From the Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Hathaway’s page:
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 58 in July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.
Additionally, the monthly data plots are out, and there’s been little change from last month in the three major solar indexes plotted by the Space Weather Prediction Center:
h/t to WUWT reader harrywr2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I like to follow Geoff Sharpe’s analysis, here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
I’m not surprised by this news. this is one area of science the Ecotards can’t manipulate the data or model it away, there are to many eyes on the sun.
Quick, somebody get James Hansen involved in counting sunspots. These bozo’s obviously don’t know how to do a revision. /sarc off
I wonder why the sunspot numbers are so different between the “11” on the sidebar Widget, and the current “67” at solarcycle24.com. On the latter page, there has been no such a low as “11” for the past two weeks.
As we have discussed many times the ‘real’ indicator of solar activity is the the F10.7 microwave flux. The flux is predicted to top ~120 in mid 2013 and seems well on its way to that. The sunspot number is falling progressively below the sunspot number corresponding to the microwave flux. This may be an indication of the Livingston & Penn effect at work. If L&P are correct this discrepancy will grow worse [potentially with no visible spots at all], and the sunspot number will be rather useless as a measure of solar activity, so Hathaway will have to continually adjust the predicted SSN down, down, down. Luckily, the sunspot number is rarely used in operational practice [e.g. for calculation of satellite drag]. Instead, the F10.7 flux is used for that, so as long as we stick to the flux there should be no problems.
The Marshall Space Flight Center should just lower their guess to match mine at 47 so it can finally stop falling. Sigh. ☺
Mausumi Dikpati and others boldly and arrogantly predicted in their paper ‘Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a flux-transport dynamo-based tool’ in 2005 stated ‘We predict that cycle 24 will have a 30 – 50% higher peak than cycle 23. Their overconfidence and hubris reeked in this paper. Have they modified or retracted their prediction?
The nature of climate is that significant change takes place over nearly a lifetime, (both natural variations and ostensibly CO2 forcing) making predictions difficult to verify. But the Solar slowdown makes an interesting experiment as to the impact of GCR. But if the theory is correct, we should soon ( within this decade ) see some noticeable effects. If we don’t, I believe the theory is contradicted. But if we do, it means a large part of the warming trend through the twentieth century was likely due to the multi-millenea high in solar magnetic field strength and so the sensitivity to CO2 is reduced.
When daylight increases chickens lay more eggs. When daylight decreases chickens lay fewer eggs. If one didn’t already know this relationship and saw an increase (decrease) in the number of eggs per 1,000 hens one might change the number promised to the local distributor. So as far as NASA’s adjustments in the chart – so what?
See Lief @ur momisugly 8:50 for common sense and good science.
josel says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Mausumi Dikpati and others boldly and arrogantly predicted in their paper ‘Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a flux-transport dynamo-based tool’ in 2005 stated ‘We predict that cycle 24 will have a 30 – 50% higher peak than cycle 23. Their overconfidence and hubris reeked in this paper. Have they modified or retracted their prediction?
No, they have not. The hubris was more on the part of HAO and NASA than on the part of the scientists. In fact, a bold prediction like that is good science as it allows falsification.
F10.7 flux cannot be used to represent climate changes. It has other good uses, but is inadequate for climate prognostication. We cannot go back 100 years and measure 10.7 and compare what the climate did afterward, but we do have sunspot data for the past 200 years or so that can be compared to today’s count to attempt to validate SSN for climate prediction.
Layman’s count paints a more adequate picture of how today’s counts compare with history. Perhaps in 50 years or so, 10.7 can be used for more than figuring out satellite drag.
This has proven a very interesting time to watch the sun… I have been wondering if cycle 24 is much further along then we think, the original forecast predicted a cycle 24 max between October 2011 and August 2012 and the current prediction is rather outside of that rather wide target.
The third grader in me says that the cycle 24 max will be near April of 2012 with a peak SSN near 45.
The good news is that no matter what, my prediction is at least as good as the experts.
bubbagyro says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:15 pm
We cannot go back 100 years and measure 10.7 and compare what the climate did afterward, but we do have sunspot data for the past 200 years or so that can be compared to today’s count to attempt to validate SSN for climate prediction.
We actually can. Figure 12 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf shows what F10.7 very likely was the past 170 years. It is possible to go back to the 1740s even.
Layman’s count paints a more adequate picture of how today’s counts compare with history. Perhaps in 50 years or so, 10.7 can be used for more than figuring out satellite drag.
The Layman’s count is junk that lacks an adequate calibration and is based on poor understanding of solar activity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm
F10.7 flux for SC24 is trending lower than the sunspot number thanks to the large proportion of unipolar regions.
This is no time to run away from your sunspot prediction.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:37 pm
F10.7 flux for SC24 is trending lower than the sunspot number thanks to the large proportion of unipolar regions.
You didn’t man up to the analysis I suggested, so cannot make any such statement. In 2011 there has been 26 unipolar regions versus 70 total, which is the 37% we see in the long-term average.
Leif wrote, “The flux is predicted to top ~120 in mid 2013 and seems well on its way to that.”
I am curious how you arrived at that prediction, Leif. I fitted a 2nd-degree polynomial to the data and come up with a top of about 90 in early 2013. Of course, I’m just causally playing with the data, but I’d still like to know more about how you arrived at that number. Thanks, Stan
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm
As we have discussed many times the ‘real’ indicator of solar activity is the the F10.7 microwave flux. The flux is predicted to top ~120 in mid 2013 and seems well on its way to that.
I noticed that the pink dashed flux curve has been changed and is now trending upward http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Until a few days ago that curve was flat and others have noticed that maximum values for flux have been flat over the last year but minimum values have been trending upward.
Sorry for this OT but still relevant to climate:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_bi_ge/as_indonesia_chili_fever
Rising Chili prices in Indonesia blamed on unusual heavy rainfall due to global warming!
Isn’t the heavy rain due to the La Nina which also brought heavy rain to Australia?
Sunspots with distinguishable umbra for SC24 is an order of magnitude weaker than any cycle since measurements began in 1874 by Greenwich:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
The corresponding butterfly diagrams comparing sunspot groups with distinguishable umbra vs no distinguishable umbra:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin10.htm
specifically: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uvp2324a.PNG
reveals SC24 to be more scattered and weak than any other.
So, Leif, L&P has thus far been proven not wrong by SC24 data.
In contrast to the sunspot #, the sunspot area has increased slightly over the last year, while the F10.7 Flux has perceptibly stood still. In about 2 years time, my best guess, the weak ramp will end and the L&P effect will eat what’s left of the SSN.
It could end later. It could end next week. When the ramp runs out of fuel the ball will drop.
Isn’t that how the Maunder started, a mid-ramp failure?
Leif Svalgaard:
As we have discussed many times the ‘real’ indicator of solar activity is the the F10.7 microwave flux.
What about sunspot counts from the period before 10,7 cm measurements was introduced?
As grains continue their inverse price / sunspot relationship first worked out by Herschel then validated by Jevons in an extensive study of grain prices and production in the English Empire a hundred and 30 pluss years ago…
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=jjg&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=4&maval=24&uf=0&lf=2&lf2=4&lf3=1024&type=4&size=3&state=15&sid=2913190&style=320&time=8&freq=1&comp=NO%5FSYMBOL%5FCHOSEN&nosettings=1&rand=924&mocktick=1
That’s a live chart so will change over time…
Jevons, William Stanley (Nov. 14, 1878). “Commercial crises and sun-spots”, Nature xix, pp. 33-37.
Dan (Norway) says:
February 9, 2011 at 11:00 pm
What about sunspot counts from the period before 10,7 cm measurements was introduced?
We have those too, of course. The processes that give rise to F10.7 also generate ultraviolet light which creates the ionosphere in which electric currents can flow. These currents have a magnetic effect which can be [and has been since 1722] observed on the ground.
What they don’t show is the overall decline in sunspot activity since 1976. Each cycle was getting smaller.
What is remarkable is the climate time lag. It took nearly two decades to recover the global heat lost and greenhouse gases to have the warmest climate and strongest hurricane seasons from 1995 to 2006.
The winters are cooling down about a half degree F a year since 2000.
I should add that the Sunspot Cycle from 1963 to 1974 was a flat cooler cycle and it took two more cycles to recover the heat lost.
Stan in San Francisco says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Of course, I’m just causally playing with the data, but I’d still like to know more about how you arrived at that number.
We don’t do extrapolation of the data. Section 2.2 of http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/ explains how the prediction is made as does our original prediction paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
As we really predict the magnetic field that in turn determine F10.7 one can convert the predicted sunspot number into F10.7 using a standard formula.
Mr. Alex says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:07 pm
I noticed that the pink dashed flux curve has been changed and is now trending upward http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
The trend lines are not really physically significant as they are just numerology [curve fitting] and simply adjust to the data.
rbateman says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:12 pm
So, Leif, L&P has thus far been proven not wrong by SC24 data.
That is my assessment too.
Isn’t that how the Maunder started, a mid-ramp failure?
Possibly.
Stan in San Francisco says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:49 pm
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/ explains how the prediction is made
Click on the ‘discuss’ tab for some historical information.