Solar cycle update – sun's magnetic activity still in a slump

Rectification: The paper “Hemispheric Asymmetries of Solar Photospheric Magnetism” (2013) (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.1081.pdf) is not from L. Svalgaard. The authors are Scott W. McIntosh, Robert J. Leamon, Joseph B. Gurman, Jean-Philippe Olive, Jonathan W.
Cirtain, David H. Hathaway, Joan Burkepile, Mark Miesch, Robert S. Markel, Leonard
Sitongia.

lsvalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm
William Astley says:
May 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm
solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years
Actually, that is not the case as I have pointed out to you a number of times already.
William, you might find Dr. S. a bit more cooperative with you if you lighten up a little on the above statement. Sunspot cycle over the period has been between a ceiling and floor. Yes I agree we have had several consecutive nearer the ceiling cycles in the last half of the 20th. Leif would have to agree that indeed they were closer to the ceiling than like.. now on the floor.
Hmm what kind of interstellar background might be useful for amplifying the solar cycle?
And William, how do they think those burn marks get on the planet. Could several strong CME or Flares do this. If the field doesn’t have time to regenerate between events would that be enough. Is like 3 big pops and were burnt?

Sorry forgot the link for William.
Figure 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf
You might want to look at the floor ..

@Leif: The red curve is what the prediction was back in 2007.
The webarchive shows the first appearance of the “final” red curve to be May 27, 2010. (See my 1:30pm above) It is different than the previous May 9, 2009.
What is of interest is what the prediction is NOW.
Yes, but not exclusively. I’m a Bayesian. Revising your estimates based upon new data IS the proper thing to do. .
Remember that there are people who actually use [and need] the updated prediction and couldn’t care less about the red curve.
But you also want to know the effective change in the predicted value. The people who use the prediction are presumably making decisions based upon the predctions. The operating question is “Is the change in predictions enough to change our decisions or plans?”
The key point is the makers of these graphs are keeping the LEAST interesting part of the red curve and erasing the most interesting. “How good was the prediction up to when????” That’s the part of the red curve they erase. Up to spring 2012, the prediction was good enough, just 3 to 5 months early, not to discount it.

Leif! Beer spit on computer screen! “Clingers”???? Too funny!!!!

http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/may-2009-sunspot-update/
“there is a clear 1.5-ish year lag (am I allowed to use “clear” and “ish” in the same sentence?) And since the cycle can spend 3-5 years in the 100+ category, then the influence ramps up to a measurable increase in temperature. We can see that the lower levels will bring about cooler temps, but at a slower pace. So, if the next cycle starts early, we’re starting at an elevated level and warming up more from there. This, in my opinion, has clearly happened over the last few decades. The current long cycle 23 is only now getting to the area where the temperature influence on the cooler side should become more noticeable. But we won’t see noticeably cooler temperatures unless Cycle 24 cooperates, so to speak. If the maximum does not reach 100, then it will not induce a warming effect, regardless of cycle length. However, a longer cycle also delays the possibility of warming from the Cycle 25 maximum, as well, so if Cycle 24 is weak, I predict we will see a noticeable temperature decline as a result. But it will not be immediate. Each year builds from the previous year’s point, and it will be a cumulative effect… The exact number isn’t as important as the conclusion: The last point in which the 12-month average sunspot count was at least 100 was January 2003. The temperature then, isn’t really influenced much one way or another until the count gets below 60. That point occurred March 2004. If temperature lags by about 18 months, and the chart shows about 0.1 degrees change per year influence, then we would see the initial indications of actual cooling starting in 2006. 0.1 degrees Celsius over a couple years is not enough, with the variability of global temps, to draw any firm conclusions. And this decrease may well be offset by some other factors. But if the next solar cycle has a very low maximum, then we’re looking at a 15-20 year period of temperatures declining at 0.1 degrees Celsius per year. That will be noticed.”
I posted this 4 years ago. I believe we’re starting to finally see some noticeable impacts of annualized sub-100, and more importantly, sub-60 count averages.
I don’t really update the blog any more, but still believe that post is quite relevant.

Thank you. I missed that one when focusing on the April 2007 plot below it.
Odd. That plot is dated May 8, 2009
Yet the webarchive (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif) shows May 6, 2009 (not May 9) with the chart dated April 20, 2009 and high and low curves prior to the key meeting. The May 8, 2009 plot is not in the archive. The next chart in the web archive is not until May 27, 2010, using the red curve from May 8, 2009 which is used from then on.

When SC24 goes, so goes the solar wind – that’s all I talk about.