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

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:

click for larger image - note this is an overlay done by WUWT
click for larger image - note this is an overlay done by WUWT

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.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

265 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
May 11, 2009 10:12 am

Just Want Truth… (23:13:15) :

“E.M.Smith (21:50:49) : …(The Old Farmers Almanac, for example) … but with TOFA being rather spooky in their accuracy months in advance.”
Bingo!

I think two years ago their forecast wasn’t that great, so they called in help for last year and the result was accurate, at least for the parts of the country I was paying attention to. Their help was Joe D’Aleo, and he relied on the cool PDO. So, impressive results, but no surprise. They are calling for a couple decades of cooling. The only surprise is that they printed that part.
See http://www.almanac.com/timeline/ for an article from Joe, probably the most scientific item ever printed in the OFA.

Barry Kearns
May 11, 2009 11:40 am

From earlier: “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.”

I’d like to update this with a compare-and-contrast between the beginning of November, 2008 and now.
Does anyone know of a handy resource which breaks out the sunspot groups + spots by date and (most importantly) identifies for each whether it was a SC23 or a SC24 group?

May 11, 2009 12:20 pm

Barry Kearns (11:40:30) :
Does anyone know of a handy resource which breaks out the sunspot groups + spots by date and (most importantly) identifies for each whether it was a SC23 or a SC24 group?
Page 4 and 7 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf

Barry Kearns
May 11, 2009 3:19 pm

Thanks for the link, Leif, but I was looking for some kind of tabular data, if only to be able to match the type of observation offered earlier. In that case, each group was counted once, without respect to the number of days it lasted.
What I’m hoping to find somewhere is a list of sunspot groups, with the day they appeared, and whether they were SC23 or SC24. I can do the tabulation from there to provide a contrast with the type of observation offered before (which was creating the distinct impression that it would be almost all SC24 spots from then forward).

May 11, 2009 3:42 pm

Barry Kearns (15:19:08) :
list of sunspot groups, with the day they appeared, and whether they were SC23 or SC24.
No such list exists, although it is on my [long[ to-do list to make one…

May 11, 2009 3:48 pm

Barry Kearns (15:19:08) :
list of sunspot groups, with the day they appeared, and whether they were SC23 or SC24.
No such list exists, although it is on my [long[ to-do list to make one…
But you welcome to play with the data behind the graph:
http//www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20-%20count%20of%20new%20and%20old.xls

Barry Kearns
May 11, 2009 5:06 pm

Thanks, Leif! Between that spreadsheet and the Solar Region Summary archives (one file per day, ugh), I should be able to put together what I’m looking for.
At first glance, it looks like about 13 lookups through the archives is all it should take to round out the data for Nov 1, 2008 through today. One of the upsides of so very few spots in the last six months!

May 12, 2009 11:41 am

Does shape of the preceding min offer a clue to the height of the next max?
The slowly forming bottom shape of sunspot cycle 23 (observing the May 8 NOAA/SWPC ISES chart) appears to have a somewhat hyperbolic shape (as though approaching zero asymptotically) rather than the usual, more parabolic shape that may be resumed after cycle 24 begins.
Using an enlarged version of a famous sunspot graph, I examined seven similarly shaped minimums from about 1750 to 1902, and the results are tabulated below:
Following the slowly forming minimums that I identified approximately by date in Table A, the succeeding sunspot maximums were unusually low, as scaled approximately from the chart, and they are identified in Table B:
Table A Table B
________ _______
1755 < 85
1797 < 50
1810 < 50
1822 < 70
1878 < 60
1890 < 85
1902 < 60
I am a novice with this stuff, but based on the bottoming shape of cycle 23, I believe the next max will be less than 85, perhaps even 50. I also noticed that minimums exhibiting sharper bottoms appeared to be followed by much higher maximums.
I would invite comments, or a more exacting examination of this concept by anyone having better data than I was able to derive from my crude chart measurements.
Bob Paglee, P.E. (Ret.)

gary gulrud
May 12, 2009 12:14 pm

“The average SSNs of the next three months would have to be less than 2 for the minimum to occur after 12/08.”
Thanks for the explication. Actually 12/08 looks like the earliest date we can now give the prize.

MattE
May 12, 2009 5:16 pm

I just happened across this old press release from NASA and Hathaway and got a belly-laugh.
The first line says it all: Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Then he goes on to predict a cycle of 160 +/- 25 sunspot peak.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

May 13, 2009 8:04 am

MattE says:
MattE (17:16:06) :
I just happened across this old press release from NASA and Hathaway and got a belly-laugh.
The first line says it all: Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Then he goes on to predict a cycle of 160 +/- 25 sunspot peak.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks Matt for the link — I was looking for Hathaway’s paper ! But Hathaway based his prediction concept on prior peaks, my concept is based on the shape of the prior minimums. So I did some more study, looking at some much more detailed shapes of my selected minimums that I was able to find on the Sunspot Plotter at spaceweather.com.
I’ve tentatively concluded that the best match for the shape of the current minimum, when compared to the shapes of my seven previously selected minimums, is for the minimum of 1879, and this has now led me to pridict a max averaged peak amplitude for Cycle 24 of less than 65.
Try it yourself — go to the Sunspot Plotter, insert 2009 and print out the graph. Then, one after another, insert the dates from my selected list of minimums (corrected as follows: 1755, 1798, 1810, 1823, 1879, 1889, and 1901). Compare the left half of each graph with the 2009 graph and see which one fits best.
Bob

Gene L
June 5, 2009 12:42 pm

Frankly, I have not the time to read all of the many comments, but can anyone tell me if there is someone, someplace who is tracking these various “predictions” of sunspot cycles? The overlay that we have above in this article is great. Can we create one that just shows each of the prior (and future) “predictions” over time, just as a means to keep everyone honest about how many attempts were made and how many were not anything close to reality?
After all, didn’t they start making such “predictions” more than a year ago. Could be an interesting presentation. Another option might be to create a powerpoint or other “slideshow” that only shows a few “predictions” at at time. Thanks!

Peter S
June 8, 2009 2:48 pm

Gene L
I agree. It’s a bit like changing your bet during a horse race right up to a few metres before the finish line.
Our hi profile experts have proved that they know as much about the sun as Bart Simpson. Looking back at history patern even us dummies can say that the next few cycles will have low amplitudes. To say that SC24 “will be a big one” is inconsistent with the 100 year cycle.

December 31, 2010 2:14 pm

That is pretty scary that a solar storm could hit the earth with devastating damages!
It is amazing that stuff like this is kept from the public, and it takes people like you to inform people of the truth.
I do not understand all the language you use, such as SSN’s, but I now want to investigate this further.
Thanks for the info.

1 9 10 11