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.
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m698/Determinism/determinism.html
“Entrenched preconceived notion held by forecasters is that a forecaster is not doing his or her job unless he or she can make a spot forecast…an actual temperature or precipitation amount, deterministically. Thus, unless one can say that on Saturday at 8AM the temperature WILL be 51F (say), the forecaster is not doing his or her job.”
” It turns out that the further out from present time one attempts to make a forecast, the less such a deterministic forecast is possible. The further out from present time one goes, the more important it is that a forecaster integrates “probabilistic” language either into his actual forecast wording, or at least into the intellectual underpinning for his forecast. Not to do so is to not produce a state of the art forecast.”
The second paragraph is the paradigm that Ulric’s discovery explodes (in the absence of volcanic activity, pollution, meteor strike or other climatic interventions).
————————————————-
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:48 am
Ulrich, I’m still waiting for the link to your four-year-old predictions for 2013.
w.
______________________________________________________
Without an apology? and when you have made it clear that you have an agenda to puncture my balloon because you regard it as bullshit and nonsense (your words)?
In these circumstances I am fully justified in sending you to Coventry.
[I figured you’d come up with some bogus reason not to show your work … color me totally unsurprised. Ulric, I ask no more of you than is asked of any scientist—reveal your work. Since you are unwilling to do that, you’re beneath my notice. Come back when you want to act like a scientist, and we’ll talk. -w.]
I agree with Ulric that we must try and develop an ethos @WUWT of mutual respect for each other’s opinions no matter how much we differ. It is not acceptable that we call each other fools or idiots or trashing each other’s work as BS.
My idea is that we must always see WUWT as the classroom where we are teachers and students to each other. Just like normal at school, one is not allowed to call each other names. If, in a heated argument, such a thing has happened, one must be big enough to apologize at the right time, for that behavior. Apologizing does not make you smaller; in fact it gains respect, and you will find in the end usually that the relationship deepens, after.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“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.”
The manner that suits you is not the correct way to asses it. My controls would be more stringent than yours, and it needs to be factorized into it’s elements rather than the simple grading that you demanded. Without being able to go back through centuries, I would have little effective forecast power, it would be riddled with uncertainties. It is these hindcasts that you would need to look at first so I can fully demonstrate all the principles at play, including the 110.7yr solar cycle phase catastrophe. I would not dream of giving you the final word on it with merely recent forecast assessment. Besides, with all your manipulation of what was said on this thread, I don’t think you are suitable to do a review. It would be nice at some point though to prove to you why you were so wrong back around 2007, when you insisted several times that I must “abandon my theories”.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:40 am
I don’t think you are suitable to do a review.
So far there is nothing to review…
– – – – – – –
HenryP,
Thank you (&Ulric) for your well done appeal for civility.
I have somewhat similar sentiments of concern about any commenters being impolite to each when it is intended as pejorative; whether direct or backhanded.
I have much less concern if it is done with the intention of good natured humor. : )
John
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:39 am
Sorry, not gonna happen. Scientists don’t respect people who don’t show their work. It’s part of the basic fundamentals of science—if you don’t show your work, it can’t be replicated, and thus it’s not science.
You need to show your work to get respect on this site, or any scientific site, regardless of how you’ve been treated. And yes, if you are unwilling to show your work, then it’s nothing but BS.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:11 am
So your claim is that Ulric can make predictions about whether the temperature will be higher or lower than some vague, unspecified “normals” … but we don’t get to know what the normals are??? How does that work?
My friend, if that is truly your meaning, you’ve lost the plot entirely. If we don’t know what Ulric means by “normals”, how on earth can we determine if his predictions are a success or a failure? He says “See, my forecast is that it would be higher than the normals, and it was, hooray” … and you won’t tell us what the normals are? That’s not science, that’s a sick joke.
And it doesn’t matter WHERE we are, that doesn’t define what the “normals” are—are you talking about the 1951-1980 “normals”, or the 1961-1990 “normals”, or the 1971-2000 “normals”?
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:05 am
I figured you’d come up with some bogus reason not to show your work … color me totally unsurprised. Ulric, I ask no more of you than is asked of any scientist—reveal your work. Since you are unwilling to do that, you’re beneath my notice. Come back when you want to act like an actual scientist, and we’ll talk.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:39 am
I agree with Ulric that we must try and develop an ethos @WUWT of mutual respect for each other’s opinions no matter how much we differ.
Henry, opinions are not science. The problems arise when opinions are peddled as science.
Willis:
re your post at September 15, 2013 at 8:12 am to Ulric Lyons.
Up thread Ulric Lyons says he refuses to speak to me for exactly the same bogus reason.
And HenryP says he refuses to speak to me for exactly the same bogus reason.
There seems to be a pattern here.
Richard
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:12 am
To date, Ulric has not revealed either his “discovery”, nor his forecasts based on his “discovery”. As a result, your claim that it “explodes” anything is wildly premature.
If Ulric ever gets up the nerve to reveal his forecasts, we could actually determine if they “explode” anything, or whether his claims themselves explode … but since he has refused to do that, to date he’s just another crackpot who claims success but won’t show his work.
Henry, Ulric seems to think that by saying what amounts to “Willis was mean and krool to me, so I won’t reveal my forecasts” that he is gaining something. But what?
Because if he actually wanted to gain some traction, he’d say “I’ll show that jerkwagon Willis, I’ll reveal my forecasts and prove him wrong, wrong, wrong”.
You might reflect on the difference between those two options. Refusing to reveal his forecasts will earn him the well-deserved contempt of every real scientist reading this blog.
But if you believe his forecasts are good, then revealing them would put me in my place, showing that all of my contempt for him was totally undeserved, and I’ll be forced to apologize to him.
So … given those two outcomes, what is your explanation for why he is not revealing the forecasts?
I understand that he’s your father-in-law … but THINK FOR YOURSELF, Henry—if his forecasts are indeed accurate as he claims, what is he gaining by his actions other than well-deserved contempt for lack of transparency? He could put me in my place, and instead he chooses contempt? Why?
To me, the only explanation is that he won’t reveal his forecasts because he is unwilling to have them scrutinized by someone who isn’t his son-in-law … but that’s just me, YMMV.
w.
Willis says
Scientists don’t respect people who don’t show their work. It’s part of the basic fundamentals of science—if you don’t show your work, it can’t be replicated, and thus it’s not science.
You need to show your work to get respect on this site, or any scientific site, regardless of how you’ve been treated. And yes, if you are unwilling to show your work, then it’s nothing but BS.
Henry says
Willis, I do agree with you with what you say. There maybe some people who come here to learn how to make (more) money in their respective jobs and they are unwilling to share information so that others may gain from it. Even that does not give us a ticket for being rude. We remain polite. Were you allowed to scream: BS, at any time, during a lecture, when at college?
Please let us remain civil, at all times, even, and perhaps even more particularly, with those that we most disagree.
I note that you have not replied me on my post here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417605
even when I was open to you and I did show you my results.
This is (was) just a hobby of mine, I have no financial interest. I am just worried about the period 2021-2028
which I think will be much similar to 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:00 am
HenryP, while normally I agree with you, in some cases my aim is to force people to get up off their dead asses and show their work, or else go away and stop bothering people.
Now, I could rub their tummies and blow in their ears and be all nice and polite as you recommend, but that’s not going to impel them to move. Some people, to get them to move, you need to light a fire under them, not be nice to them. For example, in this post, Ulric has finally declared himself as not being a scientist—he has flat-out refused to show his work.
I hold that he would never had done that if I’d followed your advice and been polite to him. He did it because Leif and Richard and I held his feet to the fire. If we hadn’t, he’d still be waffling and handwaving and deceiving the unwary.
Sorry for that. Given my response to your work, I figured you didn’t really want to hear my reply, but since you insist here’s the answer.
The first of the two results you cite is a trivial fit of a sine wave to the climate, which is of no interest to me at all. The second one, called “Pool Tables About Global Warming”, is both illegible and unintelligible. I have no idea what it means.
I have little time, Henry, and I certainly don’t have the time to try to puzzle out some strange, unintelligible and illegible post that I can’t make heads or tails of. And I don’t care at all if someone has fitted a sine wave to some part of some climate record.
Like I said … I thought that you might not like to hear that, so I just let it pass.
Oh, I see. Not only can you predict the future, specifically (and curiously) the period from 2021-2028, but you are worried about it, and you want me to be concerned about it as well?
Pass … sorry, I know nothing about what will happen from 2021 to 2028, and neither does anyone else, including you. Nor do I have the slightest interest in your theories about it. Like I said to Ulric, if you’re so smart that you can predict the climate from 2021-2028, why aren’t you rich?
All the best,
w.
richardscourtney says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:23 am
Thanks, Richard. The term “Cutting off your nose to spite your face” comes to mind.
The part that neither of them seem to understand is that whether they like you, or get along with me, or are friends with Leif, is immaterial. I don’t care if Ulric thinks I’m the devil incarnate—he still needs to show his work to be considered a scientist.
As I said to Henry Galt, people need to consider Ulric’s decision in light of the three possible outcomes.
1) He’s refused to reveal his forecasts. The outcome of that is very bad for him, since no honest scientist would do that.
2) On the other hand, the outcome of revealing his forecasts depends on the forecasts. If the forecasts are good, then you and I get shown up, Ulrich gets to crow, and you and I are forced to apologize.
3) But if the forecasts are bad, well, that’s the worst possibility, because then Ulric is shown to be self-deluded, and his work without value.
So … given those three outcomes, Ulrich has picked door #1, and refused to show his work.
What does that say about the other two possible outcomes? In particular, which one of those two outcomes does Ulric think will occur if he reveals his forecasts?
I’d say Ulric doesn’t think that the outcome will be #2 … but that’s just me.
Regards,
w.
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.”
A flat 30-year (no significant warming) linear trend by 2020. Solar cycle frequency is the knob.
Willis says
I know nothing about what will happen from 2021 to 2028, and neither does a nyone else, including you.
Henrysays
I would be very much interested to hear the comments of others on this.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:42 am
Why would you care about other peoples’ opinions? If you can predict the future climate, you can … and if you can’t, you can’t.
If you want real feedback, on the other hand, then publish your previous predictions that have convinced you that you can predict the future, so we can all see them, and you’ll get likely more feedback than you might desire …
w.
Henry@Willis
according to my predictions, (all fits), global cooling began in 1995,
looking at energy coming in.
Teacher, tell me please, was I right or was I wrong?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:07 am
according to my predictions, (all fits), global cooling began in 1995
Did you predict before 1995 that cooling would begin?
I don’t think so, so what you have is a fit to an assumed sine curve. Such a fit has no predictive power [unless you have a plausible physical mechanism that explains the fit].
Leif says
Did you predict before 1995 that cooling would begin?
Henry says
Did anyone but me say that global cooling began in 1995 (looking at energy coming in)?
Anyway, what were your results on those binomial fits from 1972-present for the polar magnetic field strengths, and did you find the 2016 date as the lowest amount of energy coming in
(“lowest” activity of the sun)
as predicted by me?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
Unresponsive. Answer the dang question, Henry. When you dodge and weave like that your credibility plummets.
What is it with you and Ulric refusing to answer simple questions? Don’t you understand what that does to your reputation?
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
Did anyone but me say that global cooling began in 1995 (looking at energy coming in)?
You claimed that you predicted the cooling. Did you say at some time BEFORE 1995 that cooling was coming?
Anyway, what were your results on those binomial fits from 1972-present for the polar magnetic field strengths, and did you find the 2016 date as the lowest amount of energy coming in
(“lowest” activity of the sun) as predicted by me?
I did not make any such fits and don’t know of any valid predictions made by you. It is highly unlikely that 2016 would be the time of lowest solar activity.
Henry, you backslide to the same, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Leif says
Henry, you backslide to the same, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Henry says
Please keep with me. I am saying that the polar strengths will be weakest sometime in 2016.
You can see this from your graph.. I am not saying that at this time the energy from the sun is the weakest. I have different theories about that. If you don’t want to do those best (binomial) fits just direct me again to the source of those data (I remember it gives a result every ten days)
I suggested to Willis that he should have dropped by when he was in the West Country and take a look at my work, he was not in the slightest bit interested, he has an agenda to keep up. I suggested to Leif that he take a look at my recent findings on weak solar cycles, again no interest whatsoever. I ask Anthony on facebook if he would like to see, and show him key examples of my forecast methods, he calls it “just another cyclomania example” and said he was not interested.
As none of you will take me seriously, none of you deserve to be taken seriously either. You either get to see the whole thing, or you get to see nothing. No two ways about it.