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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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
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.
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
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.
Leif Svalgaard (10:19:59) :
Doug Biesecker on F10.7 (as of 5 minutes ago):
“Leif, You are free to express your embarrassment to whomever you wish. The panel is releasing an opinion that is representative of the whole group, not one individual.
I actually have some sympathy for Doug and other legitimate scientists who are “on the other side” in this issue. Surely, they are appalled by idiots like Al Gore — who has absolutely no business being the self-appointed spokesman for the AGW theory. (With friends like that, who needs enemies?) The anger we have towards the alarmists is often directed at everyone who still believes in AGW. The word “embarrassed,” while fair and legit, is still hard for other panel members to read.
It is those legitimate scientists who will be the key to ending this whole crock — when they start switching sides, en masse. We need to be extra careful to make it easy for them to switch. Everyone is naturally defensive; admitting you’re wrong isn’t easy. The evidence in favor of the AGW theory was, at one time, pretty good. In 1998, a lot of legitimate scientists got honestly worried. Depending on what they published, recanting now may be costly. They have families to feed.
Even if they said some unreasonable things, we need to hold out an olive branch for the greater good of advancing the truth. Punishment should not be an objective. The politicians will almost surely pay dearly for their fecklessness but scientists are supposed to be allowed to wrong. Open debate works best when being wrong is just part of a healthy process.
If the winners of a debate are vindictive towards the losers, future debates will be neurotic.
Livingston and Penn have predicted a SSN of ZERO (VISIBILITY) 🙂
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.
Mrs Whatsit (10:23:56)
“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.”
Just a routine day at the office: Convenience is priority 1 in the adminaverse. (Truth occasionally plays a role.)
–
tarpon (11:13:27)
“A huge dose of honesty would go a long way, but it is clear too much new tax money, and grants, is riding on this hocus-pocus game.
Science may never recover from this charade. In the end, looks like we are forced to ‘do our own’ science.”
Very close to the conclusion at which I arrived.
My use of the term AGW above was sloppy. The solar prediction isn’t really about AGW at all. But, in a stupid way, I made the point — which is that we over-generalize our anger over the deception surrounding the whole climate issue.
Oops.
That press release is a joke.
It’s not about science; it’s about funding. Notice that second sentence,”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.”
Keep the crisis level up, keep the funding.
I love Leif.
73 +/- 3
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.
See right hand side of http://www.drudgereport.com for the tip form.
– Thanks for your consideration, Anthony
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.
We tried that early on. The result was a number too low for many to swallow, so we on to more traditional ways of getting it wrong.
[as per Doug Biesecker when I pointed that out to him: “Leif, Yes, the f10.7 should not go down to 60. Our forecast minimum limit is 65. 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. For starters, we need some good analysis to show us definitively how to treat very small SSN data. However, if one were to complain about a product to the proper authorities, one might be able to prompt action. You’ll find a feedback form on our website.”]
So, in other words, Biesecker admits that the product is incorrect, but making it correct is too much work and he doesn’t want to bother? Unbelievable! Is he the head of the panel? Great leadership, just great…
“Leif, You are free to express your embarrassment to whomever you wish. The panel is releasing an opinion that is representative of the whole group, not one individual. 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. Given that we finally have an extended period of low SSN and F10.7, there should now be plenty of data points for someone to correctly characterize the SSN to F10.7 relationship for low SSN and publish it.”
Biesecker is mis-speaking here. The opinion released was only representative of a supermajority of the group, not the whole group. Perhaps the panel’s decision should be released as they do with US Supreme Court decisions, with the dissenting opinions made public as well.
Also, I thought that 10.7 cm flux was measured directly, rather than being calculated from SSN. http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/f10.html Leif, what am I missing?
Now, where do I find those feedback forms…
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.
Leif,
if you know the charts are wrong, and you have the data to make a new chart, would you post a guest topic on the subject and show the correct chart with a supporting explanation? It might motivate others to “fix the product” and get on board with the newest data… I would think adjusting the product would be part of the learning process, but it seems to me we have a group of people just eyeballing the data and shooting from the hip. It would be nice to see the underlying relationships leading to a chart that makes sense… Thanks
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
Joseph (11:49:51) :
Also, I thought that 10.7 cm flux was measured directly, rather than being calculated from SSN. [..] what am I missing?
We predict SSN for future times. We don’t have future direct measurements of F10.7, but from past relationships we know [if we use the correct ones] how much F10,7 to expect for a given SSN. The recommended [by the international Radio Communication people] formula is F10.7 = 63.7 + 0.728*SSN + 0.00089*SSN*SSN, that gives 65ish for the low numbers we have now and 136 for SSN=90.
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.
“with potential damages from the most severe level of storm exceeding $1 trillion.”
At least it’s not that much, we could probably print it in a week….. Well if we had power we could.
“If the winners of a debate are vindictive towards the losers, future debates will be neurotic.”
Given how vindictive some of us have seen the AGW folks behaving toward skeptics for years now, I agree, but probably not as you intend. When your reputation on the intertubes, or your employability, has gotten the metaphorical waterboarding treatment, you have a right to call for war crimes trials.
AGW zealots need to step back and realize if they are proven wrong, their worst behavior will come back to bite them, and start behaving a lot more collegially.
.
Am I missing something here?
If we have had a slow cycle, with a period of 7 or 8 years from the previous peak to the 2008-9 minimum, then will we not have a slow rise to the next maximum??
If this sedate trend continues, then the maximum for cycle 24 should be in 2016 or 2017, and not 2013.
.
The Optical orange SOHO image isn’t being updated, although the magnetogram is. There is a faint sign of a magnetic blur where the last CME was, as is visible in teh STEREO behind EUV image. Could be a sunspot; we all await with baited breath 🙂
Back in the 1980s, there was this rather sombre ska song. The lyrics started out like this:
“It’s the dawning, of a new era…”
No, not a new era as in, something like the Jetsons or Star Trek … something a bit darker.
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.