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:
Note the divergence between the model prediction in red, and the actual values.
The 10.7cm radio flux continues slumpy:
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.
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:
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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
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:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Prediction%20Lund.pdf
We live in interesting times.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm
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”.
Is that the one you are using? Or are you talking about this one:
Or are you using Burrow’s definition, viz:
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
Is that the one you are promoting as THE standard, despite the fact that it says nothing about “normals”? … or is it this one?
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:
So we have a heat wave and a heat storm … but then you might be talking about the Australian standard, viz:
Or the English standard …
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.
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.
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.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm
We’re getting there. All of them have to be met all of the time for your prediction to be valid.
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.
Sure ‘nuf … odds seem kinda small, but who knows?
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?
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.
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].
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
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.
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.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Indeed it is useless, just as you say. Here’s your meaningless prediction:
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:
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.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
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.
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.
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’.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm
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.
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.
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.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
No that was Leif misquoting what I had originally said.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
“I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance”
No misquoting there. So, when you do bot forecast extreme temperatures, you forecast normal temperatures, right?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm
The forecast was fine from 4 years ago
But to take that as a positive is then irrelevant. It will be of interest to see what the forecast was and what the observed weather was.
And it would also be of interest to see the forecasts you yourself characterize as failures.
Ulric Lyons:
I concluded my post addressed to you at September 14, 2013 at 9:24 am saying
You and HenryP are each refusing to speak to me because I ask you to justify your claims.
Despite that, my offer (quoted here) still stands.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
“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?”
No that’s the Heat-health watch system:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/heatwave
“Although in the UK there is no official definition of a heatwave the World Meteorological Organization definition is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990”.
So we adopt the WMO standard by practice.
“And since I don’t have a clue where you are posting from,”
You mean you don’t read my comments properly?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416991
“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 …”
“a” not “one”, subtle difference. Maybe I was being presumptive in assuming you knew that we use the WMO standard here, but then again you were not paying attention to which region that I had told you that I forecast for.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“No misquoting there.”
Yes fully, you said that I forecast extreme temperatures every week, you are down to a trolling type of behavior on this issue now.
“But to take that as a positive is then irrelevant.”
Garbage.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So, when you do bot forecast extreme temperatures, you forecast normal temperatures, right?”
I’ll leave that one just hanging there without reply (it doesn’t deserve one) and to be looked upon as a fine example of the towering height of your sense of humour.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Here’s what you said, your own words:
I call that a forecast for “extreme temperatures”, because that’s what it is. Your claim that you were misquoted is not true.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I just quoted a forecast of yours that you seemed very proud of. In it there were no specific numbers at all, and the only numbers were vague dates. Here it is again:
A claim of “around the 7th January” is not deterministic at all. Please point out “further numbers that would indicate the number of days that the cold or warm spell would last”. Then point out the “numbers to represent 3 levels of temperature deviations from normals at any given time in the year”. Finally, where is the “value of the latter in °C within reasonable bounds”?
Goodness, Ulric, your claims grow more bizarre by the moment.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm
So where is the link to the forecast, so we have more than your blanket assertions of the genius of your method?
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm
You are right, that is the “Heat-Watch” system … but you’re not right about the rest.
Who is “we” that has adopted the WMO standard? Your citation clearly says that “in the UK there is no official definition of a heatwave”, and while it mentions the WMO standard, it says nothing about adopting it. This means that they haven’t adopted the WMO standard, or in the UK there would be an official definition.
w.
Can it be that the cream of WUWT are still doing battle with Ulrich Lyons? Here is a bit of wisdom passed on to me by my grandfather: “In a battle of wits, I never challenge an unarmed man.” Ulrich, with no meat OR potatoes has engaged you guys for days and this whole thread has essentially become Ulrich’s show. How does he do it?