Like 'the pause' in surface temperatures, 'the slump' in solar activity continues

The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it is becoming even more clear that we are past solar max, and that solar max has been a dud. “The slump” continues not only in sunspot activity, but also other metrics. And, tellingly, Dr. David Hathaway has now aligned his once way too high solar prediction with that of WUWT’s resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.

The SSN count remains low:

Latest Sunspot number prediction

Note the divergence between the model prediction in red, and the actual values.

The 10.7cm radio flux continues slumpy:

Latest F10.7 cm flux number prediction

The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, unchanged, and indicates a tepid solar magnetic dynamo. We’ve had well over 6 years now (and about to be seven) of a lower than expected Ap index.

Latest Planetary A-index number prediction

From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles. The prediction is that solar max via sunspot count will peak in late 2013/early 2014:

solar_region_count

But, another important indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has indeed happened.

Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.

In other news, Dr. David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 9/5/13, and suggests solar max may have already occurred. He says:

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 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 flat 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.

ssn_predict_l[1]

You can watch this video that shows 5 years of cycle 24 predictions from Hathaway, as they shrink from 2005 to 2010. Solar cycle 24 predictions were higher then, and exceeded the SSN max for cycle 23.

Dr. Svalgaard’s prediction in 2005 (with Lund) was for a solar cycle 24 max SSN of 75, and was totally against the consensus for solar cycle 24 predictions of the time. It looks like that might not even be reached. From his briefing then:

2005_Svalgaard-Lund_Cycle24_prediction

Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Prediction%20Lund.pdf

We live in interesting times.

More at the WUWT Solar reference page.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
665 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EricH
September 13, 2013 5:44 am

We need to stock up on thermal underwear before the rush starts or emigrate to countries closer to the equator.

BobW in NC
September 13, 2013 5:44 am

Do I recall correctly that back in early 2007 WUWT reported a stunning and unexpected downward step shift in one of these metrics? Didn’t see it any of the figures shown here. Wonder if it would have presaged what’s going on in this report.

Gary Pearse
September 13, 2013 6:06 am

Lief can get your goat now and again (until you get used to his style) but I’ve come to appreciate his steadying influence in the global warming debate. He makes a good prediction as an odd man out in the solar field but doesn’t jump on any bandwagons. He harpoons bad science in the warming literature and in the skeptical stuff. He resists being a Maunder Mininum/solar influence star that many skeptics would like to see him be, and he calmly focuses on the science wherever, in his view, it leads. I have to grudgingly admit he’s taken considerable heat out of my thinking in the debate.

johnmarshall
September 13, 2013 6:06 am

Could end up as a ”climate refugee” as things get colder.
Most of us said it was the sun not CO2. We are right, of course.

gopal panicker
September 13, 2013 6:09 am

difference in solar insolation…sunlight reaching the earth…from the low to the high of the sunspot cycle…is 0.5%…and there is no match of the 11 year sunspot cycle with observed earthly temp variations…if low solar activity persists for a long period …like the maunder minimum…it may make a difference…the cosmic ray theory…which depends on the solar cycle…has the same problem of not conforming to observations…just like the now flat hockey stick…the only one that works is my theory of a thirty year cycle…warming 1919-1950…cooling 1950-1980…warming 1980-2010…cooling since then….very simple…..but it works perfectly with observations….i think it has something to do with ocean circulation…which is very poorly understood

September 13, 2013 6:13 am

Like ‘the pause’ in surface temperatures, ‘the slump’ in solar activity continues
an amazing coincidence. who’d have thunk.

September 13, 2013 6:17 am

My prediction was actually made in September 2004, submitted to a journal in October 2004, and published in January 2005: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
I noted that “As we approach minimum and the new cycle gets underway, the solar polar field precursor method improves markedly … It is a strength of the polar field precursor method that the predictions improve in this manner” So with the polar fields measured after 2004 the prediction was lowered to 72 and then to 70 where it has stood since. The Livingston & Penn effect http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf if continued might mean that the sunspot number is becoming too small compared to other solar indices and that the SSN may not in future be a good measure of solar activity: Figure 13 and the discussion in http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf

Robert of Ottawa
September 13, 2013 6:18 am

I recall years ago (?) Leif made a prediction of a really low peak of 70-ish for SSN. How wrong he was! 🙂

Madman2001
September 13, 2013 6:18 am

A bit off-topic, but I was wondering the manner in which WUWT is paid for the video adverts between the posting and the comments. Does WUWT get paid only if we click on the adverts (which is the standard click-thru Internet model) or is there payment each time an advert appears?

Robert of Ottawa
September 13, 2013 6:20 am

gopal, that is a 60 year cycle, not 30.

gopal panicker
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
September 13, 2013 6:23 am

OK…60 …30…take your pick…but you get the general idea

Gail Combs
September 13, 2013 6:24 am

johnmarshall says: @ September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
Could end up as a ”climate refugee” as things get colder. Most of us said it was the sun not CO2. We are right, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Pamela Gray should be here soon to tell you that the sun doesn’t influence the climate.

Tenuc
September 13, 2013 6:26 am

The other thing that I find strange is the recent lack of Earth directed solar flares and CMEs. Promising spots appear on the left limb as viewed from earth, but seem to become weaker and more disorganised as the move across the surface.
The Livingstone and Penn effect is also a puzzle and I wonder how this will effect sunspot complexity and subsequent flaring.

Edim
September 13, 2013 6:30 am

I disagree that we are past solar max, there will be more peaks, but the timing of solar max is somewhat arbitrary anyway. I think both 2013 and 2014 will have higher annualy averaged sunspot numbers than 2012.

September 13, 2013 6:35 am

Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:26 am
The other thing that I find strange is the recent lack of Earth directed solar flares and CMEs.
The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.

September 13, 2013 6:36 am

Hey madman 2001. The way to be safe and make sure Anthony gets paid is to click on the ad as you scroll past it, but hit the volume button on the ad window to shut the sound off and let it run while you read through the comments.

Editor
September 13, 2013 6:36 am

> Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.
One term I’m not very fond of is “nowcasting.” In the northeast it’s frequently used when a nor’easter or tropical storm has arrived, and predictions are based on little more than current conditions – track, speed, radar, and current steering conditions.
We’re in an analogous phase of the solar cycle, we know we’re on the downslope, we know what it looks like, the only uncertainty is how long it will be before solar minimum, but it’s still worth tracking current conditions.

steveta_uk
September 13, 2013 6:42 am

Gary Pearse says: September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am …
Yeah, totally agree, as I’m sure 97% of all WUWTers would.

September 13, 2013 6:44 am

Certainly you people do not understand the severity of the situation. It’s clear that the sun is burning out and only massive international action can save us. We must find environmentally-sensitive ways to store sunlight with a program that will be funded by a tax based on how much sunlight strikes you and your property – um, except for the property owned by the federal government, of course – and recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize… 😉

September 13, 2013 6:45 am

Svensmark: “Global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
In Danish: »Vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning, mens den varer«.

wws
September 13, 2013 6:46 am

For BobW in NC: The “step change”, as he called it, was noticed by Anthony as having occurred in mid-2005, as I recall. Although that particular graph/indice that he was discussing is not reproduced in this post, you can see the effects of what he noticed in the IES Solar Cycle AP Progression graph, above. Note especially what happens between 2005 and 2006 – in all the years since, that indice has never gotten close to pre-2005 levels.

September 13, 2013 6:49 am

Agust Bjarnason says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:45 am
Svensmark: “Global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning”
It has actually not cooled either.

David
September 13, 2013 6:52 am

I have a question for you Anthony and others. I’m a firm skeptic of the AGW scam and the evidence against it is just too overwhelming (MWP hotter globally than today, no tropospheric hotspot, CO2 lags 800 years behind Temperature rise, no sea level rise increase, no significant sea temperature increase, no warming in the past 17 years etc)
My question is can local concentrations of CO2 emissions in Urban areas for example create temperature differentials and change circulatory patterns?
My guess is very little as it could not be cumulative as gaseous equilibrium dispersion would make the bulk relatively homogenous over time with just the latest emissions localised.
It’s probably a silly question but the Alarmists have turned to extreme weather as global temps have stalled and the only two ways CO2 can have an impact are hidden heat(of which none has been found to account for the stall) and localised circulatory influences as global temps have not significantly increased in recent times.

george h.
September 13, 2013 6:53 am

EricH says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:44 am
“We need to stock up on thermal underwear before the rush starts or emigrate to countries closer to the equator.”
My prediction: When Mini-Ice-Age2 settles in, PETA raises money selling furs.

TonyK
September 13, 2013 6:58 am

Chris Marrou says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:44 am
Quick! Send Cillian Murphy with a REALLY big bomb…..

steveta_uk
September 13, 2013 7:01 am

Chris Marrou, I assume that if I place those black sunlight-catching panels on my roof, and convert sunlight to electriciy and send it down the wires to share with everyone else, that I won’t be taxed as much? Maybe even given a bit of a rebate?

Steve Keohane
September 13, 2013 7:07 am

BobW in NC says:September 13, 2013 at 5:44 am
Do I recall correctly that back in early 2007 WUWT reported a stunning and unexpected downward step shift in one of these metrics?

Bob, it is the step function at Oct. 2005 that I believe Anthony pointed out in the AP Progression chart.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 13, 2013 7:14 am

Madman2001 said on September 13, 2013 at 6:18 am:

A bit off-topic, but I was wondering the manner in which WUWT is paid for the video adverts between the posting and the comments. Does WUWT get paid only if we click on the adverts (which is the standard click-thru Internet model) or is there payment each time an advert appears?

This is how I recall it, but I am not now nor have I ever been involved in the managing of this blog thus this shall not be considered authoritative.
As a bog-standard free WordPress-dot-com blog, the ads are the “price” of the free hosting. Thus originally WUWT got nothing. Ad clicking just showed your appreciation of said free hosting.
A few years back, being one of WordPress’ most highly-trafficked blogs earned Mr. Watts a small cut of the ad revenue. Figuring in time spent on running the blog versus revenue share, he would have made considerably more by wandering the streets of Chico looking for recyclables to turn in for the deposits.
Lately he had a good offer from WordPress to become an Enterprise site, which would come with some nice perks at the cost of paying hosting fees, and it was tried out, but didn’t quite work out. Maybe the site will go that way at a later date, maybe not.

MarkW
September 13, 2013 7:18 am

The sun’s been in a bit of a funk for the last week. Unless it picks up quite a bit over the next two weeks, Sept’s numbers are going to be a lot lower than Aug’s.

MJB
September 13, 2013 7:19 am

I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro telsa) plot changes between cycles with the peak being skewed right in cycle 21, roughly centered for cycle 22, then skewed left for cycles 23 and 24. Is this a fair observation and can anyone suggested an explanation? Perhaps something to do with speed of circulation and quantity of material cycled to the poles?

Claude Harvey
September 13, 2013 7:19 am

Hathaway saw the same things Svalgaard saw way back when, but in my opinion he hadn’t the courage of his convictions. The following was my observation at the time (and Svalgaard took issue with that comment):
Claude Harvey says:
January 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
The following is pure supposition on my part and is supported by nothing more than a curious, 180 degree change in course I observed in Hathaway.
I don’t think Hathaway is the total idiot his series of prognostications might imply. I distinctly remember an article he either wrote or that featured him in which he expressed alarm that the great solar conveyor belt had essentially ground to a halt. That was long before cycle #24 punked out almost entirely. A couple months later he was being quoted as saying in effect, “There is nothing at all unusual about the current dearth of sunspots. Everything is perfectly normal.”
My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure. There was immense pressure to deny any development that might distract from the political mantra that “We’re all going to burn up and die soon if we don’t drown first, unless we drastically restrict fossil fuel use.”

Mike
September 13, 2013 7:23 am

How about a contest to guess the first month with a spotless day?

September 13, 2013 7:25 am

MJB says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro tesla) plot changes between cycles
The sun is just a messy place…

Tom in Florida
September 13, 2013 7:35 am

Claude Harvey says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
“My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure.”
As Leif has said numerous times, the insurers of satellites depend on the solar predictions to set rates. So perhaps erring on the high side wasn’t so agenda driven as it was precautionary.

September 13, 2013 7:59 am

The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless. I don’t use it as a metric for the strength or lack of strength of solar activity. Instead I rather use the daily solar flux reading and ap index to get a much more objective reading on what the sun is doing.
The predictions have been terrible by mainstream, and the month of Sep. just brings this fact out more and more.
Two shoes are going to fall this decade and have infact already started, the first being solar activity in general is turning out to be much weaker then what has been predicted by mainstream, and secondly the solar /climate connections will become much more established as this decade proceeds.
The temperature trend contiunes to show no increase despite increasing amounts of co2. If anything since this very quiet period of sub solar activity started post 2005,the temperature trend has been slightly down.
It will be acclerating going forward.

Alberta Slim
September 13, 2013 8:00 am

From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]

LT
September 13, 2013 8:00 am

What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
And why does the SORCE have a gap at the beginning of August for TSI, is the instrument having trouble?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png

Retired Engineer John
September 13, 2013 8:03 am

One of the things, and Lief may have pointed this out, the Sun TSI is still high even though it seems to have reached it’s peak. The low level activity on the Sun’s surface even though it is not very visible is spread over the entire solar disk and is a significant component of Solar maximum. As long as the TSI is at it’s maximum, we still have a Solar maximum. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

September 13, 2013 8:06 am

All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
As one can see from this article from the web-site icecap; as recently as year 2006 NASA was predicting solar cycle 24 to be the strongest in 300 years!
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
This article is by Art Horn, on the web-site ICECAP.COM and can be viewed there.

September 13, 2013 8:08 am

CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.

September 13, 2013 8:10 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:59 am
The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless.
The counting of sunspots has not changed since 1947. You know not whereof you speak.
LT says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
The instrument has failed.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
As predicted.

September 13, 2013 8:13 am

One of the most remarkable items of this cycle is the lack of earth directed CME’S,and this is verified by the ap index over the course of this cycle which is as a wholeis close to if not at record lows.
What counts as far as the climate is the CME’S effect on the AP index which will have an impact on the climate, if certain thresholds are attained.

Jeff in Calgary
September 13, 2013 8:13 am

TonyK says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:58 am
Quick! Send Cillian Murphy with a REALLY big bomb…..
____________________________
Hey, Sunshine was a great movie. Don’t mock it… (well it had some great CG shots of the sun anyway)

September 13, 2013 8:16 am

All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
COUNTER TO WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED NASA WAS PREDICTING SUNSPOT CYCLE 24 TO BE ONE OF THE STRONGEST IN 300 YEARS, AS RECENTLY AS YEAR 2006.

September 13, 2013 8:16 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:08 am
CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.
You know not whereof you speak. There have been more CMEs this cycle than in the previous cycle.

Steve C
September 13, 2013 8:18 am

Re. solar slumps, is there any update on the “no sign at all of Cycle 25” story from a couple of years ago, as mentioned e.g. here?

Chuck L
September 13, 2013 8:19 am

I appreciate Dr. Svalgaard’s contributions to WUWT even if they are somewhat acerbic! 🙂 He keeps it real. Maybe this paper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf
suggests the mechanism by which the Sun’s activity can affect the climate. We certainly have a real-life laboratory to study this and other hypotheses about the Earth’s climate.

September 13, 2013 8:21 am

Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it. Other sites count micro-specks and then put the total through some mumbo-jumbo formula, dividing the number of specks by 60%, or some such thing. That doesn’t make much sense to me, because if it couldn’t be seen then it couldn’t be seen. Zero is zero, and putting zero through mumbo-jumbo and getting a number like fifty just doesn’t seem right.
For example, the layman’s site just went through five straight “spotless” days, but Locarno was getting raw numbers like 70. I looked at the pictures of the sun from those days, and you can barely see the specks even with the sun so magnified that only a quarter of the golden orb fits on your video screen. To say such a sun would be called anything other than “spotless” during prior times is patently absurd.
I think our modern counts come out on the high side, especially when you are comparing with counts from SP5, back around 1795.
Of course, some will now say spots aren’t a good way to measure. We have better gizmos and gadgets to measure with, now. However, because they didn’t have those gizmos and gadgets back in 1795, we can’t compare. Unless, of course, we use a gizmo-and-gadget-proxy from 1795.
You’ll have to forgive me, but I seem to have developed an odd allergy. When I hear the word “proxy” I am hit by unconquerable spasms of squirming. So could we please stick with just “sunspots,” out of compassion for people with my handicap?

September 13, 2013 8:21 am

Every one should view the solar disc today and look at the modern sunspot count. They have the ridiculous number of 58 ,with a solar disc which is almost blank.
Area coverage sure will not jive with this susnpot count. Infact the sunspot count for the whole month of Sep, is a joke and does not jive with area coverage in the least.

AJB
September 13, 2013 8:21 am

LT says, September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
Details here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status

September 13, 2013 8:23 am

Caleb you are exactly right , and area coverage which they do on Layman gives the true picture of sunspot activity.
This modern methold of sunspot counting is in a word USELESS.

steveta_uk
September 13, 2013 8:23 am

Salvatore Del Prete, why do you keep posting the same thing again and again and again?
Even assuming that you think postings are going missing, you repeat the same thing again and again in the same message. Why?

September 13, 2013 8:24 am

Gary Pearse says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
… I have to grudgingly admit he’s taken considerable heat out of my thinking in the debate.
=========================================================================
Cerebral cooling eh? 🙂

September 13, 2013 8:27 am

I also echo that spotless is what the sun has been for much of the last 5 days.
Today for example I could perhaps see a sunspot count of 20, but 58 is ridiculous.
Zero is more representative then 58 for today.

September 13, 2013 8:28 am

steveta don’t read it.

September 13, 2013 8:31 am

Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it.
The problem with the LSC is that it is uncalibrated. They say it is supposed to match Rudolf Wolf’s counts for sunspot cycle 5 but Wolf wasn’t even born during SC5. The modern counting method was introduced by Wolfer [counting everything] in 1877. During 17 years of overlap with Wolf, the two observers agreed that multiplying Wolfer’s count by 0.6 make them match Wolf’s [this holds for periods of a month or larger]. The LSC is just plain junk.

phlogiston
September 13, 2013 8:31 am

This paper by Coughlin and Tung 2004 employs nonlinear EMD (empirical mode decomposition) analysis to stratospheric temperatures, and finds a strong 11 year solar cycle.
This may be the right kind of analysis to look for nonlinear forcing of the climate system by solar and other astrophysical cycles. Check out figure 3.
Stephen Wilde might be interested in this.

September 13, 2013 8:32 am

The AP index is what matters Leif, I don’t care about CME’S per say although very few have had much of an effect on the goemagnetic index with this cycle in contrast to earlier cycles.
Just look at the ap index for previous recent cycles versu this one if you don’t believe it.

September 13, 2013 8:35 am

In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.

beng
September 13, 2013 8:36 am

Good to know Dr S at el are improving their theories & methods.

September 13, 2013 8:39 am

Sunspot coverage is the way to go because it is objective, and sunspot coverage by sunspots for the month of Sep. will give you the true picture of just how low solar activity in regards to sunspots has been thus far for this month of Sept.
The modern way of counting sunspots is useless.

richardscourtney
September 13, 2013 8:39 am

Salvatore Del Prete:
I read solar threads in hoping I can learn because I know very, very little about solar matters. And I am sure there are others who read solar threads for the same reason.
In response to steveta asking you to desist from iterating points in a post and in series of posts you have replied at September 13, 2013 at 8:28 am

steveta don’t read it.

No! That will not do!
Those of us who are trying to follow a thread need to read your posts if we are to determine if you have said something new.
Your iterations are wasting the the time and effort of all of us who are trying to follow threads. This is annoying to all of us, not only to steveta.
Please stop it.
Richard

lemiere jacques
September 13, 2013 8:43 am

predictions are irrelevant, but nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis

John Whitman
September 13, 2013 8:43 am

Leif,
Your {and your associate(s)} prediction of cycle 24 is looking reasonably on target. Well done.
Questions: Leif, can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction? Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment? I am very very nosy : )
John

September 13, 2013 8:45 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:32 am
The AP index is what matters Leif
The Ap index this cycle is much at it was for cycle 14 and even back in the 1880s. There is no long-term trend in the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:35 am
In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.
You know not whereof you speak [so shut up]. The very same equipment used in 1877 [and manufactured in 1822] is still used today: Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf

September 13, 2013 8:50 am

Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.

September 13, 2013 8:50 am

John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
<can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction?
As soon as the polar fields have build up enough that they have become stable. This usually happens about 3 years after their reversal, so in 3-4 years time would be a good guess.
Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment?
No, except that it is not clear what the L&P effect will do. Perhaps I’ll predict the microwave flux [as Ken Schatten does] or TSI instead of the SSN.

September 13, 2013 8:52 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:50 am
Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.
As you bring nothing to the table, tone ALL THE WAY DOWN.

September 13, 2013 8:54 am

Leif, okay.

September 13, 2013 8:56 am

I made my points.Done for today.

sean
September 13, 2013 9:02 am

When referring to Mr. Hathaway’s PREDICTIONS, you may want to disclose which revision number is represented on your graph. It has to be about revision #7, at least. I would like to see his original prediction graphed against actual!

Merrick
September 13, 2013 9:05 am

Good thing we’re saving so much coal for the impending coal-ed spell.

James at 48
September 13, 2013 9:07 am

With all the new discoveries going on about the near interstellar neighborhood (which should now increase now that we have at least some rudimentary sensing out there) I must wonder about interactions between Sol and the overarching plasma “sea” that we are sailing through, nice and comfy inside the bubble.

geran
September 13, 2013 9:20 am

Sun spot activity is linked to Earth’s climate. Sun spot activity is not linked to Earth’s climate.
TSI does not vary enough to affect climate. TSI does vary enough to affect climate.
The AP index is linked to climate. The AP index is not linked to climate.
CME’s affect climate. CME’s do not affect climate.
(I need a long weekend drunk!)

Dr. Deanster
September 13, 2013 9:20 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.

This is what I like about Lief’s reply’s … short .. simple, to the point.
BUT … depends on what you mean by “has actually not cooled”. Significantly?? .. yeah , I totally agree. But .. the trend line is negative trend since 2002 .. which, and yes, I know it is indistinquishable from “zero” without the statistics, .. but is “cooling” none the less. 🙂

September 13, 2013 9:25 am

Here is a compilation of predictions for SC24.
As you can see, there are 45 of them, more than enough to fill a roulette wheel, and they are “all over the map”, so somebody had to be close.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
SC25 is just around the corner.
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!

September 13, 2013 9:28 am

edit: SC25 NOT Sunspot 25
[Fixed. -w.]

Editor
September 13, 2013 9:29 am

I don’t understand this one …

In other news, Dr. David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 9/5/13, and suggests solar max may have already occurred. He says:

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013.

Say what? In September (9/5/13) the prediction was for a maximum of 66 in the summer of 2013?
What am I missing here?
w.

September 13, 2013 9:34 am

Dr. Deanster says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:20 am
the trend line is negative trend since 2002 .
Judging from this http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
There does not not seem to be a negative trend, but a insignificant positive trend: compare the red curve in 2002 and now.

September 13, 2013 9:38 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am
“The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013.”
What am I missing here?

Predictions are usually made of the 1-yr smoothed sunspot number…

jorgekafkazar
September 13, 2013 9:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says: “The sun is just a messy place…”
Well, yes, if you’re going to get all technical on us. 🙂
Seriously, Leif, thanks for participating at WUWT. I always enjoy your comments.

September 13, 2013 9:43 am

sean says: September 13, 2013 at 9:02 am
When referring to Mr. Hathaway’s PREDICTIONS, you may want to disclose which revision number is represented on your graph. It has to be about revision #7, at least. I would like to see his original prediction graphed against actual!
Not sure this was Hathaway’s ORIGINAL prediction Sean, but here goes:
_________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/wuwt-poll-what-should-we-call-the-current-solar-minimum/#comments
In December 2006, NASA predicted SC24 would be an active one.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec. 21, 2006
Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
Excerpt:
“Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”
Then in April 2007, this position started to shift:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
Excerpt:
“In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.”
Not sure I’d give a lot of points to NASA/NOAA for being on the leading edge, but by 2007 they certainly had the bases covered.
Houston, we have a problem.

William Astley
September 13, 2013 9:44 am

I am curious when NASA will make the public announcement that the sun has abruptly changed to a state that is not possible based on the current assumed electro-magnetic model for the sun.

Stephen Fox
September 13, 2013 9:47 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.

Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.

@njsnowfan
September 13, 2013 9:47 am
September 13, 2013 9:51 am

Gail Combs says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:24 am
Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Pamela Gray should be here soon to tell you that the sun doesn’t influence the climate.
Now that you have beaten us to it, we don’t need to repeat your assertion.

September 13, 2013 10:01 am

Keep posting the truth guys. Good questioning,and conclusions.
We will be proven correct soon.

September 13, 2013 10:05 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:01 am
Keep posting the truth guys.
I’m doing it, I’m doing it. So pay attention.

September 13, 2013 10:13 am

Leif, I hope everyone is saying what they truely believe right or wrong. I enjoy reading your post believe it not, even though I just do not agree with much of it, but I still learn.
I keep what you say in mind,again believe it or not.
Time will tell, and I think it will be soon..

September 13, 2013 10:15 am

Stephen Fox says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:47 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.
##############
you actually dont want to look for cooling
You need to find more clouds.

@njsnowfan
September 13, 2013 10:15 am

Leif Svalgaard, What do you think of Carl Smith’s Rosetta Stone of Solar Science charts theory and Layman’s Sunspot Count process?
http://www.landscheidt.info/
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

Mike Maguire
September 13, 2013 10:16 am

Thanks much Leif!
Your profound contributions are helping to en”light”en our world(including us/me) on the most important driving force of life on earth(this planet).
Maybe the “coolest” thing going on in science right now, is that we live in this unique time/solar cycle and have capabilities/tools to measure so many different fields/elements/processes related to the sun and use that information to understand the effects on our planet………….like a massive science experiment with a galactic sized laboratory!
Thanks for sharing your scientifically valued knowledge/insight generously.

September 13, 2013 10:16 am

Stephen Fox says: September 13, 2013 at 9:47 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
Stephen:
Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.
Allan:
I suggest with respect that we do not know yet if cooling has begun and we will only know for certain in hindsight, and in due time.
Earth experienced sharp cooling in 2000 and again in 2008 such that the UAH LT temperature anomaly (“LT”) dropped to below -0.2C, temporarily erasing all global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979, but then LT bounced back to about + 0.2C where is oscillates today. The temperature data is variable and trends take time to become apparent.
So I am with Leif on this one…
… and I also wrote in 2002 that global cooling would commence by 2020-2030. Cooling may have started already – but we just do not know.
Just in case though, bundle up! 🙂

September 13, 2013 10:18 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013.
Say what? In September (9/5/13) the prediction was for a maximum of 66 in the summer of 2013?
What am I missing here?

To calculate the smoothed sunspot number for July 2013 add half of the Jan 2013 value plus the sum of the Feb through Dec 2013 values plus half of the Jan 2014 value and by divide the sum by twelve.
We won’t know the actual July 2013 smoothed sunspot number until February 2014!

@njsnowfan
September 13, 2013 10:20 am

Low solar cycle seems to be making daily sea ice extent record at Antarctica possible?
43rd Daily Record for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 2013 would be 3rd Highest Maximum of All Time
September 11th (Day 254) saw the 43rd Daily Record of the Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. So far, 2013 would be the 3rd highest maximum of All Time behind 2012 and 2006.
2012′s maximum was 19.47713 million sq km
2006′s maximum was 19.35934 million sq km
2013′s maximum so far is 19.35119 million sq km
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/43rd-daily-record-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-2013-would-be-3rd-highest-maximum-of-all-time/
A hot sheet item for sure

September 13, 2013 10:21 am

This is a great time for a challenge to the theory that its the sun stupid.
Looks like we are close to max.
In the US we have 110 stations (CRN) that have records ( min, hour, day, month) going back to the last Max ( or very close to it)
These stations are the gold standard according to WUWT
They record temperature, clouds, sun, wind etc.
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.

September 13, 2013 10:22 am

edit +-.2C should be +0.2C – apologies
[Fixed. -w.]

September 13, 2013 10:26 am

Considering quantum effects, could there be entanglement between processes in the inner sun that could result in rapid surface changes?

TomE
September 13, 2013 10:29 am

I became a climate refugee this spring when we moved from central Oregon to the Palm Springs area. My thought at that time was a downsizing move from snow blowing and pine needle raking. Looks like I will need to wait a while to see if it was also a really smart early move from a “Little Ice Age”.

John Whitman
September 13, 2013 10:40 am

ferd berple on September 13, 2013 at 6:13 am

The title of the WUWT post is “Like ‘the pause’ in surface temperatures, ‘the slump’ in solar activity continues”

an amazing coincidence. who’d have thunk.

– – – – – – – –
ferd berple,
I suggest those thoughts will resonate more strongly within our culture. More money therefore will flow into research on non-AGW climate behavior.
As for scientific dialog on whether there will be significant climate cooling if we are going into a Maunder-like solar pattern, that kind of dialog is going to escalate. I do not support that connection . . . yet.
A few doubt assessment thoughts:
A) I have little doubt that the Sun is, by many orders of magnitude, the dominate net source of energy of the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS). I have little doubt that we have not placed anywhere near enough priority on studying potential impacts on the EAS of the Sun’s subtle & not so subtle variations.
B) I have very little doubt that there will a glacial period at the end of the interglacial period we are in. I have little doubt that we do not know the timing. I have little doubt we do not know the variations in the rate of change on the decadal scale of its expected temperature patterns. I have little doubt it will be studied more than it previously has been.
C) I have little doubt there will be a wholesale and chaotic intellectual catharsis of the entrenched IPCC centric community as the cultural / science focus pendulum shifts away from their myopia. I have little doubt that it is unpredictable when a reasonable balance in the science on the EAS will be achieved. I have little doubt the pendulum has already started shifting away from them.
John

Chuck Wiese
September 13, 2013 10:42 am

Where would one find the UV flux through all of this? It dropped off an amazing 7% at the end of cycle 23. I looked on the SORCE sight and could not find anything recent. I presume it did not recover from the cycle 23 minimum to cycle 23 max values. UV could very well be an important sub surface heating mechanism to the tropical oceans and a valid reason why global temperatures track sunspot activity nearly perfectly.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist

Bill Parsons
September 13, 2013 10:49 am

<blolemiere jacques says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
… nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis
FWIW: Major 100-year-record-breaking rains here in Colorado. It's been raining for four days, pretty much straight. Flash floods out of Boulder and St. Vrain Canyons, Clear Creek, Big Thompson… Can't wait for them to talk about the "ongoing drought", or predictable global warming effects. Predictions are nice, but reality always manages to throw a monkey wrench into them
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-flooding-nightfall-20130912,0,945098.story

EW3
September 13, 2013 10:55 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:49 am
……………………………
“It has actually not cooled either.”
For which we should be grateful. Cooling will cause some real problems as opposed to warming.
Maybe we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.

Dan Murphy
September 13, 2013 11:04 am

I’m not a scientist, but I have been lurking on these solar threads since about 2009, so perhaps I can answer this question, (Dr. Svalgaard, please correct me if my answer is not accurate):
_____________________________
Alberta Slim says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
______________________
Solar cycle activity is not symmetric around the peak of the cycle, but rather there is a relatively steep rise at the beginning of the cycle rising out of the previous minimum, and after the cycle peak a longer, less steep fall with a “tail” to the next minimum. See the above “Active Region Count” figure in the body of the main post. Note the (relative to the rise to maximum) long “tail” of the slope down to the minimum at the end of each cycle.
So, based upon the above, a cycle that ran an extremely long and rare 14 years would probably not see solar max at year 7 of the cycle, but more likely the peak would be 5 or 6 years into the cycle. We are now 4 years or so into cycle 24, and by at least one standard we have reached solar max. That does not mean that this cycle will be just 8 or 9 years long. We are (I think) more probably going to have a longer than average cycle in the 11+ years range. I believe that I have seen some posts that link longer cycles with lower solar activity, and higher solar activity with shorter cycles.
And for all of you out there wondering about the issue raised earlier about the counting of smaller sunspots, and sun “freckles”, Dr. Svalgaard has explained on these pages many times that OF COURSE solar scientists are aware that to have a valid comparison to the sunspots counted in previous centuries you cannot count spots that could not be seen with the technology used then. As he alluded to above, a standard was set in the 1940s to use an identical small telescope to one used in 1880 or so, to establish a current sunspot count that can be validly compared to sunspot counts done as early as the 1790 s.
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?

mwhite
September 13, 2013 11:04 am

“Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-implications-for-UK-climate
Paul Hudsons BBC blog
“My guest on this weekends weather show is former BBC weather forecaster John Kettley, who offers interesting opinions on climate past, present and future. It will be available on the BBC iplayer later on sunday, click HERE”

September 13, 2013 11:05 am

@njsnowfan says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:15 am
Leif Svalgaard, What do you think of Carl Smith’s Rosetta Stone of Solar Science charts theory and Layman’s Sunspot Count process?
Not much. There are lots of comments on that here at WUWT. Just search through earlier articles [all the many thousands of them 🙂 ]

gary gulrud
September 13, 2013 11:06 am

Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
I agree, our post-modernist culture now accepts a sham as an honest attempt in much of public life.
Using statistics to correct data is about as blatant as fraud gets, but accepted nonetheless. The BLS, the BEA, etc., all pass the unjustified and incredible off as a fair account why should academics be any different?

September 13, 2013 11:12 am

Dan Murphy says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:04 am
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?
Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.

See - owe to Rich
September 13, 2013 11:14 am

How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877 (say)? This question really bothers me. Others have mentioned the recent spotless days recorded by the Layman’s Sunspot Count, and one of those days I certainly would have called spotless from looking at the SDO image. But how can we compare?
Well, did they not use to make sunspot drawings? Can we not make drawings today and compare them with (say) 1910 which was a cycle slightly stronger than this one but not by so much. And then, can we ask, for a sunspot group of a particular area, how many spots/specks are we counting in that group? Then, if we do it a lot of times, can we use statistics to see whether the number of spots counted today for a similar area is about the same as it was in 1910? Such a confirmation would be very comforting to me, because without it I am very dubious of counts like today’s, and many other days.
Perhaps Dr. LS can tell us that this has already been done?
Rich.

September 13, 2013 11:24 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
“in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years.”
Back when Hathaway made his original prediction for solar cycle 24 the BBC and other media outlets had lots of quotes from scientists claiming that such an increase in solar activity would double the warming effect that CO2 had on the earths climate.
I have never read a retraction of these statements and I have never seen an article by the BBC or any other media with a man made global warming bias, have any scientist explain; that because solar cycle 24 is very weak, the warming effect that CO2 had on the climate would be halved or reduced. Its strange that there always seems to be a one-way influence on earth climate.
I did point this out on a solar thread about 2-3 years ago and Leif said; “never believe what you read in the papers” or something to that effect.

more soylent green!
September 13, 2013 11:31 am

EPA’s proposed new regulations could keep coal industry reeling
http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4696059-74/coal-industry-gas#axzz2ena6RDjV
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/09/13/clean-coal-official-says-possible-epa-limits-are-too-low/
Clean coal official says possible EPA limits are too low
Obama’s EPA Getting Ready To Destroy The Coal Industry
http://downtrend.com/jrc410/obamas-epa-getting-ready-to-destroy-the-coal-industry/

cotwome
September 13, 2013 11:32 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
… I think you meant to say projections. : )

September 13, 2013 11:33 am

No Warming Left To Deny…’Global Cooling Takes Over…CET Annual Mean Temperature Plunges 1°C Since 2000′
‘Global temperature data, such as HadCrut 4, show warming has disappeared altogether…Global temperatures have been showing many more signs of cooling than warming…warming is now in the history books, having died some 15 years ago’

September 13, 2013 11:34 am

Some so called VIP people think they are such mental giants that they can by force of their will, foist a belief in man’s culpability for worldwide climate and charge for it a global carbon dioxide tax. Of course the sole benefit is for the global world ruling elite. Little do they know, the Sun overrules them.
I don’t think people understand how devastating it’s going to be for the people who supported the Man-Made Global Warming movement. When they find out Man is not to blame, and It’s the Sun Doing it Stupid, they are going to freak the heck out.

September 13, 2013 11:40 am

Leif, could you address this again?I have to asked again.
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
I can not see how this holds up .

Gras Albert
September 13, 2013 11:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:September 13, 2013 at 9:34 am

Dr. Deanster says:September 13, 2013 at 9:20 am
the trend line is negative trend since 2002

Judging from this http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
There does not not seem to be a negative trend, but a insignificant positive trend: compare the red curve in 2002 and now.

Leif, I’m disappointed in you, one could almost suggest that you are cherry picking, is not UAH the outlier?
Four other atmosphere and two sea surface data sets other than UAH ( http://tinyurl.com/k29l9ha ) suggests a more than decadal negative, if small, trend, with a fifth (Mosher’s toybox) in agreement through 9 years
If SC25 & 26 do emulate end up emulating SC5 & 6, we may have 20+ more years of cooling on the way

Ulric Lyons
September 13, 2013 11:46 am

RIP “The Modern Winter”, aka CAGW.

September 13, 2013 12:00 pm

I see that nobody is up to the challenge
REPLY: Mosh, you raised the issue, so rather than doing yet another drive by hit where all you do is complain, but do nothing beyond that, why not do it yourself? I look forward to you dealing with the lags. I would, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment as I’m working on a much more important project you also won’t like.
– Anthony

September 13, 2013 12:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:12 am
“Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.”
RE:Dan Murphy
“Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?”
Looking at past solar cycles on the sunspot area record I think July 2017 will be the beginning of solar minimum for cycle 24 and it may last up to 3-4 years, weaker cycles have longer minimums between peaks of solar maximums which makes them longer than average.

September 13, 2013 12:15 pm

What is different today is this is the first prolonged solar minimum since the Dalton. Let us see the climate implications going forward. I expect many.

September 13, 2013 12:15 pm

Hello Bill,
Sorry about the Colorado flooding. The impact on families can be swift and devastating, and recovery is slow.
Earlier this summer, Southern Alberta experienced major flooding that peaked on 21June2013, also due to record or near-record rainfall.
Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.
The 1932 flood was reportedly mitigated by the Glenmore Dam, built in 1931.
We experienced minor flooding in 2005, but 2013 was a major deluge. The Glenmore Dam and Reservoir were apparently not much help this time.
In our region, warmer is typically dryer and cooler is typically wetter, according to river flow records.
Is this one more indicator of the beginning of global cooling? 🙂
Regards, Allan
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/07/29/calgary-harry-sanders-flood-history-historic-week.html
P.S.
On 27June2013, I was asked by my federal Member of Parliament (MP) to line up some houses for a volunteer flood cleanup crew the next day. At 8am sharp the cleanup crew arrived at my friends’ house and got to work. They worked diligently for hours, until all the mud was removed from the basement (and we all wore our fair share of it). Then we moved on to clean up several more flood-damaged houses. There were no reporters or TV cameras. The cleanup crew worked for days in Calgary and High River, and consisted of about fifteen volunteers, including four Conservative MP’s and the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Tens of thousands of Albertans volunteered in this massive clean-up effort. Energy companies donated heavy oilfield vacuum trucks to remove water and sludge from basements, and the entire community pulled together. Calgary Stampede, the site of which was fully inundated, started on schedule on 5July2013. Love this city.

John Whitman
September 13, 2013 12:35 pm

Steven Mosher on September 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I see that nobody is up to the challenge

– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Great idea. But nothing is free, n’est ce pas?
Please offer some direct funding (in cash only please) to perform your challenge. I recommend you send a draft agreement / contract to all WUWT bloggers. That might stimulate interest in your challenge. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
: )
John

Ulric Lyons
September 13, 2013 12:38 pm

Allan MacRae says:
“Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.”
That is a very clear signal on CET, a late summer warm blast then a sudden cool down:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

herkimer
September 13, 2013 12:40 pm
September 13, 2013 12:57 pm

See – owe to Rich says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:14 am
How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Because the very instruments that were used in 1877 [actually since 1849] still exist and are used every day to count sunspots and sunspot groups using the same method. And have been in continuous use since back then. You can see more here: http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/ and here http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=109
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
Assuming the 5 specks form five groups, the sunspot number would be 55 and when multiplied by 0.6 to bring the count onto Wolf’s original scale would be 33. If the 5 specks are all together in one group, the sunspot number would be 15 or, when multiplied by 0.6 to bring it onto Wolf’s original scale, 9.
I can not see how this holds up
That you cannot see something does not mean much.
But let me explain: Wolf realized that what is important is not just the raw count, but that groups [we now call them active regions] are actually more important, hence the sunspot number is calculated as 10 times the number of groups plus the number of spots. Even if a group contains only one tiny spot its magnetic field [and the f10.7 flux] is still there and has effect. So the area of the spot is not so important. Statistically there is a VERY good correspondence between Wolf’s sunspot number and the area of the all the groups on the disk: Area [in millionths of the disk] = 16.7 * sunspot number. Simply because a group with many [including some large ones] spots tends to cover a larger area the more spots it has.
Gras Albert says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:43 am
is not UAH the outlier?
What does that matter? UAH is what WUWT ordinarily shows. The differences are so tiny that they are not significant.

September 13, 2013 1:01 pm

herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
And from when you start. Try year 2000.

Latitude
September 13, 2013 1:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
===============
ROTFL….how would anyone know

herkimer
September 13, 2013 1:16 pm

Lief
When you say no cooling you also have to say over what period and using what data set. Also see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/

September 13, 2013 1:27 pm

herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:16 pm
When you say no cooling you also have to say over what period and using what data set.
So should everybody, but nobody does. The point is that with real, significant cooling or warming those details are not important. If they are, the effect is no significant.

September 13, 2013 1:34 pm

John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Steven Mosher on September 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I see that nobody is up to the challenge
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Great idea. But nothing is free, n’est ce pas?
Please offer some direct funding (in cash only please) to perform your challenge. I recommend you send a draft agreement / contract to all WUWT bloggers. That might stimulate interest in your challenge. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
: )
########################
Funding?
For what? the data is free, I’ll write the code for Free.
All people need to do is take a stand
IF you think the sun controls the ups and downs of the climate, then make a prediction
what will happen to temperature ?
what will happen to cloud cover?
How much funding do these guys need to explain right here what their prediction is?

September 13, 2013 1:38 pm

Leif, using the met-office historical Temperature record and Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory, I have graphed both for three different locations, looking at the trends I can clearly see a relationship between solar activity and temperature, am I doing something wrong?
Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory. Temperature record from Oxford
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oxford-average-november-sunspot-number-and-march-minimum-temperature-1865-2012.gif
Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory. Temperature record from Stornoway airport
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/stornoway-nov-ssn-v-mar-tmin-1875-2012.gif
Average November Sunspot Number and February Minimum Temperature 1875-2012
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif

September 13, 2013 1:43 pm

Sparks says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Leif, using the met-office historical Temperature record and Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory, I have graphed both for three different locations, looking at the trends
If you are looking for trends, you will find them. As Yogi Berra said: “if I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”.

John Whitman
September 13, 2013 1:55 pm

Steven Mosher on September 13, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Funding?
For what? the data is free, I’ll write the code for Free.
All people need to do is take a stand
IF you think the sun controls the ups and downs of the climate, then make a prediction
what will happen to temperature ?
what will happen to cloud cover?
How much funding do these guys need to explain right here what their prediction is?

– – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
If you want somebody to do something (your challenge) then pay them for it.
To your thinking your funding offer may be too small. But OK. Send us your funding offer.
A future patron of fine skeptical challenges. It does kind of fit with your blog personage.
John

Dr. Deanster
September 13, 2013 2:12 pm

herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:01 pmAnd from when you start. Try year 2000.

All in the name of friendly banter …. let’s try 10,000 bp. :-0
I only chose 2002 because of the often cited “warmest decade” comment made by some in the media. So, while indeed, the last decade may have been the warmest on record, at least according to the wildly adjusted land based metrics …. the trend within that decade is slightly, though not significantly down. 🙂 (UAH excepted)

September 13, 2013 2:18 pm

Dr. Deanster says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm
according to the wildly adjusted land based metrics …. the trend within that decade is slightly, though not significantly down. 🙂 (UAH excepted)
Perhaps you trust the wildly adjusted land based metrics more than the satellite based data? Fair enough, everybody has his own bias.

September 13, 2013 2:20 pm

Steven Mosher [September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am] says:
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.

Steve, please set the record straight. Were you an English major of some kind? Just checking to make sure it’s you here and that no-one hijacked your handle.

September 13, 2013 2:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:43 pm
If you are looking for trends, you will find them. As Yogi Berra said: “if I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”.
All the same, the trend is there in three different temperature records, from three different locations, over a lengthy time period.

Tenuc
September 13, 2013 2:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am
“…The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low? Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field and the L&P effect are reducing the strength of flares and CME’s or were Earth facing flares during SC23 also anomalously low and or weaker?

September 13, 2013 2:34 pm

Sparks says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
All the same, the trend is there in three different temperature records, from three different locations, over a lengthy time period.
First: eye-balling is a poor way to determine trends, second: extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different.
Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low?
First: the data on CMEs count them all. I have not seen a specific study of ‘halo’ CMEs [Earth directed] so perhaps it is just you impression. If you have hard data, I would like to see them.
Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field
The solar magnetic field [and the part of it dragged into interplanetary space] is indeed a bit lower:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png

September 13, 2013 2:55 pm

Finding the footprint of solar forcing will be as difficult as finding the footprint of GHG forcing. We’re in the cool phase of the PDO for 10 or 15 more years which most everyone agrees forces some amount of cooling. CO2 emissions and levels are increasing which most everyone agrees forces some amount of warming. Solar forcing? Are these the big two or the big three or are there other forcings that are significant? I hate to get stereotyped as a merchant of doubt, but how do you ever isolate the forcing variables in climate change? Maybe over several PDO cycles and solar cycles we’ll be able to infer and agree on the power of individual forcings, but it won’t be easy. Right now I’d guess that the cooling from PDO and warming from CO2 are a wash. If we had significant cooling during the positive phase of the PDO, then I’d be inclined to attribute most of that to solar or unknowns. If we had significant warming during the positive phase of the PDO, I’d be inclined to attribute that to CO2 and PDO and unknowns. If we had neither warming nor cooling, I’d leap from my grave and curse the perversity of it all, and the climate wars would continue with knowers knowing nothing, but claiming clarity and confidence levels of 99% (yes- hyperbole and alliteration)!

Latitude
September 13, 2013 3:04 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different
yep, look out below…….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

September 13, 2013 3:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
First: eye-balling is a poor way to determine trends, second: extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different.
Leif, it is simple, there are two trend lines, one for solar and one for temperature and they closely match, I’m aware of the issues you have mentioned, as a visual aide for the purpose of showing you the data, graphs are what people use.
If you have temperature data of the same latitude as the UK I’ll be happy to produce a graph and supply you the data for further analysis.

September 13, 2013 4:04 pm

C. de Jager, Solar Forcing of Climate :
“The role of the open solar flux has so far been grossly underestimated in discussions of Sun-climate relations.“
See abstract in the above link.
It was prof. de Jager who triggered my interest in the topic of whether or not there was a direct relation between the sun’s activity and the climate. Don’t ask me for specifics, I am an amateur here, but he presented data showing such a relation. It was in the news in Holland several years ago. I guess it is still somewhere on his site (see link above).
I don’t read WUWT every day, so I miss a lot, but anyhow, I don’t remember having read about or from De Jager on WUWT and also not about “open solar flux”.
So I thought I give him a citation here.

September 13, 2013 4:06 pm
Martin 457
September 13, 2013 4:59 pm

So I read Leifs PDF on the telescopes used and I wonder, does the moon actually have a blocking effect? What effect does solar eclipses have during maximum activity as opposed to minimum activity?
Idakno, just typing out loud.

Editor
September 13, 2013 5:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:38 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am

“The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013.”
What am I missing here?

Predictions are usually made of the 1-yr smoothed sunspot number…

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Many thanks.
w.

Editor
September 13, 2013 5:13 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am

This is a great time for a challenge to the theory that its the sun stupid.
Looks like we are close to max.
In the US we have 110 stations (CRN) that have records ( min, hour, day, month) going back to the last Max ( or very close to it)
These stations are the gold standard according to WUWT
They record temperature, clouds, sun, wind etc.
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.

Actual science? How daring. Now you’ll get lots of folks claiming a thousand reasons that they can’t do it or its not worth doing or the results will be nullified by the atmospheric pressure or the humidity and the like …
Me, I think “it’s the thermometer, stupid”, so I have no prediction at all about which way the frog will jump … except that it won’t jump far.
w.

Steve Obeda
September 13, 2013 5:29 pm

Just wait until the solar activity increases again, proving that warming is driven by increasing carbon!

u.k.(us)
September 13, 2013 5:30 pm

Blade says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm
===========
Care to bore us with your educational/work experience ?

September 13, 2013 5:32 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
================
That doesn’t follow. For example, I propose the hypothesis that the sun’s influence on climate is a chaotic fractal at all time scales. The TEST of this is that no one will be able to accurately predict the effect of the sun on climate using existing mathematical theory.

kim
September 13, 2013 7:57 pm

Well, I’ve been saying the globe is cooling for six or seven years, now, haven’t got sick once.
=====================

Carla
September 13, 2013 8:11 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field
The solar magnetic field [and the part of it dragged into interplanetary space] is indeed a bit lower:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png

Yes good link Dr. S.
You know how you say the sun is a messy place, well that image tells me, the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place. Head on with our messy, wavy, turbulent solar system. Always varying and never quite the same. Gee, that sounds like the background too.. Thanks for the image..

Richard M
September 13, 2013 8:14 pm

Leif is a strong advocate of mechanism. If one chooses ENSO variation as a mechanism then the PDO is a good index of its variability. The PDO was positive from around 1975-2005. The global temperature trend over that period was warming. Since the PDO moved into negative territory the global temperature trend has been cooling as measured by almost all the global data sets.
How does solar fit into this variability? One way would be to impact the formation of ENSO events. That is, it would have to create the environment where more El Niño or La Niña events occurred. I haven’t seen anything very convincing to make this happen. In any event, using the past as the best indicator of future events, we should see the negative PDO until somewhere around 2035. If the sunspot count does make a difference the cooling should be even stronger. We will see …

Mario Lento
September 13, 2013 8:45 pm

Alberta Slim says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
++++++++++++
If cycle 24 is longer as it seems to be predicted, it will be skewed… there will be a longer dragged out decline, I believe.

Jeff Mitchell
September 13, 2013 11:10 pm

“And, tellingly, Dr. David Hathaway has now aligned his once way too high solar prediction with that of WUWT’s resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.”
What I would like to see are each of the predictions David Hathaway made. It seems to me, and has for some time, his predictions are adjusted for the real data and are thus not really a prediction. If we could compare all his predictions and the rationale for each, then we might learn something about how he predicts things. That he has come down several times means whatever his basis was for those predictions was faulty. Unless he can explain why each of his failed predictions were wrong, he’s not going to have much credibility. How has what he knows changed to warrant the new “prediction”? Anyone can predict with hindsight.

September 13, 2013 11:45 pm

Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low?
Leif Svalgaard replies:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
First: the data on CMEs count them all. I have not seen a specific study of ‘halo’ CMEs [Earth directed] so perhaps it is just you impression. If you have hard data, I would like to see them.
and Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am
The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.
Assuming that the numbers are correct (and I see no reason not to), there is obviously a very poor or no correlation between the total number of CMEs and the Ap.
It is, however, possible to reconcile the facts. We can use the number of M and X flares as a proxy for the number of CMEs likely to impact the magnetosphere.
Using the monthly data, see http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/ , as a comparison I select the 6 first months of 2003 and 2013. During those months in 2003 there were 86 M flares and 9 X class flares. In 2013 there were 30 M and 4 X flares during the same time interval. I would say we can assume there have been fewer large Earth directed CMEs just by taking into account the number of flares normally associated with the strongest geomagnetic disturbances.
We should also take into account that a large number of CMEs originate from filament eruptions. Those CMEs are generally smaller and slower than those associated with M and X flares. Assuming there has been no major change in the frequency of filament eruptions we could see almost the same number of CMEs in a small cycle (the current cycle) as in a medium cycle (cycle 23). So, at least in my view, the apparent discrepancy between the number of CMEs and the Ap index can have a reasonable explanation.

John Edmondson
September 14, 2013 12:40 am

The thing about the flat trend in global temperature is it allows any kind of speculation to explain the “pause”.
The problem is that’s just not good enough.
There is absolutely no chance that the Earth’s climate is in some kind of equilibrium.
That means competing forces are at work to simultaneously warm and cool the earth , currently cancelling each other out.
Assuming the sun had no effect on climate, then I would expect the cold PDO ( to be followed shortly by cold AMO) to cancel out the effect of (still) rising greenhouse gas warming (though of course non of the water vapour positive feedback nonsense). In fact almost exactly the same as 1945 to 1975. i.e flat.
So, in conclusion, I think the next 10 to 20 years will define whether the sun (and more likely secondary magnetic/GCR/ Cloud feedback) is the primary driver of climate or not.
My guess, Svensmark is right. The severity of cooling will depend on the higher GCR count caused by the impaired solar magnetic field.
(apologies for the excessive use of brackets)

Mr Green Genes
September 14, 2013 2:15 am

It’s worse than we thought!!
Solar activity is ‘slumping’ as the use of solar panels and other means of capturing solar energy is increasing. If we carry on like this, the sun will be completely drained by … oh, about 2099. We must put an end to this madness, NOW!
I suppose I’d better add (/sarc) just in case.

See - owe to Rich
September 14, 2013 2:22 am

Me: How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Leif: Because the very instruments that were used in 1877 [actually since 1849] still exist and are used every day to count sunspots and sunspot groups using the same method. And have been in continuous use since back then. You can see more here: http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/ and here http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=109
Me, now: Leif, you did not reply to my main point, which is not about the technology used, but about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot. In order to be satisfied that more specks are not being counted nowadays, I ask (perhaps some budding Ph.D. student) for a statistical analysis of sunspot counts within groups of similar area, for comparable periods within Cycle 24 (last few years) and Cycle 14 which you say evolved similarly. This could, of course, be a lot of work, and like Mosher I am not offering any money for it 🙂
But thanks for the links, and I hope next week to have time to follow them.
Rich.

September 14, 2013 2:53 am

u.k.(us) [September 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm] says:
Care to bore us with your educational/work experience ?

No. But way to miss the point.
If someone is an English major those two words “Effect” and Affect” are as different as night and day. If someone is a Scientist then those two words are as much or even more clearly defined. Steve Mosher is IIRC both ( or one with a strong interest in the other ) and has written a book on Science. This makes it twice as strange.
Now back to your question. What would it matter if I was a computer programmer, farmer or garbage man when discussing specific facts? You could spend all day here at WUWT asking the same question to every one of the numerous commenters pontificating about climate, correct? So then why did you ask me that question? What was the point? Are you implying that only English majors should be pointing out what I cited? Or, do you feel that such things should not be cited at all? I sure hope it’s not the latter because then why do we bother going after every little climate error.

Editor
September 14, 2013 3:06 am

Blade says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Steven Mosher [September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am] says:

Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.

Steve, please set the record straight. Were you an English major of some kind? Just checking to make sure it’s you here and that no-one hijacked your handle.

and

If someone is an English major those two words “Effect” and Affect” are as different as night and day. If someone is a Scientist then those two words are as much or even more clearly defined. Steve Mosher is IIRC both ( or one with a strong interest in the other ) and has written a book on Science. This makes it twice as strange.

From the dictionary, let me introduce you to what appears to be a foreign concept on your planet:

ty·po
ˈtīpō/
noun informal
1.
a typographical error.

Steven, like many of us, often posts in a hurry … and as a result, he, like many others including myself, occasionally has typographical errors in his work.
If you’ve never made a typo, blade, then you are qualified to bitch about those of others … and since that’s not the case, could we get back to real issues?
w.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 3:31 am

Steven Mosher says:
“Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.”
We are going to need them, it’s not looking too clever. There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 3:59 am

Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 3:31 am concludes saying

There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.

Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.
So I suppose you are right about what “could easily be”.
Richard

September 14, 2013 4:28 am

Leif,
1. According to the graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png, one can have the impression that a part of the distribution of sunspots is being cut off. The absence of sunspots above the pink colored line (intensity = 1.0) and beneath the 1500 Gauss line of the graph ‘umbral magnetic field’, is obvious. If the trend anticipated by Livingston and Penn will persist, a growing portion of the sunspot distribution will no longer be visible.
This implies also that more and more sunspots should be seen with lower intensity and umbral magnetic field. According to me, this must be obvious at first glance, if both pictures are taken in the same conditions (e.g. a picture of the sun with sunspots in 2003 compared to a picture taken this year). Do you have examples of such photographs?
2. Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’ in the sense that the same structure of a sunspot will persist, visible or not visible? I mean: When the field strength in a filament reaches a certain value, above 1500 Gauss, the filament becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes visible. If the field does not reach this value – what Livingston and Penn are expecting – the filament rises still to the surface but the contrast with the outer regions is minimal and a sunspot is no longer visible.
3. A team of researchers led by Northwest Research Associates (NWRA) are using data from the Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) and the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI). The team revealed subtle surface signs “when and where sunspots will emerge on the Sun, at least a day in advance.” (SCIENTISTS DISCOVER SOLAR PRECURSORS OF WHEN, WHERE SUNSPOTS WILL EMERGE”, 9 July 2013, http://www.nwra.com/news/sunspots/). How do you interpret these findings in the light of the findings of Livingston and Penn? Can the cause of the Livingston and Penn effect be explained by this finding?
4. David Hathaway made the power point presentation “Solar Cycle update” (See http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations.shtml). On page 40, he shows an interesting picture based on the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Fields. He deduces the strength the solar cycle from the rate of change in the polar fields. He concludes: Cycle 24 has far fewer (and smaller) sunspots than Cycles 22 and 23. Although the faster Meridional flow should help overcome this deficit, the slow rate of change in the polar fields strongly suggests that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 4:53 am

richardscourtney says:
“Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.”
Perhaps you can provide some proof of that.
The Agra famine years is a good example of the type of events coming up. The cold reached most regions around the temperate zone, with crop failures in many countries.
March to August 1837: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/north_atlantic/nao_mon.txt

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 5:20 am

Ulric Lyons:
re your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 4:53 am.
Please don’t be silly. A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.
You are the one who has made a claim; viz.

There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.

Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.
Five years from now few will remember your undefined assertion about 2016/17 and “some following years”. I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?
Richard

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 6:01 am

richardscourtney says:
“Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.”
I gave a good example in my previous comment, I would not take your definition seriously as it is false. Your “A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.” is a shaggy dog tale whizzed up merely to distort the issue. I can guarantee when the famine years will occur, because I can forecast down to monthly and less scales.
” I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?”
Nothing is left unmentioned, that would be cheating.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 6:15 am

Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post to me at September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am saying

Nothing is left unmentioned, that would be cheating.

Everything is left undefined, and that is cheating.
In your statement

There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.

the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probabilty ?)
2. famine conditions (where and how severe ?)
3. some following years (proportion of years ?)
4. big cold shots (big ? cold ? shots?)
5. growing seasons (of what and where ?)
I anticipate post hoc specifications of these terms.
Richard

Editor
September 14, 2013 6:37 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am

richardscourtney says:

“Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.”

I gave a good example in my previous comment, I would not take your definition seriously as it is false.

Ulric, it appears you misunderstand the import of Richard’s question. If you are going to be making a prediction, it is WORTHLESS unless it is specific.
In your case you claim that there “could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17”. That is not a prediction at all, unless you believe Piers Corbyn makes predictions … to be a prediction, you need to define your terms in a very precise manner.
For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.
In other words, you are not making a prediction at all.
Perhaps it would help if you thought of a prediction as a bet. If I say “I’ll bet you that there will be a big temperature increase tomorrow”, you’d be a fool to take the bet (as would I) because we haven’t decided what is “big” and what is “not big”.
So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim that there “could easily be famine conditions”, which is meaningless in the scientific world (or the world of bets) … color me unimpressed. If you want to play that game, you’ll have to do much, much better than that.
w.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 6:57 am

@richardscourtney
As I have posted several times on this blog, extremely low temperatures for the time of year, in April, May and June of 2016 with 100% certainty, with few regions escaping the effects. Certain regions do come up on suitable analogues, such as Asia, Japan, Canada, and parts of Europe, particularly Sweden and Ireland. Conditions the following year while not as severe, will be poor through May, June and July. Farmers can work out what crops that will effect, and I’ll describe what follows these years when I choose to.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 7:14 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
“For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.”
Both, that’s what happens when the jet is 1000 miles south of normal. As I keep reminding all, we have been hitting Maunder type temperatures already on some of the cold shots since 2010. I can be fully specific about the timing, intensity, and duration of the solar forecast, and the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 7:15 am

Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post at September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am saying

I’ll describe what follows these years when I choose to.

I don’t doubt it.
Indeed, I predicted that in my post at September 14, 2013 at 5:20 am.
I also predict that you’ll describe what follows these years how you choose to.
For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.
Please note that the post from Willis Eschenbach at September 14, 2013 at 6:37 am shows that at least one person understands what I am trying to say to you.
Richard

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 7:18 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
“So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim..”
Actually Willis, if you saw how I am doing it you see how rational it is.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 7:29 am

richardscourtney says:
“For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.”
I gave the same type of forecast for March 2013 and it was correct, so what you call a get out clause is in reality a success. That’s number two straw man from you here. You’ve just got some weird jumbie in you that cannot help attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast, how sad for you.
And you had the clear specification already:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 7:43 am

Ulric Lyons:
I am writing to object to your offensive twaddle at September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am.
You have pretended to make a prediction. It may be that you have fooled yourself into thinking you have made a prediction, BUT YOU HAVE NOT. You have only made a vague assertion comprised of unspecified terms which I listed in my post at September 14, 2013 at 6:15 am.
I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none. I have only asked you to define the terms which YOU are using.
I do not know what a “weird jumbie” is so I cannot say if there is one in me or not.
I am NOT making an “attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast”. I am asking the only person who claims he can give a deterministic forecast to demonstrate his claim. Volumes are spoken by your resort to unsubstantiated insults as an excuse for your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.
Richard

September 14, 2013 7:49 am

richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:43 am
pearls before swine.

September 14, 2013 7:55 am

Carla says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place.
Luckily, the solar wind keeps all that far away from us.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:22 am
about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot.
We have drawings going back to Galileo. More importantly, there is a very simple way of checking if the sunspot number is correct: From modern observations we know that more sunspots means more UV from the Sun. The UV creates our ionosphere and winds there [caused by solar heating] form a dynamo that creates a [small] magnetic field which we can detect on the ground. This was discovered by Graham in 1722 and Wolf discovered that the magnetic effects was related to the number of sunspots. Because we have observed the magnetic effect since the 18th century we know that the sunspot number since then is correct, in the sense that the number we count now giving rise to a certain magnetic effect is the same number as they counted back then for the same magnetic effect. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf In fact, the ancient sunspot counts can be calibrated using their magnetic effect.
rikgheysens says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:28 am
Do you have examples of such photographs?
Yes, thousands, but it is hard to see in those photographs as the sunspots themselves vary.
Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’
A better description is that the magnetic field is still there but did not contrate enough to form a spot.
How do you interpret these findings in the light of the findings of Livingston and Penn? Can the cause of the Livingston and Penn effect be explained by this finding?
I don’t think so.
that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?
Yes, as it is also my view.

Editor
September 14, 2013 8:05 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:14 am

Willis Eschenbach says:

“For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.”

Both, that’s what happens when the jet is 1000 miles south of normal. As I keep reminding all, we have been hitting Maunder type temperatures already on some of the cold shots since 2010. I can be fully specific about the timing, intensity, and duration of the solar forecast, and the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.

What part of “how much” do you not understand. RICHARD AND I ARE ASKING FOR SPECIFICS, not more of your vague blather. Waving your hands and saying that there will be a “big cold shot” is not science.
Why?
Because it is NOT FALSIFIABLE. You have not given anywhere near enough details to falsify it. As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.
So your unfalsifiable claim is meaningless. If you want to play, get a clue—we don’t accept that kind of nonsensical handwaving around here. And every time you try it again, you lose credibility. Get specific, or get out of here, so far your so-called “predictions” are just a waste of electrons.
w.

Editor
September 14, 2013 8:11 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:18 am

Willis Eschenbach says:

“So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim..”

Actually Willis, if you saw how I am doing it you see how rational it is.

Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap. HOW BIG, AND WHERE?
w.

Editor
September 14, 2013 8:16 am

Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.

Next year, there will be a drought.

Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions”?
w.

September 14, 2013 8:25 am

@Ulric lyons
There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.
the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probability ?)
2. famine conditions (where and how severe ?)
3. some following years (proportion of years ?)
4. big cold shots (big ? cold ? shots?)
5. growing seasons (of what and where ?)
to answer the questions
(I am not on speaking terms with richardscourtney)
1) high probability, greater than 99%
2) 2021-2028, @greater than [40] latitude, due to the cooling from the top
similar to 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
3) answered
4) 2029-2039 similar to 1940-1950: very cold
5) more rain/precipitation @ -30<x<30 latitude from 1995 to 2039 due to the cooling from the top
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

September 14, 2013 8:32 am

clearly
@ a number of folks here
there is no “pause”
it is either cooling or it is warming
since at least 2002 most data sets show it is cooling
(except UAH who have acknowledged calibration issues)
here is my own
(cooling from 2000)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
clealry,rather trust (your/my) own data sets as it seems there is already some “hiding the decline” going on again….

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 8:40 am

HenryP:
At September 14, 2013 at 8:25 am your post says

(I am not on speaking terms with richardscourtney)

For the benefit of others I write to explain that you not speaking to me is because of a similar disagreement to that I am having with the equally evasive Ulric lyons.
You are either unable or unwilling to explain the method you used to create your so-called model. Hence, your model s unfalsifiable so it is worthless.
Also, I have no intention of considering the definitions you want to apply to the terms used by Ulric Lyons. He claims to be making his prediction – not you – so your interpretation of his words is worth no more than mine; i.e. it is worthless.
He needs to define the terms he is using in his prediction or he has not made a prediction.
Richard

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 8:58 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
” As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.”
No I cannot because of what I have already stated, that would by definition not be a big drop in temperature, so you are up to the same kind of tricks as Richard.
“Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap.”
How do you know what have forecast and how well I have forecast?
and I have indicated that:
“..the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.”
Or did you want it to the nearest °C in Manhattan for every day?

September 14, 2013 8:59 am

for the sake of clarity to others here:
Richard called me a fool for which he did not apologize unconditionally
as he know he should
(if indeed he is a preacher at a church)

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 9:06 am

HenryP:
Try to stop being a fool and wasting space on threads with your nonsense.
Richard

September 14, 2013 9:08 am

HenryP and Richard! Go sit on the naughty chair! ROTFLMAO!
Super Nanny where are you?

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 9:10 am

richardscourtney says:
“You have pretended to make a prediction. It may be that you have fooled yourself into thinking you have made a prediction, BUT YOU HAVE NOT.”
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
“I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none.”
I picked up on two, your claim that there is always a big cold shot somewhere every year, and your:
“extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause”,
Which is just nonsense, there is nothing ambiguous about “extremely low temperatures for the time of year”, and when the AO goes very negative, few regions escape the effects.
“..your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.”
I regularly demonstrate deterministic forecasts.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 9:11 am

Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 8:58 am you say

Willis Eschenbach says:

” As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.”

No I cannot because of what I have already stated, that would by definition not be a big drop in temperature, so you are up to the same kind of tricks as Richard.

I have not noticed Willis using any “tricks” and I certainly have not.
The only action in this thread which could be thought a “trick” is your purporting to have made a prediction but refusing to define the terms used in that so-called prediction so you are able to define its success after the event.
Richard

September 14, 2013 9:16 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 9:24 am

Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am you egregiously assert I provided ‘red herrings’ in this thread when you know I have not.
You assert I made a ‘red herring’ when I said;

“extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous

That is simply true and is NOT a ‘red herring’. For example, last year we had snow which lasted for days here in Cornwall. This year we had snow in Saudi Arabia. Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.
I listed the terms which are undefined in your so-called prediction and you have still not defined them.
And you also say I provided a ‘red herring’ when I said

“..your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.”

That, too, is simply a truth and not a ‘red herring’. You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.
Ulric, I am willing to hold your shovel if you want to take a rest from digging.
Richard

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 9:25 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:16 am
Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.
Next year, there will be a drought.
Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions?
___________________________________________________
That’s a really non-specific forecast, I’m used to giving down to daily detail for approx temperature deviations from normals and likelihood of rainfall for the UK region months and even years in advance. Something you could bet on, or rely on. Can I connect the dots to my predictions? what did you imagine I was up to, casting bones across my yard?

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 9:37 am

richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.”
There’s your straw man again, hard cold shots in winter are largely simultaneous around the hemisphere.
“You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.”
I have made a prediction despite your claims to the contrary, and will now cease to reply to your vacuous complaints.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 9:58 am

Ulric Lyons:
At September 14, 2013 at 9:37 am you say to me

I have made a prediction despite your claims to the contrary, and will now cease to reply to your vacuous complaints.

OK. Everybody will understand that. You have not been able and/or willing to define the terms in your so-called “prediction” prior to its outcome, so having been pressed to make a specific prediction you have ‘taken your ball home’.
And I notice that you have failed to answer the very reasonable request from Leif Svalgaard at
September 14, 2013 at 9:16 am for your to substantiate your claims of forecast skill.
Richard

September 14, 2013 10:03 am

interesting though….
Am I right that UAH only measures between [30] latitudes?
that would (also) explain to me why UAH does not yet see “the cooling”
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average.
More water vapour condensing there, releases more heat……
So, at this stage global cooling would only become more visible at >[40] latitudes
(excl. east USA and W-Europe due to weather related issues)
seeing as that temps. in Anchorage dropped by almost 2K since 2000
AND NOBODY NOTICED?

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 10:20 am

@Leif
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
“How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?”
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed. On a simple scale of three levels for temperature above and below normals, I would estimate performance has been around 80-90% for a call on intensity in the last couple of years, it has improved. There were some problems this winter in how it played out at ground level, e.g. I forecast a cold spell from 8/9th to 18/19th Jan, the westerly Atlantic flow picked up as expected from around the 18th, but didn’t manage to break the high pressure block for almost a week and we got loads of snow instead of a warm up. This repeated at the end of the February cold shots too, but I forecast all the onsets of the cold shots through the winter fine, and could readily see that the cold in March would be very deep. The only major winter cold shot I have missed since 2008 was the first two weeks of Jan 2010, I expected it to start mid Jan through well into Feb.

cheapsmack
September 14, 2013 10:22 am

Leif,
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares. They suggested that we could perhaps predict solar flares because the rate of decay changed before the flare was apparent.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

September 14, 2013 10:27 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:20 am
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed.
Assuming you make one forecast per week that would put 47 of them in the good-very good category. But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted? over which area? over New Delhi or Petaluma? Any independent determination of your forecasts?
cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:22 am
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares.
This is VERY controversial and not ready for prime time predictions.

cheapsmack
September 14, 2013 10:33 am

My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay? In other words when the sun is not ” disrupted ” by flares, the flow of neutrinos ( or whatever particle ) is more steady and regular ?

September 14, 2013 10:37 am

cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:33 am
My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay?
Neutrinos do not interact with matter enough to be influenced by flares [which only cover a very small fraction of the surface anyway] so I don’t think any effect would be observable.

cheapsmack
September 14, 2013 10:42 am

science by news byte … they got me . Interesting about the 33 day cycle instead of the 28 day rotation duration.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 10:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
“But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted?”
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range. I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK, it does take studying local weather data to forecast well for a different region.

September 14, 2013 10:49 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range.
Numbers, Ulric, numbers! how many degrees for how long, etc.
I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK
But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 11:06 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
“But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?”
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons. The Arctic warms when the temperate zone cools, at the same time as ENSO moves to Nino conditions, and there’s a range of maritime, continental and topographical circulation patterns all around the temperate zone which change through the seasons. It’s not exactly all moving together in unison, so while I forecast for very hot weather from the 6/7th July for the UK, I would not have done the same for the US, or the Arctic for that matter.

September 14, 2013 11:07 am

.
The verdict is not in everyone. You can all argue all you want about what climate prediction is or is not right, but to do it you need to put up specifics and stand by them.( Put up or shut up I think they say.) In addition, if the solar parameters I mention below are acheived and the temperatures remain flat or do not go down I will admit to being wrong.
I will say it again if these solar parameters are reached, I expect the temperature trend going forward is going to be down,down and down.
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500or greater sustained.
Those conditions following several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since late 2005.
You can all say what I say is nonsence, but that will be meaningless unless the solar parameters I mention are achieved and the temperatures do not respond down. Time will tell, if this prolonged solar minimum lives up to expectations .
In addition thresholds have to be considered ,becasuue they are out there , but I don’t know what it may or may not take to have them be approached. Maybe a solar wind less then 300 sustained , or a solar flux sub 72 sustained.

September 14, 2013 11:15 am

The ap index and solar activity will be global but that does not mean the whole globe wlil be affected in the same way . For example a more meridional atmospheric circulation would cause those places under a ridge to be warm while places under a trough would be very cold.
Next example:
Volcanic eruptions while they would cool the globe as a whole not all places at all times on the globe would cool as a result. Some would warm depending on where the volcanic eruption took place during certain seasons.

September 14, 2013 11:17 am

If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
Will it ,time will tell.

September 14, 2013 11:23 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.
So for some places, temps go up with Ap, for others they go down, for others yet, they stay the same.
And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:07 am
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500 or greater sustained.

Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? And from which date, exactly? Yesterday? What does ‘sustained’ mean? That not a single value is off? and if not, how many?

September 14, 2013 11:24 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
As predicted.

September 14, 2013 11:28 am

Here are my numbers Leif for my global temperature forecast if, and only IF those solar parameters are reached. My forecast is global temperautres will be .8c colder by 2020 for the globe as a whole.
Greatest cooling will occur in the N.H. between 30 n and 70 n, while the smallest amount of cooling will be in the equatorial regions (next too nothing) and the S.H as a whole. Avg. for the globe -.8c, but contingent upon those solar parameters I mentioned being realized. If not cooling will be less.
Also possible thresholds are not being taken into consideration, and the big wild card is future volcanic activity, or lack of it.

September 14, 2013 11:32 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:28 am
Here are my numbers
You are not responsive to my questions at
September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am

September 14, 2013 11:33 am

Your prediction places you in a precarious position. If indeed we do have a cold spell, your solar-related predictions are still meaningless. I wonder if either of you know why?

September 14, 2013 11:34 am

Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:33 am
Your prediction places you in a precarious position.
Pamela, always refer to exactly whom/what you are commenting on.

September 14, 2013 11:36 am

They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
For my 2020 forecast to be realized I would need those solar parameters to be realized no later then year 2015.
Another words the average of all the solar parameters I mentioned would have to be those solar parameter values I mentioned or lower going forward through time.
It does not happen very often as we know.

September 14, 2013 11:38 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am

September 14, 2013 11:41 am

Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out correct or not correct.
Will it , I don’t know but if it does then it would meet my criteria. The same theme for the other solar parameters.
Wait and see, I think there is a chance these values can be attaned and sustained,once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by.Y…

September 14, 2013 11:43 am

Pam you would then be in denial under those circumstances.Time will tell.

Editor
September 14, 2013 11:44 am

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am

… Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range.

Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
In addition, you’ve not answered Leif’s questions, viz:

… over which area? over New Delhi or Petaluma? Any independent determination of your forecasts?

The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Or as Leif said,

Numbers, Ulric, numbers! how many degrees for how long, etc.

Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.
w.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 11:45 am

Friends:
Ulric Lyons says he will not engage with me because I asked him to make a specific – and not vague – forecast. I repeatedly asked him – with no success – to define the terms he was using in this so-called “prediction”

There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.

The following words of his demonstrate the problem with what he claims is a “prediction”.
At September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning his so-called “prediction”

As I have posted several times on this blog, extremely low temperatures for the time of year, in April, May and June of 2016 with 100% certainty, with few regions escaping the effects. Certain regions do come up on suitable analogues, such as Asia, Japan, Canada, and parts of Europe, particularly Sweden and Ireland. Conditions the following year while not as severe, will be poor through May, June and July. Farmers can work out what crops that will effect, and I’ll describe what follows these years when I choose to.

At September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning all his claimed “predictions”

The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons. The Arctic warms when the temperate zone cools, at the same time as ENSO moves to Nino conditions, and there’s a range of maritime, continental and topographical circulation patterns all around the temperate zone which change through the seasons. It’s not exactly all moving together in unison, so while I forecast for very hot weather from the 6/7th July for the UK, I would not have done the same for the US, or the Arctic for that matter.

So, in his so-called prediction which are the “few regions escaping the effects” (where, how large, and how many?) when “The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.”? And somewhere is unusually cold – and somewhere is unusually warm – to some degree at almost any moment.
Simply, whatever eventually happens “in April, May and June of 2016”, it could be argued to agree with the so-called prediction.
Richard

Editor
September 14, 2013 11:55 am

Salvatore, you appear to be taking lessons from Ulrich in wasting electrons. Leif asked very specific questions, viz:

Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? And from which date, exactly? Yesterday? What does ‘sustained’ mean? That not a single value is off? and if not, how many?

You’ve come back, acting like you’ve answered his questions with the following:

They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
For my 2020 forecast to be realized I would need those solar parameters to be realized no later then year 2015.

Sorry, unresponsive. I know it’s boring, but you need to take each and every one of Leif’s questions, and ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. For example, you say it’s supposed to start “once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends” … but what are you defining as the “end” of the solar max? And are all of them supposed to be in effect by then?
Answer the questions as asked, one by one, Salvatore, because at present you’re just channelling Ulrich in uselessness. And very soon, everyone is just going to start ignoring both of you, for good reason. A non-specific forecast without numbers and exact details is a waste of everyones’ time.
w.

September 14, 2013 12:03 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:41 am
Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Let me repeat: “Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? ”
Your example is silly. Since from the time the maximum ends until the next cycle we will be in or approaching minimum conditions the solar flux will by definition be low. The average will be about 90 even according to the prediction in this very post. That is not particularly low or unusual for a cycle like SC24. For cycle 14 [see slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20and%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf ] that average was about 75.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 12:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?”
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here. And to compare like with like, the standard Met Office long range forecast has a fraction of the detail or levels (7) of temperature that I have described, and all manner of uncertainties, so if anyone is setting the standards on this kind of range, it would naturally be the superior product.

September 14, 2013 12:22 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here.
But if you are not, then your claim has no value.

Richard G
September 14, 2013 12:27 pm

ferd berple September 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm
…” I propose the hypothesis that the sun’s influence on climate is a chaotic fractal at all time scales. The TEST of this is that no one will be able to accurately predict the effect of the sun on climate using existing mathematical theory.”
———————
Bingo! Gold star for ferd.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 12:32 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
“Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”
There is a standard for a heat wave, and I would not call a heat wave unless I expected that to be exceeded, I do know what that is, and of course it is relative to normals, so it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. A forecast for a particular month or months for say the north hemisphere is relevant, because a big change in the AO/NAO will effect most regions, but no hard numbers can be put to it until looking at a particular location, which I do regularly do, but is not what I am addressing here.

September 14, 2013 12:33 pm

Yes those solar parameters are suppose to apply all of the time.
Let us say the maximum of solar cycle 24 is behind us enough that all of my solar parameters start to be acheived. Let us take a start date of Jan.01 ,2015.
I am saying yes all those solar parameters from Jan.01 ,2015 will have to be acheived all of the time through year 2020 , to meet my climatic forecast I made of global temperatures -.8c by year 2020.
I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong. I want to know one way or the other.
I also realize these kind of sustained solar parameters are quite unusual over such a long length of time, the five year period I refer to.
I say if they should be attained , they would follow 10 years of sub-solar activity in general and that combined with the extreme quiet condtins should be enough to make the temperature trend drop significantly between those years 2015-2020.
I hope I answered the questions. I appreciate your previous post Willis.

September 14, 2013 12:34 pm

Leif and Willis are correct to ask for specifics.

September 14, 2013 12:37 pm

My question to Leif is do you think these kind of solar parameters have been acheived by the sun in the past like I have just mentoined, or is it not really possible to know for certain?
I value your answer.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 12:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“But if you are not, then your claim has no value.”
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it? hilarious !

September 14, 2013 12:49 pm

This is such a complex subject to attack ,but something has caused wild flucuations to the earth’s climate from time to time ,(just take the last 20000 years) and I don’t think it is terrestrial in origin with out the aid of an external source, to help terrestrial climatic factors to phase into either a warm or cold phase. Could it be random?yes but I think that is asking much considering how many times this has occurred. .
I RATHER BE WRONG THEN NOT KNOW.

September 14, 2013 12:53 pm

Ulric they are correct you have to be as specific as possible.
Like AGW theory says the temperatures will go up by x amount due to an increae in co2.
The only problem with them is they keep trying to say they are correct even when the forecast is wrong. I will not do that. NO spin.

September 14, 2013 1:00 pm

Leif has shown me solar cycle 24 is closer to solar cycle 14 then I thought thus far, he has pointed out the instrumental adjustments for keeping the way of evaluating the sun the same, he has shown me how this modern sunspot count is not as bad as I once thought.
and yes Leif’s prediction was the best from the mainstream as to what solar cycle 24 would look like, and yes his way of forcasting future solar activity is as valid as anything else that is out there.
So I do listen to what you have to say, but I push it, I admit.

September 14, 2013 1:03 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm
I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong.
That leaves out the much more likely case where some of those are not reached all the time. What are you then? Right or wrong? Not to speak about what ‘stay flat’ means.

richardscourtney
September 14, 2013 1:04 pm

Salvatore Del Prete:
At September 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm you say to Ulric Lyons

The only problem with them is they keep trying to say they are correct even when the forecast is wrong.

The problem with that is his so-called prediction is so undefined that it could be claimed to be right whatever eventuates. Hence, it is meaningless.
Richard

September 14, 2013 1:06 pm

Let us see what happens to solar cycle 24 going forward and if solar/climate connections start to become more apparent.
This decade offers a great opportunity to gleam info. on this subject in my opinion.
Done for today.

September 14, 2013 1:07 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it?
No, what you should put a figure to is your skill score otherwise you cannot claim your forecasts are ‘superior’.

September 14, 2013 1:10 pm

In that case I want to say the avg. of all the solar parameters all of the time has to be below the solar parametersf

John Whitman
September 14, 2013 1:14 pm

Lions and Tigers and Bears . . . Oh my!
Predictions and Projections and WAGs . . . Oh my!
It would seem just reasonable scientific interest to put more focus on and effort into currently unknown consequences of potentially starting now into a reoccurance of a Maunder-like solar pattern. By ‘currently unknown consequences’ I mean whether it would contribute to multi-decadal periods of significantly cooler climate or not.
I think it is not really known at this time. And I think that where there are unknowns of that magnitude there is always intense scientific interest.
It looks like there is intense interest . . . based on this thread’s commentary.
John

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 1:15 pm

Another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle: http://linkd.in/1332cvp

September 14, 2013 1:15 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm
In that case I want to say the avg. of all the solar parameters all of the time has to be below the solar parameters
Doesn’t make sense to me.Try again.

September 14, 2013 1:17 pm

Anotherwords the average of all the solar parameters, all of the time between 2015-2020, I mentioned must at a minimum be below the parameters I said in the earlier post , and even if the average is just below the parameters I mentioned rather then the values being below the parameters I mentioned all of the time, and the temperatures stay flat or rise ,I will still consider myself wrong,. Even with a little less extreme solar quiet in that case.

September 14, 2013 1:18 pm

I have to run. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

September 14, 2013 1:18 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle: http://linkd.in/1332cvp
Self-knowledge is the first step to enlightenment.

September 14, 2013 1:20 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm
My question to Leif is do you think these kind of solar parameters have been acheived by the sun in the past like I have just mentoined, or is it not really possible to know for certain?
They have, but not necessarily at the same time. The values in your list are not exceptional.

September 14, 2013 1:23 pm

I take predictions with caution. Many people are suckered in by predictions that come true. Our history is replete with it. And unfortunately many have been harmed by it.
1. Predictions that come true are meaningless unless a plausible, testable mechanism is proposed. Neither Salvatore or Ulric (as well as others who comment on this blog) have defined mechanisms, which would be quite complicated. Even if they do propose a calculation or model, there are fudge factors and “missing” mechanisms they say are yet to be discovered.
2. In many cases, a variable is added that is the “pet” variable, along with calculations or models of mechanisms that truly do have plausibility. When the predictions come true, it is often heard from the authors that their pet variable is the leading cause. But if you remove that variable and recalculate, or run the model again, the result is hardly changed.
So I reiterate, hopefully more clearly now, that Ulric and Salvatore’s theories will still be meaningless should it get colder. They rest on their laurels at their own peril.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“No, what you should put a figure to is your skill score otherwise you cannot claim your forecasts are ‘superior’.”
I gave you the breakdown up-thread, the specification is more stringent and detailed than used on any other long range forecasts. No one else is using the only possible method to produce deterministic long range forecasts at these scales, so I can safely claim them to be superior.
“Self-knowledge is the first step to enlightenment.”
And it’s all too easy to tell who has not taken that step, by the subtle and not so subtle ways that they project their stuff at others, always on the innocent of course.

September 14, 2013 2:25 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm
I gave you the breakdown up-thread
So you claim that in a typical year you forecast extreme temperatures to occurs every week [as you did not object to the 47 correct forecasts I deduced]. But I’ll represent to you that extreme temperatures do not happen week, so we are still missing how many forecasts of extreme temperatures were actually correct. I can predict that no rain will fall every week from May to October where I live and be VERY accurate, yet that is a skill score of 0 as it never [well, hardly ever] rains during that time. Bottom line: you have not demonstrated any skill.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 2:26 pm

Pamela Gray says:
” Predictions that come true are meaningless unless a plausible, testable mechanism is proposed. Neither Salvatore or Ulric (as well as others who comment on this blog) have defined mechanisms, which would be quite complicated. Even if they do propose a calculation or model, there are fudge factors and “missing” mechanisms they say are yet to be discovered.”
My performance rates for the UK are well meaningful on results alone. What I do have is a set of highly defined, repeatable and consistent heliocentric positional relationships of the bodies mapped out that are already usefully applied, they are also highly suggestive of what the mechanisms are. I definitely do not have any fudge factors or pet variables.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 2:39 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“So you claim that in a typical year you forecast extreme temperatures to occurs every week [as you did not object to the 47 correct forecasts I deduced]. But I’ll represent to you that extreme temperatures do not happen week, so we are still missing how many forecasts of extreme temperatures were actually correct. I can predict that no rain will fall every week from May to October where I live and be VERY accurate, yet that is a skill score of 0 as it never [well, hardly ever] rains during that time. Bottom line: you have not demonstrated any skill.”
The bottom line is you that have not demonstrated any skill in making sense here. I have very high skill levels for predicting temperature deviations from average for the UK, simply because I have a method that provides deterministic forecasts. My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years. And as for your barely understandable babble about extreme temperatures above, it’s a shaggy dog tale, I obviously do not forecast extreme temperatures for EVERY WEEK!

September 14, 2013 2:43 pm

Ulric, please. Mapping bodies is not mechanism. What is the mechanism and is it plausible as well as powerful? Please do not tell us that some of it has yet to be discovered. You should have the mechanism down, at least theoretically detailed. Otherwise again I say that if it gets colder, your predictions are meaningless.

September 14, 2013 2:51 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years.
If based on the planets it will not have changed for a thousand years. Very impressive.
I obviously do not forecast extreme temperatures for EVERY WEEK!
You said that you have 3-7 failed forecasts of extreme temperatures every year. How many good ones? And how many weeks with extreme temperatures are there in a year? Five or six?

Editor
September 14, 2013 2:52 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm

… There is a standard for a heat wave, and I would not call a heat wave unless I expected that to be exceeded, I do know what that is, and of course it is relative to normals, so it doesn’t even need to be mentioned.

No, there isn’t “a” standard, there are many … so yes, it does need to be mentioned. Here are some options. Note that despite your ignorant claim, not all of them are “relative to normals”.

The definition recommended by the World Meteorological Organization is when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F), the normal period being 1961–1990.[3]

Is that the one you are using? Or are you talking about this one:

A formal, peer-reviewed definition from the Glossary of Meteorology is:[4]

A period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and usually humid weather.

Or are you using Burrow’s definition, viz:

To be a heat wave such a period should last at least one day, but conventionally it lasts from several days to several weeks. In 1900, A. T. Burrows more rigidly defined a “hot wave” as a spell of three or more days on each of which the maximum shade temperature reaches or exceeds 90 °F (32.2 °C). More realistically, the comfort criteria for any one region are dependent upon the normal conditions of that region.

However, that’s a “hot wave”, not a “heat wave”. But maybe you’re not using one of those, maybe you’re using this one

In the Netherlands, a heat wave is defined as period of at least 5 consecutive days in which the maximum temperature in De Bilt exceeds 25 °C (77 °F), provided that on at least 3 days in this period the maximum temperature in De Bilt exceeds 30 °C (86 °F). This definition of a heat wave is also used in Belgium and Luxembourg.

Is that the one you are promoting as THE standard, despite the fact that it says nothing about “normals”? … or is it this one?

In Denmark, a national heat wave (hedebølge) is defined as a period of at least 3 consecutive days of which period the average maximum temperature across more than fifty percent of the country exceeds 28 °C (82.4 °F) – the Danish Meteorological Institute further defines a “warmth wave” (varmebølge) when the same criteria are met for a 25 °C (77.0 °F) temperature,[5] while in Sweden, a heat wave is defined as at least 5 days in a row with a daily high exceeding 25 °C (77.0 °F).[6]

So that’s a heat wave, and a “warmth wave” … are you using one of those, the other, or neither? Or you might be using this one:

In the United States, definitions also vary by region; however, a heat wave is usually defined as a period of at least two or more days of excessively hot weather.[7] In the Northeast, a heat wave is typically defined as three consecutive days where the temperature reaches or exceeds 90 °F (32.2 °C), but not always as this ties in with humidity levels to determine a heat index threshold.[8] The same does not apply to drier climates. A heat storm is a Californian term for an extended heat wave. Heat storms occur when the temperature reaches 100 °F (37.8 °C) for three or more consecutive days over a wide area (tens of thousands of square miles). The National Weather Service issues heat advisories and excessive heat warnings when unusual periods of hot weather are expected.

So we have a heat wave and a heat storm … but then you might be talking about the Australian standard, viz:

In Adelaide, a heat wave is defined as five consecutive days at or above 35 °C (95 °F), or three consecutive days at or over 40 °C (104 °F).[9]

Or the English standard …

In the England and Wales, the Met Office operates a Heat Health Watch system which places each Local Authority region into one of four levels. Heatwave conditions are defined by the maximum daytime temperature and minimum nighttime temperature rising above the threshold for a particular region. The length of time spent above that threshold determines the particular level. Level 1 is normal summer conditions. Level 2 is reached when there is a 60% or higher risk that the temperature will be above the threshold levels for two days and the intervening night. Level 3 is triggered when the temperature has been above the threshold for the preceding day and night, and there is a 90% or higher chance that it will stay above the threshold in the following day. Level 4 is triggered if conditions are more severe than those of the preceding three levels. Each of the first three levels is associated with a particular state of readiness and response by the social and health services, and Level 4 is associated with more widespread response.[10]

In other words, Ulrich, when you claim there is one standard that is so well-known you don’t need to mention it, that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field.
So I will ask again: what are YOU defining as a heat wave? And please, stop with the arrogant bullshit and claims of knowledge. It is increasingly obvious that you don’t have much of a clue.
w.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 3:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“If based on the planets it will not have changed for a thousand years. Very impressive.”
Thanks.
“You said that you have 3-7 failed forecasts of extreme temperatures every year.”
No I did not, I said they failed for direction of deviation from normals, I made that clear.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 3:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
“..despite your ignorant claim… that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field…. stop with the arrogant bullshit and claims of knowledge..”
WMO definition Willis, same as the MetO, that’s what we use in the UK stupid.

Editor
September 14, 2013 3:11 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm

Yes those solar parameters are suppose to apply all of the time.
Let us say the maximum of solar cycle 24 is behind us enough that all of my solar parameters start to be acheived. Let us take a start date of Jan.01 ,2015.
I am saying yes all those solar parameters from Jan.01, 2015 will have to be acheived all of the time through year 2020 , to meet my climatic forecast I made of global temperatures -.8c by year 2020.

We’re getting there. All of them have to be met all of the time for your prediction to be valid.

I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong. I want to know one way or the other.

Again, that’s very good. You’ve given a bright-line definition. If all of those parameters are achieved continuously from 2015 to 2020, then if the temperature goes down at all you win, and if the temperatures go up or stay flat you lose.
And if they do not achieve the values you stated continuously from 2015 to 2020, then the forecast is inoperative. Fair enough.

I also realize these kind of sustained solar parameters are quite unusual over such a long length of time, the five year period I refer to.

Sure ‘nuf … odds seem kinda small, but who knows?

I say if they should be attained , they would follow 10 years of sub-solar activity in general and that combined with the extreme quiet condtins should be enough to make the temperature trend drop significantly between those years 2015-2020.

Dang, and you were doing so well before. What is “sub-solar activity”? What is the temperature dropping “significantly”? One degree? Five degrees? For what period of time? One month? One year?

I hope I answered the questions. I appreciate your previous post Willis.

Thanks for clarifying that, Salvatore. As I said, if you think of it as making a bet, it will help. You need a very bright-line definition of all of the terms, so it is crystal clear whether the forecast is correct or not.
I ran into this same nonsense with Piers Corbyn. He predicted something like “heavy rain” for the opening of the Olympics. I said I’d bet with him that it wouldn’t happen, and all I wanted a definition of “heavy” in inches or inches per hour or whatever he wanted, and a time period, and a chosen station where the rainfall would be recorded.
Faced with that, he did what Ulrich does, and retreated into bluster and double-talk … which was lucky for him, because hardly any rain fell on the opening.
But of course, because his forecast was so vague, again like Ulrich he claimed total success.
Heck, Piers once predicted a 50% chance of a typhoon forming … and then claimed it as a successful prediction when a typhoon didn’t form. I’m sure you can see the problem with such vague claims, although I’m doubtful if Ulrich can.
w.

September 14, 2013 3:11 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm
No I did not, I said they failed for direction of deviation from normals, I made that clear.
Sounds like bait-and-switch to me. Anyway, what you said was: “At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals” was 3-7. So in all the other weeks, the forecast was just as the normals [or in the right direction relative to normals – whatever that means].

Editor
September 14, 2013 3:19 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:

“But if you are not [providing numbers], then your claim has no value.”

I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it? hilarious !

If your forecasts do not provide numbers, then they are in no sense deterministic, and as Leif says, they have no value.
Look, Ulrich, suppose I forecast that tomorrow will be “hot” … is that a “deterministic forecast”?
No, it’s not, not in any sense, because since you haven’t provided any numbers, we can’t say if a given temperature qualifies as being “hot”
If it’s 75°F, is that “hot”? There’s no way to know. So that is not a “deterministic” forecast. The same is true if I say it will be “extremely hot”, since as you say above your forecasts are for “extreme temperatures”. Is 80°F an “extreme temperature”? Is 90°F “extreme”? How on earth would we know if your “deterministic forecast” for an “extreme temperature” is right or wrong?
If you don’t provide exact specifics, which means NUMBERS, then as Leif says, your claim has no value. None. It’s useless and meaningless, garbage, trash, of no interest, junk, of no value.
w.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 3:28 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“Sounds like bait-and-switch to me”
The problem was that you confused this comment:
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it? hilarious !
with this one:
At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed.

Editor
September 14, 2013 3:38 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle: http://linkd.in/1332cvp

Indeed it is useless, just as you say. Here’s your meaningless prediction:

I am forecasting a long intense cold shot starting from around the 7th January 2014. The first signs of any warmer bursts are in the last 10 days of February, which for the UK/Euro will likely result in heavy snow falls, and the Atlantic flow finally breaking through early March. The (north east?) U.S. could see the cold continue further into March.
This is a solar based forecast, produced entirely from heliocentric planetary angular analysis.

It’s meaningless because inter alia, you haven’t defined what a “long, intense cold shot” might be. How long a “cold shot” are you predicting? And how intense does the cold have to be? If it’s 3°C colder than average, does that qualify? What about 5°? Or 7°? And how long is “long”? Does a “cold shot” lasting 3 days qualify? Next, what are the bounds on your start date? If it starts on the 3rd of January, does that qualify as being “around the 7th”? How about the 1st of January? And what about if it doesn’t start until the 10th? If the 10th qualifies, then how about the 12th? And what area are you referring to? Russia? Australia?
A real forecast would be something like this:

“Starting no earlier than the 3rd of January and no later than the 10th of January, there will be a cold shot lasting no less than five days, during which the average temperature in the UK, as determined by the average of the three CET stations, will be 5° colder than the historical norm of 7°C.”

The key is that we have to be able to say yes or no regarding whether your prediction was a success. Another way to say that is that that your prediction must be falsifiable. Mine is a falsifiable prediction—it will be clear in the event whether my prediction has succeed or failed. If it’s only 4° colder than usual, my prediction is wrong. If the “cold shot” is 5° below normal but for only two days, then my prediction is wrong.
Yours, on the other hand, is nothing but vague handwaving. It cannot be falsified, and therefore, it’s useless. There is no way to say whether your prediction has come to pass or not. You’ve just given us vague important-sounding claims, but sadly, they are not falsifiable,
So I have to agree that you are right, that as you say, your forecast is indeed “another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle”. In fact, I’d say your opinion of that forecast is the first thing you’ve said in a while that I can whole-heartedly agree with.
w.

Editor
September 14, 2013 3:49 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm

… I have very high skill levels for predicting temperature deviations from average for the UK, simply because I have a method that provides deterministic forecasts. My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years.

And what, exactly (not generally but exactly) WAS your forecast for July 2013, Ulric? Did you post it up on the web somewhere, so we can be sure that you didn’t just write it yesterday?
Give us a link to it so we an see the details of the forecast, and we can check and see if it is a “high skill” forecast. My prediction for the UK for July 2013, for example, would have been “rain, heavy at times, interspersed with periods of sunshine”. What would my skill score be for that prediction? I’d put it at zero …
But don’t get sidetracked here … start by giving us the link to the prediction you made four years ago, so we can see just how skillful you are …
w.
PS—Please don’t insult our intelligence by simply telling us what your so-called forecast was. At this point, your credibility is zero. To be believable, we need a link to a four-year-old dated forecast.

September 14, 2013 3:51 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed.
You should not compare with the normals but with the actually observed temperatures.

September 14, 2013 3:57 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years.
If it is based on the planets it cannot change so the fact [?] that it didn’t is not a credit to you. Perhaps even a negative because if you had improved your method the forecast might have changed, but apparently you didn’t improve your methods enough to change the ‘forecast’.

Editor
September 14, 2013 4:03 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:

“..despite your ignorant claim… that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field…. stop with the arrogant bullshit and claims of knowledge..”

WMO definition Willis, same as the MetO, that’s what we use in the UK stupid.

If you re-read my post, you’ll se that the WMO definition is NOT the same as the UK Met Office’s definition, in fact they are quite different … stupid indeed.
The UK standard, for example, has four “levels” … the WMO definition has none. And even given that you are using the UK definition … which level of heat wave are you referring to?
And since I don’t have a clue where you are posting from, why on earth would I assume that you are using either the UK Met Office definition, or the WMO definition? I actually thought you were in Europe, in which case I suppose you’d call me “stupid” because I should have known you were using one of the European standards.
The main point is, you claimed that there was only one standard, and it was so clear that you didn’t need to mention it … which revealed a profound ignorance of the subject. There are lots of standards, and we had no way of knowing which one you were claiming was “the” standard that we obviously should all be aware of.
And since you STILL haven’t specified which level of the UK standards you are using in your own idiosyncratic definition of a “heat wave”, you still haven’t made your prediction falsifiable. I could say “it wasn’t hot enough”, and you could reply “well, it’s warmer than a level 1” …
w.
PS—Note also that the UK definition not only refers to the temperature and duration … it also includes the odds of another day of hot weather. Please explain how that relates to your forecasts.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 4:04 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
“If your forecasts do not provide numbers, then they are in no sense deterministic, and as Leif says, they have no value.”
Numbers yes, we start with the number of the day of the month (that has a number too) that the temperature change takes place from, that is one deterministic element. Then there would be further numbers that would indicate the number of days that the cold or warm spell would last, that’s another deterministic element. And finally, some numbers to represent 3 levels of temperature deviations from normals at any given time in the year, above and below the average, another deterministic element. Giving a value of the latter in °C within reasonable bounds is done with my UK forecasts, set by how much I expect it to be below or above normal. More numbers.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“..since as you say above your forecasts are for “extreme temperatures..”
No that was Leif misquoting what I had originally said.

Ulric Lyons
September 14, 2013 4:08 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
“If it is based on the planets it cannot change so the fact [?] that it didn’t is not a credit to you. Perhaps even a negative because if you had improved your method the forecast might have changed, but apparently you didn’t improve your methods enough to change the ‘forecast’.”
Boy that’s a weird one! The forecast was fine from 4 years ago, there was nothing to be improved on this event forecast.