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.””
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
June 10, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Any updates on the prediction for Cycle 25?
Three years after polar field reversal [i.e. four years from now] I will be able to predict SC25 with some confidence. Statistically, SC25 may be a small cycle too.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
June 10, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Any updates on the prediction for Cycle 25?
For a wild guess, see slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Penn.pdf
Has anyone noticed that there is numbers of low altitudes volcanic eruption…
The big stratosphere honkers are quiet? Since the sun shifted out of granny low gear. Just asking
@Vukcevic: All of this is of course labeled as pseudo-science since discovery was made not by some highly paid scientist, but an amateur.
What does the history of science shows?…..Well,…..it happens that it remembers only the amateurs.
Leif Svalgaard says:
vukcevic says:
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.
See here http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2012/05/17/richard-feynman-explains-the-pdsa-cycle/
The Scientific method, first, to find a new law, 1. guess, 2 .next compute the consequences of that guess, 3. then compare the computation to nature or experiment to see if it is a good guess.
The problem here is, if a number cannot be given (“If you cannot give a number “), step two has not been followed and step three is impossible (“your claim is not validated” and indeed cannot be validated). The best this idea can be said to be is a “working hypothesis”, an idea for a hypothesis which is not yet complete enough to compute and thus is not yet an actual scientific hypothesis.
Legatus says:
I clearly pointed out the one time we KNOW low solar activity likely created, or helped to create, low temperatures
Leif Svalgaard says:
You cannot use KNOW and ‘likely’ together. And we don’t KNOW there is a causal relationship. You assume so, that is all.
I assume so for a very specific reason, because there does not appear to be any other possibility.
The Little Ice Age is the longest and deepest period of cold in the Holocene It is several times longer than any other period of cold, and rather colder than most. It also coincided with not one but two Grand Minima, the first as deep or deeper than any preceding it and twice as long (approximately), and the second just as deep and twice as long again. There were also two much milder minima after this in the period of cold. There appear to be no other possible causes for this period of cold. There are no other similar periods of such cold, at least not this cold and nowhere near this long a period of cold. Something caused it. The unusually long and deep periods of low solar activity appear to be the only possible cause. There does not appear to be any other possible causes, not for such a long period of cold. If it was “natural cycles” then we should have seen other periods of similar cold of the same length, we do not. How could any natural cycles last so continuously for so long and not swing back to warm, when we see no other periods when it has done so? If you say volcanoes, you would have to show a period of extremely unusual volcanic activity for a period of hundreds of years. Past volcanoes do not appear to have caused periods of cold of even close to this length and depth. Conclusion, if we find a murdered body and only one person, some dude named Sol, is the only person known to have been anywhere near there during the time of the murder, who becomes the only suspect? Currently, low solar activity for a very long period(s) of time appears to be the only possibility. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. If you want to say that the Little Ice Age was not caused by low solar activity, then you need to propose some other mechanism for it. If you cannot, then low solar activity is left as the only possible suspect. To then say that low solar activity did not cause this effect is unphysical.
As for “likely” and “know”, in science, they are pretty much the same thing. Nothing can be absolutely proven to be “known” in science (although we can pretty much disprove something), but it can be said to be so likely as to be called a natural law, which is usually thought of (until disproven) as “known”. “Known” in this case is thus taken in it’s scientific sense, which is “known until proven otherwise” (which has been known to happen).
I think it “likely” therefore that low solar activity caused, or largely caused, the Little Ice Age, simply because there is no other known possibility (other suggested possibilities appear to have been disproven). I may use the word “known” simply because, since no other possibility presents itself, there is no other possibility. If you want to dispute that, you need to show another possible cause of this very long period of cold (which is unprecedented in the Holocene).
That being said (because currently nothing else can be said), the purpose of my original post was to show under what conditions low solar activity can cause a period of cold, and compare that with solar cycle 24. If I look at the data, I first see that there were past periods of low solar activity. The earlier ones did not appear to cause low temperatures (what other effects they may have had on climate I don’t know about). Then we get to just before the Little Ice Age, and we see a Grand Minima of perhaps twice the length of any past one (of it’s depth at least). The effects of this unprecedentedly deep and long Minima appears to have been…nothing (temperature wise at least). There was then a period of higher solar activity approximately as long as the preceding period of low activity, which was then followed by another period of low solar about as deep and twice as long again (thus 4 times as long as ones well before this period). Only after we had already had one unprecedentedly deep and long Minima and were well one or way into yet another just as deep and twice as long did we finally see cold. This cold then lasted for hundreds of years, starting to warm up slowly after the second minima (the Maunder) ended, and then slowly warming, possibly slowed a bit by two more much weaker minimas (which makes an unprecedented 4 total minimas during this period). What I have to conclude from this is that, yes, low solar activity can cause low temperatures, but you must have not one but two major Grand Minimas to do it (really really major in this case). It looks as if first, the first Minima was unable to exhaust the store of earths stored heat, but when followed by another even longer one, the stored heat had been previously used up (keeping it warm the preceding Minima) and the earth did not have enough reserves of heat to prevent cold from following. After, and only after, the second Minima ended did it start to slowly warm up, and two more smaller minimas were not enough to halt this warming (although they may have slowed it down).
The conclusion is that it takes an awful lot of low solar activity, very very low activity for hundreds of years, to cause a Little Ice Age, which is the only period I know of where cold can be associated definatly with low solar activity (where the likelyhood of it being something else appears to be too low for there to be any other suspect, where there is enough cold to be sure it really is unusually cold for an unusual length of time, and where that cold was worldwide). I then compare this with the idea that solar cycle 24 will cause a period of similar, equally noticeable cold, and I see that the level of solar activity of solar cycle 24, and it’s length, does not even remotely compare to the length and depth of the true Grand Minimas of the LIA. I therefore dismiss the idea that this little, single cycle, will have a noticeable temperature effect.
Provisions: Because of the presence of ocean currents, which move heat (and cold) around in time periods of from years to centuries, and which may mean that if something causes cold, some places may not see it due to the presence of currents with stored heat, plus all the forcings, feedbacks, thermostat effects and the like which appear to “try” and keep the temperature of the earth relatively constant, it is very difficult, if impossible, to put numbers on what causes heat or cold periods. This makes it hard to verify warming or cooling from any source. This is why I used the LIA, other brief periods of cold had been seen, but they were brief, this one was noticeable for its length. The other ones appear have been caused by something other than low solar activity, which shows that some other ways exist to cause cold, however, they appear to show that these non solar ways could not keep it cold for hundreds of years. I also chose the LIA because it also had unprecedented depth and especially length of low solar activity. Thus the LIA is the only place where we can say with any certainty that low solar activity caused cold (there being no other possible cause known for such a length of cold).
To sum up, with all the cycles and other effects on earth, it is very hard to get numbers to verify a cause of heat or cold. It takes a very large and/or long amount of cold to poke it’s head above the noise to be certain we are actually seeing something which can be traced back to a cause. The LIA was just such a time, perhaps the only one. The cause appears to have been a time of unprecedentedly low and long solar activity. Solar cycle 24 is neither of these. It does not appear to be low enough solar activity to even remotely compare to, say the Maunder, and time wise it is centuries shorter than the two Mimimums around the time of the LIA. Thus, I am not worried that solar cycle 24 will cause a little ice age of any kind. In fact, with all these other cycles running around, I would be surprised if we could isolate any solar effects definatly from all that other stuff (enough to be able to quantitize them and thus verify anything).
Legatus says:
June 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I assume so for a very specific reason, because there does not appear to be any other possibility.
Lack of imagination is hardly a good argument. Because we don’t know any other, does not mean that there is no other.
It also coincided with not one but two Grand Minima, the first as deep or deeper than any preceding it and twice as long (approximately), and the second just as deep and twice as long again.
I have shown this before, but you just ignore the evidence: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png The top shows a temperature reconstruction, the bottom a measure of solar activity [although labelled as TSI, it is really derived from the cosmic ray record]. There have been just as deep and long minima before, e.g. around 650 AD at which time temps were high. On a longer time scale solar activity looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Steinhilber.png with lots a grand minima.
If you want to dispute that, you need to show another possible cause of this very long period of cold (which is unprecedented in the Holocene).
As you can see from the above link, there were lots of periods with very low solar activity during the Holocene. The Spoerer/Maunder minima are not that spectacular in the long view.
The conclusion is that it takes an awful lot of low solar activity, very very low activity for hundreds of years, to cause a Little Ice Age
Recent research suggests that perhaps solar activity was not really that low during the Maunder Minimum. The solar dynamo was still working, the cosmic rays were modulated as strongly as today, and solar magnetism was still present.
Legatus says:
June 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Thus, I am not worried that solar cycle 24 will cause a little ice age of any kind.
Neither am I.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Recent research suggests that perhaps solar activity was not really that low during the Maunder Minimum. The solar dynamo was still working, the cosmic rays were modulated as strongly as today, and solar magnetism was still present.
Some examples:
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 733:L38, 2011
DIMMING OF THE 17TH CENTURY SUN
Peter Foukal et al.
“Reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) rely mainly on linear relations between TSI variation and indices of facular area. When these are extrapolated to the prolonged 15th–17th century Spoerer and Maunder solar activity minima, the estimated solar dimming is insufficient to explain the mid-millennial climate cooling of the Little Ice Age”
Solar Phys (2007) 245: 247–249
Did the Sun’s Prairie Ever Stop Burning?
P. Foukal & J. Eddy
“The historical eclipse observations described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Hence, the red-flash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time.”
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 38, Issue 6, CiteID L06701 , 2011
The minimal solar activity in 2008-2009 and its implications for long-term climate modeling
Schrijver, C. J.; Livingston, W. C.; Woods, T. N.; Mewaldt, R. A.
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least-active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008-2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long-term climate change.”