The data from SWPC is in, and it is lethargic at best. Sunspot numbers took a hit, down to about 42, a delta of ~50 lower compared to the red prediction line.
10.7 cm solar radio flux took a similar hit:
The Ap Geomagnetic index was up slightly, but still anemic….
And the most interesting indicator, the plot of solar polar fields, shows a clear zero line crossing, suggesting that Solar max has been reached:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceThough in spite of that, NASA is now suggesting a “double peak”:
Solar Cycle Update: Twin Peaks?
Something unexpected is happening on the sun. 2013 is supposed to be the year of Solar Max, but solar activity is much lower than expected. At least one leading forecaster expects the sun to rebound with a double-peaked maximum later this year.
The quiet has led some observers to wonder if forecasters missed the mark. Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center has a different explanation:
“This is solar maximum,” he suggests. “But it looks different from what we expected because it is double peaked.”
Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum. At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares. At the other end, Solar Max brings high sunspot numbers and solar storms. It’s a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years.
Reality, however, is more complicated. Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular. For one thing, the back-and-forth swing in sunspot counts can take anywhere from 10 to 13 years to complete; also, the amplitude of the cycle varies. Some solar maxima are very weak, others very strong.
Pesnell notes yet another complication: “The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.” Solar activity went up, dipped, then resumed, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years.
The same thing could be happening now. Sunspot counts jumped in 2011, dipped in 2012, and Pesnell expects them to rebound again in 2013: “I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014,” he predicts.
Another curiosity of the solar cycle is that the sun’s hemispheres do not always peak at the same time. In the current cycle, the south has been lagging behind the north. The second peak, if it occurs, will likely feature the southern hemisphere playing catch-up, with a surge in activity south of the sun’s equator.
Pesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a blue-ribbon group of solar physicists who assembled in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next Solar Max. At the time, the sun was experiencing its deepest minimum in nearly a hundred years. Sunspot numbers were pegged near zero and x-ray flare activity flat-lined for months at a time. Recognizing that deep minima are often followed by weak maxima, and pulling together many other threads of predictive evidence, the panel issued this statement:
“The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle (Cycle 24) will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May 2013. Note, this is not a unanimous decision, but a supermajority of the panel did agree.”
Given the tepid state of solar activity in Feb. 2013, a maximum in May now seems unlikely.
“We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” comments Pesnell.
Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are in fact twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
No one knows for sure what the sun will do next. It seems likely, though, that the end of 2013 could be a lot livelier than the beginning.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But what happened to Killer Bob?
(And why did that immediately pop up from the grey matter? It’s been decades.)
March (SIDC) SSN number (I provisionally calculated) so far has started well, hovering around 70, which would suggest a possible second peak (previous one Nov.2011), but the spots are minnows
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_4500.jpg
Arithmetic sum of the polar magnetic fields >(N+S)</a doesn’t indicate an imminent SC24 max
Certainly getting cooler. Perhaps it is the sun.(Sarc off)
I do not think there has ever been a “twin peaks” solar cycle before, so I think an adolescent boy must be running NASA.
This is an extraordinarily weak cycle, and may be of normal length but very weak as this is the first modern solar cycle with a Livingston and Penn efect (see solar page on WUWT),
Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.
How many peaks did cycle 14 have: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
From the article:
Pesnell is a leading member of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, a blue-ribbon group of solar physicists who assembled in 2006 and 2008 to forecast the next Solar Max. At the time, the sun was experiencing its deepest minimum in nearly a hundred years. Sunspot numbers were pegged near zero and x-ray flare activity flat-lined for months at a time. Recognizing that deep minima are often followed by weak maxima, and pulling together many other threads of predictive evidence, the panel issued this statement:
“The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle (Cycle 24) will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May 2013. Note, this is not a unanimous decision, but a supermajority of the panel did agree.”
*************************************************
Question for Anthony. It states that Pesnell was on the panel in 2006 and 2008, and that they selected a SS number of 90. That makes it seem as if they selected the number 90 in either 2006 or 2008, when my recollection is that the final number was selected in late 2009 or 2010. These two paragraphs seem slightly revisionist in nature given the timing in it.
We’re in for interesting times. Thanks Anthony, particularly for noting the crossing of the polar magnetic fields.
For newer readers and those with short memories, the esteemed Dr Svalgaard was a member of that panel and did not agree with the official number of 90. He predicted that number to be 72.
I think it is worth noting that the 2nd peak of the last cycle was smaller than the initial peak so if we are using the past cycle as an analog, it would stand to reason that a 2nd peak in this cycle would probably have a lower smoothed amplitude than the initial one. To achieve that, we would 1st need to see some drop from the current levels of activity.
It was refreshing to see Dr. Phillips be candid in the lack of understanding of exactly what may happen next. Leif, David, your thoughts on Dr. Phillips commentary?
The folks doing the solar predictions remind me of Washington economists that turn a reduction in the increase in spending into a “cut”.
Another scientist with no fundamental understanding of how the sun works making another guess about the main source of warmth for the Earth. Yet, the science is settled.
Something wrong with the leaves in my teacup. But I am sure if I add a little more tea and swirl it a bit my “science” of a double peak will work out (super majority of consensus ) . 50 and falling.
“Incidentally, Pesnell notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24, underway now, and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are in fact twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
Is ths true? The SC14 was not a “double Peak-Type” but a “Sixpack-Type” ( http://kaule.ath.cx:9001/uploads/sc1424.gif ). The picture compares the “Waldmeier-discontinuity adjusted” SC14 with the SC24 as far as it happend. Not a strong similarity, not in the accumulated activity and also not in the shape.
Hi, still reading this fantastic blog every day, for more than 5 years now.
One question : can there be a connexion between 10 mph temps (i.e. stratospheric temps) above both poles and solar activity ?
There seems to be a kind of “hole” of very low temps just above the Groenland, where a record cold was approached a couple of days ago, see :
http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?ech=6&code=0&mode=10&carte=1
Temps are in celsius degrees : -76C = -105F.
I know you don’t really like weather, since weather is not climate 🙂 but next week will see a major cold and snow storm for all of Europe, even reaching north of Africa… in march.
Absolutely unknown for a 13 of march.
The very early cold and snow storm that happened here in western Europe last october have been connected to very low temps by meteorologists.
Thanks a lot for your reactions and, maybe, your answers to my question.
It is quite interesting to see that NASA is now forced to theorize a statistical “long shot” in order to keep from admitting that their previous solar forecasts are looking to be in error. It’s similar to a poker player betting on pulling an inside straight – it can happen, but the great majority of players who bet that way lose badly.
But this also means that we are now poised at one of those fascinating “hinge points” in the data. For most of the time, those of us who pay attention to these cycles know that the predictions being made will take years and years to play out. But now – either the spots will double peak relatively soon (by the end of the year) or else a decline will set in and we’ll start heading back to the solar minimum. The data will tell us which, and in terms of this particular field, we will know fairly soon.
It strikes me that another reason for postulating a double peak is the difficulty of dealing with the consequences, both theoretically and in the real world, of a cycle which just fades away this quickly. I think I can see why trying to draw an inside straight looks like the best bet the mainline theorists have left.
March 6, 2013 at 6:14 am
May be they mean this “Twin Peaks?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks
Implying things are not as the seem?
NASA Scientists wandering and babbling incoher…
Never mind….
NOAA/NASA have been 100% wrong on their projections for cycle 24. They appear to be challenging Paul Ehrlich’s, Hansen’s, Mann’s, et al predictions record.
Obviously, sunspot forecasts are not based on anything better than extrapolation. The smoothed max is already behind us, some time in early 2012.
“it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
I agree, this cycle has not peaked yet (it’s somewhat arbitrary anyway). It’s a weak (and that means long) cycle, the next minimum not before ~2021.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
All cycles have ‘messy’ plateaus.
If I recall Hathaway et al from NASA predicted a max SSN of 150-170 for cycle 24 before it started and has been revising downwards EVERY TIME since then. His theory was completely shot.
Sorry, but consensus forecasting is NOT science. If it were we would not have quantum mechanics and the ether theory would still be enforced today.
Tucker says:
March 6, 2013 at 5:01 am
It states that Pesnell was on the panel in 2006 and 2008, and that they selected a SS number of 90. That makes it seem as if they selected the number 90 in either 2006 or 2008, when my recollection is that the final number was selected in late 2009 or 2010. These two paragraphs seem slightly revisionist in nature given the timing in it.
I was on that panel. The final selection was made in May 2009. Pesnell [based on Schatten’s prediction] and I were the only ones in the beginning of the process advocating a low prediction [around 75]. We eventually convinced the other members that a low prediction was in order, although few could stomach a number as low as we advocated, so 90 became a compromise.
Jeff L says:
March 6, 2013 at 5:44 am
your thoughts on Dr. Phillips commentary?
Solar cycle 14 had many peaks as will cycle 24.
I remember when cycle 24 was going to be the strongest cycle eeevahhh!
I’m under the impression that weak cycles often have spurts of high activity. My guess is that we’ll have a long cycle with an early peak, ie a left hand scew, and periodic burst of high activity.
For predicting solar cycles amplitude most solid ‘science’ could be the ‘pseudo-science’.
Here is an extrapolation from 2003, when I had no idea what all of this was about.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
So much for the experts. When the solar ‘science’ comes up with more reliable method, I shall switch to it, till then ….