As I mentioned a few days ago, there was a panel that NASA convened to look at solar cycle 23/24 predictions.
From this story on space.com where they talk about the opposing views solar scientists have for cycle 24 they offer some opinions. NOAA Space Environment Center scientist Douglas Biesecker, who chaired the panel, said in a statement:
[…] despite the panel’s division on the Sun cycle’s intensity, all members have a high confidence that the season will begin in March 2008
Well, obviously March 2008 isn’t happening:
Current sun: blank
So now there’s a new set of numerical predictive numbers issued by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. You can see the March 2008 updated prediction page here:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
There is a lot of discussion there on how the numbers are derived, but plainly absent from the discussion is the real meat of the issue. The goalposts for the start of Cycle 24 have now been moved to May 2008. In addition to the discussion of the “hows” on that page, he also produced a set of numerical data for the prediction curves which you can see here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict.txt
I’ve plotted the data for you below.
Click for a larger image
Notice how cycle 23 gets longer and longer, with a sharp upturn for cycle 24 starting in late 2008 and early 2009. Hathaway still believes cycle 24 will be slightly more in amplitude than cycle 23, while others think it will be lower.
I’m no solar physicist, but based on what I’ve seen, I’m betting the goalposts will be moved again in May, pointing to a start in August or September 2008. This would be more in line with the latest numbers predicted by the Space Environment Center (SEC):
We’ll see what happens. I’m still very much concerned about the apparent step change in 2005 to a lower plateau of the Geomagnetic Average Planetary (Ap) index. Which is something that does not appear in the previous cycle:
click for a larger image
What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels, almost as if something “switched off”.
UPDATE – Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP writes in with this:
This site http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html catalogs the many forecasts of the next cycle with links where available. The majority of these forecasts (23 of the 33) forecast a quieter cycle 24 than 23.
The Clilverd forecast http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf is the lowest (peak SSN 42).
Dikpati http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/sunspot.shtml the highest (peak SSN 169). Hathaway of NASA was second highest (peak SSN 160) though he projected that cycle 25 could be quietest in centuries due to dramatic slowing of the conveyor belt of hot plasma http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
If we go to May or later before the solar min is reached, cycle 23 will be the longest cycle since the late 1800s.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In addition, Anthony, I cannot understand how some on the panel feel it’s going to be as big as cycle #23. History has shown that following a long cycle like #23, the next cycle is quite small.
Cycle 4 lingered and lingered and went almost 14 years (like #23 is in the process of doing): http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl4.html
Cycle 5 was virtually non existent: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl5.html
As was Cycle 6: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl6.html
Theodore Landscheidt nailed this current solar downturn long before his death.
Anthony, you may have noted this in an earlier post, but this site (http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html) catalogs the many forecasts of the next cycle with links where available. The majority of these forecasts (23 of the 33) forecast a quieter cycle 24 than 23.
The Clilverd forecast (http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf) is the lowest (peak SSN 42).
Dikpati (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/sunspot.shtml) the highest (peak SSN 169). Hathaway of NASA was second highest (peak SSN 160) though he projected that cycle 25 could be quietest in centuries due to dramatic slowing of the conveyor belt of hot plasma (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm).
If we go to May or later before the solar min is reached, cycle 23 will be the longest cycle since the late 1800s.
REPLY: Thanks Joe, I’ve added that info to the original post.
All I can say is, given this, plus, the law of averages, plus, what we know from ice cores and sediment cores, and, given how much more ravaging the impacts of killer cold are, than coddling, lush warmth (and moisture), I think we are in for some hard times. Hold on tight people, the 21st century will test your ability to tolerate a difficult life.
SteveSadlov
Welcome to the planet Earth 🙂
MattN
If I correctly recall, Landscheidt predicted years ago a rainy midwest at about this time. I’ll have to check up on that to be sure.
REPLY: “Rainy midwest”, you mean like this? (sorry for hijacking your comment)
TO: Watts, Anthony; KPAY-AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – March 20, 2008
*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Susan Buchanan 301-713-0622, ext. 110
Current Major Flooding in U.S. a Sign of Things
to Come This Season; NOAA Urges Communities to
Prepare During Flood Safety Awareness Week
Major floods striking America’s heartland
this week offer a preview of the spring seasonal
outlook, according to NOAA’s National Weather
Service. Several factors will contribute to
above-average flood conditions, including record
rainfall in some states and snow packs, which are
melting and causing rivers and streams to crest
over their banks. This week, more than 250
communities in a dozen states are experiencing flood conditions.
The science supporting NOAA’s short-term
forecasts allows for a high level of certainty.
National Weather Service forecasters highlighted
potential for the current major flood event a
week in advance and began working with emergency
managers to prepare local communities for the impending danger.
“We expect rains and melting snow to bring
more flooding this spring,” said Vickie Nadolski,
deputy director of NOAA’s National Weather
Service. “Americans should be on high alert to
flood conditions in your communities. Arm
yourselves with information about how to stay
safe during a flood and do not attempt to drive
on flooded roadways – remember to always turn around, don’t drown.”
Nadolski called on local emergency
management officials to continue preparations for
a wet spring and focus on public education to
ensure heightened awareness of the potential for dangerous local conditions.
Spring Flood Outlook
Above-normal flood potential is evident in
much of the Mississippi River basin, the Ohio
River basin, the lower Missouri River basin,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, most of New York, all
of New England, and portions of the West, including Colorado and Idaho:
* Heavy winter snow combined with recent rain
indicates parts of Wisconsin and Illinois should
see minor to moderate flooding, with as much as a
20 to 30 percent chance of major flooding on some
rivers in southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois.
* Current snow depth in some areas of upstate New
York and New England is more than a foot greater
than usual for this time of the year, which
increases flood potential in the Connecticut River Valley.
* Locations in the mountains of Colorado and
Idaho have 150 to 200 percent of average water
contained in snowpack leading to a higher than normal flood potential.
Snowfall has been normal or above normal
across most of the West this winter; however,
preexisting dryness in many areas will prevent
most flooding in this region. Runoff from snow
pack is expected to significantly improve stream
flows compared to last year for the West.
Spring Drought Outlook
The drought outlook indicates continued
general improvement in the Southeast, although
some reservoirs are unlikely to recover before
summer. Winter precipitation chipped away at both
the western and southeastern drought. On the U.S.
Drought Monitor, extreme drought coverage dropped
from nearly 50 percent in mid-December to less
than 20 percent in the Southeast for March.
* Overall, the Southeast had near-average
rainfall during the winter with some areas wetter
than average. Nevertheless, lingering water
supply concerns and water restrictions continue in parts of the region.
* We expect drought to continue in parts of the
southern Plains despite some recent heavy rain.
Parts of Texas received less than 25 percent of
normal rainfall in the winter, leading 165
counties to enact burn bans by mid-March.
Seasonal forecasts for warmth and dryness suggest
drought will expand northward and westward this spring.
During the spring season, weather can
change quickly – from drought to flooding to
severe weather, including outbreaks of tornadoes.
People can stay abreast of day-to-day weather
fluctuations, as well as lifesaving advisories,
watches and warnings, by purchasing a NOAA
Weather Radio All-Hazards receiver and visiting http://www.weather.gov.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce
Department, is dedicated to enhancing economic
security and national safety through the
prediction and research of weather and
climate-related events and information service
delivery for transportation, and by providing
environmental stewardship of our nation’s coastal
and marine resources. Through the emerging Global
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA
is working with its federal partners, more than
70 countries and the European Commission to
develop a global monitoring network that is as
integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects.
NOTE: Graphics related to this spring flood and
drought forecast are available within the online
version of this release appearing on NOAA.gov.
On the Web:
Flood Awareness Week: http://www.floodsafety.noaa.gov
National Hydrologic Assessment (Flood Risk):
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hic/nho/index.shtml
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center’s Drought
Assessment Products (Weekly Drought Monitor and
Three Month Outlook):
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/drought_assessment.shtml
– 30-
and yet i still got my butt handed to me by my friends when I mentioned the solar cycle and the ever so odd dip in global temperature anomolies over the last year, and the PDO (looking forward to learning more about it too) and so on. They just say “REAL CLIMATE SAID [ad nauseum]” and that’s the end of that.
Pointing out that the Sporer, Maunder and Dauton Minima coincide with dips in global temperature go over like a lead balloon, since Real Climate proved last year that it’s not solar at all like ever because climate was completely stable from 8000 BCE to 1850 AD! Heh!
Sorry for the angry post but I might have to lose friendships over an issue and scientific debate that should not be this emotional and should simply be a logical and rational (and open!) scientific debate. I can’t be the only person on planet Earth in this position.
Here are Dr Svalgaard’s thoughts on the sharp drop in the Ap Index:
“The sharp drop is quite common [e.g. in 1911-1912, 1922-1923, 1964-1965] (but not universal), and doesn’t mean much [it has to come down eventually – sometimes that is abrupt and sometimes not]. The large CMEs do not deliver enough energetic particles per se to do much of anything because they are short lived and in energy usually fall far short of Galactic Cosmic Rays. [On very rare occasions we get strong Solar Energetic Particles from major solar flares].”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868#comment-226184
Here are his comments on the relationship between solar cycle length and next peak:
“Second, the [short cycle high activity, long cycle low activity] rule is not absolute. Whether a long cycle predicts a low next cycle is refuted by e.g. cycle 20 -> cycle 21. The sun doesn’t quite go by our numerology, unfortunately”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224445
Here it is:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
Part 7, Paragraph 5
“The new rhythm has been stable since 1933. There is a good chance that it will continue until the next BHS (big hand cycle) in 2111. Farmers in the U.S.A. may expect wet climate around the next BFS (big finger cycle) in 2007.”
I’ve got to read this paper again. Looks interesting…
Anthony,
I looked at the data you plotted. The minimum is still March 2008. I can see how you got May 2008 out of that data.
REPLY: Perhaps I made the point confusing, I wasn’t saying that May 2008 marked a new solar minimum point, but that it was the upturn point. The previous statement from the NASA consensus was that the upturn would begin in March 2008.
[…] despite the panel’s division on the Sun cycle’s intensity, all members have a high confidence that the season will begin in March 2008
From my viewpoint, May looks like the point at which we’ll see an observable difference. Obviously March is already a bust.
We’ve gone from no spots for weeks on end to one or two every week or so. BUT, they are all still cycle 23 spots (with one lousy exception). Last weekend, for example, a couple of 23 spots, now nothing. You can’t have a cycle 24 upturn with cycle 23 spots, just a lenghtening of the 23 tail.
I guess I was so busy during the 22/23 minimum that I didn’t have time to follow it this closely. I do recall several old time hams remarking that radio conditions during that minimum were poorer than they could recall. Of course, now they are worse yet, but who’s still watching?
I might have to lose friendships over an issue and scientific debate that should not be this emotional and should simply be a logical and rational (and open!) scientific debate. I can’t be the only person on planet Earth in this position.
terry, it’s indeed sad, but very true what you say. I believe this issue has probably strained and even destroyed many relationships, whether family, friends, or colleagues. It is just one more indication of the quasi-religious nature of the AGW/AGCC belief.
As Dr. Landscheidt points out the 11 year sunspot is not a direct indication of solar activity. The greatest solar flaring often occurs on the falling slope and less so on the rising slope of the 11 yr. cycle. Yet the cycle of activity has a longer period, something like 44 years (I’m afraid I can’t take in eveything he ladles out).
At any rate, Clilverd’s work reprises Landscheidt’s as spectral analysis, I.R.G. Wilson repeats it as CAM, carrier amplitude modulation, others as wavelet analysis, all relying on Fourier analysis.
Hathaway, Dikpati, and other well-funded researchers are courageous in sticking with their obviously dead predictions. What is stranger are those like Svalgaard who modify their opinion monthly and make little if any progress.
Clilverd forecast 42 SSN max for cycle 24 in 2004, and 25 SSN max for cycle 25, and looks to be proven a genius.
NASA and Svaalgard do not quite seem to know what they are doing. It is as if they are trying to fit familiar patterns to an unfamiliar situation, and doing a poor job of it.
Once they remember that they are scientists, rather than advocates, perhaps all the tax money we shower on their government agency will start to pay dividends.
They just say “REAL CLIMATE SAID [ad nauseum]” and that’s the end of that.
Terry, tell your friends who the founder of RealClimate is:
Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:<b?Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670
Ms. Ensley also founded Bush Green Watch and Women Against Bush, so if your friends are Bush haters, then this probably won’t carry too much weight, but the story behind Environmental Media Services is one of the most interesting you will ever read.
There’s a nice strong negative trend in TSI (SORCE) from March 2003 to February 2008. For those used to ACRIM and PMOD–no, the bottom hasn’t dropped out–the SORCE data is about 5 watts/m^2 lower. How low will it go before it starts its upswing?
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2yvnz38&s=3&capwidth=false
The anomalous drop in October and November, 2003 is present in all three indices. Here’s daily data a month or so before and after.
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=51piyh&s=3&capwidth=false
Data available here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#plots
Anthony, from the link you supplied for the March 2008 updated predition page http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml was another link leading to a pdf by Hathaway et al. showing their analyses of sunspots for cycles 1 through 22: Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]. Although the paper is a bit dated, the following 3 quotes from their findings seem interesting:
“We have, however, repeated the Fourier analysis on a series of 16 cycle samples (i.e., cycles 1-16, 2-17, etc) and find that peaks at periods of 8 and 2 cycles persist until we start including the last four cycles (cycles 19-22). This difference in behavior for the most recent cycles might reflect a change in the Sun’s magnetic dynamo. On the other hand it might reflect better observations of the Sun since the IGY in 1959. At present, we do not fully understand the significance of this finding.”
“…shows that the more recent cycles have been larger in amplitude and shorter in length than the earlier ones.”
“Perhaps surprisingly, there does appear to be a weak inverse correlation between the amplitude of a cycle and the length of the previous cycle. Cycles that take a long time to get started tend to have small amplitudes.”
MattN, post #1 here.
Just eye-balling the sunspot curves, it appears to me that whether long or short, the intgral under the curve seems roughly constant. Has anyone looked at that?
George M, if you look at the cycle 22/23 transition, you will notice the first cycle 23 sunspot occours about a year before the “start” of 23. (The graph’s on this site a few posts back). I wouldn’t be surprised to seee #24 hold of ’til next winter, but hey, what do I know?
But personally, I am hoping for a warmer planet as it will be good for all living things, including humans.
It’s interesting that the Solar Cycle prediction released by NASA/MSFC/Hathaway as recently as March 2006 predicted a start to Cycle 24 in late 2006, with sunspot numbers reaching almost 100 by March 2008.
In others word, something they predicted to start in about 6 months did not come about in the next 24 months (and counting).
Can anyone explain why we should pay the slightest attention to predictions issued now?
Perhaps we should also take a moment to reflect on climate models, as they try to predict a more complex, chaotic and less well-understood system, over a far longer timescale.
terry said
“and yet i still got my butt handed to me by my friends when I”
Terry, you have to seperate facts from facts. Do not argue about melting ice or polar bears. Learn all you can about the CO2 induce golbal warming theory. Have your friends to explain the theory to you. Then ask them question on how it suppose to work. Keep in mind that CO2 IS A GAS (how fast can CO2 warm up or cool down), CO2 lags temperature, the not so “Hot Spot” in the upper troposhere, CO2 is only “Heated” by about 8% of long wave radiation (which is always in a state of fluctuation) and there are only about 400ppm of CO2 warming up about 40,000ppm of water vapor or “positive feedback” (Convert ppm to 1/4 inch squares and set them side by side.) How, if you really want to blow their minds, ask them why we don’t have CO2 climate control system in our homes to save money on our heating bills. After all, the GHG models say if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere it will cause the surface temperature rise between 2.5C and 4.00C
I would recommend extreme caution when referencing the works of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt. This was one area in which John Daly and I were in disagreement. I have Email correspondence between myself and John Daly and John Daly and Dr. Landscheidt, but since both John Daly and Dr. Landscheidt are deceased I am reluctant to release the documents since neither can defend their positions. I will put the correspondence into chronological order and distribute the document to John’s friends for their input before doing anything else.
John was not aware that Dr. Landscheidt dabbled in astrology until I informed him of Dr. Landscheidt background. John’s decision on Dr. Landscheidt papers was to let them stand public scrutiny and the test of time; this is why Dr. Landscheidt’s papers are still available on John’s website.
If you think Dr. Landscheidt works are of value then tabulate all of his predictions and test each one of them. Generic predictions such as “The Climate Is Going To Change” don’t count and the AGW’ers hold the trademark on that one. All predictions must be verifiable with definitive outcomes.
My own view is that Dr. Landscheidt work is not science and I am extremely skeptical of their value, even if some of the predictions appear to be correct. The problem is that Dr. Landscheidt did not make enough predictions to substantiate their validity. What we are most likely looking at is dumb luck. I will leave religious cults to the AGW true believers. Science must be verifiable and repeatable.
For additional references follow these links in Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Landscheidt+astrology
Mike
First I’m not a solar scientist (closest I ever got was designing the data acquisition system for NASA’s solar magnetograph in Huntsville), but I have looked at a lot of waveforms and something I notice about the one being analyzed here is that the action seems to begin during the 25 months prior to the October 2005 move. A sudden, deep impulse wave followed by a triangular contracting pattern indicates the presence of little “upward” energy, just rebounds, and the ease with which it fell well below the previous low after those rebounds again shows the strength of a downward trend so far. Just my 1.31 Euro cents.
[Apologies if this is a duplicate.]
I’m a little surprised that http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html doesn’t include a prediction from Timo Niroma. Niroma has an extensive statistical analysis in which he sees a tie-in to Jupiter’s orbit. He was planning to update the site after cycle 23 ends, but apparently he’s getting a bit impatient:
I seem to recall before the February update he was predicting only that the next two cycles would be weak, now he’s talking 60-80 years.
Some of his statistics seem to be a bit of a reach, but there is a lot of good data and conservative statistics too.
Here’s a rather lengthy analysis of some of Dr Landschiedt’s work: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/17
Now, he may have studied astrology, but this work seems a good bit more valid and scientific to me. Perhaps it was just to understand the mvement of the planets in relation to the sun better. In any event, I don’t lump his work on planetary torque cycles to be “astrology”. He not predicting my luck to change for the better soon.
It looks to me he predicted:
1) a downturn in solar activity after 1990.
2) Cycle 23 would be moderate with a peak R of ~100 at year 2006.6 (May-Sept)
3) we would have 4-5 cycles starting with #24 with an R<80.
Looks to me like he nailed point #1. Point 2 is interesting. Official predictions in 1996 had #23 predicted to have an R = 160. Reality was #23 peaked at R=120 in April 2000. Landscheidt was much close, and made his prediction decades before.
So, call it “astrology” if you want, but the man so far has been a whole lot closer than the other so-called experts….
On the face of it.. so far Landscheit’s predictions for cycle 23-24 are correct but we will have to see if temps continue to fall like in this non-skeptic data from HADCRUT
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
(posted already on another thread by someone else BTW) thanks