NASA June 2012 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction

Compiled by Joe D’aleo WeatherBell

via NASA MSFC

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.

The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.

Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs [see Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]). Prior to that time the predictions are less reliable but nonetheless equally as important. Planning for satellite orbits and space missions often require knowledge of solar activity levels years in advance.

A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle.

Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.

Of these “geomagnetic precursor” techniques three stand out. The earliest is from Ohl and Ohl [Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings, Vol. II. 258 (1979)] They found that the value of the geomagnetic aa index at its minimum was related to the sunspot number during the ensuing maximum. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that the minimum in the geomagnetic aa index often occurs slightly after sunspot minimum so the prediction isn’t available until the sunspot cycle has started.

An alternative method is due to a process suggested by Joan Feynman. She separates the geomagnetic aa index into two components: one in phase with and proportional to the sunspot number, the other component is then the remaining signal. This remaining signal has, in the past, given good estimates of the sunspot numbers several years in advance. The maximum in this signal occurs near sunspot minimum and is proportional to the sunspot number during the following maximum. This method does allow for a prediction of the next sunspot maximum at the time of sunspot minimum.

A third method is due to Richard Thompson [Solar Physics 148, 383 (1993)]. He found a relationship between the number of days during a sunspot cycle in which the geomagnetic field was “disturbed” and the amplitude of the next sunspot maximum. His method has the advantage of giving a prediction for the size of the next sunspot maximum well before sunspot minimum.

We have suggested using the average of the predictions given by the Feynman-based method and by Thompson’s method. [See Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann J. Geophys. Res. 104, 22,375 (1999)] However, both of these methods were impacted by the “Halloween Events” of October/November 2003 which were not reflected in the sunspot numbers. Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle.

The smoothed aa index reached its minimum (a record low) of 8.4 in September of 2009. Using Ohl’s method now indicates a maximum sunspot number of 70 plus/minus 18 for cycle 24. We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the latitude drift data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. The predicted numbers are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. As the cycle progresses, the prediction process switches over to giving more weight to the fitting of the monthly values to the cycle shape function. At this phase of cycle 24 we now give 66% weight to the amplitude from curve-fitting technique of Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994). That technique currently gives similar values to those of Ohl’s method.

Note: These predictions are for “smoothed” International Sunspot Numbers. The smoothing is usually over time periods of about a year or more so both the daily and the monthly values for the International Sunspot Number should fluctuate about our predicted numbers. The dotted lines on the prediction plots indicate the expected range of the monthly sunspot numbers. Also note that the “Boulder” numbers reported daily at http://www.spaceweather.com are typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number.

Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at: http://www.spaceweather.ca/sx-4-eng.php.

———————-

Jan Janssens adds

You may want to consult my webpage “Evolution of SC24”.

Besides sunspot numbers, it tracks also solar flares, geomagnetics, radio flux, cosmic rays,…

An overview of SC24-predictions (made prior to 2009 = prior to SC-minimum) can be found at this link.

At this time (only 40 months after cycle minimum), we have not reached SC24-maximum yet. This is expected to occur in the first half of 2013.

Currently, we seem to be in a standstill very similar to what happened during SC23 (albeit this time later in the cycle and at a lower sunspot level:

see).

BTW, low solar may relate to overall lower global temperatures but more stable (meridional patterns that result in more extremes). All of the continental heat extremes occurred in the lower solar periods.

This is because the meridional patterns seem to persist when the sun is less active. That partially explains persistant the cold in the Peciifc Northwest down to coastal California while areas to the east have been stuck warm. The second strongest La Nina in 110 hears is also likely playing a role resulting in an enhanced cold PDO with cold water off the west coast and warm north of Hawaii. This helps maintain a western trough and downstream ridge. That appears to be breaking down as El Nino comes on now as it did in 2009.

Here is a plot of the water anomalies in the eastern Pacific.

The pendulum is likely to swing as it did in 2009. By the way the last regime with waters cold in the east was the early 1970s, a period where the Atlantic was cold. That made the difference. As now we are in the warm mode which favors continental warmth in summer in the Northern Hemisphere.  But this last year has been US specific.

—————————-

NOAA making big deal about last 12 months warmest ever.

John Christy provides color:

Here are the sectors from MSU TLT in deg C. Max12mo is highest 12-month average value beginning with Dec78-Nov79 and going forward month by month. Right column is latest 12-month running mean (Jun2011-May2012). Latest USA48 is essentially tied with the value from Oct1999-Sep2000. The USA48 is the interesting story because other sectors (larger) are less than half of hottest value. Note at bottom – Alaska was well below average for Jun2011-May2012 (record low was -1.131 C, and doing this quickly I couldn’t add in the small part adjacent to BC.)

Sectors

Trpcs 20S-20N

NoExt 20N-85N

SoExt 85S-20S

Pol 60 to 85

UAH LTv5.4

Region…Record Max…Last Year

image

In NASA GISS’s own words:

“”Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.”

Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet’s surface).  “In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years,” he said in an e-mail message. “As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical.””

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 8, 2012 11:49 am

As usual, I’ll point out that this is David Hathaway’s personal forecast, and not NASA’s ‘official’ prediction [they don’t have any]

Joachim Seifert
June 8, 2012 11:55 am

The solar specialist Prof. Mrs. Lean predicts a 0.14 C temp increase
from 2010 to the year 2014….. based on sunspot cycle combined with
CO2-effect. The low sunspot count of cycle 24 has been factured in…
…no surprises, nothing new…
JS

June 8, 2012 12:01 pm

We just had the 2nd Sunspot number Workshop in Brussels this May. For anyone interested, here is the Wiki for the workshops: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

SteveSadlov
June 8, 2012 1:13 pm

6+ billion people, Great Recession, sleeping Sun and tens of thousands of WMD. Bad, bad, bad.

Green Sand
June 8, 2012 1:44 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm

==============================
Thanks Leif

crosspatch
June 8, 2012 1:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Found the whole Waldmeier Jump presentation rather fascinating.

June 8, 2012 1:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:June 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm
……………
Hi doc
Is this
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120527115925/ssnworkshop/images/0/03/Sunspots-1700-present.png
still a proposal or has it been accepted as a future reference?
Has anyone published annual SSN for the above?

June 8, 2012 2:03 pm

vukcevic says:
June 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm
still a proposal or has it been accepted as a future reference?
The SSN Workshops are still work in progress and a ‘final’ outcome is still a year [at least away], but you may get a feeling for how it is going by reading Hugh Hudson’s summary of the 2nd workshop: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf

Gail Combs
June 8, 2012 2:25 pm

ERRrrr, didn’t NOAA switch to an unadjusted Sunspot count that should be multiplied by 0.6 so it can be compared to the historic data?

June 8, 2012 2:32 pm

Gail Combs says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm
ERRrrr, didn’t NOAA switch to an unadjusted Sunspot count that should be multiplied by 0.6 so it can be compared to the historic data?
Yes they did. One of my goals [since we are going to change the ‘precious historical record’ anyway] is to get rid off the 0.6 factor and revert to the simple and intuitive original equation R = 10*Groups + Spots. This will be a hard struggle.

Bruce
June 8, 2012 2:35 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 11:49 am
As usual, I’ll point out that this is David Hathaway’s personal forecast, and not NASA’s ‘official’ prediction [they don’t have any]
Really? He does this on his own time, I thought he did this FOR NASA as an EMPLOYEE under THEIR direction…..

June 8, 2012 2:39 pm

Bruce says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I thought he did this FOR NASA as an EMPLOYEE under THEIR direction…..
What makes you think that? The FOR NASA and THEIr direction clauses are not correct. Scientists that work for NASA often follow their own paths. Not everything is FOR NASA or DIRECTED by NASA.
I work for Stanford University, but my work is not FOR Stanford or directed by THEM.

June 8, 2012 2:42 pm

Bruce says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Really? He does this on his own time
Yes, just as this:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml

Editor
June 8, 2012 2:47 pm

I don’t have time to investigate, but the climate widget in the rightside nav bar says “Sunspot#: 155”. The more recent data at http://spaceweather.com/ says 98. Did we hit 155?
Hmm, 155 × 0.6 = 93. Hmm….
REPLY: the updater is stuck again – will fix tonight -A

June 8, 2012 2:52 pm

Ric Werme says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Hmm, 155 × 0.6 = 93. Hmm….
Yet another reason to get rid off the 0.6…

June 8, 2012 3:40 pm

Looking at the graph, it seems to me that we could have a rather impressive drop in solar as early as this winter, If that winter then happens to coincide with severe weather, then this story is likely to go ballistic. Not that the weather is likely to have any connection to sunspots, but we know how the press just love to take a story like this and frighten the public.

June 8, 2012 4:39 pm

@Leif: since we are going to change the ‘precious historical record’ anyway
I found this remark quite flippant. Maybe it’s an inside joke within your working group. It is not funny even if meant as a joke. George Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t a comedy. Rewriting history should be viewed as a crime against science, yet I fear “the disappearing” of inconvenient data is becoming too commonplace.
REINTERPRETING the historical record is quite another matter. At least then, the history remains and the method of reinterpretation can be debated, accepted or discarded for another reinterpretation.
Models come and go. Interpretations evolve. The historical observations are subject to error bars. But the observations remain. The historical record is indeed precious and should be treated as such.
Leif, I wish you well on your improved sunspot metrics using technology’s advancements over the centuries. Certainly something better than sunspot groups*10 can be agreed to. I think, however, that it is preferable to “add” to the historical record rather than “change” it.

Gail Combs
June 8, 2012 4:42 pm

Scottish Sceptic says:
June 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Looking at the graph, it seems to me that we could have a rather impressive drop in solar as early as this winter….
___________________________
I doubt it. Weak solar cycles general “Hit Peak” and noodle around near peak for a few years. They form more of a “plateau” than peak. Maybe Lief will comment.

June 8, 2012 5:04 pm

Stephen Rasey says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I found this remark quite flippant. … I think, however, that it is preferable to “add” to the historical record rather than “change” it.
There is general agreement that the historical record should be changed. This has happened several times in the past as new data and new methods have become available. And will happen this time too. This has nothing to do with ‘rewriting history’, but everything to do with getting the data right.

June 8, 2012 5:06 pm

Gail Combs says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I doubt it. Weak solar cycles general “Hit Peak” and noodle around near peak for a few years. They form more of a “plateau” than peak. Maybe Lief will comment.
Yes, this is often the case, compare cycle 14 and cycle 24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

June 8, 2012 5:15 pm

Stephen Rasey says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm
But the observations remain. The historical record is indeed precious and should be treated as such.
The RAW observations are indeed precious, but not the resulting combined data series. You can see some of the papers on our Wiki why not, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Cliver4.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard9.pdf

June 8, 2012 6:21 pm

[SNIP: Off topic. Please find a more appropriate thread; this one is about sunspot numbers. -REP]

June 8, 2012 6:25 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm
12 Warmest Months at the state level.
And what has that to do with the sunspot number?
[REPLY: Nothing. Fixed. Commenters are asked, again, to keep comments relevent to the topic of the thread. Thank you, Dr. Leif. -REP]

June 8, 2012 7:15 pm

Off Topic? Did you read the article? The author brought it up!!!!!!!!!!!!
“NOAA making big deal about last 12 months warmest ever.
John Christy provides color:”

June 8, 2012 7:23 pm

sunshinehours1 says:
June 8, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Off Topic? Did you read the article? The author brought it up
He shouldn’t have.

1 2 3 4