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
Leif
So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…
Unless you are wrong about the degree to which various parts of the spectrum the sun emits to varying degrees affect the earth.
Bob Wood (19:12:12) :
So far, the only predictions that seem to be holding true are from David Archibald.
Didn’t David Archibald predict a May anomaly of -0.3C before christmas? I’ll be watching AMSU with interest this month.
I strongly dislike ads in general but I suppose they’re a necessary evil. But what I strongly object to is the message some of them are pushing. On this thread:
.
“Help Combat The Climate Crisis Assess, Reduce and Offset Your CO2”
“Make a real difference in the battle against climate change.”
.
I find it profoundly depressing to see WUWT promoting this kind of nonsense. If you must have ads, then fine. But would it be possible to filter these offensive ads out? There’s enough of it in the media without WUWT promoting this dangerous and wasteful delusion.
Chris
Leif Svalgaard (23:00:30) :
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 – The attendant phenomena should “normally” be what exactly?? Do we know all of the mechanisms by which Earth warms/cools due to seemingly minor changes in a particular phenomena?? You may very well be correct in your “if A=B and B=C, then A=C”, but I am not confident that we know enough about feedbacks to be so certain.
Tom
This is an ‘ultralight’ question for Dr Svalgaard. Why are Scandinavian names so seemingly prominent in solar physics? Could it be that growing up in, or at least having cultural roots in, societies ensconced at latitudes where the apparent yearly journey of the sun produces such dramatic differences in the length of days and nights tweaks an interest in things solar that would be more difficult to sustain in, say, Ecuador?
much criticism but wheres the alternative predictions from the armchair experts? if anyone has any links I would be interested in following
On the “SWPC Moves The Goalpost” discussion page at Solar Cycle 24, I just posted my latest SWPC animations. The last animation in the presentation was hand edited to show the original SWPC predictions before they stated playing games in February 2009. The current levels of Solar activity from the original 2007 SWPC have now become quite significant. I am looking forwards to today’s announcement.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482&page=8#19008
Mike
Piers Corbyn has a wonderful record for accuracy. He uses the sun to make his forecasts.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
He does not reveal his methods and we should not expect him to. Weather forecasting is his means of income. Revealing his methods would be the same as if Colonel Sanders had revealed his 11 herbs and spices.
He does forecast that the earth will be in a cooling trend for ~ 30 years with the low ebb around 2040—if i am remembering the numbers correctly. I need to look up the reference. I’m rushing to work now.
Cassanders (01:27:02) :
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?
There are four smoothed curves. They don’t really mean much, but are just my interpretation of what the changes are. The dashed curves are just low-degree (2 or 3) polynomial fits to all the points, so no fiddling. The full drawn curves are polynomial fits to the ‘bottom’ three points in each solar rotation to capture the ‘slowly varying’ components. The only curves that are real and unbiased are the actual data curves with the little circles on them. The ‘strange’ plateau in TSI at 2008.8 coincides with the SORCE people upgrading the processing software. I don’t know if this means anything…
NastyWolf (01:36:13) :
I’m not sure I follow you. Isn’t TSI right now lower than it has been for decades:
No, I don’t think so. This misconception is usually based on the PMOD composite TSI series maintained by Claus Froehlich. It is very difficult to maintain the stability of absolute measurements and different spacecraft instruments give different results. The best data IMO comes from SORCE. If one plots the difference between PMOD and SORCE, one finds that the difference has been changing with time [consistent with PMOD being lower and lower compared with SORCE. Here is the difference since the launch of SORCE as a function of time: BEFORE The decrease in TSI from PMOD and parroted by NASA is an artifact if one assumes [as I do] that SORCE is correct [better calibration, newer instrument, etc, etc]. The decrease was 0.0177 W/m2 per year. When I brought this to the attention of Claus, they looked at their data and realized that it was drifting and therefore recalibrated the whole series. Here is the difference after the recalibration: AFTER Note that the data is up through mid-April of 2009, so very current. Now the decrease is much smaller: 0.0044 W/m2/yr.
This is what Claus Froehlich had to say about the matter: “Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the re-analysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B the less exposed backup was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A too much changing – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relativ to TIM, which was a kind of initiator of this whole action. But still it is completely internal to VIRGO and makes with all I know about VIRGO radiometry good sense.”
When I pointed out that there still was a drift and that PMOD was a bit ‘erratic’ lately [see: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png ] his reply was: “From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I used a simple correction, which may not be correct.”
So, until they figure out what is wrong, I’ll not put much credence in the idea that “TSI is the lowest it has been in decades”. Of course, as always, most people will not admit to ‘inconvenient truths’, so NASA and others will ignore any problems and still show the old graph if it fits in their scheme.
tallbloke (02:38:41) :
“So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…”
Unless you are wrong about the degree to which various parts of the spectrum the sun emits to varying degrees affect the earth.
The onus is on those that claim there are different degrees to show how that explains anything apart from what we already know. To my knowledge, there are no such explanations. Perhaps you could supply a link or two?
Tucker (03:55:42) :
Leif – The attendant phenomena should “normally” be what exactly??
The usual suspects [magnetic field, cosmic rays, TSI, UV, …]
Do we know all of the mechanisms by which Earth warms/cools due to seemingly minor changes in a particular phenomena??
See my response above.
Arthur Glass (05:48:50) :
This is an ‘ultralight’ question for Dr Svalgaard. Why are Scandinavian names so seemingly prominent in solar physics?
We are a smart lot 🙂 Well, seriously, it is not just solar physics, but what used to be called ‘solar-terrestrial relations’, namely the interplay of solar phenomena with geomagnetic disturbances and aurorae, which are much more noticeable at higher latitudes. So, we are disposed to study where all that comes from.
The tags are screwed up in my post above, I hope it makes sense anyway. And will not repeat it.
Just Want Truth… (07:28:00) :
Piers Corbyn has a wonderful record for accuracy. He uses the sun to make his forecasts.
He does not reveal his methods and we should not expect him to. Weather forecasting is his means of income…
I’ll argue that this is unethical [but also admit that it is too much to expect or even demand ethical behavior]. The argument goes like this:
1) we assume that accurate forecasts are beneficial and even saves lives
2) we assume that his forecasts are not used by everybody all over the world
3) we assume that the reason for this (2) is that there is reluctance to use undisclosed methods
4) we assume that lives are lost due to less accurate forecasts
5) it then follows that lives are lost due to somebody’s personal financial gain. Lives that could have saved by disclosure, validation, and adoption of the wonderful method
6) we maintain that this is unethical
The argument breaks down and ethics is restored if it turns out that the method is not any better than the other ones.
Leif Svalgaard (10:31:31) :
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]
hmmm another prediction update…sounds a little like Hathaway and others….creeping creeping.
Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change.
I am sticking with mine…sub 50SSN
Geoff Sharp (08:19:32) :
Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change.
Of course it should as new data becomes available. I certainly expect the local weather prediction to reflect the latest data.
As we point out in our prediction paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“Monitoring the polar fields in the next few years might allow a refinement of the estimate of Rmax. An important advantage of the polar field precursor method is the significant lead-time of the prediction (about seven years ahead of the maximum) and its potential for continual (real-time) update as the cycle gets underway.”
re: ads
I’m using Firefox on a Mac, and the ad for this page appears to be in 20-24 pt. type – very annoying and off-putting. On another page part of the ad appeared to be circled in bright red crayon, with big hand-drawn arrows pointing to it. It was absolutely huge.
That being said, I have no problem with WUWT getting ad revenue, more power to ya! But the size and placement of the ads today are a bit problematical.
Leif,
I don’t understand 10,7 cm radio flux progression (ISES NOAA SWPC plotted curb). It looks like a total fraud to me.
It started from 60 whereas, it can not be under 67 – even if it reached 64 in july last year.
Thanks a lot for your brillant contribution on this blog.
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:38) :
I’ll argue that this is unethical….
You got it a bit off mark on Mr. Corbyn
1. He uses UK’s two centauries old weather and sunspot record for ‘back correlation’.
Such detailed records are not available elsewhere.
2. He is a professional forecaster making living out of it. If he disclosed his methods than he would make himself unemployed.
3. He sells his forecasts to supermarkets (e.g. increase supply of ice-cream), department stores (light summer or heavier winter clothing supplies), outdoor events etc.
He sells his skills as a doctor or an accountant or any other professional would.
To be more precise : I do not understand why the predicted values of 10,7 cm flux progression starts so low.
Thanks a lot to anybody who have an idea about this bad curve.
Emmanuel ROBERT (13:37:35) :
To be more precise : I do not understand why the predicted values of 10,7 cm flux progression starts so low.
Because they are wrong. Check out the other NOAA threads
vukcevic (13:24:19) :
He sells his skills as a doctor or an accountant or any other professional would.
A doctor and most other professionals would not get a license to operate if their methods were unknown. They may operate because they use well-established and accepted and public methods and information and have [often] passed a test in them.
Even goes for an engineer:
‘Me engineer want to build bridge using my secret Subemu method that I will not tell you how works. It has worked many times, only 1 bridge out of 10 falls down, guaranteed. Full satisfaction or money lost.’
Julie L (09:53:20) :
re: ads
I’m using Firefox on a Mac, and the ad for this page appears to be in 20-24 pt. type – very annoying and off-putting. On another page part of the ad appeared to be circled in bright red crayon, with big hand-drawn arrows pointing to it. It was absolutely huge.
That being said, I have no problem with WUWT getting ad revenue, more power to ya! But the size and placement of the ads today are a bit problematical.”
Julie L,
I use a Mac with Firefox as well.
You simply configure it to reduce the adds to text only.
Problem solved
Leif Svalgaard (09:21:24) :
“Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change”
Its all a bit like trying to pick the winner of an F1 race after the practice and qualifying is over. Then after the reds lights go out and the first lap is over changing your mind again….kind of pointless really 🙂
No one is denying climate change. Climate changes everywhere and change is the constant. Climate has changed ever since the planet began having atmosphere 4.5? Billion years ago. Over that immense deep time, however, the planet has reached a stable equilibrium between glaciations and interglacial periods and the water vapour is part of the thermostat. Warm the planet and clouds form to cool the planet; it is just that simple. Cool the planet and humidity drops and glaciers waste away. The equilibrium position for the oceans is out at edge of the continental shelves. The last big thaw resulted in flood myths and global religions. Radical Environmentalism may be the latest, but it is built on the myths of all the rest.
I am objectively sceptical that any trace gas is anything but an effect. The inverse solubility of gasses in seawater is science the Goracle never knew. A slippery truth has circled around and bitten the true believers of the mass movement on the backside. CO2 trails warming and cannot be the cause.
The issue is now McCarthyism as a number of scientifically illiterate politicians have got onto a politically correct bandwagon and do not have an exit strategy whereby they can save face. While CO2 has risen, the global climate has cooled. The cause and effect has no correlation. It would be funny if it were not so serious. If they want to crater the economy, why don’t they say so instead of hiding behind Tipper Gore’s skirt?
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:38) :
You seem to be off on a tangent that was not part of what I was saying.
Piers Corbyn is highly accurate in his method of using the sun to make weather forecasts, short range and long range. This lends credence to his forecast of coming cooling.
That was my point. I’m not sure where you were driving at.
Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) :
I think you are making unfair comparisons. And I can’t understand why.
“Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) : ‘Me engineer want to build bridge using my secret Subemu method that I will not tell you how works. It has worked many times, only 1 bridge out of 10 falls down, guaranteed. Full satisfaction or money lost.’”
This seems to be below the belt.
If Piers Corbyn was not more accurate than others he would be out of business.
What is your opinion of those who are less accurate and are making a living from the less accurate forecasts? You respect them more? Again, I’m not sure what you’re driving at.