UPDATE:
SEE THE UPDATED SWPC FORECAST HERE
Leif Svalgaard writes:
NOAA/SWPC will be releasing an update to the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction
on Friday, May 8, 2009 at noon Eastern Daylight Time (1600 UT) at a
joint ESA/NASA/NOAA press conference.
Details below:
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update on Friday, May 8 at noon EDT
NOAA/SWPC will be releasing an update to the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction on Friday, May 8, 2009 at noon Eastern Daylight Time (1600 UT). The prediction will be available here at that time.
The charts on this page depict the progression of the Solar Cycle. The charts and tables are updated by the Space Weather Prediction Center monthly using the latest ISES predictions. Observed values are initially the preliminary values which are replaced with the final values as they become available.
Recent Changes to Solar Cycle Values and Plots
March 2, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has not issued any updates to their prediction. However, the Space Weather Prediction Center, and the Chair of the Prediction Panel decided to implement what they believe to be an obvious change to the plotted data. The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. Once the date of solar minimum is known, that is all the information needed to arrive at a prediction curve. The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed. Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum.
Description of Solar Cycle Progression displays
Table of Recent Solar Indices (Preliminary) of Observed Monthly Mean Values
Table of Predicted Values With Expected Ranges — High Prediction Table — Low Prediction Table
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007, updated May 2008
For additional information or comments, contact SWPC.CustomerSupport@noaa.gov
Interesting – just keep sliding the timing until it actually happens – what a great forecasting system…
Btw, for whats its worth, I HATE the ads right under the title. The ads at the bottom are fine and non-intrusive.
Will there be a live internet feed?
Has Dr. Hathaway changed the peek that he uses for his prediction method?
I think we all know that they will lower their call and rightly so. Maybe the collected forecast mishaps of the past two cycles will change the perception about certain relationships. Or who is an expert at what.
Forecasting an upcoming space weather pattern, or even the strength of an upcoming Cycle, is much like forecasting the weather or climate. There are plenty of college professors who teach certain aspects of meteorology, but this does not mean that they can consistently forecast fairly accurate weather patterns for an extended period well out in advance.
So these two issue should not be confused. Because they are completely different.
My heart is aflutter anticipating the latest prognostication from the guys who not only didn’t see the odd behavior of cycle # 24 coming, but regularly and over a protracted period told me I wasn’t seeing what I was clearly seeing with my own eyes. How many times over the past two years did we hear from NASA that there was nothing at all unusual about the sunspot behavior (or lack thereof) we were observing? Then, in a abrupt change of course long after NASA had lost all credibility on this subject, the agency called for proposals to study the sun’s aberrant behavior. What now?
“joint ESE/NASA/NOAA press conference”
My bad for the typo. ESA, not ESE.
this may seem a bit cranky, but really, do these “predictions” from them matter at all in any real sense? They’re going to say some stuff that’s wrong, and then whatever will happen will happen with no assistance from NASA, and then they’ll backdate their “predictions” after a few months (or years) have passed to reflect reality. (hopefully)
I suppose there’s a bit of schadenfreude in watching NASA have to say “okay, we’ve been wrong on this” but other than that, is there any point? At best, this is an attempt to convince the public that they understand what’s happening, when they clearly don’t. No one does.
We’re below any range that they previously had predicted would be possible, so even the range predictions are pretty worthless.
Here’s a prediction better than theirs, since I can guarantee it’s accuracy: some stuff will happen. or not. After it happens, then we can explain it. Maybe.
This is a gigantic good. Now will someone please tell Congress that the science is not well enough settled to hang huge policy changes upon?
===========================================
I know this is the wrong thread for this, but since I am here and so are the ads, I will put my two cents worth in. I HATE them right under the title, too. Can you move them to the bottom of the article, just above the comments? I don’t mind them, generally speaking, and I’m glad if they bring in some money. I’ll even click on them if that will bring in more money!
This is a great site, so informative, and entertaining.
It’s Hathaway’s job to predict sunspot cycles, his global warming stance is also driven by his employer’s position. If this is really the beginning of a significant minimum (which Hathaway now concedes is a possibility) it makes all his analyses of previous cycles worthless for the rest of his career. I feel sorry for him, it is similar to having a high position in the Pontiac division management at GM. It sucks.
Ad location is fine, it’s no sweat to scroll past them. When somewhat interesting I will click them
“The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. ”
Does Leif’s prediction of a SSN maximum of ~74 (IIRC) remain intact?
(BTW Anthony, the ads on your blog don’t bother me a bit. If you derive revenue from them, more power to you.)
From the
Except that in the most recent update they didn’t even do that. They just shifted the bottom of the predicted curve to the right, while the peaks stayed at both the same level AND at the same point in time.
Put me in as another vote who dislike the ad positioning. I think between the article and the comments, or a horizontal bar just under the navigation bar would be better.
ESA = European Space Agency?
Unrelated Post:
Looks like they tried to shut up the guys that found the reason for the Great Lakes level drop. It seems they won’t be able to spin that on global warmnig… too bad!!!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44525417.html
A prediction of maximum SSN of 90 OR 140? How odd! I suppose this is what you get from a split committee.
For my part regarding the ads, Anthony, if the placement of the ads helps you out at all with financing the site and getting more hits through Google I will be happy to put up with it.
This is such a great site, I think we’re all getting a heck of a deal as it is.
OT. UAH is out for April http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Divergence from RSS, and low!
I will find them credible only if they admit that the sun has entered into a phase significantly different from recent cycles to render their current models inadequate.
In other words, “what we have been modeling has changed, so we have to develop new models based upon those changes.”
Quite clearly they have proved that their models can not predict.
If they try to predict timing or strength of, Cycle 24’s maximum, then they are in denial of their lack of understanding of the current sun.
> The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed.
Is this a solar (or lunar) physicist’s way of saying a prediction has been falsified? 🙂
Meteorologists refer to predictions that did not verify. Perhaps that would be a “softer” way to refer to a failed prediction. I don’t like “eclipsed” – it suggests that if you wait a little while the prediction will be back. Perhaps “terminated” would be another possibility, though in that case “The panel prediction has been terminated” could morph into “The panel has been terminated.”
Ugly graphic ad this time in the top block about “How 2 build solar panels.” Like I would ever want to learn that from someone who can’t spell “two.” Anthony, can you force text only into that top block? Graphics there can really conflict with your graphics.
NASA catching up with the news from recent National Geo? Or perhaps on Watt’s Up with That?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/natgeo-sun-oddly-quiet-hints-at-next-little-ice-age/
I might be wrong, but I don’t think this is Hathaway’s shop doing this. He is NASA/Marshall (not NOAA/SWPC) and hasn’t changed his April prediction at:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
If May stays quiet, though, he may feel like updating again next month.
Joseph (09:39:07) :
Does Leif’s prediction of a SSN maximum of ~74 (IIRC) remain intact?
Yes, it stands at 70 for the moment, but that is not significantly different from 74 or 75 [our original estimate]
tallbloke (09:53:26) :
ESA = European Space Agency?
Yes.
I don’t mind the ads at all.
>Is this a solar (or lunar) physicist’s way of saying a prediction has been falsified?
They could just say that their predictions have been swamped by the stochastic considerations.
I agree that NASA’s predictions have been less than impressive and I think they might owe an acknowledgment those who did better, when we get to the point where we can see the whole thing through the retrospect-o-scope.
By the way, I’m guessing the ads don’t show in Firefox, ‘cuz I ain’t seein’ any.