The new cycle 24 solar forecast is hot off the press from noon today, published at 12:03 PM from the Space Weather Prediction Center. It looks like a peak of 90 spots/month in May of 2013 now. SWPC has dropped their “high forecast” and have gone only with the “low forecast” as you can see in the before and after graphs that I’ve overlaid below. Place your bets on whether that “low forecast” will be an overshooting forecast or not. It has been a lot of work getting this info out as the SWPC has had trouble with their web page today.
The quote of interest is:
A new active period of Earth-threatening solar storms will be the weakest since 1928 and its peak is still four years away, after a slow start last December, predicts an international panel of experts led by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
After over a year of hedging, it looks like NOAA’s SWPC is finally coming around to the reality of a lower than normal solar cycle. – Anthony
UPDATE2: Minutes later @12:15PM. Dammit, they changed the graphs back! Anybody have cache files? – Anthony
UPDATE3: @12:20 PM And now it’s back.
UPDATE4: @ 12:45PM There are some serious problems with the SWPC page, the sunspot graph content keeps changing and the 10.7 flux graph is just plain wrong. They also have no written press release. What a train wreck.
UPDATE5: @1:00PM I called Doug Biesecker, SWPC’s “media relations” director at both of his numbers, to ask what is going on. No answer. Left a request for a call-back.
UPDATE6: @1:40PM I heard from Doug Biesecker, he said they are having server issues, he and his webmaster were working to fix the problem. He also said the press conference was recorded and he would be sending an audio link. Look for it here soon.
UPDATE7: @2:10PM looks like SWPC has their web page fixed now. Thanks Doug.
UPDATE8: @2:18PM Found the NOAA SWPC press release (linked at spaceweather.com) and it is reprinted below the “read more” line. I also changed the title of this post to reflect the quote in the spaceweather.com feature story/PR from SWPC.
I was able to capture the new sunspot prediction graph, and combined it with the previous prediction as an overlay, which I have presented below:

Leif Svalgaard found this explanation:
If one digs a little deeper, there is some ‘explanation’
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/README3
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.”
Leif writes:
The ‘90′ was not agreed upon. The only choices the panel members had in the last vote were ‘high’ or ‘low’. I pointed out that the value was important too and that just because 90 was the average number of the ‘low’ group two years does not mean that it a good number now. This was ignored.
This one paragraph below is all we have so far from SWPC web page:
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update released May 8, 2009
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.
Here is the “press release” as feature story from spaceweather.com
http://www.spaceweather.com/headlines/y2009/08may_noaaprediction.htm
May 8, 2009: A new active period of Earth-threatening solar storms will be the weakest since 1928 and its peak is still four years away, after a slow start last December, predicts an international panel of experts led by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. 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. NASA funds the prediction panel.
Solar storms are eruptions of energy and matter that escape from the sun and may head toward Earth, where even a weak storm can damage satellites and power grids, disrupting communications, the electric power supply and GPS. A single strong blast of solar wind can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.
The panel predicts the upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day, averaged over a month. If the prediction proves true, 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.
The most common measure of a solar cycle’s intensity is the number of sunspots—Earth-sized blotches on the sun marking areas of heightened magnetic activity. The more sunspots there are, the more likely it is that solar storms will occur, but a major storm can occur at any time.
“As with hurricanes, whether a cycle is active or weak refers to the number of storms, but everyone needs to remember it only takes one powerful storm to cause expensive problems,” said NOAA scientist Doug Biesecker, who chairs the panel. “The strongest solar storm on record occurred in 1859 during another below-average cycle similar to the one we are predicting.”
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.
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm that severe occurred today, it could cause $1-2 trillion in damages the first year and require four to ten years for recovery, compared to $80-125 billion that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.
The panel also predicted that the lowest sunspot number between
cycles—or solar minimum—occurred in December 2008, marking the end of Cycle 23 and the start of Cycle 24. If the December prediction holds up, at 12 years and seven months Solar Cycle 23 will be the longest since 1823 and the third longest since 1755. Solar cycles span 11 years on average, from minimum to minimum.
An unusually long, deep lull in sunspots led the panel to revise its 2007 prediction that the next cycle of solar storms would start in March 2008 and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012. The persistence of a quiet sun since the last prediction has led the panel to a consensus that the next cycle will be “moderately weak.”
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is the nation’s first alert of solar activity and its effects on Earth. The Center’s space weather experts issue outlooks for the next 11-year solar cycle and warn of storms occurring on the Sun that could impact Earth. SWPC is also the world warning agency for the International Space Environment Service, a consortium of 12 member nations.
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.”
ralph ellis (00:07:53) :
>>All you need to predict the future solar activity
>>is this graph:
>> http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/jensm1.jpg
You will have to explain more, for I see no correlation. Why do some solar momentum peaks create Sunspot minimums, and others do not?
Its all about angular momentum disturbance, the background peaks with green dots are the disturbances. These come along in a set pattern and if invoked override the next few cycles. A little difficult to explain all on here and this sort of talk is frowned upon on this site. Can I suggest you visit Carl’s blog for more info…allow yourself some time.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
Well, the CME site turned out not to be a Sun spot. There’s a second opportunity for one coming round the corner, see STEREO behind.
Geoff Sharp (04:24:31) :
Can I suggest you visit Carl’s blog for more info…allow yourself some time.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
It is just Geoff’s blog now. I have “allowed myself some time” there, but Geoff didn’t agree with my statements and replied with some invalid claims. When I tried to refute, my posts disappeared.
“The panel predicts the upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day, averaged over a month.”
Jim Cripwell (14:50:56) wrote :
“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 have the same question. Is this (“90 sunspots per day”) a scientific way of expressing the activity of the sun? For me, it is rather misleading.
Rik Gheysens (06:15:51) :
I have the same question. Is this (”90 sunspots per day”) a scientific way of expressing the activity of the sun? For me, it is rather misleading.
Don’t confuse the maximum smoothed sunspot number (Rmax) with number of sunspots. The relative sunspot number (also called Wolf number) is computed from the formula R = k(10g+s), where ‘s’ is the number of spots, ‘g’ is the number of groups and ‘k’ is an observatory calibration factor. R is the relative sunspot number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_number
“E.M.Smith (23:22:27) : Haven’t reached that time stamp yet. Still working through earlier stuff…”
How do you have time?
“wattsupwiththat (11:49:02) : WUWT readers:… Drudge… the tip form… Thanks for your consideration,”
I did send, will send more from here in future… hope one day to see link from Drudge direct to WUWT!
“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.”
Maybe we should be concerned. If they are predicting what is stated above, 90 sun spots per day, that would be 2,700 for the month, right? In a month with 2,700 sun spots, a massive CME would not be that much of a stretch. A 2,700 month would pretty much be an ongoing CME, wouldn’t it?
More seriously, I am not sure if this is a blatant error, or a CYA..
As some of you know from my earlier posts, our company provides point-to-point satellite-based communications, spacecraft telemetry downlinks and terrestrial transport of telemetry services for various customers, among them NASA, NOAA, USGS, and other alphabet agencies. When talking with the individual NASA scientists and technicians that are actually doing the work they are as competent and conscientious as any other collection of people. They are, However, almost uniformly appalled at the doings of their highly-politicized Hqs twinkies (less polite terms are usually used.)
They also feel their own professional reputations are regularly hazarded by the perceived need to “pre-massage” their data to make sure it is “consistent” with “Headquarters Guidance.” Contrary opinions are not welcomed and any inconvenient data is not included in the approved final reports. While I haven’t heard anybody saying the data itself is changed, any data “outliers” are just left out. Of course whomsoever gets to determine what constitutes outliers is the key driver of the data that is used to reach the conclusions.
Regards to all.
Leif Svalgaard (15:35:00)
Sam the Skeptic (15:14:34) :
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.
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?
I think the answer to your question is “yes”, Lief, but I’m in two minds! 🙁
Re: John Stover (09:44:56)
Thank you for this note John.
Just to elaborate on the sunspot number and why the minimum date is expected to be 12/08:
Sunspots tend to form in groups or clusters. You give a ’10’ to each group, and add ‘1’ for every sunspot within that group. The total for the sun on a give day is then multiplied by ‘k’, a fudge factor to try to even-out the different capabilities of the various observatories. So if the sun had 8 independent sunspots (none in a cluster with each other), the sunspot number would be about 88 (8 groups x 10 + 8 actual spots) x 1. If all 8 spots were in one big cluster, the SSN would be 18 (1 group x 10 + 8 actual spots x 1). Typically, you’ll get something like 2, 4, or 6 spots in a group.
Why are they proposing 12/08 for the minimum? The official minimum is a slight variation of 12 month averaging. It is NOT a reflection of how many spots were in that particular month. The formula goes like this:
To determine the value for a month, count back six months and divide that month’s SSN by 2. Add to that the monthly SSNs for the previous five months, the month in question, and the five months following that month. Finally, add one-half of the SSN of the month 6 months following, and divide it all by 12.
So for 12/08 you start by adding 1/2 of 6/08’s SSN to the SSNs of 7/08 through 5/09 plus 1/2 of 6/09 and divide by 12.
The SSNs have been as follows:
4/08 2.9
5/08 3.2
6/08 3.5
7/08 0.5
8/08 0.5
9/08 1.1
10/08 2.9
11/08 4.1
12/08 0.8
1/09 1.5
2/09 1.4
3/09 0.8
4/09 1.2
Because of how it’s calcultated, the last ‘official’ running average SSN that can be determined is 10/08, and it is lower than all the previous monthly numbers in this cycle.
Why the 12/08 prediction? You will notice that the LOWEST monthly SSNs were 0.5s recorded in July and August 08. Those are extremely low numbers. These values fall out of the monthly average calculations after 12/08. Once those low numbers fall out, it is difficult for the average to go down. They are just betting that we will not continue seeing such low values during this summer. The average SSNs of the next three months would have to be less than 2 for the minimum to occur after 12/08. They’re just betting the odds are in their favor that that won’t happen. I suspect the prediction is more pragmatic than scientific (there’s no specific scientific reason why it won’t happen, it’s simply statisically more unlikely).
Hope that helps. Someone please correct me if I have said anything wrong.
One thing that interests me as a lay reader is this:
Of those who predicted a weak cycle 24, did any also predict a delayed cycle 24 and, if so, on what basis?
Any indications that any particular prediction methodology is yet able to capture what has happened at the 23/24 change-over or is this still an empirical science of measuring parameters, making up models and seeing what gives?
RayB: If they are predicting what is stated above, 90 sun spots per day, that would be 2,700 for the month, right?
—
No, a single (normal) sunspot lasts anywhere from 4 to 12 days. Some are longer – so a single count of sunspots on a single “day” will include some spots that are fading, a bunch that are continuing, and a few that are starting. Not 2700 spots in total.
Rhys Jaggar (12:28:01) :
Of those who predicted a weak cycle 24, did any also predict a delayed cycle 24 and, if so, on what basis?
There a physical reasons for the delay. It is believed that the magnetic field is formed at some depth within the Sun [still some debate about how deep, but that is not so important for the argument]. A parcel of solar plasma with an embedded strong magnetic field is buoyant because the magnetic field has a pressure too in addition to the surrounding gas pressure. The pressure inside and outside the parcel will be the same, otherwise they will quickly equalize, but since there is magnetic pressure the gas pressure inside will be less. This means that less gas is needed to maintain pressure balance. Less gas means that the parcel weighs less and like a cork under water will rise to the surface. So if the next cycle were to be large one would expect a lot of already formed spots to be at depth working their way up, so we would have seen some already. That they aren’t here may mean that they aren’t there either. In any event, looking back to previous cycles, the minima in front of large cycles confirm that; they are short.
If SC24 every gets going, my prediction is around 70 – 75 for SC24 and around 30 for SC25. This is based on historic data using the 100 year cycle.
There is a lot at stake here. If the temperatures anomalies continue to rise, whilst sunspot activity declines. The skeptics will at worst have a bit of egg on their face. On the other hand it will be catastrophic for the global warming groups if the temperature anomalies start to decline in line with low sunspot activity. Newly formed global warming (climate change) government departments could undergo massive job cuts. Dare we mention the peace prize.
jtom (11:52:00) :
Yes! Great analysis; this same trick is useful for “predicting” year-over-year inflation numbers too.
The super-low July and August numbers will be hard to “replace.” The sun needs to stay quiet into fall for the December “average” to be beat.
Interesting release by Spaceweather (Thanks to Dr. Svalgaard for the reference and posted copy :
NOAA Predicts Solar Cycle 24, May 8, 2009
http://www.spaceweather.com/headlines/y2009/08may_noaaprediction.htm
Perhaps the reason for delay and confusion is that the management needed to dose the spaceweather release with the obligatory catastrophe. Six of the twelve paragraphs (1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) are devoted to fearful consequences of an extreme solar storm. No paragraph mentions the possibility of significantly cooler weather.
Laws Of Fear: #2: Probability Neglect: “…leading people to focus on the worst case, even if it is highly improbable:”
Sunstein, Cass R. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=134&page=1 Reply #3
Preliminary paper on-line:
Sunstein, Cass R. Beyond The Precautionary Principle. Working Paper #38. Public Law and Legal Theory. University of Chicago, January 2003. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/38.crs.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf.
And kudos to Antonio San (5/8/09 21:35:57)
“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
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?
Leif
As a professional in the sat biz I can 100% confirm your reading here.
jtom (11:52:00) :
The SSNs have been as follows:
4/08 2.9
5/08 3.2
6/08 3.5
7/08 0.5
8/08 0.5
9/08 1.1
10/08 2.9
11/08 4.1
12/08 0.8
1/09 1.5
2/09 1.4
3/09 0.8
4/09 1.2
I thought 8/08 was a perfect zero. Please link.
Bizarre headline :
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20090508/US.SCI.Space.Weather/
Dennis Wingo (19:53:08) :
“[…]In real world, insurance company doesn’t care about real risk, just wants high number sanctioned by government[…]”
As a professional in the sat biz I can 100% confirm your reading here.
And this is, perhaps, the real reason that the official prediction is ‘moderately weak’, instead of ‘really weak = low, low premium’.
Anyway the much expected new areas are just plages, no spots at the moment. Maybe one of them will get enough oomph to eject a tiny tim.
The NOAA press release provides a good example of why “consensus science” is not only a bad idea – it is an oxymoron. The NOAA badly needs some new spin doctors – preferably ones who know something about the scientific method.
Leif Svalgaard (11:49:10) :
Paddy (11:23:46) :
Leif: You should consider bringing an ouija board and/or dart board and darts to the next meeting of the solar cycle prediction panel. They would add some precision to the panel’s predictive powers.
Leif responded in what should be the quote of the week (sorry if it’s already been nominated):
We tried that early on. The result was a number too low for many to swallow, so we(‘re) on to more traditional ways of getting it wrong.