Yippee! Solar scientists finally get it right
Earlier this week NOAA posted its monthly update of the solar cycle, showing the sunspot activity for the Sun in December. As I do every month, I am posting it here, below the fold, with annotations.
December was an active month for sunspots, so much so that for only the second time during this solar maximum has the Sun’s activity actually met and exceeded the predictions of the solar science community. In fact, the Sun’s high activity in both November and December has made this second peak in solar maximum almost as strong as the first peak in October 2011. Normally, the second peak of a double-peaked maximum is relatively weak. Not so this time.
The graph above has been modified to show the predictions of the solar science community. The green curves show the community’s two original predictions from April 2007, with half the scientists predicting a very strong maximum and half predicting a weak one. The red curve is their revised May 2009 prediction.
The recent activity has also done a lot to rehabilitate the predictions of the solar science community. Unlike the fakery used by the solar scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center, where they change their prediction after the fact to make it seem like they got it right, the red line prediction shown above was made in May 2009. For a long while, during the extended dip between the maximum’s double peaks, that prediction looked like it had significantly overestimated the activity levels of the Sun during maximum, as well as overestimated the length of the solar maximum. The strength of the second peak, however, has now made that 2009 prediction more closely resemble the actual maximum, even if the overall numbers are less than predicted.
I wish we could say this closer match was because of the accuracy of the theories of the solar science community. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is the case. Instead, I think it is more luck than planning that has made this prediction appear reasonably close.
I also want to emphasize that though the Sun has been active these last two months, that activity still remains quite low for a solar maximum. You can get a sense of this just looking at the graph above and comparing this maximum with the previous maximum in 2000-2001. The previous maximum was far far stronger. We can also compare this maximum will all past maximums, as shown on this graph:
In order to find any maximums weaker than the present maximum you must go back two hundred years.
That event in the early 1800s was known as the Dalton Minimum. During that time period the Earth’s climate cooled significantly. Pinning the cooling to the weak solar maximum is not so simple, however. For one, there was also significant volcanic activity at that time, which also acts to cool the climate. For another, no one really has come up with a convincing mechanism for linking low solar sunspot activity to a cooling climate. There are theories, but nothing has been solidly proven.
What will happen next? Who knows? We can only watch, and wait.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
I am worried about another minimum while I am on this Earth (mostly made of bodies of water). Fascinating charts. Thank you Robert!