Jump to content

SC26?


Alfred

Recommended Posts

It is just a single curve for the prediction of solar cycle 25. The prediction for solar cycle 26 will begin once we get near its time.

Your link is a more up to date version to the below,
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

The Predicted Sunspot Number and Radio Flux page data file looks to be updated daily, though I'm not sure the actual data is.

The Solar Cycle Progression page data file was last updated back in late 2022.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

It is just a single curve for the prediction of solar cycle 25. The prediction for solar cycle 26 will begin once we get near its time.

Your link is a more up to date version to the below,
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

The Predicted Sunspot Number and Radio Flux page data file looks to be updated daily, though I'm not sure the actual data is.

The Solar Cycle Progression page data file was last updated back in late 2022.

I agree that it relates only to SC25 but it looks like in the new link they have made revised predictions for the next 12 months. Plotting it out we can see that the initial value correlates with known SSN for March 2023 predicts a small increase from known value for Feb 2023 (117.9) and then predicts a falling value out to February 2024 at which point it reverts to the original predicted curve. I wonder if this will be updated monthly ?

             NOAA_SC25_prediction.thumb.png.47fb880dc1fd6d3f75027911b125f600.png

Edited by 3gMike
Corrected reference to starting point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://solen.info/solar/history/hist1956.html    Looks pretty bleak.  Since we are still on the rising edge of SC25, I naturally am encouraged by the resumed activity at present.  Although I don’t expect we will hit 180 monthly by next May, I would expect well over 160 monthly at least, with SFI well in excess of 200.  Just musings here.  Edit: I was getting concerned and was reviewing prior cycles SC 19 in particular.  In Jan Alvestads charts for 1956 you will clearly see a huge drop in activity, then a relatively slow recovery to the eventual peak that hasn’t ever been exceeded! I found this very encouraging.  You won’t see this in smoothed numbers naturally.  

Edited by hamateur 1953
Encouragement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Looks pretty bleak.  Since we are still on the rising edge of SC25, I naturally am encouraged by the resumed activity at present.  Although I don’t expect we will hit 180 monthly by next May, I would expect well over 160 monthly at least, with SFI well in excess of 200.  Just musings here.  Edit: I was getting concerned and was reviewing prior cycles SC 19  particular.  In Jan Alvestads charts for 1956 you will clearly see a huge drop in activity, then a relatively slow recovery to the eventual peak that hasn’t ever been exceeded! I found this very encouraging.  You won’t see this in smoothed numbers naturally.  

btw we just had one of the strongest flares on the farside, check out ar 3413 topic

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

I agree that it relates only to SC25 but it looks like in the new link they have made revised predictions for the next 12 months. Plotting it out we can see that the initial value correlates with known SSN for March 2023 predicts a small increase from known value for Feb 2023 (117.9) and then predicts a falling value out to February 2024 at which point it reverts to the original predicted curve. I wonder if this will be updated monthly ?

             NOAA_SC25_prediction.thumb.png.47fb880dc1fd6d3f75027911b125f600.png

Seems my original prediction was close! Dear moderators, may I represent it again? 

Edited by Patrick P.A. Geryl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2023 at 8:33 AM, Sam Warfel said:

I think that prediction is only valid for SC25, could be wrong though

Maybe you’re right. But I can’t think of any reason why they would include predictions for SC26 if these are without any basis. If for any reason that they must, at least they should have stated that these predictions should be ignored.

Moreover, the data presented showed a progressive decline in solar activity over a prolonged period that is consistent enough to suggest that it could have been based on some accepted model.

If indeed those data are without basis, irresponsible may be too strong a word to describe their action but having worked as a statistician for a government agency myself, I can say that if we published something like that in our official website on a Monday, me and my staff would be looking for a new job before Tuesday’s morning coffee break.    

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alfred said:

Maybe you’re right. But I can’t think of any reason why they would include predictions for SC26 if these are without any basis. If for any reason that they must, at least they should have stated that these predictions should be ignored.

Moreover, the data presented showed a progressive decline in solar activity over a prolonged period that is consistent enough to suggest that it could have been based on some accepted model.

If indeed those data are without basis, irresponsible may be too strong a word to describe their action but having worked as a statistician for a government agency myself, I can say that if we published something like that in our official website on a Monday, me and my staff would be looking for a new job before Tuesday’s morning coffee break. 

It's not that they're without basis, but Solar cycle prediction is still in its infancy. The current cycle has already outperformed what the majority of initial predictions were, making it clear that the models are flawed (and in my view suffer heavily from overfitting), so at this point it's more interesting to look at the models that got things more right if you ask me. There's a thread dedicated to SC25 predictions here if you're interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alfred said:

Maybe you’re right. But I can’t think of any reason why they would include predictions for SC26 if these are without any basis. If for any reason that they must, at least they should have stated that these predictions should be ignored.

The prediction info goes out as far as where the peak of solar cycle 26 should be and the values are around 0. That should set off some red flags that 26 isn't included lol.

They do sort of have a note under the Usage tab, but it certainly isn't updated. "Multi-year forecast of the monthly sunspot number and the monthly F10.7. Predicted values are based on the consensus of the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.