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
Addendum to Gary from Chicagoland (12:32:21) :
A decrease of 0.6405˚C degrees globally is the largest January-to-January drop since 1875, and the biggest drop for any 12-month interval since – 0.681 ˚C in February 1974.
Lord Monckton described the temp decrease in a more dramatic tone during interview with Mr Micheal Savage. You do not have to like Mr Savage’s rants but Mr Monckton’s words are worth to listen to (for the 10 min. in all).
Hear Christopher Monckton on “The Savage Nation”
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
Lord Christopher Monckton, who served as science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was invited to appear with Al Gore at a House panel hearing Friday. But House Democrats, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, canceled the appearance. Shortly after the hearing, Monckton gave his account to “The Savage Nation” and explained why Al Gore and other “alarmists” are wrong about “global warming.”
Regards
Ads? Its your web site, do what you want/need. That having been said, I am reminded of the early days of FM radio. Better signal quality, better programming and it was commercial free! After a few years we were treated to all the ads we could stand and programming went down the quality toilet. Parallels? Oh well, some times an analogy is just a story.
If asked, and we were, I’d kill/move the top one down to the comments lead area.
SL
Use all the ads you can, wherever you can, to maximize revenue. Don’t listen to the whiners unless the visit count drops.
The return on investment from sites like CA, WUWT and others is incalculably large when one considers the nasty and brutish poverty that would result from Hansen/Gore’s unchecked policy prescriptions.
“The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact.”
Reminds me of “Dark tonight, light tomorrow.”
Couldn’t anyone could do as well with a Ouija Board?
Joel Raupe (15:15:46) :
One thing I’ve always appreciated about Dr. Svalgaard’s work, which I encountered doing research on Cosmic Rays, is his apparent integrity, refusing to draw conclusions beyond where the data takes us.
Thanks for the kind words [contrasting some other comments]. Although I do speculate and extrapolate when feeling lucky. The trick is to label such as such.
There’s a new story in SCIENCE vol 324 for May 1 2009 about a papert o appear in Geophysical Research Letters by two climate modelers Jeffrey Pierce and Peter Adams; both of Carnegie Mellon University.
They examined the Svensmark/Christensen theory of cosmic ray modulation of cloud cover leading to a negative feedback temperature effect.
Pierce and Adams, claim that their computer model says that cosmic rays are short by two orders of magnitude from being able to cause the cooling effect that the Svensmark/Christensen thesis proposes.
It’s hard to tell from the SCIENCE article what is what; so we will have to weait for the GRL paper to come out.
Once again computer modeling will be used to show that experimental observations are all wrong.
Other modelers have joined in the fray; anxious to have their computer nix the CRs, while still others say Pierce and Adams are the ones who are all wet.
Well the planet knows who is correct.
I don’t mind the adds. Its easy enough to ignore. But I love all the good comments.
I know Lief says that sunspot numbers don’t correlate with climate, but are there other solar indicators that do correlate better with climate? It just seems impossible to me that climate not be driven by the sun more than any other thing.
Lloyd
Ads? What Ads?
My visual cortex developed an ad filtering algorithm about a year after I started browsing the WWW. I can’t see them.
A stupid question, I’m sorry.
Is the Sun dimmer because of outside layers are “cooler” in full EM spectrum or its diameter is smaller as the Sun collapsed a little under its gravitational forces having no enough inside “steam pressure” to counter the G forces (the Sun is in lull period)?
Thanks in advance.
Regards
rzemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) (16:24:14) :
A stupid question, I’m sorry.
Is the Sun dimmer because of outside layers are “cooler” …
Not stupid. The dimmer Sun is the ‘normal’ Sun. At solar maximum there are lots of magnetic fields. Those tend to sit on little ‘hills’ [‘corrugations’] that are hotter than the valleys around them, so we get more radiation [although only a little, 0.1%] than when there are no such hills.
LloydH (16:00:10) :
sunspot numbers don’t correlate with climate, but are there other solar indicators that do correlate better with climate?
All solar indicators correlate in the end with the sunspot number, which is why this somewhat subjective and arbitrary measure is so popular [and is still being produced].
Re: Leif Svalgaard (10:31:31) :
Thanks for your response, Leif.
This gets me to thinking, do you have a prediction for the cycle 23/24 minimum, or the 24 maximum, or do you even think it is predictable? I don’t recall if you have said in the past (too many old posts to search through).
I thought I was unique in this ability! “My visual cortex developed an ad filtering algorithm about a year after I started browsing the WWW. I can’t see them.” LOL! I think the ads are fine—can’t remember seeing any of them……
I would be interested to see an opposing viewpoint graph. Their shoving the valley over a few months is amusing but I’d like to see more. Is there anyone out there with the ‘other’ side? My formal sciences were a long time ago and it seems there are always gaps in my current reading. (actually feel like everything aside from math and reading was wrong in school—no wonder the masses vote personality)
So far, the only predictions that seem to be holding true are from David Archibald.
Maybe they are going to discuss this news from The Onion (May 7):
Sun Goes Out For A Few Seconds
TUCSON, AZ—Officials at the Kitt Peak National Observatory are saying that, while the short period of utter darkness and intense cold was distressing, there is “no immediate cause for alarm” over the sun’s six-second outage Monday. “We’re not sure what caused our sun, which is in essence a self-sustaining fusion reaction, to defy science and just go out for a moment like that, but I wouldn’t worry too much,” astronomer Stephen Pompea said. “There is a slight chance it could repeat, like sunspot activity, a more common—whup! There it goes again. You seeing this? Kind of weird how it—okay, back on.” Observatory personnel said they would give their full attention to investigating the phenomenon as soon as they figure out why last night’s moon was blood red and took up half the sky.
Joseph (17:25:14) :
This gets me to thinking, do you have a prediction for the cycle 23/24 minimum, or the 24 maximum, or do you even think it is predictable?
Based on the pink curve [the 10.7 cm radio flux] in:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
I would guess November 2008 would be a good candidate.
As for the ads, when they’re just below the title, I scroll past w/o registering so I can read the article. A negative annoyance. If they were at the bottom, I might look at them while I was thinking about the article I read.
Will they be more accurate than Piers Corbyn?
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:29) :
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:40) :
Leif Svalgaard (16:53:06) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:33) :
I am learning from you Lief. I like the little tidbits you post. After working all day and feeling punchy it is really nice to see these little, interesting notes about the sun. I get lost in the longer posts. I have never studied the sun and I don’t know if I can find the time to. So the factoids are great to me! (Maybe that makes me sound lazy. 😉 ) It’s just like the factoids that the History Channel always has when they are going to a commercial break. Eventually, from reading all your comments I may feel like I’ve graduated from a 101 to a 201 level.
Off topic but what happened to icecap.us? Can’t seem to access the site.
Off topic but you people might be the ones to explain. What has happened to ICECAP? I went away for a week and now the only message I get is ‘links are broken’ which applied from WUWT too!
Leif 16:53:06
That’s kind of intriguing that all solar indicators correlate with the sunspot numbers. The periods during the Grand Minima, when sunspots go away or are very sparse, while the other known manifestations of the solar dynamo continue unchanged must be those few times when the correlation does not hold. Now, if the sunspots go away soon, and if the globe cools without other interfering phenomena like volcanoes, and if the other manifestations of the dynamo continue unchanged, then it should be the sunspots themselves that effect the climate. Of course that is not for certain; we may find another manifestation of the solar dynamo that also does not continue unchanged, and then that will be a suspect in the climate regulation.
=====================================
kim (22:21:09) :
if the sunspots go away soon, and if the globe cools without other interfering phenomena like volcanoes, and if the other manifestations of the dynamo continue unchanged, then it should be the sunspots themselves that effect the climate.
The climate is not influenced by the sunspots themselves but by the attendant phenomena [some people claim: magnetic field, cosmic rays, TSI, etc], and if they stay much the same, but the climate cools significantly, then we have a strong indication that the Sun is not the driver of climate.
The only effect I can see [if I had to find an effect] of an invisible sunspot is a higher TSI. TSI is supposed to be a constant background + 2 x brightening from magnetic field – 1 x dimming from dark spots. No dark spots … you get it: no dimming…
But I don’t think visible/invisible spots make any difference.
So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…
@Leif
Please don’t consider this as a critique, It is a matter of lay-man curiosity.
When looking at your graph for TSI and F10.7, you have what appears to be a smoothed curve for TSI. Is that a model (possibly a polynomial?), or a representation of the measured data?
Admittingly when eye-balling, I am a bit puzzeled by the apparent increase in the end, if based on the measured data.
If you have the time, I would appreciate a clarification.
Cheers
Cassanders
“The only effect I can see [if I had to find an effect] of an invisible sunspot is a higher TSI. TSI is supposed to be a constant background + 2 x brightening from magnetic field – 1 x dimming from dark spots. No dark spots … you get it: no dimming…”
I’m not sure I follow you. Isn’t TSI right now lower than it has been for decades:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
No dark spots, lower TSI?