Despite some small upticks on sunspot and 10.7cm radio activity, the magentic activity of the sun is still bumping along the bottom.
A slight uptick was seen in sunspot count.
A similar slight uptick occurred in radio flux.
Note how the Ap magnetic index remains low, down 4 units from last month:
Oddly, there seems to be a slight drop in total solar irradiance. It may just be temporary, or an indication that we have passed solar max:
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Most Recent 3 Month Plot
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceTotal Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Full SORCE Mission- 2003 – Present
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceMore at the WUWT Solar reference page.Solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 5/1/13:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 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.
It looks like the “prediction” (the red curve at the first graph) is quite off the possible development from the so far counted SSN. I wonder why they don’t update the prediction according to the observation. I can’t understand a “policy” so kafkaien that it generates an obviously grossly unreal prediction and keeps it up even after it was falsified by the reality. In 2007 they had high SSN 140 and low SSN 90 peak, and now when it is pretty clear that it will not be over SSN 70, they still keep the 90. It looks like the NOAA solar predictions really do not matter at all, because are clearly outside not just science, but common sense.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 9, 2013 at 5:45 pm
It looks like the “prediction” (the red curve at the first graph) is quite off the possible development from the so far counted SSN. I wonder why they don’t update the prediction according to the observation.
The original prediction before the cycle started was important to alert the users to the strong possibility of a small cycle [at least smaller than the several previous cycles we were used to]. This is enough for planning purposes. Once the cycle gets going, the pre-cycle prediction is not important anymore and the observed run of the cycle is a good enough indicator for the activity to expect. Anybody can extrapolate the data for himself and no theory is required. Hathaway does precisely that. All this makes eminent sense and meets practical needs. The hard-nosed engineers using the predictions are not interested in philosophical deliberations or conspiratorial notions. They want a prediction that is ‘good enough for government work’ and that they have now.
lsvalgaard says:
May 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm
:”The original prediction before the cycle started was important to alert the users to the strong possibility of a small cycle [at least smaller than the several previous cycles we were used to]:”
So why have policies to keep up falsified solar predictions which are now unimportant and keep to cut from them the past part? Such a policy looks to me absurd.
I would like to know, what you think about this animated way to show the sunspot trends (as it is just try what comes out using charts from WFT the long trend would have different slopes after the 1947 with the corrected data).
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 10, 2013 at 7:01 pm
So why have policies to keep up falsified solar predictions which are now unimportant and keep to cut from them the past part? Such a policy looks to me absurd.
In the uncertain world of solar predictions the one for cycle 24 cannot be said to be falsified. Rather, we must count it as a great success that the actual cycle turns out to be [as predicted] the smallest in a hundred years. If you put some error bars on the curve [ http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif ] the predication is still within those. As we don’t really know what the future will bring it makes sense to keep the prediction [the red curve] for future activity. It is not helpful for actual use of the prediction to keep it for the past [what use is the weather prediction a week ahead a year ago?].
I would like to know, what you think about this animated way to show the sunspot trends
I take a dim view of wiggle watching.
lsvalgaard says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:19 am
“If you put some error bars on the curve…the predication is still within those.”
There actually are the error bars on the original NOAA sunspot prediction graph and this is what happens, when I superimpose the original NOAA prediction over the May 6 2013 graph.
The conclusions we can draw:
1. Only 21 month values out of 53 so far fit into the low error bar (which is moreover obviously wrong – you can’t use sigma this way for SSN scale which has only positive values – because the error bar will come out considerably biased near zero- in fact the error bar should converge to value somewhere between zero and the lowest value at the same X scale point, there are methods how to do this. But in fact this objection is just a minor one, nevertheless if the error bar would be made correctly for the type of distribution then most of even the monthly values would be below it), the rest is below and when we look at the smoothed curve – which is what we should compare with the smoothed prediction – at the first glance (except the low beginning where one would always expect it – especially when we consider the error bar is incorrect) it is at least half of the time below the lower error bar and past the smoothed peak quite considerably.
2. If there’s a policy in NOAA not to change EVER (emphasis yours) the published data then this policy clearly wasn’t observed this time. – the low prediction was shifted several months forward (in May 2009 when it could be quite easily estimated where the smoothed minimum was in 2008 – and one can understand this and one would expect you to do exactly this), the error bars were taken out and the high prediction – which was published almost exactly 11 years into the SC23 and still kept up until May 2009 – was completely wiped out – which one would also understand and expect to be done. So instead of “the smallest in a hundred years” cycle prediction great success, the half of the panel have had still a quite high prediction which even at the moment when it was first published was already not much likely, they kept this next April 2008 too (although already without the error bars you now remind me about) – 12 years to the cycle – and only in may 2009 – half a year into the SC24 they shifted the curve and wiped the high prediction and consented at SSN 90 peak – which likely is still 35% higher than what actually happens.
3. To claim that NOAA predicted the “the smallest in a hundred years” cycle is clearly not completely true, because a cycle with smoothed peak at SSN ~90 (for comparison the so far highest smoothed value in SC24 was 66.9 in February 2012) wouldn’t be a smallest cycle in the last hundred years – at least SC16 would be smaller if we take your 100 years literally and don’t look at the SC14 – of course you can object that with your SSN correction the SC16 smoothed peak would be 93 and in my opinion you would be right…
I don’t blame anybody for anything, but to talk about policies and claim a “great success” looks rather more like an expression of loyalty to your field colleagues then a sober evaluation of the NOAA panel predictive capabilities based rather on consensus than prevalence of a major comprehensive theory. -Even the group which estimated the low cycle clearly still overestimated it considerably and only future will tell how much exactly.
It was not NOAA SWPC (nor NASA) who made the really weak cycle prediction. I follow this issue at least long enough to know that it were other people than NOAA panel who actually used the known theory and relatively long time ago forewarned that the solar cycles following the SC23 very likely could be even considerably weaker. It were other people who warned that the sun – directly or indirectly, influenced by the planets or not, wobbling around barycenter or not, whatever theory one prefers… – is chief climate driver and therefore weak cycles could change the global temperature trends (and the Biesecker2008 admits “Lower TSI (if confirmed) implies a new natural cooling for climate change”) – which likely already again happened – although you maybe have hard time to see the solar signal in the temperature anomaly data in the 2nd half of the 20th century, others seem to see it quite distinct – and especially in the 2nd half of the 20th century, because there’s less noise in the data – and they see also the fact that the solar trends in the last half of the century in vectors agree with the temperature anomaly trends and that contrary to the common belief the solar trends since the beginning of the last warming period starting at the point coinciding with the end of the SC19 in 1960’s (-not in mid 1970’s as many repeat over and over even here without actually looking into the temperature anomaly data with the solar signal smoothed out – when you look at the graph please mind the clear precedence of the SST turning point in ~1957, especially when you come to the note below the line) also rised up until 2000’s and since then steeply descend and we are just years from the turning point where all the 20th century solar activity upward trend will level – see the animated trend graph (the main purpose of the wiggle watching is to realize, that it is not the solar cycle smoothed peak where the solar cycle influence peaks, but it is typically 2-3 years after the smoothed official peak due to asymetricity and cummulativity of the solar cycle signal, the same for the minima – for example the SC19 smoothed peak was in March 1958, yet the maximum SSN trend was in November 1960 – so if you ever want to do a SSN/surface temperature correlation, you must shift the two accordingly, otherwise your results will not show their real dependence, because you will cancel a big chunk of it in the process, other purpose of the graph is to show, that the sunspot activity generaly during the last warming period rised up until 2000’s, where it eventually leveled – as the global temperature anomaly did – and began a steep descent into a Dalton minimum levels)- due to the very weak SC24 (resembling much more SC5 than SC14 – especially when we use the SSN correction made after your suggestions and use simple extrapolation which gives SC24 SSN average around 30, which is quite closer value to the SC5 SSN average than to the SC14 average). …and obviously could wreak havoc in the long -both on scientific and political level- pushed CAGW agenda, which in my opinion IS a political conspiracy at very least against common sense, because major environmental threat were always the cold periods, not the warm ones. This is obvious even to layman like me (when it comes to solar physics and climatology).
I understand why Hathaway, although not particularly good at solar predictions updates them according to latest data. That’s what one would expect from a scientist, although it could seem embarrassing, it isn’t, because it is not easy to predict the sun. What really looks embarrassing is to change the past original prediction and pretend it is the same – although the curve was shifted already half a year after the SC24 started – have it still quite higher than reality while crying “great success”. It looks a bit childish. 🙂
To keep up the unreal “low prediction smoothed” from the pair of the original two (when the observation – which already as you point out well could serve to predict the rest of the cycle – experienced even considerably lower activity) I find being a confusion of both the policymakers and public. In fact especially the SC24 even now just ~4.5 years to the cycle is so low, that no way there could be any significant warming next decade if the solar factor is the chief driver (as common sense would expect*) and in such case if the longer solar periodicity as in the past is still in place, then next half of the century.
To take this possible predictions seriously and direct the resources in acquiring better understanding of them is absolutely decisive for wide range of local and global issues not just US govt.. Even the shorterm prediction of further decline of the solar activity trend in the next decade, which seems almost sure now from so far observed SSN values in the SC24, could mean the great fiasco of the CAGW agenda and should lead to immediate scraping of all the carbon mitigation policies, because even if there’s a significant CO2 factor (which I think practically isn’t, because of the logarithmic nature of the CO2 forcing and hardly enough fossil fuels available to double its content in the atmosphere in the future from today’s values especially when one considers natural CO2 sequestration rate) the solar activity changes are so profound that the weak sun is already very likely overruling it (if it indeed ever dominated) and the CO2/temperature anomaly correlation completely breaks up, most probably because it is too weak.
——–
*I think there first must be a short-wave from sun and something to warm it up with (which in our case chiefly is the ocean water because it covers more than 2/3 of the Earth surface, especially in the areas between polar circles where the insolation is relatively high and because it is quite very transparent to 300-700nm shortwave of the solar spectra throughout its upper epipelagic layer, which has orders of magnitude higher heat capacity than whole the atmosphere, not speaking about lower troposphere or even the CO2 content in it) and then there could be a re-radiated long-wave which with the CO2 and other GHG can make a GHE in the atmosphere and even that, for obvious reasons would be modulated by the solar activity – directly (less TSI->less heat->less long-wave heat->less GHE) and indirectly (i.a. the “soda effect”: less TSI->less heat in the ocean->lower temperature of the ocean->higher CO2solubility in its water->less CO2 in the atmosphere->less GHE) – but it is also good to note the long-wave mid-IR band in question resulting from the atmosphere black-body temperature has no significant potential to rewarm the ocean, because the water is very opaque (at order millions of times more than for the solar short-wave spectrum including UVA) for it and therefore the IR cannot significantly penetrate it deeper than just like some hundredths of millimeter. What warms the ocean is chiefly the shortwave directly from sun coming mainly in visible, near-IR and UVA spectra in which the fluctuations cause the fluctuations of the sea epipelagic layer warming or cooling. The relatively thin epipelagic layer has way much more heat capacity than whole the atmosphere and stores the bulk of the direct shortwave radiation energy from the sun converting it to heat (and that’s what keeps the surface air temperature within moderate boundaries suitable for life, without it the temperatures would have much wilder fluctuations which we see on deserts). Moreover the ocean surface temperature is in average considerably higher than the average surface air temperature and therefore the air can’t generally cause ocean warming by conduction due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In short the GHG nor its effect on the atmosphere temperature can significantly warm the ocean and that’s the fatal flaw of the CAGW GHE theory claiming the CO2 being the chief factor of the recent warming – it is physically utterly impossible – If there’s a warming of the ocean – as the SST and OHC data suggest – it must be a result of other factor than GHE – and it is quite obvious that first factor to check is the solar activity fluctuations and their direct and indirect effects.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm
and this…
Omlouváme se, ale požadovaná stránka nebyla nalezena.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm
and only in may 2009 – half a year into the SC24 they shifted the curve and wiped the high prediction and consented at SSN 90 peak – which likely is still 35% higher than what actually happens.
I was actually on the Panel and I can tell you a bit about the history. Initially, most members were impressed by the Dikpati et al. prediction and argued for a high value [185 or so] [by the way I was a referee of their paper http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf ]. Myself and Pesnell argued that the weak polar fields indicated a much weaker cycle [ http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Schatten-2003-prediction.png ], about Rmax 75 [later reduced to 72], which would make it the ‘smallest in a 100 years’]. During our deliberations we slowly convinced the rest of the panel [with one or two exceptions] that a high prediction was not tenable. Unfortunately, the panel did not have the courage to go all the way to 72 and settled for 90. I admit that not going all the way down to 72 was not based on science, but on political pressure. But that we managed to cut the alarming high prediction in half using sound science I consider to be a great success. The percentage error is not important when values are small. If we predicted 5 and it came out 10 [a 100% error] this is of no consequence at all. What is important is how much lower than the worst-case maximum we predict. And then going down from 185 to 90 or to 67 is only a difference of 13%, pretty good I would say.
I don’t blame anybody for anything, but to talk about policies and claim a “great success” looks rather more like an expression of loyalty to your field colleagues then a sober evaluation of the NOAA panel predictive capabilities based rather on consensus than prevalence of a major comprehensive theory. -Even the group which estimated the low cycle clearly still overestimated it considerably and only future will tell how much exactly.
The value 72 is based on a solid theory, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-forecast.pdf The 90 is a fluke that should not be taken as a measure of the theory, but as a weakness of doing science by consensus.
It were other people who warned that the sun – directly or indirectly, influenced by the planets or not, wobbling around barycenter or not, whatever theory one prefers
But not based on any [valid] physical theory why cycles should be weaker.
…is to show, that the sunspot activity generaly during the last warming period rised up until 2000′s, where it eventually leveled – as the global temperature anomaly did – and began a steep descent into a Dalton minimum levels)…etc
is just speculation and wiggle matching. Now as Schatten pointed out 10 years ago we may be headed into a Maunder Minimum [ http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf ] which will be a blow to alarmists who think we’ll freeze to death [when we don’t].
What really looks embarrassing is to change the past original prediction and pretend it is the same – although the curve was shifted already half a year after the SC24 started
What NOAA does is to show the prediction as agreed by the panel and we are allowed to change that as we see fit and as we promised up to the time where we said we were done. To erase the past prediction values is the correct thing to do as they are of no use [like last years weekly weather forecasts]
To keep up the unreal “low prediction smoothed” from the pair of the original two (when the observation – which already as you point out well could serve to predict the rest of the cycle – experienced even considerably lower activity) I find being a confusion of both the policymakers and public. In fact especially the SC24 even now just ~4.5 years to the cycle is so low, that no way there could be any significant warming next decade if the solar factor is the chief driver (as common sense would expect*) and in such case if the longer solar periodicity as in the past is still in place, then next half of the century.
The observed sunspot numbers are too low compared to the prediction, but that is probably due to the Livingston & Penn effect. TSI and the CME rate have not fallen below the prediction [ http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png ] and if the sun has any effect those variables may be what count.
To take this possible predictions seriously and direct the resources in acquiring better understanding of them is absolutely decisive for wide range of local and global issues
I agree that one should take our prediction seriously and would welcome resources directed our way.
lsvalgaard says:
May 11, 2013 at 4:28 pm
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm
and this…
Omlouváme se, ale požadovaná stránka nebyla nalezena.
Sorry, here’s the link I hope it works now.for you.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Sorry, here’s the link I hope it works now.for you.
It did, but as I said, when we decided to go with the low prediction we also decided to shift it over. This is in keeping with our promise to update the prediction if warranted.
lsvalgaard says:
May 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Thank you for telling more about the history of the NOAA prediction. I was aware that there were panelists, who actually wanted lower prediction than the 90 and I regretted they didn’t prevail, because I think there is a sound theory which supported it long ago, but I didn’t know the details. Yeah, for you personally it is in my opinion a great success to push it down at least to the 90. But I think that for NOAA panel and the political pressures behind it is a failure.
With the error bars it was just a minor objection, it doesn’t much matter what kind of error bars are used for anyway idealized prediction. It would be a problem only in some special cases as when two argue whether the observed values are within the bars or not. 🙂
speculation and wiggle matching. Now as Schatten pointed out 10 years ago we may be headed into a Maunder Minimum [ http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf ] which will be a blow to alarmists who think we’ll freeze to death [when we don’t].
I checked the OLS trends thoroughly and it really looks like the power center of the cumulative sunspot activity is 2-3 years after peaks. For apparently not so obvious reasons, which are nevertheless basic mathematics of the asymetric cyclical signals and are far from any speculation. The cumulative SSN center-points for minima and maxima where the steepest slope trends point are in time simply elsewhere than the smoothed peak, that’s not a speculation it is a fact which can be exactly quantified. The wiggle graph was just a way to show it. I don’t think it is much speculation 4.5 year into the cycle that the SC24 will have SSN average around 30 (- which would be already comparable to SC5 if we use your SSN correction) either.
I of course don’t think we will freeze to death even if the solar activity goes to Maunder minimum no sunspot level and the global temperature anomaly will follow – it will just a bit shift the usual climatic bands towards the equator. Nothing catastrophic, people can adapt to it. Only the CAGW alarmists would get an infamy in the history of science.
The observed sunspot numbers are too low compared to the prediction, but that is probably due to the Livingston & Penn effect. TSI and the CME rate have not fallen below the prediction and if the sun has any effect those variables may be what count.
Yeah, if there’s low SSN or no sunspots at all it doesn’t mean there still isn’t the TSI the ~1360 W/m2 at AU. And I would expect it diverge from the SSN when the activity goes down. In fact I think that if the SSN-TSI divergence will last I think it could be another indicator of approaching a grand minimum. What I speculate about is the influence of the solar spectra changes when there aren’t any sunspots. I would need some spectral data to see if it could have any significant effect on the SST. I agree that the TSI etc. is what counts. When there aren’t sunspots the SSN has no more any use, because zero, which doesn’t mean a zero K on the surface of the Earth. :))
I seriously think that a good, on sound theory based predictions of the solar activity, made by well funded and politically unbiased scientists and institutions is an essential thing for climatology to give meaningful results. Unfortunately we live in real world, where the political agendas often prevail the common sense and the solar scientists, especially the unbiased were fifth wheel in the IPCC and whole the over-funded CAGW hype.
I have friend in ORNL, who told me that the AGW issue first was intended to push needed energetics policies changes towards greater use of nuclear energy (especially the 4th generation) where the development more or less stopped after TMI accident and huge propaganda around it, but then it was taken over by environmentalists, sometimes the same people who pushed the antinuclear policies and whole the thing went awry towards the bio-fuels and windmills or large solar plants which I think are real man-made environmental and economical disasters which moreover due to lack of energy this produce and huge resources they consume, while blocking really sustainable solutions lead to another disasters “by reaction” as the fracking. In my opinion we haven’t time for scams and charades like the CAGW, the point where there will be not enough fossil resources for energetics to keep this technological civilization running is approaching fast. I counted the proven reserves and estimated the consumption and it looks to me quite scary, much much scarier than when somebody, who apparently seriously believes that there can be a Venus-like GHE runout on Earth up to boiling oceans somewhere in foreseeable future, tells me there might be one degrees or two more after 100 years. So I think the mankind maybe more than ever before needs people like you, especially in the times when other want people pay for phantom catastrophes (the inept or sinister activists and politicians and their agendas preferred over facts).
lsvalgaard says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm
This is in keeping with our promise to update the prediction if warranted.
Yeah I think it is right think to do, but I would think, that the further data just corresponding with the prediction peak is a boldwritten warrant for further update.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
May 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Yeah I think it is right think to do, but I would think, that the further data just corresponding with the prediction peak is a boldwritten warrant for further update.
As the continuous update that Hathaway does is just extrapolation and curve fitting without theory [which does has its place and works statistically] and the red curve is real prediction based on sound physics [although a bit too high – because of politics] perhaps the best is the combination that you see on NOAA’s graph. There you have both worlds and can judge for yourself. At any rate, that is NOAA’s policy [whether one disagrees or not – I can’t do anything about it].