UPDATE: see my animation of NASA solar forecasts since 2004 below.
WUWT Commenter J Gary Fox writes:
The solar cycle 24 predicted sunspot maximum has been reduced again – predicted peak down to 59 Max. (1/3/11) http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Philosopher Y. Berra
This will be at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715.
Previous NASA predictions below:
- 2010 October: Predicted peak 60-70
- 2009 May 29: predicted peak: 80-90 range
- 2009 Jan 5: predicted peak: 100-110 range
- 2008 Mar 28: predicted peak: 130-140 range
From the NASA page:
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 59 in June/July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.
Here’s what the prediction looked like in March 2009:
What a difference.
Here’s an animation showing all of the prediction graphs from NASA that we have thus far:
Ira Glickstein did a guest post here a few days ago that outlines a lot of the changes in the forecast over time. It is well worth the read.
Talking of Maunder Minimum here is Joe Bastardi predicting temps for the next decade.
If this happens what will the climate scientists say? I predict we will see a paper that blames the cooling on global warming. I’m not joking either. They have already done this with the recent bitter cold and snow in the Northern Hemisphere this past winter.
The NASA prediction has closed to within 20% of the correct number. As they note, this is an ongoing process. They still have solar maximum in 2013 when it will be in 2015. I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum. Solar activity will be back to normal, as we have known it, by mid-century. Ocean warming has now ceased in this interglacial and insolation at 60 degrees north will be low enough for long enough to initiate onset of the next glaciation. The thing to watch now is how much snow remains on the ground each August.
>>vukcevic says: January 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm
>>Here is an updated version:
>> http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC5.htm
Yeah, very good. But do you have a layman’s version, that tells us what the hell is going on?
The essence of a good scientist is not coming up with a fancy theory, but explaining that theory in simple terms to politicians or the public.
.
Scott says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:24 pm
These responses answer my question from earlier. But which is right?
Neither is right, they are both guesses based on some curve fitting. Without a causal theory which can be tested, feel free to pick which ever number fits your current theory.
My 6 years came from the lack of a clear correlation, and the recent article on here which attempted to remove ocean circulation effects from some temperature series, leaving a residual which had some similarity to SSN. To me, 6 years implies that the individual cycles won’t be very clear in the response which seems a reasonable interpretation of the data. I also believe the effect is small, so find the hysteria on these threads quite entertaining.
So the prediction original was for a maximum in 2010.
What if they were right ????
George Kominiak says:
January 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm
It may be time to stop arguing, put the computer codes on pause and sit back and watch the show. If, as historical information suggests, a lack of solar activity is going to have an adverse effect on the Earth’s weather/climate, we may soon be in a position to see it first hand!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our wonderful, honest, up-front scientific community could never sit back, George; the gravy might dry up.
One supposes there is no scientific method to determine if Livingston and Penn’s (LP) work applies to the Maunder period? It seems, to the lay person, that there are about 65 years of F10.7 flux measurements, 300 years of Wolf sunspots and perhaps 400 years of mostly continuous direct sunspot observations with telescopes. Which, imho, means there is only about 65 years of data reliable enough for LP and that is woefully insufficient to do anything other than suggest the same occurred during the Maunder period? And would that mean we’d have to wait until a repeat of the data LP is using to confirm LP’s theory and then “conjecture” the same event occurred during the Maunder period?
All in all, we’re still at the stage of conjecture trying to support conjecture, or worse, regarding climate predictions using spots?
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 1:43 am
Solar activity is electro-magnetic physical process and I think that latest findings from NASA with every new finding, indicate that solution to the problem can be only found in the study of the electro-magnetic relationships
Hi Vuk, dont take it personally but 2011 is the year when planetary theory will take hold. But only if some of the more obtuse areas of this realm are isolated. I have not seen any reliable data that can support a magnetic influence that can control solar output. Angular momentum theory has legs and needs to be isolated, but I wish you well in your research. I think your magnetic/climate work has some merit.
Quick question. Probably something I don’t understand fully.
Why do the error bars for the peak around 2001 change once the years progress to about the middle of 2009? The upper and lower ranges seem to increase.
David Archibald says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:47 am
..I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum..
~
Leif..instead of taking an opposing opine here, could you instead show us what it would take for this to occur? And then why it wont?
Or not?
~
Geoff Sharp says:
January 19, 2011 at 4:17 am
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 1:43 am
Solar activity is electro-magnetic physical process and I think that latest findings from NASA with every new finding, indicate that solution to the problem can be only found in the study of the electro-magnetic relationships
Hi Vuk, dont take it personally but 2011 is the year when planetary theory will take hold. But only if some of the more obtuse areas of this realm are isolated. I have not seen any reliable data that can support a magnetic influence that can control solar output. Angular momentum theory has legs and needs to be isolated, but I wish you well in your research. I think your magnetic/climate work has some merit.
~
I think his theory has merit too..and 2011 will also be insightfull for those watching the magnetic reconnection of the heliosphere with the interstellar region as a candidate for solar cycle variations.
When the planets stop “following the leader” (the sun), let me know Geoff.
geoff said: “If we get a major northern hemisphere volcanic eruption, the disruption to agricultural production could be catastrophic.” Good point.
Katla seems to be the front-runner. http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/
It will be interesting to see just how much this affects the TSI – we were informed that TSI only varies by 0.1% and thus cannot be a cause for GW – clearly, if we observe global ‘cooling’ – this will certainly imply that TSI is a bigger player than currently considered by the ‘Team’.
Peter Ellis said:
“Eh, if we’re still setting multiple record high temperatures worldwide despite unprecedentedly (and unpredictably) low sunspot numbers, shouldn’t that make us more worried about global warming, rather than less?”
————————————————-
The Altai ice core reconstruction would indicate that the recent El Nino records of 1998 and 2010 were simply a twenty year delay from the 1980 to 1990 solar max.
The decline has just begun. I just agreed to pay somebody $750 to shovel my roof in Breckenridge where we have already come close to our yearly average snowfall of 300 inches. I may be on the frontline of the next ice age.
David Archibald says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:47 am
..I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum..
What’s new?
My formula has been around for years:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
NASA: The shape of our solar system moving through the interstellar medium was previously thought to be comet-shaped, with a head pointed into the stream, and a tail flowing downstream. Carla says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:45 am
New observations show the shape actually resembles something more like a slippery ball.
Electro-magnetic feedback within a sphere is bound to be more effective than within the previously thought ‘comet-shaped’ heliosphere. Dimensions of the heliosphere are result of the equilibrium between intensity of solar activity and strength of galactic field.
Seems as though a grand minimum is almost certain. Flux is still flat and struggling to stay in the 90s for a sustained amount of time.
Leif, please could you update graphic K F107 at Minima 1954 and 2008 Comparison between minima (daily) , it has not been updated since the sudden up-tick to 90 in the first week of January. Pressing F5/refresh does not update the graphic.
David Archibald says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:47 am
..I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum..
What’s new?
My formula has been around for years:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Carla says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:45 am
……………….
NASA: The shape of our solar system moving through the interstellar medium was previously thought to be comet-shaped, with a head pointed into the stream, and a tail flowing downstream.
Electro-magnetic feedback within a sphere is bound to be more effective than within the previously thought ‘comet-shaped’ heliosphere. Dimensions of the heliosphere are result of the equilibrium between intensity of solar activity and strength of galactic field.
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:00 am
the more compressive electro-magnetic feedback
It has about [perhaps a tad less] merit as this theory:
http://www.asnsw.com/universe/alternate/AU2/darksuckers.asp
Carla says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:45 am
“..I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum..”
Leif..instead of taking an opposing opine here, could you instead show us what it would take for this to occur? And then why it wont?
First, if the poles do reverse D.A.’s prediction fails. A failed prediction means a failed theory. So, if the poles reverse, will D.A. abandon his ideas [as he must]?
Why do the poles reverse? They do that because new cycle magnetic flux is transported to the poles and there cancel the old cycle flux that was there. This process is well on its way already. The polar fields have already decreased 25% the last year or so; at this rate, a reversal at solar max is very likely in another 3 years.
Mr. Alex says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:43 am
update graphic K F107 at Minima 1954 and 2008 Comparison between minima (daily) , it has not been updated since the sudden up-tick to 90 in the first week of January. Pressing F5/refresh does not update the graphic.
It moves like molasses in January:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:45 am
“David Archibald says: ..I predict that there will be no solar magnetic pole reversal at solar maximum..”
What’s new? My formula has been around for years
So, if the polar fields reverse, you are both wrong, and the ‘theory’ is falsified.
If their original prediction had held true, we would be, right now, at a level of solar activity greater than the previous solar maximum.
And still people tell me that I’m crazy to suggest that science should not be making public predictions. In this case though, as I think Leif has hinted at a few times on here, it seems that *IF ANYTHING* there is pressure from major insurance firms on these official “predictions”? Don’t let me misquote you Leif, I don’t want to do that. What’s interesting about that situation is that it is precisely the opposite situation that climate science seems to be in. Those who predict nothing interesting will happen are the ones accused of being “on the take” as it were.
With forecasts above of how long and how deep this cooling cycle might be, and when the next ice age starts, I would like to send my 2 cents. Two questions:
How does one submit a Guest Post candidate?
I have a word document with JPEG images- and the images don’t seem to transmit. How do I overcome this problem?
Answers to murrayv@msn.com would be welcome.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 7:02 am
It has about [perhaps a tad less] merit as this theory:
http://www.asnsw.com/universe/alternate/AU2/darksuckers.asp
Is that the best you can do?
A bit embarrassing for a scientist of your standing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 7:39 am
So, if the polar fields reverse, you are both wrong, and the ‘theory’ is falsified.
Polar reversal times are a bit ambiguous (can lust up to a year, or even longer).
My formula is very ‘clever’ about that possibility, almost
Delphian
You should take a good look again
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 7:39 am
So, if the polar fields reverse…..
Latest data from the WSO show that Polar magnetic field is not wasting any time
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
Just more proof that one should never bet against the incompetence of NASA.
In postulating that the Earth was a planet travelling around the Sun, Aristarchus was the precursor of Copernicus. Copernicus realized this, because in the original preface to De
Revolutionibus[6] he referred to Aristarchus, but removed the reference before the book was published in the year of his death. Between these men are seventeen centuries yet both were opposed by the scientific minds of their day.
Inmanuel Velikovsky
http://www.skepticssa.org.au/pdf/velikovsky.pdf
David Archibald says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:47 am
Considering the progressive SSN hemispherical bifurcation I got a fiver on DA over the savant.