And they call this a maximum?
NOAA today posted its monthly update of the ongoing sunspot cycle of the Sun. This latest graph, covering the month of August, is posted below the fold.
The Sun continues to fizzle.
The red line indicates the consensus (oh that word!) prediction of the solar scientist community from 2009. As you can see, except for a brief period in late 2011, the Sun has never come close to meeting their prediction. In August the sunspot number actually dropped slightly, even though the Sun is supposed to be moving up towards maximum.
Since February the solar scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center have been predicting that the upcoming solar maximum will occur in the spring of 2013 and have a sunspot number of around 60, which would make this, as they say, “the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.” They came to that number after much waffling in 2011, shifting their prediction from 59 up to 77, then up again to 99, and then finally back down to 60.
Based on the numbers in July and August, it would seem that the Marshall scientists have finally got it right. The sunspot number for this solar maximum seems settled around 60. Nonetheless, the shape of the graph makes me wonder if the maximum might have already occurred during that peak period late last year, rather then the predicted peak this upcoming spring.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
It would be interesting to see the predictions from 2000-2011 on the chart above.
Take a look at the second graph on this NOAA page. It shows the predictions of the solar science community from April 2007. At that time the community was split between those who believed the upcoming maximum would be weak, and those who thought it would be strong. (Interestingly, the strong prediction crowd was led by David Hathaway, who is the main man at the Marshall Space Flight Center who now predicts a weak maximum.)
As it turns out, even the weak prediction was too strong.
Thanks.