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
Thanks for the replies, Leif…I’ll dig into that. Stan
Bowen says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:58 am
I can find your web sites but no bio. Could you enlighten us/me.
Real short:
1963-1968: University of Copenhagen, candidature [Geophysics]
1969-1971: Regnecentralen, Copenhagen {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_4000_Multiprogramming_System}
1972-1978: Stanford University, Senior Research Physicist
1979-1984: Lockheed Electronics Company, Chief Engineer
1985-1993: SEMA Group, Belgium, Ingenieur en Checf
1994-1998: TOSC, Houston, Director of Development
1999-2000: Pentasafe, Houston, Senior Developer
2001-2009: Independent Researcher
2004: Nagoya University, Professor
2009-now: Stanford University, Researcher.
But, this blog is not about me.
ge0050 says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:00 am
Doesn’t the solar spectrum change with energy levels? As such, that suggests to me that a measurement at any one frequency could be misleading.
The microwave flux is not really part of the ‘ordinary’ solar spectrum. The energy is extremely small. Its significance is that the flux is a good measure of the magnetic field in the lower solar corona.
Leif, thanks very much for that explanation. If I may, one more question. You said above that F10.7 flux is predicted to top ~120 in mid 2013 and seems well on its way to that. The third order fit highlighted what to my eyeball also looks like that F10.7 was more or less flat for all of 2010. The 2nd order highlights the increasing levels of the mid-values throughout 2010.
So how much stress does the flatness of 2010 put on the prediction of 2013? It’s not obvious to me that either the 2nd-order or 3rd-order curves are a good predictor of future behavior, they just highlight where the sun has been. So I’m guessing the 2013 prediction is based on the polar field strength data you’re collecting and analyzing elsewhere, and I should pay more attention to that.
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
iii) The sun is currently behaving like a ‘dead parrot’ as compared to the run of cycles 17 to 23 so does anyone really expect a zero effect on the global energy budget ?
Behavior is the key. The Sun has not changed it’s behavior as regards not doing a traditional ramp, discernable above the noise, for the whole of SC24. So far. I don’t see anything going on which says it’s about to change that behavior.
Wish list item: David Hathaway finally has a breakthru moment, and comes out with predicted curves which actually (gasp) FOLLOW the current data lines, instead of defying them.
Good grief. His smoothed line has the last 6 months of data tucked underneath it.
Leif said:
“it is implausible that the changes you have in mind have a significant effect.”
Do you have any other suggestions as to why ozone quantities above 45km might have increased during the period of less active sun from 2004 to 2007 ?
John from CA says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:19 am
past climate changes like the MWP or LIA become even more difficult to explain in terms of what we currently know about the climate system?
Perhaps not. Every complicated system has natural, random, internal fluctuations [as Roy Spencer pointed out recently].
John A. Fleming says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:32 am
It’s not obvious to me that either the 2nd-order or 3rd-order curves are a good predictor of future behavior, they just highlight where the sun has been.
That’s right and even though they may show what is in store the next few months cannot be extrapolated beyond that.
So I’m guessing the 2013 prediction is based on the polar field strength data you’re collecting and analyzing elsewhere, and I should pay more attention to that.
Yep.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:33 am
Tom Rowan says:
February 10, 2011 at 7:40 am
Because Layman’s count compares to the last solar minimum during the Little Ice Age, we can test the many theories regarding the sun’s space weather pattern.
Leif Svalgaard says: The LSC has no bearing on the solar minimum around 1800, so has no value for any comparison.
Tom Rowan replies: I believe there are many well known and universally respected astrophysicists who would argue otherwise. Many have published theories and papers to that effect. Svensmark comes to mind.
I thought the entire point of LSC website was to match the counting method used during the 1800s for comparison! I think I am right about that, but maybe I am wrong.
As an expert sunspot counter yourself Leif, do you find any correlation with solar minimums and colder weather here on earth?
I believe that there is not only a direct correlation with solar minimums and colder weather, but a causal relationship. I join the the thousands of scientists who theorize that perhaps there is such a causal relationship and the Sun wears the pants in the family.
Anyway, for comparison purposes I think their is a correlation with solar minimums and cold weather. And I believe that their exists relatively comparable solar cycle graphs using the older method of counting spots.
For instance: Layman’s has about 10 spotless days this year. Space Weather has counted 1. In 1800, would the telescopes have picked up the sun specks and solar plaques that are counted today?
Maybe I have my history wrong. Set me straight Leif.
Thanks, Tom
BTW- I forget what we finally decided to call this solar minimum.
How many votes did The Algore Solar Minimum get?
“Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
i) The Lanscheldt approach seems to have anticipated the current solar quietude. How could that have happened ?”
Leif said:
“Anybody looking at http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfaml_small.png would come to that conclusion. No model or approach needed.”
Well no. Cycle 24 could just as well have gone up after cycle 23 just as cycle 21 went up after cycle 20. Indeed Hathaway et al expected just that.
A rather weak reply, Leif.
If the SSN correlates reasonably with the TSI then that is sufficient if one realizes that TSI is only one of many influences upon climate and weather. Low SSN is a warning signal of POTENTIAL lower temperatures if it continues, all other variables held constant, which they never are. We always try to make too much out of one or two variables in a very complex mix which we still do not understand. Personally, though, I am cutting more firewood just in case.
Leif Svalgaard said 2009-now: Stanford University, Researcher.
OK, Sorry about that . . . but now I can find your reports, thank you . . . given the nature of the internet hacking wars, one does not know who to “trust”.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+University++Leif+Svalgaard&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=4zRUTbq-CMG78gaU_rjKCQ&start=10&sa=N
I said:
“ii) The L&P effect seems to cause the sunspot numbers (SSN) to diverge from the 10.7 flux numbers but currently both SSN and 10.7 flux numbers are equally low so what does it matter ?”
Leif said:
“It matters if you want to compare the coming cycle with other cycles.”
But I don’t. I want to compare with past cycles.
The sun is less active and there are less sunspots. AO is more negative, jets are more meridional, ozone has increased above 45 km contrary to expectations, the stratosphere is no longer cooling, the troposphere is no longer warming, ocean heat content is no longer rising, cloudiness and albedo have increased since the late 90s.
What other driving force do you have to offer ?
I said:
“iii) The sun is currently behaving like a ‘dead parrot’ as compared to the run of cycles 17 to 23 so does anyone really expect a zero effect on the global energy budget ?”
Leif said:
“dead parrots have but little effect.”
As compared to live parrots they do..
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:42 am
John from CA says:
past climate changes like the MWP or LIA become even more difficult to explain in terms of what we currently know about the climate system?
Leif Svalgaard says:
Perhaps not. Every complicated system has natural, random, internal fluctuations [as Roy Spencer pointed out recently].
======
Thanks, I spend some time reading Spencer’s work.
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:41 am
Do you have any other suggestions as to why ozone quantities above 45km might have increased during the period of less active sun from 2004 to 2007 ?
You might learn more here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL046012.pdf
Tom Rowan says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:43 am
Leif Svalgaard says: The LSC has no bearing on the solar minimum around 1800, so has no value for any comparison.
Tom Rowan replies: I believe there are many well known and universally respected astrophysicists who would argue otherwise.
I know of not a single one, but will defer to you when you produce one.
I thought the entire point of LSC website was to match the counting method used during the 1800s for comparison! I think I am right about that, but maybe I am wrong.
LSC tries to emulate Rudolf Wolf [but in a flawed way], but for no good reason as Wolf was not even born back then, and hence did not make any observations to compare with. In fact, Wolf’s first assessment of cycle 5 had it to be a large cycle based on the scattered reports from earlier observers. Later on [around 1880], when Wolf came across a catalog of aurorae he changed his mind about the cycles during the Dalton minimum and demoted them to small cycles. Truth is that we really don’t know.
As an expert sunspot counter yourself Leif, do you find any correlation with solar minimums and colder weather here on earth?
Not that is strong enough to be believed: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
For instance: Layman’s has about 10 spotless days this year. Space Weather has counted 1. In 1800, would the telescopes have picked up the sun specks and solar plaques that are counted today?
Yes, as today we use the same old telescopes as back then to keep our counts in line:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Handhelds.png
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
A rather weak reply, Leif.
To a weak question.
What other driving force do you have to offer ?
See link above.
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
As compared to live parrots they do..
The live parrot does have some small effect: 0.1-0.2 C at the most.
vukcevic says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:40 am
Your verse is much appreciated.
I asked Leif:
“Do you have any other suggestions as to why ozone quantities above 45km might have increased during the period of less active sun from 2004 to 2007 ?”
Leif said:
You might learn more here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL046012.pdf
Which says amongst other speculative stuff:
“Increasing levels of greenhouse gases will ensure that temperatures
continue to decrease in the stratosphere”
But temperatures in the stratosphere are not continuing to decrease:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
Then:
“Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:25 am
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
As compared to live parrots they do..
The live parrot does have some small effect: 0.1-0.2 C at the most.”
But Leif has lapsed back to radiative physics which I do not dispute whereas I have been referring to atmospheric chemistry which is a different issue.
Leif gave a weak reply to this question:
“i) The Lanscheldt approach seems to have anticipated the current solar quietude. How could that have happened ?”
When I pointed out that his reply was weak his best shot was that the question was weak.
Please try again Leif. It was not good enough to suggest that the weakness of cycle 24 could have been predicted from the pattern of earlier cycles. Hathaway failed after all and he is supposaed to be the expert.
From a comment at http://www.freerepublic.com about this graph: And this means: hotter, cooler, or no change in earth’s temperature?
My reply follows: Well, we don’t know. (And anybody who pretends to know, doesn’t know they don’t know.)
The solar cycle 24 predictions were ORIGINALLY (back in 2006-2008 timeframe) predicted to peak in 2011-2012 (Yes, that means right about now!) between 150 – 170. Now, that same solar cycle 24 “might” peak in 2013-2014 at less than 60.
What does it mean for temperatures?
We don’t know. Last time the solar sunspot count and solar flux were this low for this long for three consecutive sunspot cycles – which might be cycles 24-25-26, we experienced extremely low temperatures for almost 70+ years.
For reference about the real value of this revision at this point in time:
It is essential that the “original” predictions for the Solar Cycle 24 maximum point and the date of that maximum point be shown as well. Unless one sees how poorly the first predictions were – and still are – about Solar Cycle 24, you can’t tell how important/how not important/how unreliable/how reliable the latest prediction may be.
Caveat: I cannot make the latest prediction. I didn’t make the initial prediction(s) either. And, I am glad that knowledgeable people do try to make their predictions – and apparently at a a good wage too, gathering wide exposure for their predictions in the world’s fawning press corpse (er, press corps) . But neither am I claiming to be a “predictor” of the sun’s future activity.
Dr. Svalgaard is getting too much of a hard time. I should be the last person to spring to his defence, but if he got one or two things wrong, and can’t bring himself to admit it, at least not as yet, it is not good enough reason to question his absolutely superior knowledge and experience of the matters solar.
Despite his continuous berating, I personally have learned a lot from Dr. S. , for that I am grateful.
Now it is time to give the man a rest.
OK!
The 21st Century – The Portal to Perdition and Barbarism.
Thus spake Zarathrustra and thus began ten thousand years of darkness.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:23 am
LSC tries to emulate Rudolf Wolf
Actually, Leif, LSC independently measures a la Greenwich, as carried on by Debrecen today.
ftp://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/pub/DPD/data/dDPD2011.txt
I see 9 days in the 2011 Debrecen measurements that have either no discernible umbra to measure (0) or a pore (1).
This (measuring) is what Rudolf Wolf wanted to do, but had not the means to accomplish.
So, where does LSC (and Geoff Sharp) earn the disdain of junk for the act of independent finding?
That is not fair or objective.
Geoff did what he was capapble of doing (and so did I, though I did not contribute as much work as Geoff did).
Had Rudolf Wolf possessed captured images (photos/digital ccd integrations) he would have done the same as Geoff now does.