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.”
Nasif Nahle (10:08:47) : Living beings are adapting to recurrent climatic conditions. They were there long time ago, and they are getting back there; nothing new, nothing creepy. Study them, investigate how they adapt to cyclical climatic conditions, and do the same as they are doing.
Very well put, Nasif.
One creepy comment: I’ve been observing that my “fur” is a bit thicker than usual this year. Never happened before. Places where the knee, calf, and arm hair were just barely worn off by cloths rubbing are instead slowly filling in. Overall the leg hairs are a bit heavier and darker. Not much, but definitely there.
I knew that critters got furrier when cold was coming. I’d somehow managed to think that that was them and we were not them… Then again, I’ve got several “primitive traits” (from extra cusp surfaces on the teeth that my dentist commented on, to a faint sagittal crest, prehensile toes, thick heavy finger bones and hips built like a Neanderthal) so maybe I’m just a “throwback”… My sleep cycle tracks the moon (I’m awake when the moon is full and up). Every fall I get a rather intense “wanderlust” when the season starts to change. I really want to go somewhere. Similar thing in spring, but a bit less strong. It’s that migration thing, I think. This spring? No desire to leave the warm place…
I seem to be destined to “do the same as they are doing”, like it or not…
I just hope it’s not a Grand Minimum 😎
Dr Svalgaard @ur momisugly 15:39 “…Brain stopped hurting? or did it just get worse?”
Much worse. Truth be told, I find I am just plain tired. Cripes…
———————————————————————
Leif’s comment: “Their curve is just wrong. And they know it, but are not allowed to fix it…”
Previous question : “Do we need a National Climate Service?”
Answer: see above.
——————————————————————-
Priceless.
For new readers who have scrolled down this far you may be wondering why so much talk of the sun. This video is one reason why :
Mike Lorrey (12:08:39) :
“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.
I am arguing that we should not exercise that right. History will be totally harsh on the AGW fanatics anyway and it’ll take them by surprise. We have much to gain by being super congenial, and almost nothing to lose.
We have not long lived in an age where everything you say is retained. Eventually, people will adjust to the idea that you just can’t get away with things the way you used to. But, for now, people like Al Gore are saying breathtakingly dumb things under the assumption that they can deny it all later. That used to work but no longer. I pity them. The internet is, in a sense, the beginning of recorded history. It will set new standards of truth.
the model still does not start at zero!!!!!!
they can not be more wrong.
Thanks Leif for the “voice”
Hard heads will not listen, lol
We argue HERE, but WE do listen to you Leif.
Super duper video Svensmarks paper is what converted me from AGW to Non-AGW LOL
Are we living in opposite-world or something?
According to Steven Hawking, it wouldn’t matter. If you lived in a universe where anti-matter was prevalent, it would still be matter to your point of view.
At least NOAA/SWPC made one graph look more palatable.
On the downside, since they have it superglued to the latest trend, it will most likely get undercut in 30 days.
On the upside, we are not talking about a prediction of a big meteor coming straight at Earth.
You tried, Leif !
Here we go again: science done not by rigorous scientific methods, but by speculative consensus. Perhaps such bureaucratic inanity would cease if every consensus projection that failed to materialize would precipitate a 10% cut in the issuing agency’s budget–and the firing of the chief consensus-maker.
Jan Jannsens has updated his Spotless Days Page (as of May 2nd):
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
It would be nice if we could get a guest post from Penn and Livingston.
Or how about one from Lief?
E.M.Smith (19:09:18) :
Speaking of humans adapting to climate…
I live in the San Fransisco area but am originally from the U.P. of Michigan (there’s two parts to Michigan, I’m a Yooper 😉 ). And I can definitely see a difference between girls in California and in Michigan. It’s not in how pretty they are, because there are some very good looking girls in the U.P.! It’s not in the hair–girls don’t get hairier. But, one can note a general difference in pants size. Long, cold winters in the U.P. make for indoor, sedentary lifestyles, thus decreasing calorie burning and increasing the amount of jean material needed in Levi’s sizes—an adapting mechanism at work! … I’ll [snip] myself right here.
“Harold Vance (20:29:23) :
It would be nice if we could get a guest post from Penn and Livingston.
Or how about one from Lief? ”
Or, how about Piers Corbyn!
Just Want Truth… (20:33:59) :
I’ll finish what I meant : the girls there have extra ‘insulation’ to the cold, and some are really…. ok, the [snip] here
skeptic (10:20:34) : Its widely believed around here that sunspots correlate highly with global temperatures.
Unfortunately, no. A few of us think that there may be a (moderate) correlation of sunspots (as a proxy for solar output) with 200 year weather cycles (“30 year climate” is an oxymoron) but the dominant paradigm here is that of Leif (who regularly lets me see where the data do not support my wishes… in public … with my consent…) and that paradigm is that the data do not support the conclusion of sun as driver.
Unfortunately, he’s right (dang it!). Best I can do is point to a paper purporting to show a correlation between the PDO flips and the solar cycle (but we all know that Pirates correlate nicely with the warming pattern, so the best that a correlation can do is tell you “Look here, might be interesting or might be crap”.) I can still hope that the mag field ozone modulation theory might go somewhere (though everyone seems to politely ignore it every time I bring it up…)
So your basic thesis is broken.
taken as proof that solar activity drives global temperatures (which are currently well above normal almost everywhere).
Well, as mentioned above, there is no such proof. There isn’t even a hit of a proof (though some of us, like me, hold out some hope of a hint of some weak support…)
But again you have a broken assertion. Since we have no idea what “normal” is, there is no way that tempertures can be above it. Using a 30 year baseline is very broken (there are 30 ish year weather cycles, so that just gives you a broken rubber ruler).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/so_many_thermometers_so_little_time/
Basing the start of your baseline, as GIStemp does, at the bottom of a cold period is simply deception.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
Temperatures have been going down since 1998, so the present trend is clearly to colder. Yeah, two can harvest fruit… but it’s a 10 year baseline.
I prefere to use a baseline of about 6000 years long that includes things like the Roman Warm Period, the Little Ice age, the Iron Age Cold Period, the Medeaval warm period, etc.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
So in my opinion, nothing at all unusual is happening either to the warm side or to the cold side. We’ve been both warmer and colder before.
There is a small chance that we might have a Bond Event “soon” (one is “due” -/+ a bunch of years and we’ve done nothing to be prepared; but even though we’ve had 8 in a row, we might skip one, or it might take another 500 years…) So the most supported position is that nothing at all unusual is happening.
Its also nice to see that increased solar activity is alleged to be causing higher temperatures at night
Don’t know where that came from. By the time GIStemp gets the data it’s already been munged by NOAA into a monthly average. Daily high / lows averaged, then a month of those averaged into a single number. Nightime temperatures disappeared long ago.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Looks to me like your just making stuff up here.
Also, of course, this is further proof that NASA is either incompetent, or part of some conspiracy.
No conspiracy needed.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”
Given that they’ve had trouble telling feet from metres and don’t “get it” that you can’t get 1/10th degree precision (and sometimes even 1/100th degree!) out of 1 F data, I think there is sufficient evidence for “stupidity” to make the conspiracy theory “over the top”. That, and the quality of the code in GIStemp clearly is a testemony to limited skill…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/
Leif Svalgaard (14:59:24) :
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
…..
I am confused: What happens to a moderately week when the period is 7.5 days longs and Wednesday takes a vacation? Is Tuesday stronger or weeker than Thursday? 8<)
>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.
Has anybody notified El Sol of the panel’s decisions in this regard?
Solar Chaos (19:04:51) :
I’ve been tracking the NOAA and NASA press releases for cycle 24. Some history:
NASA May 20, 2003
Hathaway predicts cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006
….
Thank you!
I love watching science develop in real-time. I truely admire Dr. Svalgaard for providing us insights into the process as well as his highly informative comments and article links. I also think that we must appreciate all the involved scientists, even those who defend othodoxy. Science has followed false leads before. In the end, it does get sorted out, and science advances.
It is hilarious how Randolph Schmidt from AP is able to spin an alarmist tale out of nothing: everything is there, from international panel to consensus. And of course the forecast of weakest cycle since 1928 is buried inside the paper…
“Warning: Sunspot cycle beginning to rise
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – Fri May 8, 3:31 pm ET
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.
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.”
Shane (12:00:08) : 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.
The “nickel tour” is that sunspot number doesn’t matter much to the average joe. You can live your whole life happily and never care about sun spots.
There are a few folks where it does matter. They tend to be fairly focused small groups, but there are a few that are more diffuse.
1) Folk managing satellites. The solar output changes how much air drag there is (it’s tiny, but matters) and predicts how strong solar flares can be (that can cook electronics or just cause your TV to blank because the satellite feed got disrupted.)
2) Folks managing the power grid. More spots means more flares and they can cause the grid to destabilize. Mostly nothing happens, but at least once it’s taken down a large chunk of the North East. (flare causes surge causes breakers to pop causes cascade of plants to shut down… very rare, though).
3) Some grain and stock traders think that prices track sunspots (I’m one). This was first observed by Herschel, but he couldn’t prove it. Later on Stanley Jevon’s showed it to be true. Some later folks have claimed to “prove” this isn’t the case, but it looks to me like “PC Gone Wild” rather than real proof. Then again, the whole field is speculative (as are most stock prediction systems – “nutty” is a polite description of most of them…)
4) Solar scientists care. Hey, it’s the focus of their field!
5) Amature (HAM) radio operators. Sunspots are a very good indicator of what “propagation” will be like. Lots of sunspots you can reach further away since the ionosphere is more ionized. To a lesser extent, professional broadcasters as well. Less now that Shortwave Radio has largely been replaced by the internet and we don’t often listing to AM radio from 1500 miles away via ionospheric bounce…
6) The military (for the same radio communications and satellite reasons).
7) I suppose that to some extent Alaskan travel agencies care. Lot of spots give a great Aurora and that’s what a lot of folks want to see!
8) Some meteorologists (The Old Farmers Almanac, for example) use sunspot strength in their weather predictions. It’s a divided field with a lot of folks thinking this is bogus, but with TOFA being rather spooky in their accuracy months in advance.
9) Farmers (a few) who subscribe to TOFA thesis or to the Jevon’s thesis.
10) Bloggers and their camp followers who think sunspots mean something (be it weather sites, radio sites, climate theorists, Landscheidt supporters, etc.)
After that, it starts to get a bit thin… well, really it was already a bit thin at about #7 …
I’m sure I’ve missed a few; this was just “off the top of my head” and lord knows I’m no expert on it. Hope it helps explain why folks care about spots…
Dang it. One Missing “/” … Everything after “(which are currently well above normal almost everywhere).” ought to NOT be in italics since it is my stuff, down until you reach ” Its also nice to see that increased solar activity”…
E.M.Smith (20:57:43) :
You have seen the video above in Just Want Truth… (19:20:46) : ?
Dave Andrews (12:21:31) : 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?)
The rules of an organization determine how many folks can pass a motion. A simple majority is 50% + anything.
Sometimes there is a rule that says that it takes a “significant” excess, a “supermajority” to pass some motions. It might be defined as 2/3 or 60% or 75% or … the bylaws can even define different levels of supermajority for different classes of motion. So you might have 50% to decided when to take tea, but 66% needed to change the budget and 75% to rewrite the bylaws.
farmersteve (12:29:09) : the question is, shiny side in or out?
The answer is: Yes.