Sunspot count is virtually unchanged from last month :
It seems possible that we’ve seen the double peak, and it will be downhill after this.
A similar status quo in radio flux – little change from last month.
The Ap magnetic index dropped 4 units from last month, suggesting a slowing in the solar dynamo.
On August 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway updated his prediction page but the text is identical to last month – no change in the forecast.
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again over the last four months. 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.
About the only significant even in the last month is that the solar polar fields have begun their reversal, indicating we are at “solar max”, which seems like a misnomer given the low activity observed at the moment. That’s why I think we may have seen the “double peak” and it is downhill from here.
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceWatch the progress on the WUWT solar reference page
leif says
Anything else [including your musings] is just hand waving [or worse] with no predictive…
My comments about this are not to be argued, but to be learned from
henry says
musings
have not heard that word for a long time
I am amused.
I thought WUWT is a place for scientists of differing educational background and experience to learn from each other, sort of like,
being pupil and teacher to each other.
Obviously you know it all.
But we shall meet again,
as and when it will become obvious that solar cycle 25 will be similar to cycle 24
as predicted by me.
HenryP says:
August 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm
I did not look good enough
And this from somebody who claims that he triple [or more] checks…
but why did nobody do this before me?
Because, people know random variations when they see them.
WUWT is a place for scientists of differing educational background and experience to learn from each other,
You seem not to have learned anything.
Obviously you know it all.
I comment on what I know, so no wonder…
HenryP says:
August 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm
never mind the ave SSN during a Schwabe cycle (11 yrs) we should be looking at the full 22 year Hale Nicholson cycle, or, better still, look at the average SSN over 2 HN cycles
Not really, as the two cycles are not strongly coupled. They operate pretty much independently with occasional, random events driving them: ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1308.2827C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1308.2827C
@leif
SSN is a red herring, it does not give me much.
It is you who seemed not to have learned anything.
Clearly the sun’s field strength charts are not from a random process.
Any mathematician can see that you can draw a half hyperbolic curve from left to right
(parabolic on the bottom), as a best fit for the data,
and it ends somewhere near zero on the bottom: in 2016
The logical conclusion is that from that date (i.e. the lowest/highest point on those binomials)
things will only slowly move up again,
in line with my own data, and the planets, and the ozone data, etc.
If you are so clever, how on earth do you not recognize this?
.
HenryP says:
August 23, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Clearly the sun’s field strength charts are not from a random process.
Clearly you didn’t bother to study the link I gave you: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1308.2827C
Any mathematician can see that you can draw a half hyperbolic curve from left to right
(parabolic on the bottom), as a best fit for the data
Curve fitting without physical understanding has no predictive power
in line with my own data, and the planets, and the ozone data, etc.
So, you suffer from confirmation bias.
If you are so clever, how on earth do you not recognize this?
Perhaps you are just wrong, and that is why you fail to impress.
Perhaps?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
perhaps we will continue to cool? and/or where will we end up?
A scientist is best remembered for his (correct) predictions…
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 3:54 am
A scientist is best remembered for his (correct) predictions…
Extrapolation is not valid prediction.
leif says
Extrapolation is not valid prediction
@leif
it seems you do not know stats or donot trust it
1) you measure, big sample, if possible
2) you establish a trend versus time and correlation coefficient (“curve fitting”)
3) if r>0.95 you can be certain that correlation exists
4) you project backwards in time, and check that history confirms the trend, as far as we can,
ensuring having reliable records, that can be referred to.
(with weather do not expect 100% that history confirms the trend because of many factors, mostly due to inaccurate/inconsistent measurement the further you go back in time)
5) If there is reasonable evidence that history confirms the trend, you can the take the curve forwards in time….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Was or is there a specific reason as to why the sun’s magnetic field strength is measured only every ten days?
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 6:16 am
1) you measure, big sample, if possible, etc
Your problem is that you have done none of those things. For example, for the solar polar fields you only have four independent data points [one for each cycle]. And even if you did, it would still not be a valid prediction, unless you know the physics behind the data, and can explain the data in numerical detail.
Was or is there a specific reason as to why the sun’s magnetic field strength is measured only every ten days?
It is measured every day, but the Sun has a backside too, so we have to measure over a full rotation to cover the whole polar region. So the daily field measurements are averaged over 30 days and reported every ten days [to cut down the mass of slowly varying data].
leif says
Your problem is that you have done none of those things. For example, for the solar polar fields
you only have four independent data points [one for each cycle]. And even if you did, it would still not be a valid prediction, unless you know the physics behind the data, and can explain the data in numerical detail.
@leif
my eyes had already caught that there is a descending (top)/ascending (bottom) relationship based on many field strength data (as confirmed now by you) culminating in a bending point somewhere around 2016, or there about. (2016 is significant in terms of my data)
Remember, with r>0.95, the relationship(s) that I determined is/are valid within the time period of those 4 points, even if I do have only 4 points. You do understand that? In other words, you give me the solar cycle (of any of those 4 that I chose to observe) and I can estimate the maximum field strength observed, from the trend line with highest rsquared..
(In AAS/UV/Visible spectroscopy we usually only use 4 points of the absorption measured to evaluate concentration)
In stats, I do not have to know the physics behind the data, as long as I prove the relationship.
Remember, I am not the enemy. I merely try to warn people against the coming cold, which will be accompanied by droughts > [40] latitude
To me, it does not matter all that much (since I have moved to Africa) but for the NH I think it will not be a picknick when we return to 1920-1950 –
where we are now,
on my weather clock.
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 9:13 am
my eyes had already caught that there is a descending (top)/ascending (bottom) relationship based on many field strength data (as confirmed now by you)
There are only four independent data points [or three degrees of freedom]. So, you do not have thousands of data points. This is a fundamental truth you have to learn.
Remember, with r>0.95, the relationship(s) that I determined is/are valid within the time period of those 4 points, even if I do have only 4 points.
If you had only two random data points r would be 1.00, but the significance would be zero. So, no, the relationship is not necessarily valid.
You do understand that?
You do not understand the difference between correlation and significance.
In other words, you give me the solar cycle (of any of those 4 that I chose to observe) and I can estimate the maximum field strength observed, from the trend line with highest rsquared..
That is just curve fitting to given data and has no predictive power. You cannot give me strength for cycles outside of the four. For example: what is the field strength for cycle 20? and for cycle 19? If you cannot give me those, then you cannot predict cycle 25 either.
(In AAS/UV/Visible spectroscopy we usually only use 4 points of the absorption measured to evaluate concentration)
And that is enough because we know that there is a strong, real physical relationship.
In stats, I do not have to know the physics behind the data, as long as I prove the relationship.
In stats you cannot prove a relationship, especially not with only four points.
Remember, I am not the enemy. I merely try to warn people against the coming cold, which will be accompanied by droughts > [40] latitude
Warnings based on pseudo-science and invalid conclusions are worse than no warnings and are thus to be unmasked for what they are.
leif says
There are only four independent data points [or three degrees of freedom]. So, you do not have thousands of data points. This is a fundamental truth you have to learn.
henry says
Clearly, perhaps you should study some stats.
If I can see or know that a great number of data follow a certain distribution (in this case: binomial, both from the top and from the bottom)
then I don’t have to analyse all those data to prove that relationship
The 4 points are enough (for me) to prove what is going to happen.
I don’t have to do more: it is not my job. It is just a hobby.
You, OTOH, if you say you are the expert on the sun, should take heed on what I am alluding to, analyse all that data, in the way that I suggest, to establish the exact correlation and coordinates of the binomials. In that way you will be able to predict how long the cooling period will last.
(my own data suggests it will be cooling until 2040 plus maybe an overlap of about 5 years )
Or must I do everything on my own?
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 10:22 am
The 4 points are enough (for me) to prove what is going to happen.
If that is the case it should also be enough to ‘prove’ what happened in the past, so tell us what the four data points say about the size of cycles 20 and 19.
Or must I do everything on my own?
The lot of a pseudo-scientist is a lonely one.
The problem is if you take a sample of solar opinions the answers and reasons are going to be different depending on who you talk to.
There is no consensus and many have a different take.
For example Geoffry Sharp, Peirs Corbyn,David Archibald versus what Leif has to say.
My two cents is the sun is in the first prolonged solar minimum since the ending of the Dalton, therefore I would say trying to predict what the sun is going to do going forward based on so called NORMAL so;ar activity over the last century may not turn out to be as correct as some may think it will going forward.
When the sun previously has entered very prolonged quiet periods the technology was not there to see what was or was not going on with the sun at those time.
I think much will be learned and some surprises will be coming about if this prolonged solar minimum lives up to the expectations ,some have called for.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 24, 2013 at 10:36 am
For example Geoffry Sharp, Peirs Corbyn,David Archibald versus what Leif has to say.
To rattle your chain a bit: None of those three know what they are talking about.
leif says
so tell us what the four data points say about the size of cycles 20 and 19.
henry says
size, measured in or as what?
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 10:54 am
“so tell us what the four data points say about the size of cycles 20 and 19.”
size, measured in or as what?
You had no problem saying that cycle 25 would be like cycle 24 [“as predicted by me”].
But you can chose anything solar you are most expert in [sunspot number, f10.7 flux, solar polar field at preceding minimum, sunspot area, TSI, cosmic rays, …].
@SvP
the period (of cooling) 2015-2040
will be similar to 1925-1950
nothing much to worry about
since we all came through
although the droughts 1932-1939 may shift things a little bit.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
especially with 7 billion people counting on us here TO GET IT RIGHT?
I will put it this way, back around 2007 or 2008 many were calling for solar cycle 24 to be very active. I believe at that particular time the three persons I mentioned in my previous post correctly called that solar cycle 24 would be very weak.
They made the correct call.
leif says
You had no problem saying that cycle 25 would be like cycle 24 [“as predicted by me”].
henry says
that would be in terms of the field strength data, as supplied
as explained, that really is your problem now, not mine
I have seen enough here
it is all political?
pity
Henry you and nobody else(I included) has the crystal ball as to exactly what the climate may or may not being doing going forward.
It is dangerous to make a detailed prediction.
There are to many unknowns, and thresholds lurking that can cause your forecast to be wrong in both timing,degree of magnitude, and duration of the temperature change and even possibly the direction of the change, although I do agree strongly with the direction being down ,despite my lack of uncertainties, i just mentioned.
Still I like the fact you are trying to say and put out something with confidence.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 24, 2013 at 11:32 am
I will put it this way, back around 2007 or 2008 many were calling for solar cycle 24 to be very active. I believe at that particular time the three persons I mentioned in my previous post correctly called that solar cycle 24 would be very weak.
Perhaps you could back that up with a link for each? If you cannot, then it is time to stop claiming that you can.
Here is the correct prediction [made in October 2004]: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 11:32 am
that would be in terms of the field strength data, as supplied
as explained, that really is your problem now, not mine
It is you who claim that the four data points you have are enough to tell an expert in statistics [as you claim to be] what the relationship is so that you can forecast cycle 25. I simply ask you to apply that expertise and certainty to hindcast cycle 20 and 19. Shouldn’t be too hard for you, considering how strong your faith is in your ability.
I have seen enough here … it is all political? … pity
Well, perhaps we have seen enough of your expertise and triple checked data. So: put up or shut up, as they say.
Papers and Presentations.
Failure to Warm
An entertaining narrative – highly recommended
October 2007
380 k
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States
Climate prediction from a US data set
March 2008
770 k
Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response
March 2006
40 k
The paper that started the solar-climate connection
Warming or Cooling?
The whole story in 800 words
September 2008
100 k
Solar Cycle 24: implications and expectations
A Dalton Minimum-like outcome is now
the above are predictions made by David Archibald about upcoming solar cycle 24 and 25 way way back in year 2006.
What do you say to that Leif?