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.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:42 am
Please keep with me. I am saying that the polar strengths will be weakest sometime in 2016.
The polar fields disappear at solar maximum, that is right now. The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
You can see this from your graph..
No, I can’t see that.
I am not saying that at this time the energy from the sun is the weakest. I have different theories about that.
so what?
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)
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
“That is not a prediction at all, unless you believe Piers Corbyn makes predictions”
I know he does, I worked with him from 2007 to 2012. He uses predictable solar factors to forecast weather events days, like rain, wind storms, cyclones etc. I apply such techniques too, though we do have different approaches to applying it. He does not though have an empirical method for predicting temperatures like I do, his method relies upon theoretical solar-lunar analogue years.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:42 am
Henrysays
I would be very much interested to hear the comments of others on this.
Ok- you want other’s “comments” here goes.
I’m no scientist (I have children who are – and we do have a family saying of “one must be precise”.), though I have read this site somewhat regularly for the last five years. So, here’s my 2 cents.
define “cold shot”. define “heat wave”. how do they relate to the norm? and what is the norm? give all the data sets you are claiming are accurate forecasts because how else can anyone else give an informed opinion on their accuracy? give proof of their dates of forecasting. (because if the forecast didn’t come before the event – it wasn’t a forecast. and I must ask for proof, because sadly in this day and age – people make changes after the fact. I’m a cynic that way.) and the actual results of what happened when all is said and done.
why should I, or anyone else, follow unsubstantiated claims? please. enquiring minds want to know.
Willis, thankyou for your reply to me at September 15, 2013 at 9:40 am.
Yes. Exactly so.
And I notice that since you wrote your reply to me HenryP has been giving you the same ‘run-around’ that he gave me, except all I wanted was
(a) a proper description of his sample procedure
and
(b) a justification of his fit to “Saturn and Uranus” but not Jupiter.
He refused to provide either.
I said that if his sample procedure could not be explained he was not doing science. And I said he was data mining by finding anything which agreed with what he wanted when he could not justify the choice: hence, he had no justifiable reason to think his model was valid. Instead of answering my questions he persistently claimed he had answered (a) although he had not, and refused to answer (b) but set me homework of reading a paper by someone I had never heard of.
I said he was a “fool” if he thought those were proper responses to my questions, and he then pretended to be offended, demanded I apologise, and refused to talk to me until I did.
It seems that Ulric may have copied HenryP with his behaviour in this thread.
Richard
Leif says
The polar fields disappear at solar maximum, that is right now. The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
Henry says
that is bad news, to me. I was hoping we had more time.
thanks for the link
give me some time to analyse those data
I just wish I had more time…..
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:45 am
You either get to see the whole thing, or you get to see nothing. No two ways about it.
That would be fine, as long as you refrain from polluting WUWT with opinion based on what you will not tell. Back it up or shut up. The standard way of doing this is to write it up in a coherent manner and presenting your theory or method in clear terms that can be evaluated in a standard scientific manner. Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:45 am
Yes, that’s the ticket, Ulric, no two ways about it. Everyone knows that the very best way to get people to take you seriously is to refuse to show them the very forecasts that would force them to take you seriously …
Seriously?
w.
Henry, widespread major drought 2021 – 2028 is not going to be likely with a solar cycle minimum to jump start it. Droughts are more pegged toward solar max of a cycle and wet years are solar minimum between cycles.
The droughts in 2011-2012 are more like the leading edge of the 1932 – 1939 time period. In 2011, 401 million trees croaked in Texas and easily that many croaked on the Ozark plateau in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas in 2012. I travel this country! The only reasons we didn’t have dust clouds like the ’30s is all that virgin topsoil lost in the 1930’s is gone and what soils are left or built back are not lying exposed and unanchored.
So I would thinkolator 2021 – 2028 should more resemble 1939 – 1946 or so by your criteria. Like you a lot Henry, but my thinkolator just doesn’t quite match up with yours. See the drought graph here…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States
Leif says
The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
Henry says
How long could it carry on at around zero before it moves up?
Leif, I have a question could you tell me how many m and x flairs solar cycle 14 had up to this date in contrast to solar cycle 24 ? Thanks
For Willis and Leif I will state my stance once again and try to be as clear as possible.
If ALL if the solar parameters ALL of the time between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 ,2020, stay below the values I mentioned or even if they AVERAGE below the solar parameter values I have mentioned I will be wrong if the temperature trend rises or is flat. The only way I am correct is if the temperature trend is clearly down.
I will not spin or say maybe this maybe that. This is my stance right or wrong. Thanks
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
How long could it carry on at around zero before it moves up?
A few months.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
how many m and x flares solar cycle 14 had up to this date in contrast to solar cycle 24 ?
Nobody knows exactly as we didn’t [couldn’t] measure X-rays fluxes directly back in SC14. We do know how many geomagnetic storms there were and how strong, but geomagnetic storms are not all causes by M and X flares.
Ed Mertin says
In 2011, 401 million trees croaked in Texas and easily that many croaked on the Ozark plateau in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas in 2012. I travel this country! The only reasons we didn’t have dust clouds like the ’30s is all that virgin topsoil lost in the 1930′s is gone and what soils are left or built back are not lying exposed and unanchored.
henry says
as stated before:
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. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
What you, Ed, and others are reporting, namely a reduced inflow of water into the Hoover dam since 2000, is what I expected. What most people are not yet realizing is that it will get lot worse still.
I am still trying to finalize my dates but 2021-2028 stands for the time being. I need time to analyse those data from Leif.
I note that Willis is not revealing his source / graph on the standstill of pressure difference, over the oceans, 1932-1939
….politics….personal animosities…?
…get a life…
[Hold on there with your accusations, cowboy. This is the first I recall ever hearing about this issue, and one thing that I never do is refuse to reveal my sources.
So … where and when did I talk about a “standstill of pressure difference” over the oceans?
w.]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
For Willis and Leif I will state my stance once again and try to be as clear as possible.
If ALL if the solar parameters ALL of the time between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 ,2020, stay below the values I mentioned or even if they AVERAGE below the solar parameter values I have mentioned I will be wrong if the temperature trend rises or is flat.
This is not at all clear. It is absolutely certain [from the known natural variability of those things] that ALL of the solar parameters you mention at SOME time will exceed the limits you mentioned, so you setting yourself up for a claim that cannot be falsified, because the conditions you set for be proven wrong will never occur. So you are not doing science.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Hold on there with your accusations, cowboy. This is the first I recall ever hearing about this issue, and one thing that I never do is refuse to reveal my sources.
So … where and when did I talk about a “standstill of pressure difference” over the oceans?
w.
Kristen says
why should I, or anyone else, follow unsubstantiated claims? please. enquiring minds want to know.
Henry says
science only happens when we decide to investigate
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
please prove me wrong, if you can,
with your own results
please
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Thanks, Salvatore, that’s quite clear and falsifiable. Now we just have to all live long enough to see how the forecast does. As Leif says, it’s doubtful that all the variables will line up, so my guess is that we won’t get any result.
w.
@Willis
perhaps you should read the post again?
please
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417605
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:23 pm
please prove me wrong, if you can,
There are things that are not even wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Leif says
There are things that are not even wrong:
Henry says
That falls in the category of faith?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
= not verifiable
previous information given to Kristen is verifiable.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:28 pm
I have no idea what your comment is referring to, Henry. You’ll have be be clearer.
But before you do that, how about you point to where I said something about the “standstill in pressure difference”? You’ve made an ugly accusation that I’m concealing data, but you haven’t said where or how.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“There are things that are not even wrong”
That falls in the category of faith?
No, in the category of bad science
I think the conditions I called for will occur. I also think these conditions have occurred in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
The upshot of what I am saying Leif, is if the sun is less quiet then I call for (but still quiet) and the temperature trend is still down, I will be even more correct because the extreme values I called for were not neccessary for the sun to have a climatic effect ,just sub -solar values in general over a long duration of time.
@ur momisugly Willis
I simply said
“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”
which question you have continually avoided….
I am merely puzzled as to why you avoided answering this question?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I think the conditions I called for will occur.
That is the point. What if they don’t occur? Then your guess cannot be verified or falsified. Or are you trying to say that if they don’t occur, that proof of your guess is even stronger?