NASA Sun Spot Number predictions revised again

UPDATE: see my animation of NASA solar forecasts since 2004 below.

WUWT Commenter J Gary Fox writes:

The solar cycle 24 predicted sunspot maximum has been reduced again – predicted peak down to 59 Max. (1/3/11) http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

click to enlarge

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Philosopher Y. Berra

This will be at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715.

Previous NASA predictions below:

  • 2010 October: Predicted peak 60-70
  • 2009 May 29: predicted peak: 80-90 range
  • 2009 Jan 5: predicted peak: 100-110 range
  • 2008 Mar 28: predicted peak: 130-140 range

From the NASA page:

Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.

Here’s what the prediction looked like in March 2009:

What a difference.

Here’s an animation showing all of the prediction graphs from NASA that we have thus far:

click for a larger animation at full size

Ira Glickstein did a guest post here a few days ago that outlines a lot of the changes in the forecast over time. It is well worth the read.

Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joe
January 18, 2011 2:10 pm

the curve already looks too high for the (little) data so far

geoff
January 18, 2011 2:11 pm

It looks like even the doubters will find out how much Solar activity impacts the climate.
If we get a major northern hemisphere volcanic eruption, the disruption to agricultural production could be catastrophic.

kwinterkorn
January 18, 2011 2:16 pm

I am not sure that Maunder has anything to do with it, but NASA is certainly showing a minimum of correct predictions. But, hey, it’s the government at work.
At some point they should just admit that, except in the most general sense that the sun will continue to cycle roughly each 11 years, neither they nor anyone else can predict solar activity. They are barely more than guessing.
Like “climate science”, solar science is just getting going. Now that we have more sophisticated that we have more advanced satellite-based instruments getting data, maybe progress will be made.

Steve W.
January 18, 2011 2:19 pm

O.K., we don’t have a clue, but look at that neat sun picture behind!

ShrNfr
January 18, 2011 2:19 pm

Any bets on how many more revisions down there will be. The 10.7 is still horribly low.

dearieme
January 18, 2011 2:20 pm

William and Mary were appointed joint monarchs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Their reign occurred in the Little Ice Age. In Scotland, the weather led to the period being referred to as “King William’s ill years”.

DJ
January 18, 2011 2:20 pm

Moving the goalpost again. Only NASA could get away with such redactions, I mean predictions.

crosspatch
January 18, 2011 2:24 pm

The predicted value is still too high but it is getting closer, in my honest opinion.
I am guessing it will be closer to 50 judging from behavior so far.

George Kominiak
January 18, 2011 2:25 pm

It may be time to stop arguing, put the computer codes on pause and sit back and watch the show. If, as historical information suggests, a lack of solar activity is going to have an adverse effect on the Earth’s weather/climate, we may soon be in a position to see it first hand!
G.

jackstraw
January 18, 2011 2:28 pm

At what point does Hathaway have to stand by his predictions? Or does he just get to re-write them every three months?
By the way I predict that the average SSN for last month will be 22!

Mycroft
January 18, 2011 2:29 pm

How can you try and predict the unknown,NASA couldn’t predict a fart in a space suit!

andrew
January 18, 2011 2:30 pm

Actually its refreshing to see scientists adjust their predictions and views as new data is received. It is apparent there is much we just don’t know.

rsteneck
January 18, 2011 2:32 pm

THANKS

Bill in Vigo
January 18, 2011 2:33 pm

WOW! Makes you kinda wonder just when the “fat lady is gonna sing” huh. I think it is time for the folks with the money and equipment to start to tell the raw data and let those that have no agenda to start looking at it and the real possible repercussions. We just might need to find more sorces of energy rather than destroy the ones we have in hopes of finding new ones in time for the cold. Heat or cold it takes energy to mitigate either heating uses energy, airconditioning uses energy. Perhaps it is time for the real scientitst to have access to the data, the raw data. These could be serious times. These are real comparisons and it will take all of our best to meet the needs of the mass of humanity and life in general if this minimum really bottoms out.
Bill Derryberry
PS I started to say something like “Play Ball” or “Let the game begin”, but it is really a serious possibility we are looking at. Better to just get to work and prepare for which ever way nature takes us.

Scott
January 18, 2011 2:35 pm

Just for my own knowledge, what is the commonly assumed “lag” time for the thermal inertia of the earth to portray changes in solar output? If anyone has references, that would be nice.
Thanks,
-Scott

P. Solar
January 18, 2011 2:38 pm

Nice animated graph. Amazing to see that as late as end of 2007 they were still predicting a huge peak , higher than the previous cycle. The time it has taken at each step to adjust to data that is has not been following their dictates suggests they have more faith in their predictions than the reality of their data.
Even a layman could have come up with <60 peak by eyeballing the data 3 months back.
At first it seems they are so caught up in their "OMG it's going to burn" hype but then, since they claim the sun only has insignificant effect on climate, you wonder why.

Curiousgeorge
January 18, 2011 2:40 pm

The animation reminds me of the game of “Whack a Mole”. Maybe an idea for a new game – “Whack a Prediction” . 🙂

Z
January 18, 2011 2:42 pm

A couple of points come out of this:
1/ Is it wrong to laugh at a graph? I can almost smell the hope when there’s an uptick during 2007 and the peak doesn’t have to retreat to the right for a whole month. Then smell the despair as it comes down again and the proposed peak commences its march into the future.
2/ Why between March 09 and April 09 does the predicted peak for 2001 suddenly change? Winston Smith at it again?

Neil
January 18, 2011 2:48 pm

I think we need to be fair to Dr Hathaway. He’s out there making predictiong, then revising them downwards as new information becomes available. He’s throwing out theories as actual data shows them to be incorrect.
In other words, he’s acting like a scientist.
Contrast that with “The Team”, whinc, instead of admitting when they are wrong, embarks on a Ministry of Truth – like campaign of doublethink and doublespeak, where the hotcold temperature that we are experiencing is completly consistant with the predictions made and were warned about.
Much like the droughtflood here in Australia.
In other words, who are you going to listen to? The guy who makes a prediction then revises it as events happen, or the guy who makes an absolute statement that never changes (only the interpretation of events change)?
Neil

William Abbott
January 18, 2011 2:48 pm

The number goes down and the maximum get pushed out farther and farther. We were supposed to hit the maximum in 2010. They had to revise or… they could just “bag it.” Just tell the world NASA won’t do prophecy any more.

Shevva
January 18, 2011 2:49 pm

Hands up if you feel happy that its warmed a few % of a degree (yes i know but its a climate calc) over the last 100 years.

J.Gommers
January 18, 2011 2:52 pm

Keeping in mind the L/P (syndrome) the smoothed SSN will be around 10 at 2015.
Any curve with a maximum above 35 (2011/2012) will be peculiar.
And as ShrNfr says “The 10.7 is still horribly low”
To end up at higher numbers something unusual must happen

Doug Allen
January 18, 2011 2:52 pm

As most of us are aware, there is a pretty good correlation between sunspot numbers and global temperature. The instrumental record of both were at historic lows during that early period of instrumental data measurement when the recently invented thermometer and recently invented telescope were used to record data that we still have. This was during the Little Ice Age. This correlation has continued to the present, and most observers would state that it’s a much closer correlation than the CO2- temperature correlation. Yes, we all know that correlation does not necessarily imply causality. I once wrote a spoof in a VHF Propagation publication, a spoof of the widespread belief that sporadic E ionozation (E-skip) was caused by thunderstorms. I called the article “E Skip Causes Thunderstorms!”
I think we should be aware of correlations, and just maybe, if climate scientists ever get back to science, they’ll discover if and to what extent there is a solar forcing using the proxy of sunspots or solar flux.

Bob Barker
January 18, 2011 2:56 pm

Sunspots have been tracked and studied for many cycles. We still don’t have enough data or smarts to predict the next cycle. But global warming, we have a real handle on that stuff, yes indeed.

RobW
January 18, 2011 2:59 pm

Someone recently said the number of significant sunspots is much lower as the new counting system counts “micro spots” or something like that. Can anyone comment on this?

1 2 3 8