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
May 8, 2009 3:09 pm

Ray (14:07:12) :
The CME of high/low latitudes would simply pass over/under us.
CMEs can be pretty broad [50 degrees] in latitude so we might still get hit.
Gary Plyler (12:38:03) :
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?
No, I think more basic. Playing it safe. 75 is too much neck stuck out. They call it ‘moderately weak’, although my general feeling [as I gauge it] was that the panel was split between very high and very low, no ‘moderates’. Just another flawed prediction.

May 8, 2009 3:11 pm

Michael D Smith (12:00:06) :
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?
If Anthony agrees, I could do that for F10.7. ‘Watch this space’
REPLY: hmmm….let me think….YES! – Anthony

May 8, 2009 3:12 pm

Sam bailey (12:31:41) :
They realize there were wrong, may still be wrong, but will not correct because they beurcratic difficulties?
pretty much, yes

Sam the Skeptic
May 8, 2009 3:14 pm

I’m almost frightened to ask this question but if the sun is not relevant to life on earth in any meaningful way (which I understand to be Hansen’s position and therefore presumably that of his employers) 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.

MDR
May 8, 2009 3:15 pm

Just wondering, who uses these predictions?
Another way of asking this question: For whom is it important that the prediction might be wrong by 20% (say, if a SSN max of 90 were predicted and the correct answer turned out to be 75)?

AKD
May 8, 2009 3:18 pm

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?

Ah, but you see, the one in Urdu contains vital information on slaughtering your neighbors pigs! Sorry, O/T. Anyways…
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.”

Does the SWPC get paid directly or indirectly for these subscriptions? Having their predictions relayed upon for industry risk assesment would seem to build in a bias to always err on the higher (riskier) side.

DaveE
May 8, 2009 3:19 pm

“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.
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.

First dart: 25
Second dart: Treble 16 = 48
OK guys that’s the number
Third dart: 5
OK 5% error rounded down.
We can’t say 73 +/-3!!!
DaveE.

F. Ross
May 8, 2009 3:26 pm


Live Psychic Readings
Issues with Love, Money, Career? Talk to an Expert Psychic. $1/min!
http://www.PsychicSource.com
Psychic Forecast for 2009
Discover a Fascinating Prevision for all the Year. Free today only!
http://www.AboutAstro.com/psychic/

Just a little irony there with the above ads right after the “predictions” [prophecies?] for cycle 24.
You suppose these people work for NASA?

F. Ross
May 8, 2009 3:29 pm

Rats! I guess the ads cycle. Not there after I made the previous post.

hareynolds
May 8, 2009 3:30 pm

SteveSadlov (12:14:47) said :
Maunder Minimun brought the age of reason…Landscheit or Jose’ s minimum has brought the age of stupidity(*)
Yet another argument for “The Gore Minimum”
Re: Civilized Reponses To AGW Fanatics
We poor misbegotten souls who drill for oil & gas have already concocted a polite response to the haranguing propaganda that we’ve endured for the last ten years: Let Them Freeze In The Dark.
Apparently unbeknownst to the technical dim-wits now in charge, if you over-tax a resource that is global in scope, it will not politely disappear to make way for Magic Obama Alternatives, IT WILL MOVE OVERSEAS to places where politicians can still prefom a basic cost-benefit analysis.
One of the latest is Transocean (ticker: RIG) the largest offshore drilling company in the world, which has recently moved it’s HQ and place of incorporation to Zug, Switzerland. Gradually, they are moving rigs out of the GOM to places like pristine Norway (still drilling up a storm) and offshore the lovely thinly clad beaches of Brazil and Mexico. Sayonara, boys & girls. Good luck with that WIND thing.

May 8, 2009 3:34 pm

MDR (15:15:29) :
Just wondering, who uses these predictions?

Those who insure satellites?
With a high prediction, they have backing to keep the insurance cost high? With a ‘moderately weak’ prediction, they hurry to mention “potential damages from the most severe level of storm exceeding $1 trillion” to have backing to keep the insurance cost high?
Maybe they are crying Wolf.

May 8, 2009 3:35 pm

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?

Gerry
May 8, 2009 3:37 pm

I love this quote from Doug Biesecker:
“The only published papers on the topic are wrong and that is what NOAA uses.”
Well, who can argue with that? The only thing that counts is that they have been published. If NOAA knows that all the published papers are wrong, that is clearly irrelevant to the way they do their space-age technology business upon which we are all dependent.

bsneath
May 8, 2009 3:39 pm

Guys, please connect the dots. This whole episode is a diversion tactic. I have been in public policy arenas, I know what is going on.
Recall these comments in “The Sun is Oddly Quiet” story:
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.”
Now these “reseachers” need to make a press release on the fact that the Sun is going to continue to be “Oddly Quiet”. So, what to do? Create a diversionary story within a story about Solar Storms. This is easy to accomplish because the friendly media will gladly play along.
That is all that this is about. It is a clever hoax that will one day bite these “researchers” where it hurts, but in the mean time helps them to perpetuate their agendas.

Mike Bryant
May 8, 2009 3:46 pm

I suppose this is the way science is done now. Everyone makes a prediction, a forecast or a projection (whatever it is this week) and then they are all averaged and we take a vote on the average.
If there is a majority, we have consensus and we publish the results! It’s kinda like the 15 or so model runs on the GCMs.
Is this the way that myths are constructed?
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. -John F. Kennedy
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 8, 2009 3:49 pm

Leif Svalgaard (09:54:38) : 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.
Leif, my condolences. I can almost hear the grinding of the grit in your teeth…
You have more tolerance than biblical Job.

May 8, 2009 3:51 pm

OT: None of the top ad links worked for me, yesterday or today.

May 8, 2009 3:52 pm

There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for an authoritative agency to release information known to be bad or highly flawed information.
On the matter of the “press release” from spaceweather.com:
Having read it several times I don’t have a problem with it as a whole. I do think that the phraseology has the potential to deliver an unnecessary level of alarm. It seemingly tends to convey a message that Solar 24 is expected to produce solar storms at an unusual level of intensity.
I do not intend to imply that the ‘potential’ is not real. It is there, it has been there with every solar cycle, it will continue to be there with every solar cycle in the future. Perhaps the populace would be better served by taking the funds being spent on projects designed to support / promote the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and spending those funds on technology to mitigate the effects of a major solar storm.

May 8, 2009 3:56 pm

It just struck me that here we have doom and gloom about satellites being being put in jeopardy by solar storms…..and the administration is killing the funding for LORAN because the GPS system is so much more effective.
Someone get me a neckbrace for the cognitive whiplash.

Robinson
May 8, 2009 4:01 pm

I’m sure some other people have pointed this out, but the new prediction curve looks all wrong too. It should be flatter before rising. That’s just my intuition looking at the graph of course, I have no expert knowledge to draw on here ;).

Robert Wood
May 8, 2009 4:01 pm

Reading these press reports based upon NASA’s apress release, it is clear that teh NASA PR boys & girls have succeeded. There is a general confusion of CMEs with sunspot cycles and any potential effect upon the Earth’s climate is ignored. The press is dsitracted by teh Death & Destruction [possibility of a CME.
Q for Leif:
Is there any relationship between sunspot cycle and CME magnitudes and frequencies? I don’t recall reading of one, they appear to be different mechanisms.

GW
May 8, 2009 4:05 pm

Leif,
You have not yet given your opinion regarding the 12/08 minimum. I thought, from other blogs you have contributed to that 8/08 or 9/08 was more likely the minimum since the solar indices have ticked up a bit since then, and were followed by the flurry of cycle 24 activity in the final months of the year.
How was 12/08 chosen (or proven ?)
Oh, and KUDOS to you for revealing the candid inner workings of the panel, and your ongoing contributions to this and other blogs.
GW

Ray
May 8, 2009 4:05 pm

Antony – I just made you a little money by clicking on one of the ads up there… it was the one:
Global Climate Debate
Voice your opinion before the UN Climate Change Conference 2009
http://www.cop15.dk/blogs
But that blog shows that they really think that have it all covered and ready to go… listen to this:
“Many people ask how sure we are about the science of climate change. The most definitive examination of the scientific evidence is to be found in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its last major report published in 2007. – John Theodore Houghton, former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scientific assessment working group”
I won’t read anymore on their blog but at least I made you a little money. People should click on them too if they want WUWT to roll in the doug.

May 8, 2009 4:07 pm

OT: IceCap is back up, but with April news.

Dennis Wingo
May 8, 2009 4:07 pm

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.
So Leif is a denier of the consensus now? Perish the thought!
Just kiddin Leif, we will watch closely to see how close the real cycle is to your prediction of 71.

1 4 5 6 7 8 11