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.
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear on what is happening with the axial dipole fields through the solar cycle. Can I infer from your comment that at solar max the polar fields are not particularly coherent or stable, and when they do start to stabilize several years after solar max that the field strength at the time it stabilizes is the precursor for the magnitude of the following cycle? After the minimum in the new cycle, do the axial dipoles quickly reform, or does in take many months? Once formed, are the fields stable for a time before solar max? If so, is there any relationship to the field strength during that stable period to the magnitude of the cycle?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm
I followed your link and found a couple of vague predictions that you made in April of this year. Here’s one:
If it falls by -0.3° over the next four years, and then warms back up to where it is now, is that a win or a loss? We can’t tell from that claim, not specific enough. And in any case, even if it were not vague it couldn’t be verified until 2021.
Then there’s
So that one cant be verifiable until 2035 … and it has the same problem as the previous one. Suppose it comes back in 2025, and then starts dropping again. Is your forecast correct? No way to tell, it’s too vague.
Other than those, I don’t find any predictions, verifiable or otherwise, in your link.
w.
PS—Where is the information about your nasty and false accusation that I’m hiding data?
On the other hand if the sun has normal activity or higher and the temperatures go down I would be wrong once again in that case.
My bottomline is this , if solar activity is below normal for an extended period of time I say the temperature trend will be down. The more below normal the solar activty is for an extended period of time the lower the temperature trend will be.
From years 2015-2020 solar parameter averages
solar flux averge less then 90 very attainable.
solar wind average sub 350 km/sec very attainable.
ap index average 5.0 or lower I say has a fair chance of taken place.
solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more fair chace of occuring.
cosimic ray count average north of 6500, can happen may be hard to attain however.
euv 10.7 flux average sub 100 is attainable.
Now if the solar parameter values are a little north of what I said and the temperature trend is still down that would only serve to STRENGTHEN my case.
Wllis says
PS—Where is the information about your nasty and false accusation that I’m hiding data?
@ur momisugly Willis, AGAIN
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?
Henry@ur momisugly willis
Unless you show that graph, it is clear for all to see that you do not want to “help” me…
…what was that about the pot calling the kettle black?
OK, HenryP has answered my question about his false accusation, viz:
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm
And on that basis, you have accused me of the following:
HenryP, as with Ulric, I try to avoid reading the nonsense you pump out at a rate of knots. I didn’t even see the question. And now you’ve coupled it with a false accusation that I’m “avoiding” the question … HenryP, what I’m avoiding is your puerile nonsense, I never saw your question until now.
But whether or not I saw it, to accuse me of “not revealing my source” of something so vague you don’t even remember when it was, what post it was in, what it was, or where it was?
That’s just slimy, Henry.
You ask me to do your homework for you to find something you can’t even describe in any detail. You claim in one place that it shows “air pressure” and in the other you say it is a graph of “pressure difference” (between what and what?) from 1932 to 1939 … and then you accuse me of not revealing data?
Since I wouldn’t even be able to recognize it from that vague description if I happened across it, HenryP … I fear you’ll have to do your own homework. I don’t have a clue which graph you’re referring to.
w
PS—Accusing people of hiding data or avoiding questions, without a scrap of evidence that they’ve ever seen your stupid vague question, is not a good way to go through life …
LEIF , I will try to make it crystal clear the only way I am right is if solar activity is very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down.
All other combinations will prove that I am wrong. Is that CLEAR enough?
Willis I think you have treated me fair. Thanks.
Dan Murphy says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Can I infer from your comment that at solar max the polar fields are not particularly coherent or stable,
Yes, the reversal process is messy. It can even reverse the reversal a couple of times before finally settling in with the new polarities.
and when they do start to stabilize several years after solar max that the field strength at the time it stabilizes is the precursor for the magnitude of the following cycle?
Yes, that is what it very much looks like.
After the minimum in the new cycle, do the axial dipoles quickly reform, or does in take many months?
It takes all the time until the next maximum for the new polarities to slowly eat away the old field.
Once formed, are the fields stable for a time before solar max?
No, see above
If so, is there any relationship to the field strength during that stable period to the magnitude of the cycle?
N/A, see above
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
All other combinations will prove that I am wrong. Is that CLEAR enough?
No, because you have not stated what ‘very quiet’ means.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
the only way I am right is if solar activity is very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down.
Even if that should happen, it does not show you are right. It could be pure coincidence, for example.
Willis says
read:
I am not not going to answer your question
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Gosh, you mean the graph that might show “air pressure” … or not? The graph that might be about “air pressure difference from 1932 to 1939” … or not? You mean the graph having something to do with air pressure, in some area which might be the Pacific … or not? The graph in a post whose subject you can’t recall, that I posted, well, sometime or other? That graph?
Riiiight … I’ll get on that one right away, Henry.
One thing that you’re right about, though.
When you accuse someone in a nasty way of not doing something you’ve asked them to do, when they’ve never even seen the request, it’s very likely that they will end up not wanting to help you at all. So you are correct about one thing.
At this point, I do not want to help you in the slightest. I have only vague clues which graph you’re talking about, but if I did know which one it was, I wouldn’t say a word to you. That’s what happens when you make ugly false accusations, Henry—people don’t want to help you
There’s a lesson in there for you. Had you simply said “Hey, Willis, did you see my request above”? I’d have said, “No”, taken a look at your question, and then seen if I could find such a graph.
But when you start out by accusing me of bad faith, hiding data, and avoiding your question?
No chance any sane human would want to help you after that kind of an approach, Henry. And I wouldn’t either …
w.
Leif , yes it could be coincidence but don’t say that to AGW theory if the temperature trend goes up.
They would claim they are 100% correct. What is good for one side is good for the other.
I believe because you are a scientist that you would take a much deeper look into solar climatic relationships if solar actiivty should become very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down. i would at least hope so.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm
From years 2015-2020 solar parameter averages
1. solar flux averge less then 90 very attainable.
2. solar wind average sub 350 km/sec very attainable.
3. ap index average 5.0 or lower I say has a fair chance of taken place.
4. solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more fair chace of occuring.
5. cosmic ray count average north of 6500, can happen may be hard to attain however.
6. euv 10.7 flux average sub 100 is attainable.
So, you are considering the average over 2015-2020.
1. The solar flux will trivially be 90 or below as we are going towards minimum, so nothing unusual there.
2. solar wind speed will not be below 350, as the speed is always highest on the declining branch of the cycle.
3. ap will not be below 5 as ap varies with the square of the solar wind speed.
4. TSI off 0.015% is nonsense as the normal solar cycle variation is then times larger
5: cosmic ray count [at Oulu] might be above 6500 in 2020 but certainly not the average 2015-2020.
So some of your conditions will not be met. Does that make you wrong already?
LEIF, I stated what very quiet was when I gave the averages for the various solar parameters. I also stated if the averages are slightly higher then what I had stated, the sun would still be considered quiet and that would strengthen my case, IF the temp. trend was down..
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Actually, what I said was that a) I don’t know the answer to your question, and b) your description is far too vague to guide any search, and c) your nasty accusations have turned my stomach, so I have no interest in researching the answer.
Hope that clarifies things.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:26 pm
LEIF, I stated what very quiet was when I gave the averages for the various solar parameters. I also stated if the averages are slightly higher then what I had stated, the sun would still be considered quiet
Wrong way of dealing with that. If you think the averages could be a little higher, then they should be adjusted to reflect that.
Leif ,that is what you assume. To prove my point as recently as solar cycle 5 you say we don’t really know what happened. Well if we don’t really know what happened with solar cycle 5 ,how do we NOT know the conditions I called for did not occur in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
Can you prove to me that these conditoins I called for did not happen during the Maunder Minimum much less the past 20,000 years?
Further from what I read many think the solar parameters I laid out for years 2015-2020 on average were exceeded in degree of magnitide during the Maunder, on average. Greatly so I might add.
Good point point Leif , what I will do is give the maximum less degree of quietness I think the solar parameters have to acheive on average between the years 2015-2020 to acheive a solar /temperature decline relationship.
This will only strengthen my case if correct. I will work on that over he coming days.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Leif , yes it could be coincidence but don’t say that to AGW theory if the temperature trend goes up. They would claim they are 100% correct. What is good for one side is good for the other.
_______________________
Salvatore, with respect, this is just wrong. If you want to be a scientist, act like a scientist-the one side/other side crap is politics, not science. Do it right or don’t claim you’re being scientific.
And another thing-you say you’ve been making forecasts and predictions, but you don’t have many here believing you. If you’d like some rules about making a legitimate forecast that people might respect (right or wrong), follow the SMART system, and keep detailed records of your methods and data and be prepared to share them with others:
Specific
Measurable
Appropriate
Realistic
Time-bound
Specific: saying that it’s going to be significantly colder in the coming years is not specific enough.
Measurable: exactly how much, state a specific number of degrees, F or C please. Specifically state what other measurement or standard you will be comparing against.
Appropriate: e.g. a forecast for just the UK may not be an appropriate forecast in context of the AGW discussion. Comparing surface temps for the UK against Pacific Sea Surface temps may not be appropriate.
Realistic: make a serious forecast please, not a fantasy.
Time-bound: State a specific time point for your forecast, otherwise, as Willis pointed out, you could claim any colder weather during the interim to validate your prediction. Even in a warming world we would be likely to have at least one year with lower than normal temperatures.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Leif ,that is what you assume. To prove my point as recently as solar cycle 5 you say we don’t really know what happened. Well if we don’t really know what happened with solar cycle 5 ,how do we NOT know the conditions I called for did not occur in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
We are not totally in the dark. We know, for example that the solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays was greater during the Maunder Minimum than it has been the past 60 years, so we can constrain the solar parameters. We know that at the deepest point of the MM [at the end of it], the sun must have have a substantial magnetic field [from observations of the chromosphere]. We have good evidence that TSI was not significantly lower, etc. see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Thanks for that explanation, Leif, which is corroborated by my own analysis (not that it needs to be). In any case, here’s the Be10 flux, showing the solar modulation of the cosmic rays.
DATA SOURCE
The red lines show the Sporer Minimum, the blue lines show the Maunder Minimum, and the orange lines show the Dalton Minimum.
More Be10 means more cosmic rays … and we can clearly see that your statement that
is verified by the Be10 cosmic ray data.
w.
@Coventry
September 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm
The red lines show the Spörer Minimum
[Thanks, Ulric, fixed. I wrote that and it looked wrong, but it’s late. My error. -w.]
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:10 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.””
Where to begin?
I will work backwards as that is what your ‘assumptions’ lead me to want.
Willis: “” … you won’t tell us what the normals are? That’s not science, that’s a sick joke. “”
The normals. WMO standard:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.1
“Basing climate normals on 30-yr averages has been standard practice for almost a century now, since the IMO first mandated that member countries provide climate normals for their respective countries.”
Please note: “… member countries provide climate normals for their respective countries.”
Next up:
Tell you what, I am going to bed. This semantics game is not my cup of tea when it’s late. I may address your other failures later.