'm not sure that autocorrelation is the right term, since any real trend will be likely to show autocorrelation - you'd need to identify a mechanism and then factor any persistence into your trend analysis. To get an idea of if a series does exhibit autocorrelation, convolve it with itself (sum Xi*X(i+n) and compare with sum(X^2) for differing offsets. I can't tell you what noise looks like, other than the correlation drops as n increases. Actually, you probably need to subtract the average first, so the numbers that are summed can also be negative) Clearly, one day will be closely related to the next - what I think you are wondering about is the error bars associated with the trend (as in a month of hot weather maybe p/5 as likely as a hot day, not p^30 if p is the chance of a single hot day). One big spot today means nothing for next months spots. For what it's worth, I don't see the degree of speculation vs hard data is any different in this area than than high energy physics - it's just that most people are rarely exposed to the guesswork that goes into connecting the starting and ending states. John, I’m not sure that autocorrelation is the right term, since any real trend will be likely to show autocorrelation – you’d need to identify a mechanism and then factor any persistence into your trend analysis. To get an idea of if a series does exhibit autocorrelation, convolve it with itself (sum Xi*X(i+n) and compare with sum(X^2) for differing offsets. I can’t tell you what noise looks like, other than the correlation drops as n increases. Actually, you probably need to subtract the average first, so the numbers that are summed can also be negative)
Clearly, one day will be closely related to the next – what I think you are wondering about is the error bars associated with the trend (as in a month of hot weather maybe p/5 as likely as a hot day, not p^30 if p is the chance of a single hot day). One big spot today means nothing for next months spots.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see the degree of speculation vs hard data is any different in this area than than high energy physics – it’s just that most people are rarely exposed to the guesswork that goes into connecting the starting and ending states.

]]> By: John A http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-609 John A Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:13:07 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-609 Ken I find myself wondering if there is significant autocorrelation (or persistence) in the 10.7 cm radio flux data which would simulate some false trends where there would be nothing there. I must learn how to calculate these things. Ken

I find myself wondering if there is significant autocorrelation (or persistence) in the 10.7 cm radio flux data which would simulate some false trends where there would be nothing there.

I must learn how to calculate these things.

]]> By: Ken http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-606 Ken Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:48:49 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-606 John A. - re your last remark (post #11, "...attributing trends where there is none...") re my reference (post #12) -- that's pretty much what I meant by "...hardly dramatic..." I posted that as one possible example of reasons/examples that underly Ken Tapping's observation made in his note in the blog entry ("Some theorists have suggested..."). I've perused NOAA's site (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Data/index.html) and compared figures & agree that whatever underlying "trend" is there is pretty faint & subjective -- one can see what they want. After following the GONG site for some time (http://gong.nso.edu/ -- especially the Synoptic map link) it did appear that there's been a "surge" in activity (which is to say that some spots & near-spots are being observed more often)....but....how sustained that will be is unclear. Recently, things seem to be settling down again. What seems pretty clear to me as a "newbie" to this is that analysis of multiple data from multiple sources can result in a much different overall assessment than consistent use of a single set of data/sources, however credible those latter sources & data may be. Frankly I'm glad about your comment re Dr. S'pattern -- I suspected the same. There's a number of credentialed researchers out there that seem to have a certain viewpoint they've invested some effort in, and which seems to affect how they see/interpret new data as it comes. I can't say they're trying to force-fit new facts to fit some preconceived theory of how things are, but, unfortunately, I can't conclude that's not what's happening. Again, I'm a "newbie" studying this area, which I find interesting for a vareity of reasons. But I can't help but notice the degree of speculation interleaved with objectively measured data [in published peer reviewed papers and other reporting] tends to be unusually high compared with other areas of science. Sorting it all out is something.... John A. – re your last remark (post #11, “…attributing trends where there is none…”) re my reference (post #12) — that’s pretty much what I meant by “…hardly dramatic…”

I posted that as one possible example of reasons/examples that underly Ken Tapping’s observation made in his note in the blog entry (”Some theorists have suggested…”).

I’ve perused NOAA’s site (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Data/index.html) and compared figures & agree that whatever underlying “trend” is there is pretty faint & subjective — one can see what they want.

After following the GONG site for some time (http://gong.nso.edu/ — especially the Synoptic map link) it did appear that there’s been a “surge” in activity (which is to say that some spots & near-spots are being observed more often)….but….how sustained that will be is unclear. Recently, things seem to be settling down again.

What seems pretty clear to me as a “newbie” to this is that analysis of multiple data from multiple sources can result in a much different overall assessment than consistent use of a single set of data/sources, however credible those latter sources & data may be.

Frankly I’m glad about your comment re Dr. S’pattern — I suspected the same. There’s a number of credentialed researchers out there that seem to have a certain viewpoint they’ve invested some effort in, and which seems to affect how they see/interpret new data as it comes. I can’t say they’re trying to force-fit new facts to fit some preconceived theory of how things are, but, unfortunately, I can’t conclude that’s not what’s happening.

Again, I’m a “newbie” studying this area, which I find interesting for a vareity of reasons. But I can’t help but notice the degree of speculation interleaved with objectively measured data [in published peer reviewed papers and other reporting] tends to be unusually high compared with other areas of science. Sorting it all out is something….

]]> By: John A http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-605 John A Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:45:52 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-605 Ken That would be Dr Leif Svalgaard's site. Other than the distracting quadratic trend he's drawn through the F10.7 data, there's no trend to speak of. Svalgaard has a habit of attributing trends where there is none. It's quite annoying. Ken

That would be Dr Leif Svalgaard’s site. Other than the distracting quadratic trend he’s drawn through the F10.7 data, there’s no trend to speak of.

Svalgaard has a habit of attributing trends where there is none. It’s quite annoying.

]]> By: Ken http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-603 Ken Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:23:50 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-603 I've enjoyed this site. Here's a link to a summary by a professor affiliated with Stanford showing trend data, with a clear [though hardly dramatic] increasing trend in a number of measures, suggesting that solar activity is increasing: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png His main data page is: http://www.leif.org/research/ Regards. I’ve enjoyed this site. Here’s a link to a summary by a professor affiliated with Stanford showing trend data, with a clear [though hardly dramatic] increasing trend in a number of measures, suggesting that solar activity is increasing:

http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

His main data page is: http://www.leif.org/research/

Regards.

]]> By: Sean Houlihane http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-602 Sean Houlihane Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:50:22 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-602 Now you're asking :) At this stage, I have only looked at one previous cycle, and have made no attempt to correct for the effect of sunspots so I am not really in a position to make much of a guess about the rate of ramp-up. So with the caveat that I may revise rather than discard my model my -1sigma (measurement noise) limits for adjusted F10.7 are: July 70.6 Aug 71.3 Sep 72.0 Given what we know about July, any average below 69.0 in the next few months would be a serious blow to my curve fit. Now you’re asking :) At this stage, I have only looked at one previous cycle, and have made no attempt to correct for the effect of sunspots so I am not really in a position to make much of a guess about the rate of ramp-up. So with the caveat that I may revise rather than discard my model my -1sigma (measurement noise) limits for adjusted F10.7 are:
July 70.6
Aug 71.3
Sep 72.0
Given what we know about July, any average below 69.0 in the next few months would be a serious blow to my curve fit.

]]> By: John A http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-601 John A Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:03:35 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-601 Sean I admire someone prepared to stick their neck out like that, especially as the "signal" and "noise" are the same magnitude. What would falsify your prediction? Sean

I admire someone prepared to stick their neck out like that, especially as the “signal” and “noise” are the same magnitude.

What would falsify your prediction?

]]> By: Sean Houlihane http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/2009/07/10/ken-tapping-still-no-sign-of-the-next-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-600 Sean Houlihane Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:22:44 +0000 http://solarscience.auditblogs.com/?p=154#comment-600 In my mind, yes,there is a difference - provided that the increase continues. Excepting the dip at Oct 07, the flux was dropping at a steady rate below the background level from Dec07 to Dec08. Since then, there has been a steady increase at about the same rate - such that the new cycle is adding almost half as much power as the constant background level. if it keeps up at the same steady rate of increase, by the end of the year, the flux will be 75, and 12 months from now it will be 83 (at the quiet times between spots). Cycle 24 seems to have started to ramp up 18 months late if compared with cycle 23, but it is now at the point where the ramp is becoming visible. for the last minimum, the new cycle came into view whilst the old cycle was still decaying, hence the more pronounced upturn. Need a couple of months more data though :) In my mind, yes,there is a difference – provided that the increase continues. Excepting the dip at Oct 07, the flux was dropping at a steady rate below the background level from Dec07 to Dec08. Since then, there has been a steady increase at about the same rate – such that the new cycle is adding almost half as much power as the constant background level. if it keeps up at the same steady rate of increase, by the end of the year, the flux will be 75, and 12 months from now it will be 83 (at the quiet times between spots).
Cycle 24 seems to have started to ramp up 18 months late if compared with cycle 23, but it is now at the point where the ramp is becoming visible. for the last minimum, the new cycle came into view whilst the old cycle was still decaying, hence the more pronounced upturn. Need a couple of months more data though :)

]]>