NOAA SWPC Solar Cycle 24 Prediction: "weakest since 1928"

Leif, they are coming around to your old prediction of a peak of ~75 !
You are de man!

I have not paid much attention to the sunspot cycles. What is the significance of a delay in the start of the next cycle? Does that portend a less active coming cycle than usual?

Is there an intrinsic changing of the predicted peak (trough) of UV radiation for 2013 as well? Or is the difference between a sunspot number of 90 and 80 yield very little change in UV radiation hitting the earth’s surface?

I must be missing something. I cannot find any new press release on the SWPC web site. It still says it is coming even though the 12:00 ET target time has passed. I only find the same information Anthony posted yesterday.

I still think they’re rolling the dice. They could be correct… eventually they will be correct but in which decade?

George DeBusk (09:21:40) :
I have not paid much attention to the sunspot cycles. What is the significance of a delay in the start of the next cycle? Does that portend a less active coming cycle than usual?
George, Go to DavidArchibald.info and read all the publications he’s made over the last 2-3 years. When your done you’ll be current on why there’s so much interest over SSC24. There are differing predictions and depending on who’s right and who’s wrong will determine who’s going to be credited with having and diseminating the best information.
Welcome aboard!!!

Why is consensus necessary? All it takes is for one astrophysicist to be contrary and correct and the consensus is wrong. A consensus is a collection of cowards who are afraid to stand for their convictions.

Leif Svalgaard
“However, this requires a change in a product and I’m not ready to take that task on at this time. Changing products within the NWS can be a very time consuming, difficult task.”
If I understand you they are saying that doing science stuff is too difficult or that they do not have the resources to make the change you described?
From the post..
“For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount.”
Is there a scientific term for doing this?

Thanks, Leif, for posting that update. I never would have found that. I presume the SWPC will post it to their main web page shortly.

Lief’s comment:
“Their curve is just wrong. And they know it, but are not allowed to fix it…” gives some great insight into how government science works. Not pretty insight, but useful.

Here is a three-way animation of the latest SWPC predictions for what they are worth, which is not very much. Remember to use the “ESC” and “F5” keys to stop and restart the animation.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/SSN_Predict_SWPC_3Way.gif
See my latest posts at Solar Cycle 24 for additional information on this topic:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482&page=8#19008
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482&page=8#19029
Mike

“consensus decision ”
well there you have it. we all know how good consensus decisions are.
/sarc

[snip – mind your manners]

George DeBusk:
Following link shows the last 400 years of solar activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.svg
Note the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s (cold period) when solar activity was quite low!
In general solar activity has trended upwards since 1750 or so, which took us out of the Little Ice Age.
Some scientists now say we may be entering another Dalton Minimum, or worse, another Maunder Minimum like back in the 1600s when it was colder than a witch’s t–.
If that happened, humanity would be seriously challenged.

I’m amused that ‘the panel has agreed’ on the timing of the minimum, but ‘the panel has decided’ on the maximum sunspot numbers. If only they put as much energy into undeceiving the public as they do into deceiving it.
===========================================

So, if I correctly understand this, a government employee has told Leif that this government website, funded presumably with public dollars and intended to provide information to the public, will continue to display incorrect information to the public because fixing it would involve too much red tape.
Truth is stranger than fiction.

I love this line from Bisecker: “The only published papers on the topic are wrong.”
Gee, and I’ll bet they were all peer reviewed, too!!!

I think they are consulting which prediction would be more “convenient”…But the old sun follows its own rules (except, of course, when deeply affected by the “Watts effect”)

It’s interesting to observe that consensus solar cycle predictions are about as accurate as consensus climate model predictions…

The AP wants us all to prepare for the end of the world…
Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise
[please follow the link to read the story]

“Its widely believed around here that sunspots correlate highly with global temperatures”
Doesn’t this go back to Herschel’s observation that fluctuations in grain priced followed fluctuations in sunspots? Which is to say, haven’t we known this for a long time, even if it is now inconvenient for the theory of AGW?
“If solar activity was well above historical averages, I’d wager dollars to donuts that this would be taken as proof that solar activity drives global temperatures. Instead, we’re well below historical averages, and its nice to see that this is *still* taken as proof that solar activity drives global temperatures (which are currently well above normal almost everywhere). Nice to see the consistency.”
As a (sceptical) layman, it is my understanding that a *trend* in sunspots underlies a *trend* in temperature, it’s not an on/off switch. So if temperatures start off high and trend downwards, they’re still high (but declining), and this appears to be what we are actually seeing.
“Its also nice to see that increased solar activity is alleged to be causing higher temperatures at night (when, you know, the sun doesn’t shine) and is causing cooler temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Again, lots of consistency on this site.”
I’m not sure that’s inconsistent. If the sun is more active, the solar magnetosphere volume is greater and thus GCR incidence lower, thus low-level cloud formation lower, thus more heat reaches the surface and less is reflected to the upper atmosphere, hence cooler upper atmosphere, based on the notion that low cloud reflects more thermal energy and is linked with a cooler globe, these low clouds being formed in part by GCR collision with atmospheric particles.
Equally, if the surface warms, we would surely expect to see warmer nights. I live in Scotland, not noted for its balmy evenings, but have worked in tropical Africa, and I have certainly always felt that the difference between diurnal and nocturnal temperature is greater in cooler latitudes. It would not surprise me to discover that warmer temperatures generally lead to a reduced difference between day and night temperatures.
EG

Madman
David Archibald predicted this way back before anybody. This person has been consistently correct about nearly everything that has come to pass (sunspot num, temps etc..). He was ridiculed by many here as well as in the AGW camp. If I recall he predicted a possible minimum of 40 and max 70

DR Svaalgard may now realize the frustration that many here have with the whole AGW set up included most at NASA whose current situation depends on AGW but which will soon be dismantled due to not happening AGW LOL… I recommend you read Prof. Ian Plimers book “Heaven and Earth” supported by ~400 references.

I love Leif.
73 +/- 3

Angry Leif makes for a good read. 🙂
The thing that jumped out at me was right there in paragraph uno: “Even so, Earth could get hit by a devastating solar storm at any time, with potential damages from the most severe level of storm exceeding $1 trillion.”
We’re here to tell you that the sun will be relatively quiet for the foreseeable but before your limited attention span expires, likely prior the meat, you must know that we “could get hit by a [i]devastating[/i] solar storm at [i]any[/i] time.” The culture of self-served scary stories runs deep.

Another appeal,
Leif or someone. Could a laymans guide to what all this means and why it is important be produced. I have tried Wikipedia and am no wiser.
Shane

Good work NASA! Your May 8 prediction displays a smaller, yet still glaring, discontinuity in sunspot count at the start of May. Accept that as credible, though, because NASA also tells us they actually have a consensus that the peak of cycle 24 will be as high as 90 and will be as early as the start of 2013.
“Our customer growth reflects today’s reality that all sectors of society are highly dependent on advanced, space-based technologies,” said SWPC director Tom Bogdan.
We are indeed fortunate to be highly dependent on NASA’s advanced, space-based technology, called committee consensus via frozen legacy software.

If others operated like NOAA…
Your Doctor… “Well you seem to be in good health, however you know you could get cancer or heart disease at any moment…”
Your lawyer… “Your legal situation looks ok, but you have dealt with literally thousands of people and entities in the last twenty years and any one of them could sue you for millions…”
Your lawn guy… “The lawn looks great now, but that brown spot is really bad in some places, maybe we need to start a treatment regime…”
Your wife…
You get the idea.

Anthony, the text of the article title to quote is:
“Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise.”
I don’t know if that helps any but I sent the tip.

From the NOAA prediction (above):“The strongest solar storm on record occurred in 1859 during another below-average cycle similar to the one we are predicting.”
So, our most beloved and naked king Leader (Sieg Heil Al !), has issued a message to all of us, surrendered believers and followers: “My most dear and nasty worms who feed from my darkest and filthiest emanations, arise!!, our time has arrived, let the deniers’ computers break, all their hardwork fail, because of the sunstorms coming, you must faithfully follow my teachings, for my sincere followers will throw away all those dirty machines , you must live the New Age properly, our green world free from stupid artifacts, believing in me and in all gods and goddesses of nature who surround me you will be happy for ever!! “

It’s to cold and wet
in North Dakota to seed my wheat.
So I’m baking a pie. To prevent the crust
from burning, I’m covering the edges with tin foil,
the question is, shiny side in or out?
Don’t tell me it depends on what kind of pie it is!
Should I call NASA?

One of the first things I was taught when I started studying Physics was that in areas of controversy the “consensus” is invariably wrong. It’s some kind of law of the nature of science. This Sun spot thingy will turn out to be a perfect illustration of that simple truth. The minimum occured in December 2008 ??? How do they know that? They simply cannot. Nobody can. But I’ll tell you one thing: we have not, more likely than not, have had the minimum yet. And thus, that whole prediction about a maximum in 2013 is pure guess work which will turn out to be totally incorrect.
Just to cheer you up, I have here some results from a paper by my mentor Cees de Jager who used to be director at the old Observatory at Utrecht, “Sonnenborgh”, and who in his nineties is still active as a solar scientist and publishes regularly. In this recent (with S Duhau) paper he reports that in their considered opinion, the Sun “is presently undergoing a transition from the recent Grand Maximum” (a series of cycles of very high activity, lasting some 50 years) “to another regime. ” (of much lower activity levels, which can last up to 80 years) “This transition started in about 2000 and is expected to end at about the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014 at a maximum sunspot number of about 70.” The estimate is based on the minimum occurring in December 2008, but the later it is, the lower the maximum sunspot numbers. The cause of the “regime change” is in some magneto-hydrodynamic theories related to a phase transition in the workings of the Solar dynamo, which is reflected in distinctly different sun spot behaviour at times in the past.
The whole thing can be found in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 (2009) 239-245 and references.

I also love Angry Leif, although perhaps “Cranky Leif” would be more accurate.
My bet: Early 2014, Max SSN 65 +0 / -5
If anything, I think I’m too high. In the meantime, however, Leif’s estimate looks like the best that I have seen from the solar scientists “with portfolio”.
Plus:
Climate Heretic (09:58:40) said:
From the post..
“For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount.”
Is there a scientific term for doing this?
IN ENGINEERING, we call this a SWAG. No offense to “science” intended.

Little noticed in all of this is the fact that NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway has not as yet updated his April 2009 prediction which is still quite high. Could he finally be learning caution or is it that all the reporters are over at NOAA?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Mike

SteveSadlov (12:14:47) :
Maunder Minimun brought the age of reason…Landscheit or Jose’ s minimum has brought the age of stupidity(*)
(*) illness caused by the predominance of the less fitted.

HEADLINE:
Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise (what?!)
“It’s time for the sun to move into a busier period for sunspots, and while forecasters expect a relatively mild outbreak by historical standards, one major solar storm can cause havoc with satellites and electrical systems here.”
“The last solar minimum occurred in December, the researchers said.”
The article above is full of mixed messages. Doug Biesecker contributed to it. I was under the impression that solar minimum had not yet been established.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98270OO1&show_article=1

Pierre Gosselin,
Thanks for your guidance on this issue.

Do you know what the UN IPCC, Hanson, Gore, NOAA Space Weather Center and NASA have in common?
They all make predictions that never happen.

We!
We will not allow SC 24 forecasts to interfere with the current AGW doctrine.
We will not provide the Skeptic community with any ammunition.
We have to think about our reputation.
We have to be consistent with our predictions.
We simply make a new one if time proves us wrong
We predict Solar Cycle 24 will be the weakest cycle since number 16, which peaked at 78 daily sunspots in 1928, and ninth weakest since the 1750s, when numbered cycles began.
We are NO ALARMISTS!

The minimum occurred in 08 but the numbers are still down in 09?
It appears as if the cycle must start now to make the prediction.
if the lull extends for any length of time it appears that they will miss the prediction for the new cycle won’t they?

Yep – It is [snip]. Below is the Associated Press Story:
Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID – 54 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the sun sneezes it’s Earth that gets sick. It’s time for the sun to move into a busier period for sunspots, and while forecasters expect a relatively mild outbreak by historical standards, one major solar storm can cause havoc with satellites and electrical systems here.
Like hurricanes, a weak cycle refers to the number of storms, but it only takes one powerful storm to create chaos, said scientist Doug Biesecker of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s space weather prediction center.
A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm as severe as one in 1859 occurred today, it could cause $1 trillion to $2 trillion in damage the first year and take four to 10 years to recover.
The 1859 storm shorted out telegraph wires, causing fires in North America and Europe, sent readings of Earth’s magnetic field soaring, and produced northern lights so bright that people read newspapers by their light.
Today there’s a lot more than telegraph lines at stake. Vulnerable electrical grids circle the globe, satellites now vital for all forms of communications can be severely disrupted along with the global positioning system. Indeed, the panel warned that a strong blast of solar wind can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.
The solar prediction center works closely with industry and government agencies to make sure they are prepared with changes in activity and prepared to respond when damage occurs, Biesecker said in a briefing.
While the most extreme events seem unlikely this time, there will probably be smaller scale disruptions to electrical service, airline flights, GPS signals and television, radio and cell phones.
On the plus side, the solar storms promote the colorful auroras, known as the northern and southern lights, high in the sky over polar areas.
An international panel headed by Biesecker said Friday it expects the upcoming solar cycle to be the weakest since 1928.
The prediction calls for the solar cycle to peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day, averaged over a month. If the prediction proves correct it will be the weakest cycle since a peak of 78 daily sunspots in 1928.
Measurement of sunspot cycles began in the 1750s.
The panel described solar storms as eruptions of energy and matter that escape from the sun. At least some of this heads toward the Earth.
Solar cycles of more and fewer sunspots last several years and the cycle currently building up will be number 24 since counting began.
It’s only the third time researchers have tried to make such a forecast. In 1989 a panel predicted Cycle 22, which peaked that year. And in 1996 scientists predicted Cycle 23.
Both earlier groups did better at predicting timing than intensity, according to Biesecker.
The last solar minimum occurred in December, the researchers said.
W. Dean Pesnell of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said the forecasts are based on such indicators as the strength of the sun’s magnetic field at the poles and the reaction of the Earth’s magnetic field to the sun. Both are weak right now, he said, with only a few sunspots visible since 2007.
A preliminary forecast issued in 2007 was split over the outlook for the upcoming cycle, Biesecker said the researchers have now reached consensus.

Ray (11:27:55) :
“They can’t just help themselves from doing it… “Even so, Earth could get hit by a devastating solar storm at any time”
At least, this is an event that could be possible at any time and it is true that our infrastructure could get hit hard. This is a much more important issue than trying to cut CO2 emissions that won’t do any harm.
They have found their new money generator because of course they need to study CMI more and put in place a series of sensors and stuff. But that would be money well spend I think.”
I agree:
The scare-mongering announcements that pepper this press release have no place in a scientific description of a physical phenomenon. They are presumably designed to attract attention from the funders.

One last rant and I’ll leave it alone. Below is my response to the AP Article: (BTW – can I get away with writing “What The Snip?”)
This article is a joke. The real story is that the NASA Scientists concluded that the upcoming solar cycle will be one of the weakest in recent times. However, such a story would cast some doubt on global warming claims since fewer Sunspots means less solar irradiance which means some degree of global cooling. Therefore, imbedded in the press release about the very quiet Sun is this fantastic story of potentially trillions of dollars of losses from a future Solar storm.
I suspect the Author, Mr. Schmidt, knows the real facts and he is playing along for the sake of his global warming agenda. Either he is a fool or he is playing you the reader to be a fool. Take your choice.
Personally I find it disgusting. If I were in charge of NASA, I would fire whoever wrote this sensationalist press release, and if I were in charge of the Associate Press, I would fire Mr. Schmidt, because he lacks either adequate knowledge or objectivity to be their science writer.
Being neither, instead, all I can do is get mad and rant…….

Leif – would it make sense that we could most likely get hit by a CME at a time when the solar activity is in fact at its lowest, from a sunspot area from a dying cycle which show usually near the equator? New and active area are usually away from the equator and closer to the poles. The CME of high/low latitudes would simply pass over/under us.

Leif Svalgaard (10:19:59) :
Doug Biesecker on F10.7 (as of 5 minutes ago):
As for F10.7 being wrong, that is a more fundamental problem with how NOAA has always converted SSN to F10.7. The only published papers on the topic are wrong and that is what NOAA uses.
Aha – the process is more important than the product. A hallmark of many good bureaucracies.
Thank God these ninnies weren’t in charge of NASA in the 60’s, can you imagine how well the Apollo Project would have worked out.

Mr. Hathaway fears are still included in the new prediction. He predicted some years ago a huge cycle 24 with super solar storms which especially could damage his satellites. Now they expect a weak cycle with super solar storms. How serious can this be, besides the already mentioned arguments about funding? Or is a super solar storm (statistically) always possible, whatever we have a strong, weak , moderate or not at all a sunpspots(cycle)? Can anybody say something about this?

Harold Ambler (10:15:23) :
I predict an SSN of 50 or below.
But that’s just me.

Over a year ago (22. April 2008 to be precise) my bet was SSN 42 for SC24 max and date of SC23/24 minimum September 2009.

wattsupwiththat (11:49:02) :
“WUWT readers:
Please consider submitting this post to Drudge to counter the “warning sunspot cycle to rise” story from AP so that we have some balance.”
I can’t find that story on Drudge. Either he took it down or I’m going blind. It’s not in the recent headlines page, either.

“Aha – the process is more important than the product. A hallmark of many good bureaucracies.”
One of the more serious vices to which bureaucracies are prone.
Re: spell checking – “week” is a perfectly spelled word. Spell checkers can’t tell that it’s the wrong word.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but surely the number 90 is a sunspot number, not the average number of sunspots per day. I thought the maximum was expressed as the maximum smoothed Wolf number. Is this wrong?

I’m almost frightened to ask this question but if the sun is not relevant to life on earth in any meaningful way (which I understand to be Hansen’s position and therefore presumably that of his employers) what is the purpose of guessing the number or yearly distribution of sun spots that are or are not likely to occur during an unknown period which may or may not have started and will continue (or not) for an apparently unknown period of time?
It’s all starting to hurt my little brain.

idlex (14:04:43) :
What is the point of rushing out a 10-page leaflet titled Important Information that contains no important or useful information whatsoever – except how to get the same leaflet in Urdu?
Ah, but you see, the one in Urdu contains vital information on slaughtering your neighbors pigs! Sorry, O/T. Anyways…
As the world economy becomes more reliant on satellite-based communications and interlinked power grids, interest in solar activity has grown dramatically. In 2008 alone, SWPC acquired 1,700 new subscription customers for warnings, alerts, reports, and other products. Among the new customers are emergency managers, airlines, state transportation departments, oil companies, and nuclear power stations. SWPC’s customers reside in 150 countries.
“Our customer growth reflects today’s reality that all sectors of society are highly dependent on advanced, space-based technologies,” said SWPC director Tom Bogdan. “Today every hiccup from the sun aimed at Earth has potential consequences.”
Does the SWPC get paid directly or indirectly for these subscriptions? Having their predictions relayed upon for industry risk assesment would seem to build in a bias to always err on the higher (riskier) side.

Live Psychic Readings
Issues with Love, Money, Career? Talk to an Expert Psychic. $1/min!
http://www.PsychicSource.com
Psychic Forecast for 2009
Discover a Fascinating Prevision for all the Year. Free today only!
http://www.AboutAstro.com/psychic/

Just a little irony there with the above ads right after the “predictions” [prophecies?] for cycle 24.
You suppose these people work for NASA?

SteveSadlov (12:14:47) said :
Maunder Minimun brought the age of reason…Landscheit or Jose’ s minimum has brought the age of stupidity(*)
Yet another argument for “The Gore Minimum”
Re: Civilized Reponses To AGW Fanatics
We poor misbegotten souls who drill for oil & gas have already concocted a polite response to the haranguing propaganda that we’ve endured for the last ten years: Let Them Freeze In The Dark.
Apparently unbeknownst to the technical dim-wits now in charge, if you over-tax a resource that is global in scope, it will not politely disappear to make way for Magic Obama Alternatives, IT WILL MOVE OVERSEAS to places where politicians can still prefom a basic cost-benefit analysis.
One of the latest is Transocean (ticker: RIG) the largest offshore drilling company in the world, which has recently moved it’s HQ and place of incorporation to Zug, Switzerland. Gradually, they are moving rigs out of the GOM to places like pristine Norway (still drilling up a storm) and offshore the lovely thinly clad beaches of Brazil and Mexico. Sayonara, boys & girls. Good luck with that WIND thing.

Guys, please connect the dots. This whole episode is a diversion tactic. I have been in public policy arenas, I know what is going on.
Recall these comments in “The Sun is Oddly Quiet” story:
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.”
Now these “reseachers” need to make a press release on the fact that the Sun is going to continue to be “Oddly Quiet”. So, what to do? Create a diversionary story within a story about Solar Storms. This is easy to accomplish because the friendly media will gladly play along.
That is all that this is about. It is a clever hoax that will one day bite these “researchers” where it hurts, but in the mean time helps them to perpetuate their agendas.

There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for an authoritative agency to release information known to be bad or highly flawed information.
On the matter of the “press release” from spaceweather.com:
Having read it several times I don’t have a problem with it as a whole. I do think that the phraseology has the potential to deliver an unnecessary level of alarm. It seemingly tends to convey a message that Solar 24 is expected to produce solar storms at an unusual level of intensity.
I do not intend to imply that the ‘potential’ is not real. It is there, it has been there with every solar cycle, it will continue to be there with every solar cycle in the future. Perhaps the populace would be better served by taking the funds being spent on projects designed to support / promote the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and spending those funds on technology to mitigate the effects of a major solar storm.

I’m sure some other people have pointed this out, but the new prediction curve looks all wrong too. It should be flatter before rising. That’s just my intuition looking at the graph of course, I have no expert knowledge to draw on here ;).

Leif,
You have not yet given your opinion regarding the 12/08 minimum. I thought, from other blogs you have contributed to that 8/08 or 9/08 was more likely the minimum since the solar indices have ticked up a bit since then, and were followed by the flurry of cycle 24 activity in the final months of the year.
How was 12/08 chosen (or proven ?)
Oh, and KUDOS to you for revealing the candid inner workings of the panel, and your ongoing contributions to this and other blogs.
GW

OT: IceCap is back up, but with April news.

Just to add to my last post, read the last phrase of the following text… lots of good scientists won’t get invited to tell the other side of the story that goes against their agenda…
“In addition to government representatives the press, NGOs and IGOs can become accredited and participate in the COP15 conference.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark
The sessions (COP 15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is open to Parties of the Convention and Observer States (Governments), the United Nations System and observer organizations duly admitted by the Conference of the Parties. In addition, accredited press is allowed to cover the proceedings of the Convention.
Parties:
Governments nominate their respective representatives to participate and negotiate at the sessions of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. This may include ministers, negotiators, and those who the Governments consider are necessary to achieve their goals during the sessions.”

All of this stuff is related. The newspapers are dying. Solution (in their minds) make every article sensational. TV news is also in trouble, and uses the same mentality. Not to be outdone, the Internet world then follows. If it isn’t a crisis, no one will pay the slightest attention.
We watch the solar predictions for different reasons. Anthony and I and others on here are waiting for high frequency radio propagation, which depends on a highly ionized ionosphere from the x-ray radiation (related to sunspots), to improve. The SWPC customers are concerned about financial loss due to mechanisms previously described. Others just like to follow the solar activity out of curiosity, and there are likely other categories.
Forecasting any of this is obviously an inexact science. Unfortunately, now it has to be described as an inexact excursion into their version of political correctness, science being long since buried. Fortunately, all my old Physics professors are all dead, but I’ll bet they are spinning in their graves.

“Leif Svalgaard (16:28:10) :
F. Ross (15:26:39) :
Live Psychic Readings
Issues with Love, Money, Career? Talk to an Expert Psychic. $1/min!
I called these people. Got recording: “Office closed due to unforeseen circumstances…”
Would never have guessed you gift for comedy Leif…
Mike

Leif Svalgaard (15:35:00) :
Here is a scenario: the people that operate satellites [TV channels and such] usually borrow money to put up a satellite. The lender demands insurance. The operator asks insurance company for a premium quote. The insurance company wants to know the risk [in an ideal world] and asks the government [who has teams of scientists] what the sunspot number is going to be [higher number = higher risk]. In real world, insurance company doesn’t care about real risk, just wants high number sanctioned by government so insurance company cannot be sued for asking for too high premium should solar cycle turn out to be dud.
Brain stopped hurting? or did it just get worse?
So, the largest consumers of max SSN data are satellite insurers?
Can one estimate the cost to society if the max SSN is 75 instead of 90? This means that insurance premiums are set too high relative to the actual risk by some amount. How much does this cost?
Can one estimate the cost to society if the max SSN turns out to be 120 instead of 90? This means that more satellites are lost than were planned for, and the insurance company must cover these losses somehow, either by raising premiums on other things they insure or getting a government bailout or whatever. How much does this cost?
I guess I’m thinking that, say, compared to the US GDP ($10trillion?) that these amounts would not be very much, in the grand scheme of things. And if this is the case, then these predictions are mostly a scientific exercise to see how well various theories of solar activity actually work. Am I wrong here?

Joseph (17:10:34) :
This makes me wonder about US military satellites (KH-12’s and others). Do they (read: the American taxpayers) also pay for insurance on their satellites? Greater SSN prediction would then = greater taxpayer expense.
Aren’t there redundant GOES weather satellites? In case one breaks down, there is another already in orbit to replace it. Presumably the military also puts up more satellites than are needed to perform whatever task they are designed to do. (Putting up redundant satellites is a form of insurance, of course.)

Adolfo Giurfa said:
“Back in the 1950′ s or 60″ s if someone should have said that a city like Lima , Peru, located on the dry west coast of SA, relatively too cold in winter for parrots to live, was going to be filled with these birds would have been taken as someone crazy.”
Commenting:
Please enlighten me. I was in Lima last (SH) summer and did not notice any abundance of parrots. I did see a lot of really cool hang gliders, though. I talked to dozens – nay hundreds – of people while there (and had a really good time – I recommend Lima to travelers) and nobody even mentioned parrots. And – in case it crosses your mind – I speak Spanish fluently, so it wasn’t a communications problem. I just asked my wife, a native Lime̖ña, who makes several trips there a year, and she didn’t notice either.

MDR said:
“Just wondering, who uses these predictions?”
Commenting:
Someone (I think it might have been Dr. S.) pointed out that the people who insure satellites use these data to set their rates. There are huge amounts of money involved and thus a great interest. And potential for fraud, I suspect…

Lief’s comment: “Their curve is just wrong. And they know it, but are not allowed to fix it…”
Previous question : “Do we need a National Climate Service?”
Answer: see above.

Mike Abbott (14:29:41) :
wattsupwiththat (11:49:02) :
“WUWT readers:
Please consider submitting this post to Drudge to counter the “warning sunspot cycle to rise” story from AP so that we have some balance.”
I can’t find that story on Drudge. Either he took it down or I’m going blind. It’s not in the recent headlines page, either.
Dear Mike… It’s a small blank square at the end of the page, just at right hand, below two lines for writing your name and E-mail, where you can write your suggestions.

90 huh?
I’ll take the under….

Leif 15:35:00
When is a bright insurance company going to figure out that they should hire their own experts in order to truly quantify the risk? They are more likely to prevail in the market the more accurately they ascertain the risk. It sounds almost like negligence to take a ‘government’ finding and to depend upon it simply because it has the stamp of ‘government’ work.
Hint, hire yourself out to the insurance companies, and show them your past work.
===========================================

I’ve been tracking the NOAA and NASA press releases for cycle 24. Some history:
NASA May 20, 2003
Hathaway predicts cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006
NASA Oct 2004
“Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought. It’ll give us a chance to see if our ‘spotless sun’ method for predicting solar minimum really works.””
September 15, 2005
“Actually, solar minimum, the lowest point of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle, isn’t due until 2006….. Hathaway is waiting for 2006 when solar minimum finally arrives.”
NOAA Jan 6, 2006
The next sunspot minimum is forecast to occur in late 2006 through mid 2007.
March 6, 2006
For almost the entire month of February 2006 the sun was utterly blank. What’s going on? NASA solar physicist David Hathaway explains: “Solar minimum has arrived.”
NASA March 10, 2006
March 10, 2006: It’s official: Solar minimum has arrived.
“This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.”
“Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.”
“he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.””
March 2006
That forecast is what provoked Dr. Hathaway at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center to bet Dr. Gilman that solar cycle 24 was going to come on quickly in 2006 because it was going to be so strong – perhaps the strongest solar cycle on record.
NASA August 15, 2006
“We’ve been waiting for this,” says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight in Huntsville, Alabama. “A backward sunspot is a sign that the next solar cycle is beginning.” The next cycle, Solar Cycle 24, should begin “any time now,” returning the sun to a stormy state.
NASA Dec 21, 2006
“Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”
“Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”
“According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.”
Dec 14, 2007 NASA
It may not look like much, but “this patch of magnetism could be a sign of the next solar cycle,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. For more than a year, the sun has been experiencing a lull in activity, marking the end of Solar Cycle 23, which peaked with many furious storms in 2000–2003. “Solar minimum is upon us,” he says.
NOAA April 25, 2007
“The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start next March [2008] and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012 – up to a year later than expected – according to a forecast issued today by NOAA’s Space Environment Center in coordination with an international panel of solar experts”
NOAA April 27, 2007
NEXT SOLAR STORM CYCLE WILL START LATE
“Expected to start last fall [2007], the delayed onset of Solar Cycle 24 stymied the panel and left them evenly split on whether a weak or strong period of solar storms lies ahead, but neither group predicts a record-breaker.”
“The Space Environment Center’s space weather alerts, warnings, and forecasts are a critical component of NOAA’s seamless stewardship of the Earth’s total environment, from the Sun to the sea,” said retired Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., NOAA administrator.”
Jan 2008; First sunspot of Cycle 24 – “Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.”
With the appearance of Sunspot 981 — a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot — on Friday, January 4, experts at NASA and NOAA said that Cycle 24 is now here. “This sunspot is like the first robin of spring,” said solar physicist Douglas Biesecker of the Space Weather Prediction Center, part of NOAA. “In this case, it’s an early omen of solar storms that will gradually increase over the next few years.”
“NASA’s Hathaway, along with colleague Robert Wilson at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last month, said that Solar Cycle 24 “looks like it’s going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”
NASA March 28, 2008
“Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.”
NOAA & NASA June 27, 2008
“The panel expects solar minimum to occur in March, 2008. The panel expects the solar cycle to reach a peak sunspot number of 140 in October, 2011 or a peak of 90 in August, 2012.”
NASA July 11, 2008
“The sun is behaving normally. So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway.”
“There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”
“some observers are questioning the length of the ongoing minimum, now slogging through its 3rd year.”
“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.”
November 7, 2008, NASA
“After two-plus years of few sunspots, even fewer solar flares, and a generally eerie calm, the sun is finally showing signs of life. “I think solar minimum is behind us,” says sunspot forecaster David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.”
“From January to September, the sun produced a total of 22 sunspot groups; 82% of them belonged to old Cycle 23. October added five more; but this time 80% belonged to Cycle 24. The tables have turned. Even with its flurry of sunspots,the October sun was mostly blank, with zero sunspots on 20 of the month’s 31 days.”

Dr Svalgaard @ 15:39 “…Brain stopped hurting? or did it just get worse?”
Much worse. Truth be told, I find I am just plain tired. Cripes…

For new readers who have scrolled down this far you may be wondering why so much talk of the sun. This video is one reason why :

the model still does not start at zero!!!!!!
they can not be more wrong.
Thanks Leif for the “voice”
Hard heads will not listen, lol
We argue HERE, but WE do listen to you Leif.

Are we living in opposite-world or something?
According to Steven Hawking, it wouldn’t matter. If you lived in a universe where anti-matter was prevalent, it would still be matter to your point of view.
At least NOAA/SWPC made one graph look more palatable.
On the downside, since they have it superglued to the latest trend, it will most likely get undercut in 30 days.
On the upside, we are not talking about a prediction of a big meteor coming straight at Earth.
You tried, Leif !

Jan Jannsens has updated his Spotless Days Page (as of May 2nd):
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html

E.M.Smith (19:09:18) :
Speaking of humans adapting to climate…
I live in the San Fransisco area but am originally from the U.P. of Michigan (there’s two parts to Michigan, I’m a Yooper 😉 ). And I can definitely see a difference between girls in California and in Michigan. It’s not in how pretty they are, because there are some very good looking girls in the U.P.! It’s not in the hair–girls don’t get hairier. But, one can note a general difference in pants size. Long, cold winters in the U.P. make for indoor, sedentary lifestyles, thus decreasing calorie burning and increasing the amount of jean material needed in Levi’s sizes—an adapting mechanism at work! … I’ll [snip] myself right here.

Just Want Truth… (20:33:59) :
I’ll finish what I meant : the girls there have extra ‘insulation’ to the cold, and some are really…. ok, the [snip] here

Leif Svalgaard (14:59:24) :
LarryD (14:39:31) :
Re: spell checking – “week” is a perfectly spelled word. Spell checkers can’t tell that it’s the
except that a noun should not follow an adverb: moderately week
…..
I am confused: What happens to a moderately week when the period is 7.5 days longs and Wednesday takes a vacation? Is Tuesday stronger or weeker than Thursday? 8<)

Solar Chaos (19:04:51) :
I’ve been tracking the NOAA and NASA press releases for cycle 24. Some history:
NASA May 20, 2003
Hathaway predicts cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006
….
Thank you!

It is hilarious how Randolph Schmidt from AP is able to spin an alarmist tale out of nothing: everything is there, from international panel to consensus. And of course the forecast of weakest cycle since 1928 is buried inside the paper…
“Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – Fri May 8, 3:31 pm ET
WASHINGTON – When the sun sneezes it’s Earth that gets sick. It’s time for the sun to move into a busier period for sunspots, and while forecasters expect a relatively mild outbreak by historical standards, one major solar storm can cause havoc with satellites and electrical systems here.
Like hurricanes, a weak cycle refers to the number of storms, but it only takes one powerful storm to create chaos, said scientist Doug Biesecker of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s space weather prediction center.
A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm as severe as one in 1859 occurred today, it could cause $1 trillion to $2 trillion in damage the first year and take four to 10 years to recover.
The 1859 storm shorted out telegraph wires, causing fires in North America and Europe, sent readings of Earth’s magnetic field soaring, and produced northern lights so bright that people read newspapers by their light.
Today there’s a lot more than telegraph lines at stake. Vulnerable electrical grids circle the globe, satellites now vital for all forms of communications can be severely disrupted along with the global positioning system. Indeed, the panel warned that a strong blast of solar wind can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.
The solar prediction center works closely with industry and government agencies to make sure they are prepared with changes in activity and prepared to respond when damage occurs, Biesecker said in a briefing.
While the most extreme events seem unlikely this time, there will probably be smaller scale disruptions to electrical service, airline flights, GPS signals and television, radio and cell phones.
On the plus side, the solar storms promote the colorful auroras, known as the northern and southern lights, high in the sky over polar areas.
An international panel headed by Biesecker said Friday it expects the upcoming solar cycle to be the weakest since 1928.
The prediction calls for the solar cycle to peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day, averaged over a month. If the prediction proves correct it will be the weakest cycle since a peak of 78 daily sunspots in 1928.
Measurement of sunspot cycles began in the 1750s.
The panel described solar storms as eruptions of energy and matter that escape from the sun. At least some of this heads toward the Earth.
Solar cycles of more and fewer sunspots last several years and the cycle currently building up will be number 24 since counting began.
It’s only the third time researchers have tried to make such a forecast. In 1989 a panel predicted Cycle 22, which peaked that year. And in 1996 scientists predicted Cycle 23.
Both earlier groups did better at predicting timing than intensity, according to Biesecker.
The last solar minimum occurred in December, the researchers said.
W. Dean Pesnell of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said the forecasts are based on such indicators as the strength of the sun’s magnetic field at the poles and the reaction of the Earth’s magnetic field to the sun. Both are weak right now, he said, with only a few sunspots visible since 2007.
A preliminary forecast issued in 2007 was split over the outlook for the upcoming cycle, Biesecker said the researchers have now reached consensus.”

Its all a bit of a storm in a teacup really. Lots of experts beating their chests on what the next cycle will bring, as it looks gloomier by the week. Revisions going on all over the place because they got it wrong basically. The new revisions from Hathaway, SWPC and Leif are probably still too high, this is because none are working off a theory that actually can predict anything long term. A theory that relies on a “crap shoot” principle which is also unable to be disproved because of randomness built in, will eventually come undone. I would hate to see the results if insurance companies wanted a prediction over a longer term.
All you need to predict the future solar activity is this graph:
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jensm1.jpg
If there is anyone from the insurance industry reading feel free to contact me, there is a special discount to WUWT readers 🙂

Let me see If I’ve got this right. The Sun is pretty quiet, but a quiet Sun sometimes means more solar events that might be catastrophic for our vital,but vulnerable infrastructure, Presumably, we should investing large sums to protect us from such an eventuality,[Is this even possible at this point?] but of course we don’t have the money because we have to buy lots of nonfunctional windmills and solar panels, bury millions of tons of CO2, invest in a bundle of Ponzi-grade carbon credits, which, of course, will cause our ability to make more money disappear. And we also have to provide health insurance, even to people who could well afford to purchase their own, especially if the government quit inflating the cost of health care like the price of a loaf of bread in Zimbabwe. Oops, I almost forgot we need to provide free college education to our 20 million permanent visitors from Mexico, ’cause after all they’re just looking for a better life. Then again, so are about 5 or 6 billion other people on the planet, so we probably should invite them too. If we promise to put them on the government’s nickel as soon as they get here, I’m sure they’d be glad to come. They say if you think everybody in the world is crazy except you, it’s a sure sign of mental illness. Maybe I should just check into the laughing academy for the duration, and hope that the Mayan’s were right.

If there’s one thing that the overwhelming majority of WUWT readers can agree on, I think it would likely be “Appeals to authority suck!”. Have we gotten anything *but* that from these so-called solar experts? How many times do they have to be wrong before somebody says “Show us your work and what factors you took into account in making this latest prediction!” If you’re going to speak ex-cathedra, you need to be right once in awhile, and you guys haven’t been lately!