Compiled by Joe D’aleo WeatherBell
via NASA MSFC
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.
The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.
Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs [see Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]). Prior to that time the predictions are less reliable but nonetheless equally as important. Planning for satellite orbits and space missions often require knowledge of solar activity levels years in advance.
A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle.
Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.
Of these “geomagnetic precursor” techniques three stand out. The earliest is from Ohl and Ohl [Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proceedings, Vol. II. 258 (1979)] They found that the value of the geomagnetic aa index at its minimum was related to the sunspot number during the ensuing maximum. The primary disadvantage of this technique is that the minimum in the geomagnetic aa index often occurs slightly after sunspot minimum so the prediction isn’t available until the sunspot cycle has started.
An alternative method is due to a process suggested by Joan Feynman. She separates the geomagnetic aa index into two components: one in phase with and proportional to the sunspot number, the other component is then the remaining signal. This remaining signal has, in the past, given good estimates of the sunspot numbers several years in advance. The maximum in this signal occurs near sunspot minimum and is proportional to the sunspot number during the following maximum. This method does allow for a prediction of the next sunspot maximum at the time of sunspot minimum.
A third method is due to Richard Thompson [Solar Physics 148, 383 (1993)]. He found a relationship between the number of days during a sunspot cycle in which the geomagnetic field was “disturbed” and the amplitude of the next sunspot maximum. His method has the advantage of giving a prediction for the size of the next sunspot maximum well before sunspot minimum.
We have suggested using the average of the predictions given by the Feynman-based method and by Thompson’s method. [See Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann J. Geophys. Res. 104, 22,375 (1999)] However, both of these methods were impacted by the “Halloween Events” of October/November 2003 which were not reflected in the sunspot numbers. Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle.
The smoothed aa index reached its minimum (a record low) of 8.4 in September of 2009. Using Ohl’s method now indicates a maximum sunspot number of 70 plus/minus 18 for cycle 24. We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the latitude drift data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. The predicted numbers are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. As the cycle progresses, the prediction process switches over to giving more weight to the fitting of the monthly values to the cycle shape function. At this phase of cycle 24 we now give 66% weight to the amplitude from curve-fitting technique of Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994). That technique currently gives similar values to those of Ohl’s method.
Note: These predictions are for “smoothed” International Sunspot Numbers. The smoothing is usually over time periods of about a year or more so both the daily and the monthly values for the International Sunspot Number should fluctuate about our predicted numbers. The dotted lines on the prediction plots indicate the expected range of the monthly sunspot numbers. Also note that the “Boulder” numbers reported daily at http://www.spaceweather.com are typically about 35% higher than the International sunspot number.
Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at: http://www.spaceweather.ca/sx-4-eng.php.
———————-
Jan Janssens adds
You may want to consult my webpage “Evolution of SC24”.
Besides sunspot numbers, it tracks also solar flares, geomagnetics, radio flux, cosmic rays,…
An overview of SC24-predictions (made prior to 2009 = prior to SC-minimum) can be found at this link.
At this time (only 40 months after cycle minimum), we have not reached SC24-maximum yet. This is expected to occur in the first half of 2013.
Currently, we seem to be in a standstill very similar to what happened during SC23 (albeit this time later in the cycle and at a lower sunspot level:
see).
BTW, low solar may relate to overall lower global temperatures but more stable (meridional patterns that result in more extremes). All of the continental heat extremes occurred in the lower solar periods.
This is because the meridional patterns seem to persist when the sun is less active. That partially explains persistant the cold in the Peciifc Northwest down to coastal California while areas to the east have been stuck warm. The second strongest La Nina in 110 hears is also likely playing a role resulting in an enhanced cold PDO with cold water off the west coast and warm north of Hawaii. This helps maintain a western trough and downstream ridge. That appears to be breaking down as El Nino comes on now as it did in 2009.
Here is a plot of the water anomalies in the eastern Pacific.
The pendulum is likely to swing as it did in 2009. By the way the last regime with waters cold in the east was the early 1970s, a period where the Atlantic was cold. That made the difference. As now we are in the warm mode which favors continental warmth in summer in the Northern Hemisphere. But this last year has been US specific.
—————————-
NOAA making big deal about last 12 months warmest ever.
John Christy provides color:
Here are the sectors from MSU TLT in deg C. Max12mo is highest 12-month average value beginning with Dec78-Nov79 and going forward month by month. Right column is latest 12-month running mean (Jun2011-May2012). Latest USA48 is essentially tied with the value from Oct1999-Sep2000. The USA48 is the interesting story because other sectors (larger) are less than half of hottest value. Note at bottom – Alaska was well below average for Jun2011-May2012 (record low was -1.131 C, and doing this quickly I couldn’t add in the small part adjacent to BC.)
Sectors
Trpcs 20S-20N
NoExt 20N-85N
SoExt 85S-20S
Pol 60 to 85
UAH LTv5.4
Region…Record Max…Last Year
![]()
In NASA GISS’s own words:
“”Everyone appears also to agree that too much attention is paid to records, particularly given that the difference between 1934, 1998, and several other sets of years in the top 10 warmest list for the United States are so small as to be statistically meaningless.”
Dr. Hansen and his team note that they rarely, if ever, discuss individual years, particularly regional findings like those for the United States (the lower 48 are only 2 percent of the planet’s surface). “In general I think that we want to avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual years,” he said in an e-mail message. “As far as I remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical.””
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ssn_predict_l1.gif?resize=640%2C480)
![WolfAbs2324[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/wolfabs23241.png?resize=640%2C410&quality=75)
![SSN_Heat[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ssn_heat1.jpg?resize=640%2C480&quality=83)
![EPAC_TEMPS_GRAPH[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/epac_temps_graph1.jpg?resize=587%2C397&quality=83)
P. Solar says:
June 9, 2012 at 6:59 pm
since determining the cycle length from either the ill-defined min or max point and the limited number of cycles to look at this is not going to give a dataset well suited to correlation statistics but a quick look at the interval between minima and hadSST3 does show the 1910 and 1970 troughs did coincide with longer cycles.
What happened to your lag? And the 2000 trough coinciding with the long cycle 23?
Your comment applies equally well to the claim of correlation. If the data is so weak, then there is no evidence for anything [as I said]
Legatus says:
June 9, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I beg to differ, there is evidence for correlation.
If you believe that all Grand Minima have low temperatures you may entertain such a view, but the evidence would be against you: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%Temp%and%TSI.png or
http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png
Legatus says:
June 9, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I beg to differ, there is evidence for correlation.
If you believe that all Grand Minima have low temperatures you may entertain such a view, but the evidence would be against you: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png
Did everyone catch what Leif pointed out – June 8 2:42?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
120 sunspots – no record kept by NOAA? And if Hathaway didn’t keep the prediction & butterfly
graphs up on his own time we’d get NOTHING from NASA but their PR press puke?
If you believe that all Grand Minima have low temperatures you may entertain such a view, but the evidence would be against you:
I was merely pointing out the evidence of WHEN Grand Minima DO create low temperatures, specifically, when they are very deep, very long, and when there are a fair number of them clustered in a period of several hundred years.
More minor things, like one low sunspot cycle, or a single smaller Grand Minima of fairly short duration, may see little or nothing, or the effect may be fairly small and/or localized to just some areas on earth (the areas to be determined by what conditions of various earth cycles the Minima meets). The effects (if any) may also be delayed, the delay likely being different at different places on earth, making the effect hard to find. It appears to take a fairly long Minima, or better, several minima clustered, to overcome this and be able to see a worldwide effect (at least one we can detect with proxies centuries later).
Various things will interfere, ocean currents, La Nina effects that store solar energy, theomostat effects that may tend to conteract whatever the sun is doing (such as less thunderstorms on the equator thus allowing in more sun, among others). All this interference will make the effect less, delayed, or moved around, thus making it hard to see any effects of a short minima (assuming the thormostat effects don’t counteract it altogether).
I had beleived that my messege was clear. I clearly pointed out the one time we KNOW low solar activity likely created, or helped to create, low temperatures, The Little Ice age, a period of multiple and/or deep minima, very unlike one fairly low sunspot cycle we are seeing now. I mean, how clear do I have to be to point out the differences between multiple very deep actual grand minima with almost no sunspots, compared to one small mildy low sunspot cycle? Am I the only one who sees a difference?
Well, let me point them out:
Maunder minimum, sunspots, reported at time, zero——————– solar cycle 24, maybe 60 ——– difference, 60 (approximately)
Maunder minimum lasted how many cycles long?———————– versus just one solar cycle ———- difference, many decades, many cycles
Maunder minimum accompanied by several other Grand Minima ——-solar cycle 24, not a Grand Minima ——– 3 or 4 or more versus none
Little Ice Age, name says it all, worldwide cold effects ——————-solar cycle 24 cold effects, anyone, anyone, Beuler?
(Maunder Minimum reported sunspots approximate since we didn’t exactly have orbital solar observatories back then)
To Dr. Svalgaard
What is the magnitude of the permanent change per storm?
Questions I am concerned with:
Q: Do we have evidence?
A: Yes
Q: Is there data?
A: Yes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
It is the one that makes the claim of a correlation that has to show it.
Agree.
Overall direct correlation 1700-2000 R2 =0.55
Overall averaged across 3 solar cycles correlation 1700-2000 R2 =0.77
For details graph #3 in the second link above
Coincidences need not the be explained
In the above case
“Interesting, and by no means absurd” A.E
to P. Solar :
Reducing subject to the ‘sunspot number to the global temperature correlation’ is not an approach which will provide resolution, since it is not direct, linear or stationary relationship.
Legatus says:
June 9, 2012 at 10:53 pm
I clearly pointed out the one time we KNOW low solar activity likely created, or helped to create, low temperatures
You cannot use KNOW and ‘likely’ together. And we don’t KNOW there is a causal relationship. You assume so, that is all.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 1:20 am
To Dr. Svalgaard, “What is the magnitude of the permanent change per storm?”
Science is about numbers. So, again: What is the magnitude [in nT] of the change per storm?
Gary from Chicagoland says:
June 9, 2012 at 9:11 am
With solar cycle 24 being predicted to be the smallest peak in over 100 years and with it predicted corresponding cooling temps., why are US Land temperatures so warm these last couple of years? …..
___________________________________
It depends on where you are.The northwest has been cold and so has the mid Atlantic, Australia and the UK. It seems there has been a shift in the jet steams making them more “loopy”
…as the Hadley Cell circulation increases in intensity the cells become larger and the jet streams get pushed away from the equator when the Hadley Cell circulation becomes weaker they shrink and the jet streams (and Ferrel Cells) move toward the equator.
SEE: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.htm
Blocking highs can cause Russia to roast or California citrus to freeze: http://www.theweatherprediction.com/blocking/
This page on Rosby waves shows the “loopy jets” midway down when you place the mouse over the picture of the earth: http://www.geogonline.org.uk/g3a_ki4.1.htm
And of course we have Hansen’s own adjustment of US temperature record over and over again. graph
Watch how the red and blue areas in these graphs realign as Hansen/GISS adjusts the temperature.
A graph of the adjusted vs raw data for the USA (year 2000) GEE, that adjustment gives us 0.5C warming! I am shocked!
Even with the massive temperature station dropout the “Team” can’t get the data to cooperate.
This is why Lief’s suggestion of changing the historic calculation of the sunspot number raised a few hackles.
Leif Svalgaard says:
So, again: What is the magnitude [in nT] of the change per storm?
Give me access to the Stanford University’s facilities for a year and I will provide you with an annual average for the period and location where data is available.
Your question is not exactly what a scientist would ask, who is well aware that every magnetic storm is different, and the impact will depend on the intensity of the filed at given location.
For the moment I am happy to say that the fact that (for 1700-2000 period) the decadal change in the Antarctic’s magnetic field is highly correlated with Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s TSI reconstruction.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
See correlation graph for values, I think you should familiarize yourself with what is shown in the link above.
But that is only a minor point, soon I shall publish description of the precise way how the temperature is linked to solar magnetic output, it is indirect, non-linear and non-stationary relationship.
Any climate scientist about who can explain reasons for the polar amplification ?
Here is a bit of a help:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic.htm
compare illustrations #2 &3.
Experts view:
Polar amplification is thought to result primarily from positive feedbacks from the retreat of ice and snow. There are a host of other lesser reasons that are associated with the atmospheric temperature profile at the poles, temperature dependence of global feedbacks, moisture transport, etc.
Or in short they don’t know.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 8:26 am
“So, again: What is the magnitude [in nT] of the change per storm?”
Your question is not exactly what a scientist would ask, who is well aware that every magnetic storm is different, and the impact will depend on the intensity of the filed at given location.
One can easily define a typical or average storm at a typical location. So this is precisely the question any scientist would ask: quantify your claim. If you cannot, you have nothing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I work for Stanford University, but my work is not FOR Stanford or directed by THEM.
=======
If the “work product” was created using Stanford facilities and resources, this would typically give them a claim, unless stipulated otherwise by contract.
For example, if I wanted to control someone’s work, I would make resources available when the work went in the direction I wanted it to go, and I would make resources dry up when it was not going in the direction I wanted it to go. There is no need to direct the work itself, only the resources.
ferd berple says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:09 am
If the “work product” was created using Stanford facilities and resources, this would typically give them a claim, unless stipulated otherwise by contract.
That does not change the fact that the work is not DIRECTED by them which was the main point [and BTW, Stanford facilities and resources are not used for this].
ferd berple says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:12 am
There is no need to direct the work itself, only the resources.
The point was that my work does not represent Stanford’s ‘official’ position [if they have one], just like Hathaway’s work does not represent NASA’s ‘official’ position [if they have one]. And Stanford does not want to control the direction of my research.
Leif Svalgaard
quantify your claim. If you cannot, you have nothing
I can sense dose of anxiety creeping in
What I do have is :
300 years data file for the TSI reconstruction calculated by Dr. Leif Svalgaard od Stanford University
300 years data calculated by Dr Andy Jackson et al of ETH Zurich and they show for the decadal variability of the Antarctic’s magnetic field
as Albert Einstein would say:
“Interesting, and by no means absurd” high correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
I would just say it is good when something of that kind occurs and top experts in the field have no idea why.
And it is not unique, in the Arctic there is also the good old North Atlantic Precursor a ‘piece de resistance’ of sun-Earth’s magnetic link.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
and that is what I have my friend, you call it ‘nothing’ I call it little nuggets of gold.
There’s gold in them data
There’s gold in them data
So don’t lose heart
Give the man a chance to start
A word or two, my friend
There’s no telling how this might end
And we’ll never know until we try
That there’s gold in them data
Have fun and enjoy the afternoon.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
I can sense dose of anxiety creeping in
You don’t need to be anxious about this.
Your claim was ” however from time to time the Earth’s magnetic poles get strong jolt from the solar storms, that permanently changes Earth’s field”. This is a very specific claim and all I ask is what is the average permanent change per solar storm. If you cannot give a number your claim is not validated.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
I call it little nuggets of gold
Fool’s gold, perhaps. Worth $1: http://www.amazon.com/Pyrite-Fools-Gold-Bulk-Mineral/dp/B001E0AR80
We have gone over this too many times. It is time you learn.
vukcevic:
– 300 years data file for the TSI reconstruction calculated by Dr. Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University
– 300 years data calculated by Dr Andy Jackson et al of ETH Zurich used for decadal variability of the Antarctic’s magnetic field
There’s gold in them data
Dr. S.
Fool’s gold
?!
To the contrary, both authors are highly respected, can’t think why you would be so downhearted about either of yours or Andy’s data, they are nuggets of gold, far, very far from ‘fool’s gold’.
.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 1:23 pm
they are nuggets of gold, far, very far from ‘fool’s gold’.
They may be, but the one thinking they are causally related is not.
For the last time: your supposition is complete nonsense.
You might as well try to correlate with the US population. Makes just as much sense.
they are nuggets of gold
They may be
told you so.
“Interesting, and by no means absurd”
Bye bye bluebird
Bye bye blue beard
You were lots of fun to know
But now I have to go.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
Your claim was ” however from time to time the Earth’s magnetic poles get strong jolt from the solar storms, that permanently changes Earth’s field”. This is a very specific claim and all I ask is what is the average permanent change per solar storm. If you cannot give a number your claim is not validated.
Of course, one way out of the corner you have painted yourself into is to retract your unsubstantiated specific claim and just stick with your correlation.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm
they are nuggets of gold
“They may be”
Nothing wrong with the data, just with your use of them.
I’ve noticed many bluebirds around in recent years, some might attribute it to my increased use of binoculars and attentiveness, but I don’t think so.
The spread of bluebirds is a warning sign.
sarc /
u.k.(us) says:
June 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I’ve noticed many bluebirds around in recent years, some might attribute it to my increased use of binoculars and attentiveness, but I don’t think so.
The spread of bluebirds is a warning sign. sarc /
Only if they spread further into Canada… MAP (I prefer the bird to the UK electric car by the same name hands down)
Hey Leif
Any updates on the prediction for Cycle 25?