The sun is currently showing two significant spots, though activity is generally quiet. Current SSN is 30, and Sunspot AR1667 (on the left) is in decay, and it is no longer crackling with C-class solar flares. Credit: SDO/HMI
![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/latest_512_45001.jpg?quality=83)
First the current data from the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. The SSN rebounded moderately in January:
Radio flux rebounded about the same amount as the SSN:
The Ap geomagnetic Index is still quite low, showing only a miniscule rebound.
NASA’s David Hathway updated his forecast page on Feb 1st and had this to say:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
Here is the latest Hathaway graphic:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
Other data of interest from the WUWT Solar Reference Page:
I find the fact that TSI has been decreasing over the last three months curious.
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceThe polar magnetic fields seem to be at the point of flipping now, suggesting solar max has been reached.
UPDATE: Credit where credit is due. Svalgaard et al predicted this scenario in 2004:
Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?
Leif Svalgaard,1 Edward W. Cliver,2 and Yohsuke Kamide1
Received 3 October 2004; revised 10 November 2004; accepted 9 December 2004; published 11 January 2005.
Abstract:
Predicting the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle is a
key goal of solar-terrestrial physics. The precursor method
currently favored for such predictions is based on the
dynamo model in which large-scale polar fields on the
decline of the 11-year solar cycle are converted to toroidal
(sunspot) fields during the subsequent cycle. The strength of
the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to
be an indicator of peak sunspot activity for the following
cycle. Polar fields reach their peak amplitude several years
after sunspot maximum; the time of peak strength is
signaled by the onset of a strong annual modulation of polar
fields due to the 71=4 tilt of the solar equator to the ecliptic
plane. Using direct polar field measurements, now available
for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar
cycle 24 (2011 maximum) will have a peak smoothed
monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the
smallest cycle in the last 100 years. Citation: Svalgaard, L.,
E. W. Cliver, and Y. Kamide (2005), Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest
cycle in 100 years?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/
2004GL021664.
James at 48 says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Compared with the 2001 – 2002 peak this one is a dud.
It was predicted to be a dud…
Lief, I could really care less what you call it. The curve goes beyond the present, so I will continue to call it a prediction. Then, if the other predictions were no more that a curve fit, why are we tax payers paying Phd scientists to do curve fits and announce them to the world as though they have done real science? Furthermore, I question your assertion that they are simply curve fits from available data. As curve fits to available data they all looked larger than curve fitting to available data would give. And yes, I’m every bit as tired of you as you are of me.
Every time I see a solar post I begin reading without fixing popcorn first. That’s a mistake. As Leif indicates they follow a somewhat predictable pattern but not closely enough that I can ignore them. Always entertaining.
~~~~~~~~~
DesertYote says:
February 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Olavi says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:36 am
Solarpower and windpower should produce only hydrogen for hydrogen cars.
Write this down:
The hydrogen fueled auto is 23.16 years away, and always will be.
Hint: Look at where H is in the periodic table of elements. If I may be anthropomorphic about this, Hydrogen is a tiny little rascal that does not like being confined and will find a way to escape and may kill you while doing so. Include the word ‘brittle’ in your search as you try to disprove the above.
Thanks, Leif.
I’m looking for SSN histories.
Peter says:
February 5, 2013 at 7:50 am
////////////////////////////////////////
This is a schoolboy error. Solar does not work well in high Northern Climes. Peak electrical demand is winter and in particular winter nights. Obviously the sun does not shine at night, and in winter the daylight hours are short and the incidence is low resulting in little power being generated. One does not design an energy system which is at its least efficient when demand for energy is at its peak.
Germany has found out that solar is not really productive. The position in the UK is even worse since the UK is particularly cloudy (being a small island surrounded with moist air coming off the seas bringing with it much cloud).
Even where I live in sunny Spain (and it is sunny usually not a single cloud in the sky) solar from an economic standpoint is only useful for producing thermal energy not electricity. Low grade thermal, say for domestic hot water, is cheap and pays for itself within 3 or 4 years. Solar is particular good for heating a swimming pool but even here only good between April to October because of the short winter days and (in relative terms) low incidence of autumn/winter/early spring sunlight.
Presently we do not have cost effective PVR technology. Whether that technoly will ever become cost effective (due to the need for costly inverters and storage problems) is debatable. Certainly, it is extremely doubtful that it will ever e cost effective for high Northern latitutes due to the simple fact that it will inevitably be called upon to produce/supply maximum energy load when it itself is operating at is least efficient. Solar PVR is really the province for countries such as those in the Middle East where peak demand for electricity is daytime summer (for aircon). At least there, peak demand coincides with maximum efficiency.
Your comment well illustrates the stupidity of politicians.
I’ve been praying the past three years for the Creator of the Universe to keep the Sun in a minimum phase as long as it takes for stupid people to figure our what controls climate change on planet Earth. It’s the Sun Stupid. Thank You God.
michaelwiseguy says:
February 6, 2013 at 2:12 am
I too was waiting for the Solar dud cycles, but the Hotheads are already teeing up that Cycle 23 was “unprecedented” and we only had a flat temp trend, and just wait when the Sun warms back up, temps are going to shoot up.
lsvalgaard says:
February 5, 2013 at 6:13 pm
////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks for sharing this.
The next 30 years or so will be very interesting. we are just beginning to get the technology to properly study the sun and i think that we will learn much and acquire a far better understanding of matters within the next couple of cycles. Of course,, whether that will help us prediict things here on Earth, is quite a different matter.
As for matters here on Earth, I do hope that we do not have any significant volcanic activity so that we can safely leave that factor out of the equation. This could really test the relative strengrths of CO2 and solar (even if we do not know precisely how, and through what mechanism, solar is influencing atmospheric feedbacks and climatic conditions although I am not a great believer in correlation and causation although inevitably there can alaways be a time when something is more than mere coincidence- the problem is identifying when that is truly the case).
“The curve goes beyond the present, so I will continue to call it a prediction”
1. Any time you fit a line to data to estimate a trend that line goes beyond the present. Is it a prediction.
2. When roy spencer fit a curve to his data, only stupid warmista said it was a prediction. Nice company you keep.
Whats the difference betweena curve fit and a prediction?
simples. When we fit a curve no claim is made about understanding or explaining the data as the result of a deeper process. We are not explaining the data and not predicting. The data drives the curve and no understanding of physics. no “theory” to disprove because none is advanced.
Vuk:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm
…….. one hundred years of a cause and the consequence …
Dr. S :
….. to make it sound even more impressive it is 3,155,692,608 seconds of a cause and the consequence.
“In the process of scientific inquiry, man examines nature and transforms his observations into general forms comprehensible to other men. From the individual’s own work, and from other men’s responses to it, new images and new questions arise, and so the cycle continues.”
Tilo Reber says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Furthermore, I question your assertion that they are simply curve fits from available data.
“finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.” (Hathaway).
vukcevic says:
February 6, 2013 at 2:52 am
“In the process of scientific inquiry…”
The difference is that what you peddle is not science.
Tilo Reber says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Furthermore, I question your assertion that they are simply curve fits from available data.
“finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.” (Hathaway).
vukcevic says:
February 6, 2013 at 2:52 am
“In the process of scientific inquiry…”
The difference is that what you peddle is not science.
vukcevic. You might find this article interesting.
“A mathematician says the quest for elegance leads too many researchers astray”
http://chronicle.com/article/When-Beauty-Is-Not-Truth/136803/
Tilo Reber says:
February 5, 2013 at 9:21 pm
> Lief, I could really care less what you call it.
Clearly. If you cared less, you wouldn’t have commented. 🙂
BTW, it’s Leif.
Steven Mosher says:
February 6, 2013 at 2:32 am
1) Works best when fitting sinusoids to cyclic information.
2) Roy fit polynomials to temperature data. Only wrong-thinking people look beyond the end points at the polynomials. It generally takes only a few years for the high order term to drive the temperature to incandescence or below absolute zero. Even the curve near either side of the end point is suspect. That’s why Roy used the disclaimer “For amusement purposes only.” He did not do the curve fit “to estimate a trend.”
No solar scientist should be terrified of this little diagram
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm
unless it happens to be true.
vukcevic says:
February 6, 2013 at 8:47 am
No solar scientist should be terrified of this little diagram
no solar scientist is terrified by anything you peddle.Most would not even bother with you.
Jim C. and Leif S. — thank you for the book suggestions. I have found both at Amazon and will be receiving them soon.
If anyone else has book suggestions, please pass them on.
thanks,
mer
Ric Werme says:
February 6, 2013 at 8:35 am
That’s why Roy used the disclaimer “For amusement purposes only.” He did not do the curve fit “to estimate a trend.”
In Hathaway’s case the sunspot data observed so far in a cycle is fitted to a standard [simple mathematical] model of the sunspot cycle that has worked well in the past. Under the assumption that the Sun would behave in a similar way in the next few years [it may not], the fitted curve is presumed to be a current forecast of the cycle. By definition then, each new month adds another data point and changes the forecast accordingly. No theory or bias is involved. This works when we are well into the cycle [now 5 years], but, of course, not as a prediction when made before the cycle has begun.
mer says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:00 am
If anyone else has book suggestions, please pass them on.
A bit more advanced [but still essentially without mathematics] is Ken Lang’s ‘The Sun from Space’
2nd ed. ISBN 978-3-540-76952-1
Dr. S. @ur momisugly vukcevic
The difference is that what you peddle is not science.
the co-author of the data for
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm
Dr. Jeremy Bloxham, Dean of Science and Professor of Geophysics, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University ( specialty: planetary magnetic fields, dynamo theory, structure and dynamics of the earth’s core and lower mantle, inverse theory, mathematical geophysics)
might well be amused.
Super
ballbrain Stamford v.s. Harvard ?vukcevic says:
February 6, 2013 at 9:54 am
“The difference is that what you peddle is not science”
the co-author of the data for…>/i>
Nothing wrong with the data. Plotting data is not science, making analyses and drawing conclusions might be science if done correctly.
Well, if you bother to take a look, then you would see, no statements no conclusions, just the data plot
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-SSN.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm
For Super
ballbrain contest I make itHarvard 1: 0 Stanford
You are letting your side down
vukcevic says:
February 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
Well, if you bother to take a look, then you would see, no statements no conclusions, just the data plot
Plotting other people’s data is not science. So, you claim never to make statements or draw conclusions. Leif 1: 0 Vuk to follow your silly example. Polluting WUWT is not science either.
Mosher: “When we fit a curve no claim is made about understanding or explaining the data as the result of a deeper process”
Well, Mosher, you had better inform NASA that Hathaway is not doing his job then. Because one of his primary functions is to inform future space missions about how the level of solar activity will effect their missions. And of course your comparison to Spencer is absurd. Spencer tells you straight up that his poly fit has no predictive value.
Leif: “There is no model involved, no bias, political or otherwise, just fitting a curve to actual data [with a small admixture of old predictions]. ”
Leif: “In Hathaway’s case the sunspot data observed so far in a cycle is fitted to a standard [simple mathematical] model of the sunspot cycle that has worked well in the past.”
Make up your mind Leif, is it a model or not?
Here is Hathaway’s curve in June of 08. Note that the chart title says,”Prediction”.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate/
The title of the chart in this post also calls it a “Prediction” – as do all of the mumerous, gradually downgraded, charts that Hathaway produced in between.
Now, going back to the 08 chart, someone explain to me how the data, being flat at virtually no sunspots at that time, warranted a curve fit that shortly thereafter took off like a rocket? No, no political bias to that curve!
Here is Hathaway’s chart from October 2010. Another “Prediction”. And it also look like he is curve fitting above the data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/06/nasas-hathaway-issues-new-solar-cycle-prediction/
Here is another “Prediction” only four month later. Another downward revision and again it still looks like it is a bigger curve fit than would be warranted by the data.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2671657/posts
So, Leif and Steve, you should probably take your arguement about what is and what is not a prediction to NASA and Hathaway.
Tilo Reber says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Well, Mosher, you had better inform NASA that Hathaway is not doing his job then. Because one of his primary functions is to inform future space missions about how the level of solar activity will effect their missions
No, that is not his job. That is my job, or rather the job of the official Sunspot Prediction Panel [of which both he and I were members]. His job is to give a forecast of the short-term [a few years] behavior of solar activity. Furthermore NASA does not use Hathaway’s forecasts for anything. They use the official forecast, or, in some cases even the predictions using my polar field precursor method. E.g. in the decision not to de-orbit the Hubble telescope [which would have been necessary had cycle 24 turned out to be a powerful cycle – expanding the atmosphere to increase the drag on the spacecraft].
Make up your mind Leif, is it a model or not?
It should really be beneath you [but apparently is not] to not understand that in the first instance ‘model’ meant ‘based on physics and theory’ and in the second case ‘model’ meant just the mathematical function to which the current data is fitted.
Here is Hathaway’s curve in June of 08. Note that the chart title says,”Prediction”.
Again, you should be astute enough [but apparently is not] to recognize the difference between a ‘true prediction’ made well in advance of the cycle [which is what spacecraft operators need] and a running ‘forecast’ made in real time describing how the cycle has been doing up to now and how it might be a few years out assuming that the Sun follows the normal behavior of the cycle.
Now, going back to the 08 chart, someone explain to me how the data, being flat at virtually no sunspots at that time, warranted a curve fit that shortly thereafter took off like a rocket? No, no political bias to that curve!
Quite simply [and no bias – spacecraft operators – and even NASA – cannot afford games, too much money is at stake] because back then it was a real prediction as no data was available. That is was wrong is another matter. This was later rectified.
it also look like he is curve fitting above the data.
In the beginning of a cycle the data is too meager to fit to just the standard mathematical function [model] he is using, so the forecast is a mixture of the prediction [not Hathaway’s, but the official one by the Panel] and the data, with progressively less weight to the prediction as time goes by. Now we are so far into the cycle that only the data is used [the weight of the prediction has gone to zero].
So, Leif and Steve, you should probably take your argument about what is and what is not a prediction to NASA and Hathaway.
Rather, you should learn what the facts are and not make silly claims about bias, politics, etc. So, take this opportunity to show us that you can learn something.