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.
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?
The point of that conference (i.e. CME) was not well received the first time around by the MSM. They did not get good press, radi, tv coverage at the time (like a few weeks ago). The first time they came out with the story, it seems that not enough fear was sowed in people`s minds. Their first trial at it got buried by the H1N1 flu stories. Now that the flu scare has passed, they are trying again. Logical yet not very subtle. Everyone knows that the level of grant money is exponentially proportional to the level of fear injected in people and congress.
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.
So let me get this straight, we have a record-quiet sun, and suddenly the news story is warning of “Earth-threatening” solar storms because they observed one CME?
Are we living in opposite-world or something?
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.
Leif Svalgaard (10:19:59) :
Aha – the process is more important than the product. A hallmark of many good bureaucracies.
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…….
Earth could get hit by a devastating solar storm at any time,
OT, but scare-related, yesterday I got my 10 page glossy colour leaflet from the UK’s NHS containing Important Information About Swine Flu that has been rushed out to every house in the country. The front cover has instructive photo showing how not to cover your mouth when you sneeze. The rest of it has next to no useful information at all, particularly about the sorts of things I’d like to know : like: could it kill me? Not a word about that. And what are the symptoms? They include Fever, cough, shortness of breath, headache, sore throat, tiredness, aching muscles, chills, sneezing, runny nose, or loss of appetite. Helpful, that. I should have no trouble at all recognising it then. Other advice includes: if you get it, stay at home. Always carry tissues to sneeze or cough into (and not like the man on the front cover, please!) The back cover advises of ways to get the leaflet in Urdu or Arabic or Gujarati and various other languages.
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?
Swine flu filled the airwaves a couple of weeks back. But it seems to have vanished without trace since. Is the epidemic over? Did anyone die? Outside of Mexico, that is.
Hello… Is there anybody there? Hello…
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.
I forecast,
You forecast
He, She, forecasts
WE FORECAST !!!!
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.
“Doug Biesecker […]: “Leif, You are free to express […]””
“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?”
Doug Biesecker seems pretty bright — he appears to have figured out how to have his cake & eat it too. (The truth is out – but not in a way that compromises admin-objectives.)
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?
I’m curious how they’ve “called” the minimum for Dec 2008, when we’ve had so many spotless days so far this year.
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.
From the solar cycle plot at NOAA http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090508_solarstorm.html I would gess that the intensity of the next solar cycle, if we get one in the rest of my lifetime, will be most likely about 50 or less.
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.
“The strongest solar storm on record occurred in 1859 during another below-average cycle similar to the one we are predicting.”
Correlation does not equal causation.
In this instance, it’s not even correlation so much as coincidence, yes?
“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.
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?
———————
It sequesters lots of carbon ?? …. for a while, at least !!
BarryW wrote:
“It appears as if the cycle must start now to make the prediction. ”
By now we should all know the template, so just fill in the blanks with a new month and year as necessary:
“Minimum will now occur no earlier than ‘December 2008.’ For every month beyond ‘December 2008’ that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curve by the same amount.
“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.”
I have two thoughts on this: We should always be gracious and welcome good science (and scientists!) wherever the chips may fall.
It is my personal observation that operational meteorologists and geologists, as a group, have been the most skeptical toward AGW from almost day one. If AGW goes “ka-boom,” I am concerned that meteorology especially will suffer from a backlash from the public and, when there is a future real crisis, people will not believe us (“guys said GW was settled science!”). Therefore, expressing doubts about AGW is probably a good thing when based on good science and done constructively because it will — hopefully — lessen that future backlash.
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?
Interesting spread on the graph. My question to you Mr. Watts, is about the graphical predictions in red and pink. Not be a betting man, and with a physics background, I might imagine a similar patter of growth prior to solar maximum. If that were the case, I would not need to worry until at least 2017-2018 (maximum at arround 2001, 2009-2001=8)
Not a consensus kind of guy in anyway, shape, or form. Now if this consensus actually is pushing for a maximum in four years, would not one also assume a veritable turbulent heating/weather dynamo surge about the planet? If it took approx eight years from max (or midpoint WRT secondary max) would not the effects of a very dynamic solar wind and magnetosphere lead to this conclusion?
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