Normally, I run this post around the end of the first week of the month, but this month there was a problem. NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) botched the March SSN graph with incorrect data and was somewhat reticent to get it updated. Dr. Leif Svalgaard wrote to me on 3/7/12 after I asked him:
Why is there no Feb data on the NOAA graphs even though they show a March 6 update? Very odd. Are they holding out for better data?
He replied:
I have had a long email exchange with Doug Biesecker who is in charge of this. If you look at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt for December 2011, you see that the data there is that for February 2011. Apparently when they tried to enter data for February 2012 [which is 33.1] they lost that and instead dumped Feb. 2011 on December. Don’t ask how this is possible, we all screw up now and then. The bad news is they don’t know when it will be fixed [!!!]. I suggested just fixing it in the file and replot right now. But they want to find out exactly what the problem is. I suggested that if they just fixed manually right now, they would have all the time in the world to figure out what went wrong, but no cigar. As I said to him:
“your problem should not stop you from a temporary fix involving a few minutes of work, for the benefit of a waiting world that would like to think that NOAA produces reliable data”.
After some additional consideration on the part of NOAA, I’m happy to report they finally got it updated. What we see are three months of dropping sunspot numbers when they should be on the rise. While some variability is normal, compare this drop to the previous cycle.
Like the SSN, the 10.7cm flux is also down for the 3rd straight month:
And, the Ap Geomagnetic index, a proxy for the solar dynamo, is still bumping along the bottom portion of the scale where normally it would be approaching higher levels leading up to solar maximum:
Source: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Lets hope that there are no significant volcanos over the next few years that may confuse the issue, or at any rate, give rise to speculation and/or uncertainty.
I have just found this prediction over at The Next Grand minimum which appears to be different but from the same source?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Maybe this is due to the data problem?
The coming years are looking to be a lot of winter fun…. NOT.
I’ll take the ’17th warmest winter on record’ that we just had, over what lies down the road.
We are waiting for Global Cooling. Hopefully 😉
Looks like late ’00, there was also 3 months of decline from the peak of ~170. So, not unprecedented. However, if it follows the previous cycle, we’ve just had the peak. Which would be…interesting…
Oh dear. this is starting to look very nasty indeed.
Still we can hope for an upturn shortly.
It might just be a blip. Fingers crossed.
Kindest Regards
It was the intern (Snooki perhaps?) from Jersey Shore who did it … and it took ’em nearly a week to figure out how to fix a problem that should never have seen the light of day.
It is a bit off theme but I must say this is something that I notice quite often and still constantly surprises me. I would have thought that the data gathering process would be pretty systematic by now. I can’t begrudge someone the odd mishap but given the importance and profile of what is being dealt with I am a bit surprised by such occurences.
The worst example of course was, unsurprisingly, the revelations from the famous “Harry Read Me” file in which we discovered that whole tracts of data were in ambiguously named files whose contexts were determined by the directory they had been placed in and nothing else.
It seems that while the experts are pushing the edge of the climatology modelling envelope they seem to have neglected the mundane old task of properly caring for their raw data.
Maybe it is because I am a database developer that I am extra sensitive to these things…
such wild swings are not unprecedented, compare e.g. with cycle 14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
There are two similar drops in the graph – one at about half 2000, one at end of 2002. This cycle may not follow the forecast perfectly but I don’t think it’s over yet.
It’s only a couple of weeks, but if this month’s levels continue as they are it looks to me as though we’ll be back up to around the 75 for SSN and 130 for the F10.7.
In the computer era, no halfway organized operation “loses data”. Good heavens, I’m an unorganized old coot operating entirely alone for purely personal ends, and I NEVER lose data or code that’s important to me.
The WHOLE BLOODY POINT of computers is that you can set them up to do those dull housekeeping operations AUTOMATICALLY without any effort on your part. Either those folks are so astonishingly inept that they shouldn’t be allowed near a keyboard, or they’re intentionally discarding data that doesn’t fit their purposes. No other answers.
If you look at the graphs with an eye for an underlying cycle, you can see there appears to be a smooth cycle with occasional outbursts. For example, the second peak of the previous cycle could also be explained as an outburst which lasted almost 18 months in from mid 2001 to 2002. The most recent decline could be explained as the end of a five month outburst above the baseline cycle. This can also be seen in the 10,7cm radio flux. It appears we could still be on the rise for the current, weak baseline cycle. Time will tell.
Another example of “hide the decline” 🙂
Keith Levet says: “Maybe it is because I am a database developer that I am extra sensitive to these things…”
Maybe it is, Keith, and this is the power of crowd sourcing; expertise from myriad interested experts who in older times would not even see for weeks or even months problems which they have the knowledge to correct or make valid and important observations on.
Viva la WUWT? (and you).
So, should I plant root crops or grains?
Why does the January point appear to be 2011?
Another solar record that will need to be stamped flat. There’s no room in climate science for uncooperative variable stars…
Two strong Japan earthquakes ( M 6.9 & 6.1) in the wake of the strongest solar storm for some years:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php
Maybe they had a problem because there was 29 days in this year’s Feb!
The Ap value plotted [7] is too low. The correct, official value should be 9:
http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/kpyymm.pdf
I would expect the solar activity to pick up in the next 6-12 months.
Keith Levet says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:52 am
“I would have thought that the data gathering process would be pretty systematic by now. I can’t begrudge someone the odd mishap but given the importance and profile of what is being dealt with I am a bit surprised by such occurences.”
It could be something as simple as an application migration to a new system or database server that could be the issue. Hardware has to be replaced and so does software. Automation has its own ‘rewards’.
James Hansen waffles on solar variability’s impact. He used to insist that any solar influence was now being swamped and would be swamped moving forward by AGW. Abdussamatov says clearly: solar slowdown, cooling on Earth on the way. Because Hansen’s work influences American policy so profoundly, his ideas on this subject have real-world consequences and will continue to do so. I explore the semi-hidden 21st-century Space Race in DSYC.
Harold Ambler says:
Abdussamatov says clearly: solar slowdown, cooling on Earth on the way.
Abdussamatov and Lockwood are in a guessing game, they have no solid hypothesis, see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
and scroll down towards the end of the web page.
Dr. Svalgaard does, so do I, we differ in our methods but the final result may be the same or slightly different for the SSN 24 max.
L.S ~72 smoothed annual
MAV ~80 non-smoothed monthly