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.”
Zer0th (11:52:39) :
you caught that little gem too? It made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
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.
As a plain Brit could someone tell me what a “supermajority” is and how this differs from a majority. (Is this along the lines of all those people who now say they will give 110%, ie language inflation?)
.
>>I dipped some paper towel in my restitutional
>>beverage and wiped my monitor. Miracle of miracles,
>>>the spots were gone.
Likewise. Until you start spot-monitoring, you don’t realise how dirty the screen is.
.
I remember one time I was on a committee that was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of innocent people. Resistance to honesty was firm & enduring. I confronted the deceptive committee-members in front of the innocent people without warning. The result: One crying hysterically and another challenging me to an outside one-on-one fight. Also, I was informed that it was “bad form” to tell the truth.
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!! “
SWPC: May 8, 2009: …Earth-threatening… devastating… most severe…exceeding $1 trillion…eruptions… damage satellites and power grids…disrupting.. threaten…major storm…at any time…fires…magnetic field soaring… severe…$1-2 trillion in damages… ten years for recovery… storms…impact Earth.
GLOOM AND DOOM!! GLOOM AND DOOM!! When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! Oh, we got trouble right here in River City. Pay no attention to that politician behind the curtain!
Read “State of Fear,” by Michael Crichton.
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?
This so assinine I have difficulty comprehending, and I am a professional ass. The greatest think tank presumably in the history of man(NASA) and they will not abide certain math and science, because of political will.
They realize there were wrong, may still be wrong, but will not correct because they beurcratic difficulties?
DR Svaalgard.. Please clarify for me this one point.
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.
What is the rationale for the Minimum to be declared in December, 2008?
An argument can be made for July, 2008 or to say we may not have seen the minimum yet but I don’t see December in the numbers at all.
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.
Leif,
Concerning the panel’s “consensus” on the peak SSN for cycle-24; is their unwillingness to lower the prediction to 75 based on who the panel thinks is their only customer, the satellite owners?
In other words, are they afraid they will get sued if they predict 75, actual ends up being 120, and someone has a fried satellite?
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
Frank K. (11:13:52) : “It’s interesting to observe that consensus solar cycle predictions are about as accurate as consensus climate model predictions…”
Rewording Barnett Cocks’ old definition for a committee: “A consensus is a cul-de-sac down which science is lured and then quietly strangled.”
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.
Of course the AP Headline hypes the danger, the article is more balanced. If the wider audience merely reads the headline they think we are in for another catastrophe.
Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – 16 mins ago
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
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_sc/us_sci_space_weather
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
Climate Heritic Wrote:
“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?”
Yes, the scientific term is “backpeddling”.
Pierre Gosselin,
Thanks for your guidance on this issue.
Gary Plyler (12:38:03) :
“In other words, are they afraid they will get sued if they predict 75, actual ends up being 120, and someone has a fried satellite?”
This was also my thought. I’ve been on committees that looked closely at things like this. If they miss high then it’s not much of a problem. If they miss low then then they might look very bad in their customer’s eyes.
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.
I just hate conscensus. In the context of real science it is just rubbish. Either you have made soem rigorous scientific thinking and come to a conclusion or you just don’t know and are guessing.
I think the latter. Lief come nearest to the method required
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!
Seriously, [snip] is the deal with the scare tactics from spaceweather.com? Is this to give the newspapers something scary to report (“Scientists predict evil Sun storm to do more damage than 10 Hurricane Katrinas” ) rather than having to report that the Sun is very quiet and will stay that way? Are they trying to get funding with a Y2K disaster scenario scheme? Do they have a history of these types of press releases? Is there any truth to what they are claiming? If someone with knowledge could elaborate I would appreciate it. It all sounds like a bunch a bovine-hewey to me. I have heard that solar eruptions can affect communications equipment, but I have never heard before that the impact could be $2 trillion and 4 to 10 years to recover. I guess I should Google “The great Sun Storm Disaster of 1859” and read up.