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 4:21 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.
No difference at all. The clear implication of your claim was that there was only one standard, and that you were using it, and that because that one was so well known, there was no reason to even discuss it. No good trying to wriggle out of it.
Your citation above clearly says there is no definition of “heat wave” in the UK, so there’s no reason to assume you’d use that one. You are free to use whichever one you wish, and I’m damned if I can guess what you might do.
But there’s a bigger problem, Here’s what I can tell you about “the region you forecast for”:
Since you are forecasting right there for the UK, Europe, and the US, how on earth would I be expected to know which definition of “heatwave” you might have chosen? Since you claim your choice is based on the region for which you are predicting, do you use different definitions for different regions? You must think we’re all mind-readers, to be able to figure out your weird preferences without any clues.
Finally, I’m still waiting for your link to your whizbang prediction for July 2013, along with some other predictions so we can be sure you’re not just cherrypicking one that happened to work.
So are you going to break out your predictions for the last 12 months, predictions you made four years ago, or is this just more of your empty claims? Time to put up or shut up here, Ulrich. Give us the link to your predictions for the last year, the predictions you made four years ago, or stop claiming they are accurate.
w.
Gary Pearse says:
September 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“I call that a forecast for “extreme temperatures”, because that’s what it is. Your claim that you were misquoted is not true.”
Yes it was because Leif claimed that I was forecasting extreme temperatures for every week.
Willis Eschenbach says
“The clear implication of your claim was that there was only one standard, and that you were using it, and that because that one was so well known, there was no reason to even discuss it. No good trying to wriggle out of it.”
We only use the WMO standard in the UK, we don’t have anything else.
“Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”
You didn’t read it, else you would known where I forecast for, and avoided needlessly fitting me up with your baseless charges. I’ve never seen you fire off so many blanks Willis, it’s a hoot.
“Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care.”
It is here to stay, vent off as much as you like, I don’t give fig. You can have all the information you have asked for, when you have apologized sincerely for your outrageously rude manner, till then, you can go jump in the lake.
Speaking of meat and potatoes….Dr. Svalgaard, the body of this post uses a slide from your presentation of your sunspot number prediction for SC24. If I understand the polar field precursor hypothesis correctly, the newly formed polar axial dipoles will be seeds for the sunspots of the following cycle, and there is a relationship between the field strength of the dipoles prior to the minimum and the number of sunspots in the following cycle. That implies that the new polar dipoles are formed well prior to the minimum, is that right? Is there any method to predict or project the strength of the new polar dipole fields ahead of time? The slide mentions the axial dipole field strength is relatively constant during the time preceding the minimum-does it start to vary in strength later in the cycle?
Dan Murphy says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Is there any method to predict or project the strength of the new polar dipole fields ahead of time?
Yes, we can see the magnetic flux moving to the poles in real time and slowly eating away at the old polar fields, eventually reversing them and then building the new polar fields about 3-4 years after maximum. Ar that time we can predict the next cycle. You can see the process in action in Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
The slide mentions the axial dipole field strength is relatively constant during the time preceding the minimum-does it start to vary in strength later in the cycle?
The minimum is the end of the cycle. After the minimum the field is eaten away by new flux as described above.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:40 pm
I’ll leave that one just hanging there without reply
Regardless, you have been unresponsive all along [for good reason, it seems], so no wonder we are unimpressed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..you have been unresponsive all along [for good reason, it seems],”
Drivel, accompanied by a Leif style snide innuendo, what’s new. It’s a lie again too, I responded in detail here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417042
You’re a mud fight junkie.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Drivel, accompanied by a Leif style snide innuendo, what’s new. It’s a lie again too, I responded in detail here
No, you didn’t. You responded with an assemblage of words, but not the simple table I asked for: for each year, the number of forecasts [not against normals, but against actual observed temperatures] in each category: VG, G, B, VB and a description of how the categorization was performed.
About mud fights: it is like fighting with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
@Leif
You said that I was unresponsive all along, that is simply not true. And if you at all interested in taking a sincere look at what I do, I’ll take you though a few centuries worth of hind-casts, in a manner that suits me. End of conversation.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:15 pm
You said that I was unresponsive all along, that is simply not true. And if you at all interested in taking a sincere look at what I do, I’ll take you though a few centuries worth of hind-casts, in a manner that suits me. End of conversation.
I’m always interested in what people do and take pains to be sincere, but in a manner that suits me. All I ask for is that little table. If you can take that back a few centuries all the power to you, but the table and the description of how it is constructed are what I would need to evaluate what you do. Your verbiage just don’t cut it for me. Numbers are what I need.
Yes thank you Willis, I know what a typo is, and yes we all make them. I don’t appreciate the smartass comment though ( my planet? ). So do me a favor and let Mosher answer for himself, ‘kay?
You see, you just went and assumed facts that are not in evidence, that it was indeed a typo, and that is about the last thing I would expect from you. So I’ll assume you are tired from your trip and all the battling in this thread.
Carry on.
It should not be too difficult to make a prediction of the change in temp. anamolies going by the most recognised data sets:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
If these were the figures that were given to me as being totally true and correct, I would say that the downtrend 2002-2022 will mirror the uptrend 1980-2002.
Gary Pearse:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm asks
Wills gave you his answer, and I write to provide mine.
Solar threads are swamped by people promoting their pet hypotheses as working theories.
Recently these solar advocates have started to swamp other threads and two ‘ocean’ threads were destroyed by them.
Some have serious points to make, and some are selling rubbish. Ulrich Lyons and HenryP are the most blatant of those who are selling rubbish: when pressed neither can justify what he says. And they have each refused to answer posts from me because I pressed them to explain what they asserted.
It is time to stop them snowing threads with rubbish. They are being pressed to show if they have something to say other than untrue or – at best – unjustifiable – assertions. Failing that, they are being shown to be what they so their snowing of threads can be stopped and/or ridiculed.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 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.
“”
Looks like numbers there.
And the actualities? Ulric was exactly, to the day, spot on with the onset of weather events for the UK. Repeatedly. The UK being a maritime climate ANY degree of accuracy from more than a month out is astonishing. If you are unaware of the mechanics of his system the results appear miraculous. I do not believe in miracles.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Who is “we”? And since you don’t have anything else, you can use any standard.
I know where you forecast for, you told me. And despite your repeated claims, it’s not the UK:
You forecast for the UK, Europe and the US … so there was absolutely no reason for me to assume you use the UK standard. Oh, right, there is no standard for a heat wave in the UK …
w.
Blade says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Naw, I just used Occams razor plus the fact that I know Mosh personally.
You are accusing him (assuming facts not in evidence) of being too stupid to know the difference between “affect” and “effect”. Since that seems highly unlikely given my knowledge of the man, he’s knowledgeable, well-educated, and well-spoken. So I’ve taken the more obvious explanation.
If you’re waiting for Mosh to answer as you say, though … I’d strongly suggest not holding your breath while you wait.
w.
Ulrich, I’m still waiting for the link to your four-year-old predictions for 2013.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:02 am
Henry, those are not numbers in any sense of the word. They are unsubstantiated claims of how brilliant his method is. He has not defined what a “cold shot” is, he hasn’t defined what the “normals” are, he hasn’t said how he measures “intensity” … it’s just handwaving.
I don’t give a fig for his boasting of success. We want to see the actual forecasts, week by week, not a few that might have been sort of kind of true plus his claims about how stupendously he’s done overall.
I mean truly … do you usually believe a man’s claims about his own predictions without actually seeing the predictions?
Here’s an example that might help to clarify the issues:
If a man were to come up to you and say “I can predict which way the stock market is going to go each week, up or down, and last year only 3 weeks failed”, would you say “looks like numbers there” and hand him your money to invest? I doubt greatly you would believe him … and despite that, here you are making that exact foolish mistake regarding Ulrich.
Me, I’d say “If you’re so good at predictions, why aren’t you rich?” I’ve asked that question of Ulric, with no answer. So let me ask it of you. If you could forecast the weather a hundred years in advance, as Ulric implicitly claims (since his forecast depends only on unchanging planetary alignment cycles) … wouldn’t you be rich? Because I know that if I could forecast the weather even three months in advance, I’d be a very wealthy man.
We need the forecasts and the numbers, Henry, not unsubstantiated claims of fantastic success. You’re being taken in by his smooth talk, my friend. As this is a skeptical website … let me advise a large dose of the same regarding Ulric. He’s playing you.
w.
HenryP says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:39 pm
As my very wise brother used to say, “It’s easy to predict the future … as long as it’s just like the past”. The problem with predicting the climate is … it isn’t.
w.
Leif spoke above about an issue that seems to have escaped Ulric and HenryP entirely, which is the assessment of the skill of a forecast.
You see, it’s not enough to claim that your forecast is right. If I predict no rain for Los Angeles on the 3rd of August, for example, I’ll be right perhaps 97% of the time. Does that make my forecast skillful?
Not in the slightest. Why? Because it rarely rains in LA in August.
Similarly, Ulric above makes much noise about successfully predicting a “cold shot” (whatever that means to him) in the UK in January … again, is that a skillful forecast? Well, it depends on how often a “cold shot” (whatever that means) occurs in January, doesn’t it.
Which is why Leif and I and Richard want to see the exact forecasts Ulric made four years ago for 2013—so we can get past the “ZOMG, I SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED NO RAIN IN LA ON AUGUST 13!!!” syndrome that has so affected Ulrich and HenryP.
Wikipedia has a good definition for forecast skill, viz:
The important point is that skill is not measured the way the Ulric and HenryP are measuring it, against the actual outcome.
Instead, it is measured against some “reference model”. The most common reference model is to measure it against the “climatology”, the average outcome. This is the implicit measure of the prediction of rain in LA that I discussed above—we need to compare my prediction to how often it usually rains in LA in August. However, there are a number of other more sophisticated ways to measure it. There’s a good discussion of some of the issues here, it’s not a simple subject.
But forecast skill can’t be measured at all without having the actual forecasts in hand … speaking of which, Ulric, where’s the link to your four-year-old “successful” predictions for 2013?
The world wonders …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 2:23 am
“We need the forecasts and the numbers, Henry, not unsubstantiated claims of fantastic success. You’re being taken in by his smooth talk, my friend. As this is a skeptical website … let me advise a large dose of the same regarding Ulric. He’s playing you.”
Ulric is my father-in-law.
Since he first began I have followed the method. I agree that numbers are important but…
We know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations. e.g. If we know that Feb is usually 1c to 3c and anyone shows a ‘cold shot’ or ‘hot period’ upcoming then a forecast that ‘merely’ gives a start date and length of effect is of great worth.
Making local forecasts of small fluctuations with this method is far easier than researching the outcome of those small fluctuations elsewhere (or globally) – leave that up to those locals themselves (This work will be released so that people everywhere will be able to do so) a person only has so much time. The really large anomalies stand out and are easily described. Some of those are strong enough to be stated as global (or at least hemispheric).
It’s all relative.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:03 am
My condolences. Tell him to get off his dead ass and post the link to his four-year-old predictions for 2013.
And no, I don’t care if you “know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations”. WE don’t know what they are, and I’m damn sure not going to take Ulric’s or your word for it.
w.
Willis, thanks. But don’t confuse me with Ulric. I am not in the weather forecasting business. However, my results (for maxima) suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which was drafted from here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
By showing the ” data sets” (teach me how you shortened that lengthy link of mine?) I think I was merely showing that we are on a way down. It is not much. My wife still laughs at me when I talk about a few tenths of a degree C. So it getting cooler does not worry me. Obviously, looking at energy coming in, (never mind energy out) , there is no “pause”. Either we are getting warmer or we are getting cooler.
Note with me that if you look at the polar strengths charts (‘the scissors”) of this post, that you can draw a hyperbolic curve (and a parabolic curve from the bottom) and I can guess with my eyes that the best fit for these two curves will show its lowest/highest point around 2016.
2016 is an important date as it corresponds with 1927 on my 88 year curve. From that date we have 5 years until the droughts on the great plains will start. In this respect I think you might help me a bit. I am looking for a chart that you published some time ago (I don’t remember which post?) showing air pressure (was it over the pacific?) going back to the beginning of the last century.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:18 am
“”
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:03 am
And no, I don’t care if you “know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations”. WE don’t know what they are, and I’m damn sure not going to take Ulric’s or your word for it.
w.
“”
Sorry I didn’t make myself sufficiently clear.
Where I live, work and suffer the weather I know what the normals are. I know when they deviate.
I expect most people do.
I expect anyone who chances their arm against The Sea to do so also.
YOU don’t need to know what OUR normals are. YOU need to know what they are for YOUR location. YOU don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. YOU are THERE. Location, location, location – albeit progressively more work is needed as one moves out from local to national to continental.
I am driving over to see Ulric now and will refer him to your kind request.