Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle

This is an official NCAR News Release (National Center for Atmospheric Research) Apparently, they have solar forecasting techniques down to a “science”, as boldly demonstrated in this press release. – Anthony

Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle

BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun’s cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.

The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy. The forecasts are generated, in part, by tracking the subsurface movements of the sunspot remnants of the previous two solar cycles. The team is publishing its forecast in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

“Our model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool,” says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory that also includes Peter Gilman and Giuliana de Toma.

Understanding the cycles

The Sun goes through approximately 11-year cycles, from peak storm activity to quiet and back again. Solar scientists have tracked them for some time without being able to predict their relative intensity or timing.

Scientists

NCAR scientists Mausumi Dikpati (left), Peter Gilman, and Giuliana de Toma examine results from a new computer model of solar dynamics. (Photo by Carlye Calvin, UCAR)

Forecasting the cycle may help society anticipate solar storms, which can disrupt communications and power systems and affect the orbits of satellites. The storms are linked to twisted magnetic fields in the Sun that suddenly snap and release tremendous amounts of energy. They tend to occur near dark regions of concentrated magnetic fields, known as sunspots.

The NCAR team’s computer model, known as the Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model, draws on research by NCAR scientists indicating that the evolution of sunspots is caused by a current of plasma, or electrified gas, that circulates between the Sun’s equator and its poles over a period of 17 to 22 years. This current acts like a conveyor belt of sunspots.

The sunspot process begins with tightly concentrated magnetic field lines in the solar convection zone (the outermost layer of the Sun’s interior). The field lines rise to the surface at low latitudes and form bipolar sunspots, which are regions of concentrated magnetic fields. When these sunspots decay, they imprint the moving plasma with a type of magnetic signature. As the plasma nears the poles, it sinks about 200,000 kilometers (124,000 miles) back into the convection zone and starts returning toward the equator at a speed of about one meter (three feet) per second or slower. The increasingly concentrated fields become stretched and twisted by the internal rotation of the Sun as they near the equator, gradually becoming less stable than the surrounding plasma. This eventually causes coiled-up magnetic field lines to rise up, tear through the Sun’s surface, and create new sunspots.

The subsurface plasma flow used in the model has been verified with the relatively new technique of helioseismology, based on observations from both NSF– and NASA–supported instruments. This technique tracks sound waves reverberating inside the Sun to reveal details about the interior, much as a doctor might use an ultrasound to see inside a patient.

Figure Comparison

NCAR scientists have succeeded in simulating the intensity of the sunspot cycle by developing a new computer model of solar processes. This figure compares observations of the past 12 cycles (above) with model results that closely match the sunspot peaks (below). The intensity level is based on the amount of the Sun’s visible hemisphere with sunspot activity. The NCAR team predicts the next cycle will be 30-50% more intense than the current cycle. (Figure by Mausumi Dikpati, Peter Gilman, and Giuliana de Toma, NCAR.)

Predicting Cycles 24 and 25

The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.

By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The NCAR team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.

“This is a significant breakthrough with important applications, especially for satellite-dependent sectors of society,” explains NCAR scientist Peter Gilman.

The NCAR team received funding from the National Science Foundation and NASA’s Living with a Star program.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The date of this NCAR News Release is March 6, 2006

Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml

(hat tip to WUWT reader Paul Bleicher)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

213 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 1, 2009 3:14 pm

Adolfo Giurfa (14:41:27) :
“the PR person(s) directly responsible should be disciplined [fired, demoted, decapitated, …
Trouble will be what to do if the researcher is not a scientist, say a railways’ engineer like the one at the IPCC or a Nobel prize winner…

Makes no difference 🙂

June 1, 2009 4:48 pm

112,000 die in the US every year because of obesity
A little starvation could fix that number right smartly.

H.R.
June 1, 2009 6:50 pm

@anna v (12:16:07) :
“[…] This incessant need for advertisement of research results so as to get the necessary funding has to be addressed soon by the scientific community, not only of the US, where the fashion started, but also the EU where it has caught the fancy of the bureaucrats. It has played a large role in this snowball called global warming and renamed climate change…
Maybe Anthony could start a thread where we could exchange ideas of how research could be funded without such overwhelming bureaucratic/political government interference […]”
I remember a time (50’s into the 60’s) in the US when many corporations had large R&D staffs that usually included a few scientists free to pursue any pure research of their own interest. Results were often kept secret as they might have great potential for future commercial application. Also, the space race was on and there was a lot of basic research conducted in support of that effort.
I’m betting there are a lot of readers here who remember a time when you not only were NOT in a hurry to race to the press with results but were in BIG trouble if you discussed your work with anyone, even people in another department.
Times have changed with the exception that there’s still a coffee or wine study published every week or two, just like always ;o)
When governments fund research, expect results to support political goals. When corporations fund research, expect results to support economic goals.

Melinda Romanoff
June 1, 2009 7:49 pm

klausb-
I believe the measurement you’re looking for is “-ish”.
I can’t find the link right now, the pertinent server seems to be down….

anna v
June 1, 2009 8:30 pm

H.R. (18:50:36) :
When governments fund research, expect results to support political goals. When corporations fund research, expect results to support economic goals.
That is the framework, sure, but what should society do in order not to get into run away situations as where we are now.
The story about crying wolf too often holds , and in this day and age we should not wait for a real catastrophe before finding a way to check the wolf calls.

noaaprogrammer
June 1, 2009 10:09 pm

The following news report shows that Dikpati still has hopes for a very high peak of sunspot activity for S24:
“Not everyone agrees on whether it’ll be so quiet, however; Mausumi Dikpati from the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado – who was one of the experts on the panel that came up with the conclusion she disagrees with – for example:
The panel consensus is not my individual opinion… It’s still in a quiet period. As soon as it takes off it could be a completely different story.
That story, she says, will be a cycle 50% more powerful than the last, and something to silence those of us who’re worried that the sun is slowly going out a la disaster movies, despite knowing better.”

anna v
June 1, 2009 10:38 pm

Leif, you are talking about a stick.
It is true that there has been too much carrot in gaining research grants in the past generation or so of scientists. This has resulted in too much self advertisement and self aggrandizement by a lot of researchers and research groups that should have known better, all in order to acquire for their group/institute a larger part of the pie of funding.
My feeling is that research was carried out much better before funding became centralized and bureaucrats found out they could wield power with apportioning the funds.
If there were a universally accepted research budget, it should be apportioned to institutes/universities in a democratic way: number of researchers, number of students, location, etc weights with results of previous years should be devised so a fair share could fall on institutes and not on individual researchers. The institutes then could fight it out within their ranks on how it should be divided. There would again be politics and back stabbing etc, on a much smaller scale but little chance of such gross polarization of a discipline the way we see with climate presently.
Also it would be good to have five year or seven year funding plans both internally in the institutes and externally so there could be stability in research objectives and no great hurry to come out with half baked results.
So my stick will be the peer pressure within each institute, that will be different in each, and thus no world coherence and consensus on temporary results could become fashionable as easily as now. Now the purse control of the central agencies creates Hansens and Gores etc.

jeroen
June 2, 2009 1:44 am

A Model only works when you know the variables. You can’t understand every thing about the sun by just watching it. Even looking at the past is too short in time. Sometimes you just have to wait.

June 2, 2009 8:30 am

anna v (22:38:38) :
If there were a universally accepted research budget
Just imagine, for example, by the United Nations…Absolutely NO!
Freedom is the precondition of any human adventure.
The consequence of such a “universally accepted” research would be a Bee Hive or an Ant’s Hill, a “Brave New World” indeed.

anna v
June 2, 2009 10:25 am

Adolfo Giurfa (08:30:40) :
I”f there were a universally accepted research budget”
Just imagine, for example, by the United Nations…Absolutely NO!

Here we come into language difficulties. By universal I did not mean global. Rather something reasonable as for example a percentage of the GDP for a country, accepted universally, i.e. by all, within the country. A budget that should be divided to institutes and not persons. It is the creation of researchers as contractors that in my opinion has created the mess of AGW. Gives them carrots for sloppy science and self advertisement and filling the pocket.
Ideally researchers should be like monks, dedicated and chasing their vision. They should be given a salary in order to live well and respectably and no incentives to make more personal money out of their work.

June 2, 2009 9:38 pm

This was just published in Geophysical Research Letters:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038004.shtml
A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland, Berggren et al.
“Here we report a new annual resolution 10Be record spanning the period 1389–1994 AD, measured in an ice core from the NGRIP site in Greenland. NGRIP and Dye-3 10Be exhibits similar long-term variability, although occasional short term differences between the two sites indicate that at least two high resolution 10Be records are needed to assess local variations and to confidently reconstruct past solar activity. A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spörer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
Another way to get to it:
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0911/2009GL038004/
or even:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
The paper lends support to some recent conclusions of mine:
1) the sun is not coming down from an all-time high [20th century not a Grand Maximum]
2) solar magnetic cycle persists through Grand Minima [maybe
Livingston and Penn have something]
3) Heliospheric magnetic field does not have large swings and cosmic ray modulation doesn’t either

Tired_Of_This
July 16, 2009 2:46 pm

Ok… What we should do, what you should think, what is happening, oh my God, we need to know everything!! Are things warming up, cooling down, is that star blinking faster than the other? Cyclic solar blabla under harmonic feedback of gravitational blabla and the plasma convection releasing blabla… The urge to give your opinion and postulate, argue, etc.. is sooooo tiring.. Humans are soooo pathetic. One year its this, the other year its that. (baby voice: We have to learn more! we want to learn more! we want to know why! tell us why! explain to me why!. Have you ever stopped for a instant, so small an instant, just for a moment, and maybe realize that this kind of unrelentless thirst for “knowledge” throught scientific reasoning will never give you an answer on “why” things are the way they are but only “how” they are? And even so, the answers to the “how” will always bring up more questions.
Big scientist heads with big ideas. A life of work in the field for what? Recognition for trying to understand something that doens’t need to be understood? Laws of physics that fall into the logic of your interpretation? When you are thirsty, very thirsty, and you long for a glass of water. When you take that first big gulp of water out of the glass, does the quenching of your thirst depend on your understanding of why your thirst is being quenched? NO. And trying to understand everything else just kills the moment. Hey! look! the sun! aint it beautiful? Oh yes but did you know that the sunspot count on the sun is now under 11 and the 10.7 flux is at 67? NO AND WE DONT CARE. The sun shines, and it helps us get warm, it makes plants grow, and it did well before you guys tried understanding why, and will still do well after you stop trying. The functioning of things is far from depending on puny arrogant humans who think highly of themselves and of their oh so precious knowledge of things. The Earth doens’nt need you. Neither does the sun. You just destroy everything on your path like locusts, and then try to pose as redeemers of the world. You are pathetic useless, and lost. Nature’s solution to Nature’s problems is provided naturally by Nature. Humans only interfere with normal process of things. Nature doesn’t NEED your understanding. It just needs you, and all your stupid arrogant friends, to leave her alone.

Madmax
August 1, 2009 5:05 pm

The sun is getting a good laugh out of this I’m sure.

1 7 8 9