Solar Cycle 24 just can’t seem to get rolling. IPS announced today (IPS is the Australian Space Weather Agency) , that it has changed its forecast for Solar Cycle 24, pushing it’s start into the future by six months. They write:
Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24
to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack
of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle
away by 6 months.
The announcement came on the IPS web page, today, on the day that two small cycle 23 sunspots have started to appear near the solar equator. Many had expected more cycle 24 spots to be visible by now, but the sun remains quiet, and has been producing more cycle 23 spots than cycle 24 spots so far since the first cycle 24 spot was seen on January 4th, 2008
August 21st, 2008 spots – Photo: Pavol Rapavy
NASA’s David Hathaway is still expecting a start of cycle 24 this year, with an upturn soon, late in 2008 or early 2009.
Above: The solar cycle, 1995-2015. The “noisy” curve traces measured sunspot numbers; the smoothed curves are predictions. Credit: D. Hathaway/NASA/MSFC.
As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a July 11th 2008 NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:
“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
The new IPS prediction puts the sunspot upturn to begin around April to July 2009. It will be interesting to see if Hathaway follows with a new prediction in the wake of the IPS announcement. There already has been one change in Hathaway’s prediction this year, so it would not be surprising to see another.
The IPS announcment is shown below.
big hat tip to John-X
IPS OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SOLAR INDICES FOR CYCLE 24
CYCLE 24 PREDICTION MOVED AWAY BY 6 MONTHS
Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24
to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack
of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle
away by 6 months.
Prepared by IPS Radio and Space Services
Issued on Aug 21 2008
———————— SMOOTHED SUNSPOT NUMBER —————————
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
—————————————————————————-
2000 113.0 116.9 120.0 120.9 119.0 118.8 119.8 118.7 116.3 114.5 112.7 112.1
2001 108.7 104.0 104.8 107.5 108.6 109.8 111.7 113.6 114.1 114.0 115.5 114.6
2002 113.5 114.6 113.3 110.5 108.8 106.2 102.7 98.7 94.6 90.5 85.3 82.1
2003 81.0 78.6 74.2 70.4 67.9 65.3 62.1 60.3 59.8 58.4 57.0 55.0
2004 52.1 49.4 47.2 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.3 37.6 35.9 35.4 35.2
2005 34.6 34.0 33.6 31.7 28.9 28.8 29.1 27.5 25.9 25.6 25.0 23.0
2006 20.8 18.7 17.4 17.1 17.4 16.4 15.3 15.6 15.6 14.2 12.7 12.1
2007 12.0 11.6 10.8 9.9 8.7 7.7 7.0 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.0
2008 4.2 3.7e 3.7e 4.0e 4.2e 4.1e 3.9e 4.0e 3.9e 3.9e 4.4e 4.9e
2009 5.6e 6.4 4.4 8.3 8.9 9.6 10.7 11.9 13.4 14.7 16.3 18.1
2010 20.2 22.6 25.2 29.6 34.5 39.8 44.2 48.8 53.8 59.4 64.5 68.8
2011 72.8 79.0 85.5 91.3 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.2 109.1 112.6 116.6 120.2
2012 122.4 125.4 127.1 127.9 129.2 130.9 131.8 133.9 134.7 134.7 133.9 131.8
2013 131.3 130.0 130.0 129.6 129.6 130.0 130.0 129.2 129.2 127.9 125.0 122.0
2014 119.3 116.6 113.5 110.0 107.7 105.7 104.1 102.2 100.1 97.4 94.3 89.3
2015 84.2 79.4 76.3 73.5 70.9 68.5 66.0 63.2 60.1 57.7 56.0 55.2
2016 54.3 53.1 51.4 49.1 46.4 43.6 41.3 39.4 37.5 35.3 33.0 30.9
2017 29.2 27.9 26.6 25.3 23.9 22.8 21.8 21.1 20.6 20.0 19.3 18.2
2018 17.3 16.8 16.5 15.9 14.9 14.2 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 14.0 14.2
============================================================================
—————– EQUIVALENT 10.7 CM SOLAR RADIO FLUX ———————
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
—————————————————————————-
2000 162.2 166.2 169.4 170.3 168.3 168.1 169.2 168.0 165.6 163.7 161.9 161.2
2001 157.8 153.0 153.7 156.6 157.7 158.9 160.8 162.8 163.3 163.2 164.8 163.9
2002 162.7 163.9 162.5 159.6 157.9 155.2 151.6 147.6 143.4 139.3 134.1 131.0
2003 129.9 127.6 123.4 119.7 117.4 114.9 112.0 110.4 109.9 108.7 107.4 105.6
2004 103.2 100.8 98.9 97.6 96.2 94.4 93.3 92.5 91.2 89.9 89.5 89.4
2005 88.9 88.4 88.1 86.7 84.7 84.6 84.8 83.6 82.5 82.3 81.9 80.5
2006 79.0 77.6 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.2 75.5 75.7 75.7 74.8 73.9 73.6
2007 73.5 73.3 72.8 72.3 71.6 71.0 70.6 70.1 70.1 70.1 69.9 69.5
2008 69.1 68.9e 68.9e 69.0e 69.1e 69.1e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.2e 69.5e
2009 69.9e 70.3 69.2 71.4 71.7 72.1 72.7 73.4 74.3 75.1 76.1 77.3
2010 78.6 80.2 82.0 85.2 88.8 92.9 96.5 100.3 104.6 109.6 114.2 118.2
2011 122.0 128.0 134.3 140.1 143.5 146.9 150.3 154.2 158.2 161.8 165.9 169.6
2012 171.8 174.9 176.6 177.4 178.8 180.5 181.4 183.5 184.3 184.3 183.5 181.4
2013 180.9 179.6 179.6 179.2 179.2 179.6 179.6 178.8 178.8 177.4 174.5 171.4
2014 168.6 165.9 162.7 159.1 156.8 154.7 153.1 151.1 149.0 146.3 143.1 138.1
2015 133.1 128.4 125.3 122.7 120.2 117.9 115.6 113.0 110.2 108.1 106.5 105.8
2016 105.1 104.0 102.5 100.6 98.3 96.0 94.1 92.6 91.1 89.4 87.7 86.1
2017 84.9 83.9 83.0 82.1 81.1 80.4 79.7 79.2 78.9 78.5 78.0 77.3
2018 76.8 76.4 76.2 75.9 75.2 74.8 74.8 74.9 74.9 74.7 74.7 74.8
============================================================================
This page is updated monthly using observed monthly sunspot numbers from
the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (http://sidc.oma.be). Monthly
values are smoothed using a 13 monthly running filter (first and last half weighting)
and, where needed, combined with a predicted sunspot number curve for Cycle 24.
Values which have an “e” next to them are based partly on observed and partly on
predicted values. Values earlier in time to these are based entirely on
observed valued; values later in time are entirely predicted. Observed
data are adjusted slightly at times to use the SIDC final monthly values
which are available several months later – SIDC preliminary monthly values
are used up to this time.
All Solar Radio Flux values, including the “observed” values, are
obtained from sunspot numbers using a statistical conversion. They are
best described as equivalent solar flux values.
Prepared on behalf of the International Space Environment Service by
the Australian Space Forecast Centre, IPS Radio and Space Services. This
product is issued in the first few days of each month and is available
on the IPS Mailing List Server – http://www.ips.gov.au/mailman/listinfo/
For more information please contact the centre at asfc@ips.gov.au
PLEASE NOTE: The technique used to make these predictions was changed
for the predictions issued from early November 2003. The revised technique
is more appropriate to the situation of a declining solar cycle.
I have to say all this business is quite absurd. Only in astronomy can I imagine you would get a second and third chance to ‘predict’ something happening when it doesn’t happen the first or second time you said it would. So now, if the Sun does start around that time into Cycle 24, they can all pat themselves on the back and issue a press release that confirms they were right. Only those of us who care about this sort of thing will know that they were not.
I agree with Rick Werme’s posting wholeheartedly. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of science behind this except the science (or art) of guestimation.
But the main question I have is, supposing the Sun does not start up as “forecasted,” what then? Move it back yet another six months? I mean, how can one claim to be right on target (or schedule) when one has control of location of the target (or the timing of the schedule)? It’s an absurd notion!
John-X,
maybe the SOHO lack of posting had to do with the CCD Bakeoff they were running? I noted that the latest SOHO magnetogram is 8/21 and the bake appears to be over now so maybe they will be able to post more up to date images.
Jeff Alberts (05:54:41) :
Usually when one is moving a deadline further into the future it’s moving back. If it’s moving closer to the present it’s moving ahead. It’s odd, but I think of this every time Anthony posts one of these. The article actually says “away” which is less ambiguous, I suppose.
Being a non-english speaker, “moving back” used that way is very confusing if it means moving into the future. To me it sounds as if you are moving backwards into the future. I guess some are 🙂
If the estimates of solar minimum are really moved 6 months into the future, I guess it means we must interpret the “spot” as belonging to SC23 (I realise though the proper interpretation is the other way around).
More and more interesting.
This reminds me of a Star Trek (TNG) episode I saw where the Romulans and the Federation each have no clue why their posts near the Neutral Zone have been utterly destroyed (scooped off the face of the universe would be more accurate). They each know the other didn’t do it. But beyond that they have no clue. Except that the Romulans try to bluff as if they do so that the Federation, if they actually do know, will tell them and then the Romulans can act like they knew all along. But of course the Romulans don’t have a clue and that comes out in the episode. And this is pretty much what it looks like.
Like a bunch of solar scientists sitting around a campfire blinking stupidly and going round-robin asking each other with a casual shrug “Well, I dunno, Ed, when do you you think it’s going start?” “Beats me, Bill. When do you think, it’s going to start Rich?” “Hard to say. Say, Steve, when do you think it’s going to start?” Ad infintum. As I said, eye-rollingly absurd.
RE: Headline. Your first commenter caught the same issue. “Push ahead” is ambiguous. How about “delays”? or “…Agency revises Dates…”
REPLY: I made a change, it seemed clear to me but apparently more than a few get flummoxed with the wording I chose, even though it seemed clear to me.
There should be no surprise that the sun is still in a minimum stage and is likely to continue well into 2009 . One of the criteria that I Iook at is the solar wind ram pressure levels and its trend .The latest 27 day average reading Is down to 1.57nPA. The 2008 average, 27 day average to date is only 1.77nPA which is lower than the yearly 27 day average for any year for at least 13 years. It was 2.41 for the last solar minimum year of 1996. On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. The average on a daily basis for the last 13 years is 11 spikes of 5 nPa or more and in 2005, the record temperature year, it was 20. IN 1996 AND 1997 ,around the last solar minimum period it was 3 and 6 major spikes respectively on a daily basis.
Perhaps: “Cycle adjusted for Daylight Savings Time” (Sorry. It’s Friday.)
It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract.
“When are you guys going to start work on this?
We don’t know.
Well when?
Maybe we’ll know in about 6 more months.”
Interesting data! Will have to watch what you’re doing here on this page. It fascinates me.
New here, and just stumbling around alot… like the blind rat in the maze that can smell the cheese on the other side of the wall… still trying to figure this place out!
It appears to me that the solar scientists and astrophysicists are venturing into the unknown. None of them knows why the sun is so quiet and none of them have a clue on how long this hiatus will continue. And most of them are cranking up their computer to attempt to guess the future. Their hubris is breath taking and some of them should honestly tell us they just don’t know what the hell is going on with the sun.
I find it some what interesting that the site below is attributing current spotless days to cycle 24 when they should be labeled cycle 23.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Period
It is also interesting that http://dxlc.com/solar/ keeps on changing their (predicted) number of smoothed sunspots. It seems they are making adjustments to make it look like they know what they are doing.
I have a question. Based on a paper I was recently reading (Jose, 1965) there is a discussion on the assignment of polarity with regard to sunspot cycles. It is claimed that there are occasions where the polarity between cycles does not reverse.
How would such a situation present itself? Would we just start seeing an increase in sunspots of the same polarity as the previous cycle and realize that a new cycle of the same polarity has started? Or is this idea an outdated one that has since been disproven?
I’m just curious. I’m not suggesting this could be the case with Cycle 24, since we have seen spots of opposite polarity (unless, of course, those are just some of those 1 out of 30 aberrations…)
Michael Hauber: A few other things to consider: The number AND MAGNITUDE of El Ninos dominated ENSO since 1996. The AMO was increasing until a few years ago, as was the similarly calculated THC/MOC signal in the North Pacific.
http://i30.tinypic.com/11kv7r5.jpg
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/amo-versus-mid-latitude-north-pacific.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-misunderstanding-about-pdo.html
matt v. (07:52:23) :
“…On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. ”
Indeed, it seems only the recurrent coronal holes
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/coronal_holes.html
are providing any activity at all, and even then, only the occasional minor storm.
Space weather educational material for anyone interested
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/topics_spacewx.php
Registration required to take the modules, but it’s all free, high-quality material, intended primarily for government scientists & forecasters, and universities, but open to any and all.
I have to agree with a couple of the above comments. If there is no stated scientific reason to move their prediction date, why exactly did they do so? They should have just withdrawn their previous prediction and said:
“We don’t know why SC24 did not arrive on time. The coming cycle, whenever it appears, should provide us with valuable information on solar function.”
Updating a prediction of forecast in ‘real-time’ as new data becomes available is how all forecasts are done [and should be done]. The storm track of TS Fay [for example] is updated every three or six hours. Nothing wrong with that.
REPLY: I agree, NWS revises forecasts too, sometimes within an hour of first issuance. In the case of NASA and Hathaway, I don’t think its matter of “if” but “when”. – Anthony
We should give the solar guys a bit of a break here, we seem happy to taunt when someone’s estimate falls flat. I don’t get that. An analogy I read somewhere is that understanding the solar cycle is like a doctor trying to understand how the human heart works on the basis of 23 heartbeats, and only having a decent stethoscope for the last 4 or 5.
Making predictions based on what we know so far is how science grows. Its the only way to test your knowledge. Put it out there for all to see, along with your reasoning for it, and everybody learns something whether you’re right or wrong.
The apparent WAGs we seem to be getting from some agencies is just an indication that we still have a LOT to learn. Fascinating times.
Steve in SC (07:56:32) : It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract. “When are you guys going to start work on this?
Almost got it right but it should have been: “When are you guys going to COMPLETE work on this?” A non-working contractor rarely gets paid. Cycle 23 is having an overrun.
Like that “push forward” vs. “push back” thing I guess.
[…] Adam . Excerpt: IPS announced today (IPS is the Australian Space Weather Agency) , that it has changed its forecast for Solar Cycle 24, pushing it’s start into the future by six months. They write:. Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of … […]
Anthony: This is clearly off-topic, but something you should know.
I’m using an Apple iMac w/OS 10.5.4 and Safari 3.1.2 to view this site. I have just noticed that if I hover the cursor over the name of your site in tabs, or of JunkScience.com, or Climate Audit, (and probably others), I get a small yellow pop up label containing the words “Conservative Propaganda.”
Surely, Al Gore, being a board member of Apple’s Board of Directors, wouldn’t stoop to this.
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony
interesting…
A WAG is fine as long as it is so identified. When ANY entity (government or otherwise, e.g. AGW wacko) produces a series of WAGs as only “they” have the proper KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities), they quickly become pompous wags!
— Retired Government Peon
What is this sudden increase in their model? I guess they have to cheat their model in order to show a bigger activity than cycle 23. Where did they take this? In a box of cracker Jack?
Apologies to all.
It is a bug in Safari. Sorry I didn’t check further before did a little research.
One would think that my age, one wouldn’t jump to conclusions — and one would be wrong.
This is the first mistake I’ve made in — maybe the past two hours!
Back in January Hathaway stated that S24 had begun:
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
I’ve seen a revision of his earlier estimates but never a retraction. Maybe an apology is in order. Can you spell H-O-C-K-E-Y S-T-I-C-K?