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.
Well their graph shows the minimun in early 2008 or late 2009, so we are only 2 year into the cycle. So, in another year they should have a good preiction? Nice.
Gary Fox:
“The solar cycle 24 predicted sunspot maximum has been reduced again – predicted peak down to 59 Max.”
“This will be at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715.”
It has been pointed out by a poster over at Judith Curry’s that the author probably means a Dalton Minimum rather than a Maunder minimum which would have less than 10 SSN rather than the 59 now forecast by NASA.
Ralph says:
January 19, 2011 at 2:57 am
…………
Electro-magnetic laws of physics are well known and are easily tested. Problems arise when one gets down to the fundamentals, as we often see in a frequent discourse between Dr.S. and some of the EU protagonists.
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 8:32 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?
Your musings do not even reach that level.
The late Dr. Landscheidt also predicted a moderate SC23 and weak SC24. He used heuristic analysis to suggest a Maunder Minimum-type of activity through 2030. So far, it’s looking good for his predictions.
Mr. Alex says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:43 am
Translation: “we are done” 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:03 am
………………..
In the aurora electrojet (Hall current) the electrons rapidly move among the ions creating separate electric current of opposite polarity.
And if in the ionosphere, why not in the solar wind too?; plasma is layered.
Doug Allen says:
January 18, 2011 at 2:52 pm
As most of us are aware, there is a pretty good correlation between sunspot numbers and global temperature. . This correlation has continued to the present, and most observers would state that it’s a much closer correlation than the CO2- temperature correlation. Yes, we all know that correlation does not necessarily imply causality.
If you are talking about the correlation between CO2 and temperature, you have only one single occurance without using proxies and since 1995 CO2 has gone opposite to temperature. If you are talking about the correlation between sunspots and temperature I dont think it can be shown that a small rise in global temperatures can cause sunspots, there are observed (eyeball) records over three periods, how many times does it take the sun to go to sleep and the earth to cool before the light bulb flashes.
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:37 am
And if in the ionosphere, why not in the solar wind too?; plasma is layered.
Analogies don’t work here. There are so many things wrong with your picture that it is hard to know where to begin, and it would be futile anyway, as you would not understand or be willing to learn. You’ll be much happier staying at the level where you are, rather than learning about how the solar system plasmas really behave. I have tried to get you out of the dark, but failed, so why not leave you where you are happy, working for the benefit of all mankind?
Robw says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Thanks folks. Now my question is by how much is the present spot count elevated by the new method?
This is the original
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/galileonewton.jpg
This is the reference
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Wolf-Telescope.png
Today
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/McMath-pierce.jpg
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Now, one can always manipulate the sunspot number to make it fit whatever one wants too. Perhaps GISS is not the only one playing games with the ‘data’.
Yes by using this as a reference,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/refractingscope.jpg
instead of this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Galileoscope2.jpg
Robuk says:
January 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Thanks folks. Now my question is by how much is the present spot count elevated by the new method?
The present day spot count is kept [as far as possible] to what is visible in an 80mm aperture refractor at magnification 64, and is thus independent of the instruments. At any rate, the limit is set by the quality of the seeing and the experience of the observer, not by the size of the telescope, once the latter is good enough.
Next NASA adjustment will be with Botox 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:37 am
And if in the ionosphere, why not in the solar wind too?; plasma is layered.
Analogies don’t work here. There are so many things wrong with your picture that it is hard to know where to begin,..
~
C’mon now Leif, there has got to be similaritys within the system.
If .. we think we can see jets forming at the edge of the heliosphere bubble, caused by the flopping around of solar wind and IMF as it propagates outward and piles up.. why then can’t we say the same about the inward and outward solar wind/IMF flopping around itself in the inner system? Everytime the inward IMF and outward IMF flop isn’t there an X line and reconnection onto itself? We see some pretty amazing reconnection on the dayside of earth’s magnetosphere when that flopping occurs during the course of a collision with earth’s field. What happens in space when there is no body to collide with?
Then we have that helium passing through the system at 26 km/sec and its vector locations from the nose, But the hydrogen and heaviers in separate streams mind you, at 24 km/sec, (higher lats) talk about plasma behavior, gee whiz..
And Leif, that link..light bulbs sucking out the dark? Hello..you do have a sense of humor..lol
Plenty of blue striping on our clouds here in WI the last two weeks. And plenty of light fluffy snow too..not that heavier wet stuff, like when the clouds are all dark and greys. My back is surviving better than the wrist for those snow shovelling episodes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
I have tried to get you out of the dark, but failed..
Not in such darkness as you make it out, just at the twilight of a new dawn.
For benefit of some readers, Dr. Hathaway for his predictions was forward casting IHV index values. This worked fine until SC24. Only reason he failed is that he didn’t now why it worked (as he is on record saying), if he really understood IHV index, he may got SC24 at least low.
Dr. Svalgaard is the world’s top expert on IHV index ( early data is Dr. S’ reconstruction).
I am the only one who understands North Atlantic Precursor – NAP (I discovered it, or lets say, invented it)
There is more than passing similarity between two: the IHV index and NAP (1910-2010)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IHV-NAP.htm
‘Coincidence!’ I here good doc remonstrating.
May be, but on the other hand may be not.
Sun, major planets, heliosphere, all the way down to the Earth and Arctic (and our precious climate) they are all links in an unbreakable chain.
Carla says:
January 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Everytime the inward IMF and outward IMF flop isn’t there an X line and reconnection onto itself? We see some pretty amazing reconnection on the dayside of earth’s magnetosphere when that flopping occurs during the course of a collision with earth’s field. What happens in space when there is no body to collide with?
If there is serious reconnection between the inward and outward IMF, then there would be no open flux left when the solar wind gets to the heliopause. That the sector structure is still very much evident at such great distance is proof that reconnection is insignificant. And when there is no body to collide with, nothing happens.
None of this is relevant to Vuk’s simplistic ideas. He uses words and concepts that he has no idea what mean, e.g. the Hall current he was talking about. The Hall parameter, in a plasma is the ratio between the electron gyrofrequency, and the electron-heavy particle collision frequency. The solar wind is collisionless, so there are no collisions, hence no Hall currents, and on and on. He thinks the solar wind is a ‘proton current’. It is not, as there are equal number of protons and electrons, and on and on. As I said, the whole thing is just weird nonsense. The solar wind does not return to the Sun at high latitudes, but is lost to interstellar space, helps make up that interstellar medium [stellar winds from other stars] you like so much, and on and on. Now, you are not much better when it comes to understanding of this. This does not detract from the entertainment value you all can have from these speculations, but it ain’t science, even if considered Nobel quality by its peddlers.It is alright that you are out there on the fringe, as long as you know you are on the fringe. Sadly, it diminishes the value of this blog as a forum for serious skepticism. Now, one can argue that a robust world view can live with a few nuts, and leave it at that.
vukcevic says:
January 19, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Only reason he failed is that he didn’t now why it worked (as he is on record saying), if he really understood IHV index, he may got SC24 at least low.
No, that is not the reason. The reason is that his method relies on a peak in geomagnetic activity near or just before minimum. If there are more than one peak, one should pick the ‘right’ one [which is usually the latest one. Hathaway picked the wrong peak [in 2003] rather than the ‘better’ one in 2008. See slide 26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
I am the only one who understands North Atlantic Precursor – NAP (I discovered it, or lets say, invented it)
Which makes it useless and not science.
James H says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:04 am
The late Dr. Landscheidt also predicted a moderate SC23 and weak SC24. He used heuristic analysis to suggest a Maunder Minimum-type of activity through 2030. So far, it’s looking good for his predictions.
And I believe he also predicted there would be no more El Ninos for decades after 2008. It’s possible he could be right about a Maunder Minimum, but for the wrong reasons.
A few weeks ago there was a link on Drudge to a breathless article discussing the dangers of the next solar maximum. Not once did the authors mention the sluggishness of SC24, nor did they hint that there was any information which might cause people to wonder if SC24 was at, above or below predicted levels. It was about 750 – 1,000 words of solar flares, CME’s, power grid failures and disabled satellites. They even sneaked a Katrina comparison in there. I had to laugh out loud it was so fear-mongering.
I put it all down to typical sensationalised reporting to sell ad copy.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.bdf9ddce1297325e1b97e06696026e73.111&show_article=1
OK, now on to the conspiracy portion of the programme…
It’s entirely logical to presume that IF cycle 24 tops out at even lower activity numbers than predicted and ends up bringing cooling temps globally, and IF as cycle 25 ramps up it’s apparent that it’s more “normal” with rising temps, the AGW crowd will at that point in time shift into overdrive trumpeting the proof that the world is warming and that it’s your fault. They’ll gloss over the obvious information that a low solar activity event lined up with cooling, and rush to resume their efforts to part you from your money – to save the planet, donchaknow.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Les Francis says:
January 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm
How long does the good Dr.Wollf estimate this disordered path to last?
The solar disordered path goes from 2006 to 2016. How much of that path is available to solar suppression effects through vertical and horizontal forces is debatable, but currently being looked at.
Dr. Wollf tells me that he would expect a reduction in overall solar output when the Sun is on the currently disordered path.
Interesting. We’ve been having an extensive discussion of the Wolff and Patrone paper here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-sun/
“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 seems to me a bit like saying the poles reverse because the poles reverse. Why is new magnetic flux not the same polarity as the old flux? Where does the energy come from that flips the magnetic field? Why is the length of time between reversals variable? Why is it not more regular? What determines the magnitude and limits of these variations? Is a Hale cycle of 10 years possible? How about 100 years? If not, why not? Why is the sunspot cycle a 2:1 resonance of magnetic cycle? What is the physical process that powers this resonance? Why is it not a 1:1 resonance?
Dr. Svalgaard; what is your current prediction for the peak 29 or 30 day average 10.7 cm flux during cycle 24? I use 29 days, because it’s approximately 1 Carrington rotation. I prefer 10.7 cm flux, because it’s objective, and not subject to personal judgement or improving optics, like sunspots.
For comparison, the Solar Cycle 23 value peaked at 240 in early October, 2001. Right now, it’s crawling around 80.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”
Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2011 at 11:33 am
Robuk says:
January 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Thanks folks. Now my question is by how much is the present spot count elevated by the new method?
The present day spot count is kept [as far as possible] to what is visible in an 80mm aperture refractor at magnification 64, and is thus independent of the instruments.
At any rate, the limit is set by the quality of the seeing and the experience of the observer, not by the size of the telescope, once the latter is good enough.
Not by the size of the scope, yes, but the quality of the lense is paramount, how good is good enough, are you suggesting 80mm lenses of the 1700`s have the same capability as lenses developed in the mid 1800`s or today.
We are comparing the Maunda and the Daulton and the reference telescope should be the earliest scope available, which is this scope.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Galileoscope2.jpg
http://www.vectorsite.net/tascope_02.html
“And I believe he also predicted there would be no more El Ninos for decades after 2008. It’s possible he could be right about a Maunder Minimum, but for the wrong reasons.”
Yarmy, I have definitely not studied all of his work and statements, but I don’t recall seeing a statement that there would not be ANY El Nino’s, but that they would diminish in strength especially relative to La Nina’s, which would be prevalent. He also says that the lag time between solar activity changes and temperature changes is approximately 4-8 years. Maybe 2010 was the last hurrah? Who knows, it could all be wrong. I don’t have much confidence in anyone’s forecasts/predictions. It will be an interesting show though, for the next couple of decades, to see what happens.