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.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm
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 concentration, showing the solar modulation of the cosmic rays.
This is a tricky subject. The solar magnetic field acts to decrease the flux of galactic cosmic rays, so: weaker solar field = more cosmic rays = more 10Be. Sort of the opposite of what I said. However, the situation is more complicated than that. What you show is the concentration of 10Be atoms, which is not a simple function of the influx of cosmic rays. If it snows more in a year more 10Be atoms will be found in the ice layer for that year, so the concentration has to be modified by the precipitation to get the flux. So, the climate actually is also a modulator of the concentration, plus that most of the 10Be is created at lower latitudes and the strength of the circulation of the atmosphere also plays a role. It is estimated that the influence from climate and local conditions amounts to at least half of the changes seen in 10Be. To get at how large the solar cycle modulation of the GCRs actually is, it is customary to filter the data and see how much variation in the flux is in the 8-16 year pass band. The result can be seen in Slide 30 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf where you can compare the red curve in the bottom panel [sunspots] with the black curve [GCRs].
sorry for the bold. miss that preview.
Thanks for that explanation, Leif, much appreciated. I’ve corrected (I think) the bold.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm
This semantics game is not my cup of tea when it’s late.
Agree, so quit the semantics game and produce the table I asked for. A table with numbers and a description of how the numbers were derived.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Unfortunately, you still haven’t told us which normals Ulric is using. For example, for predictions in the northeast US, does he use the normals for just that Northeaster area of the US, or for the whole US? And if he’s using the normals for just that area, which states is he including/excluding?
Next, is he using the 1961-1990 WMO normals, or the more recent WMO normals (1981-2010) that are used by say the satellite datasets?
And when Ulric makes a prediction (see above) for the “UK/Europe”, which normals is he using? Those for the UK or those for Europe, or both?
So no, Henry, as should be obvious, although you seem to think the job is done and you can move on, in fact you haven’t come anywhere near answering just this one simple question about normals.
Next, this is not a “sematics game”. It is the only way that we can understand and evaluate Ulric’s forecasts … if he ever deigns to stop hiding them. If Ulric’s prediction for the UK/Europe is that it will be colder than normal … what does that mean? Despite your explanation we still have no clue.
Finally, you haven’t shown that I’ve made a single “failure”, so your accusing me of that is totally unclear, not to mention unpleasant. Don’t accuse a man of “failures” without saying exactly what they are, that just pisses people off.
w.
Or in other words, Henry (Galt) … what Leif said: produce the table that we need in order to evaluate Ulric’s invisible predictions … in case you’ve forgotten, it goes like this:
In addition, the table needs to contain the actual forecast, along with where we can find a record of it being made before rather than after the fact.
I won’t be surprised, however, if the data never appears … both you and Ulric seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay. No surprise, I suppose … if the forecasts were any good, he’d be shouting them to the world, but instead he’s stuffed them up his fundamental orifice and refused to let anyone see them because … well, most likely because he knows in his heart of hearts that they’re no good.
But heck … prove us wrong, Henry, and break out the forecasts and the normals (AS NUMBERS) and the definitions of a “cold shot” and a “heat wave” and the like for each forecast, and we can see for ourselves if Ulric is, as he maintains, a misunderstood unsung genius …
w.
Leif, per your most excellent research and information, I’ve updated the graphic above to show flux rather than concentrations, and to include the names of the minima.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:23 pm
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
Oh, for pete’s sake. you still don’t provide NUMBERS (or exact definitions) – science is not religion, you need hard data.
@ur momisugly Willis, I Have been following Ulric’s ideas quite a long time and I will tell you that you really need to take that back. His forecasts are the best long range forecasts that I have witnessed to date. So accurate in fact, that I’m thinking of taking up on his line of expertise.You can check out my website @ur momisugly http://realityweather.eu/
Ray Ennis says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I “really need to take that back”? Take what back?
As to the accuracy of his forecasts, it won’t be known unitl he reveals them. We’ll all see how accurate they are when he extracts his digit and deigns to show his work to us plebeians. Until then, we don’t have a clue if he’s a genius or a charlatan …
However, his refusal to show his work greatly favors the latter.
w..
I didn’t mention anything about water flow to Hoover dam… but since you brought up the subject… low water flow sure has reversed this month. I was in Denver and Fort Collins the 3rd and 4th watching the impressive storms coming out of the mountains and out over the pached dry land toward Southeastern Colorado. That was the start of something big. BIG Like the flooding of the Mississippi in 2011, then 2012 was so dry they were dredging and dislodging rock to move barges. 2013 the mighty Mississippi was flooding again. This weird weather is like the ’30s in many respects to me, out in it. Bone dry, snow melt on freshly planted cornfields, flooding and in the same year for some. What a challenging time for a farmer. I do respect you a lot, Henry, for thinking of the farmer in advance of what appears to be a tough time. 1945 freshly planted crops got nailed with snow too, years afterwards.
http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/09/15/colorado-braces-for-more-heavy-rain-deadly-floods/
http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/under-threat-of-more-rain-nm-cleans-up-after-flooding-damages-neighborhoods-claims-1-victim/2013/09/15/1f9c99fc-1e78-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html
Peculiar weather… heh, in Peculiar, Missouri I’m grabbing for blankets and comforter.
Record-breaking $17.3 billion in crop losses last year
http://www.wisfarmer.com/editorial/recordbreaking-173-billion-in-crop-losses-last-year-significant-portion-potentially-avoidable—–jcpg-334555-221653091.html
Extreme weather forced the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) to pay out a record-breaking $17.3 billion in crop losses last year, much of which could have been prevented using water-smart strategies, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Payments made to farmers during the 2012 growing season to cover losses from drought, heat and hot wind alone accounted for 80 percent of all farm losses, with many Upper Midwest and Great Plains states hit hardest.
With extreme weather conditions such as drought expected to become more common, record-breaking insurance payouts will likely continue to increase.
However, widespread adoption of crop-loss prevention methods that build soil health and improve water management on farms can limit these losses.
From 2001-10, crop losses averaged just $4.1 billion a year, making the 2012 record-breaking FCIP payouts even more staggering….
Ed Mertin:
re your post at September 16, 2013 at 12:48 am.
Higher insurance claims for extreme weather events mostly indicate effects of inflation. Higher insurance premiums mostly indicate higher insurance claims, and the premiums are also boosted by assertions of more extreme weather in future.
Your talk of insurance says nothing about a possible increase or possible decrease of extreme weather events.
Richard
Willis (in Coventry) writes:
“As to the accuracy of his forecasts, it won’t be known unitl he reveals them. We’ll all see how accurate they are when he extracts his digit and deigns to show his work to us plebeians. Until then, we don’t have a clue if he’s a genius or a charlatan … However, his refusal to show his work greatly favors the latter. ”
Willis, you cannot speak on behalf of those that have seen the results, and you have refused my offer for you to examine the complete forecast method. You have also exhibited extreme prejudice before you have even seen the figures, with your lynch mob prognosis:
“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?”
And on top of that, you behave as it is below your dignity to even read my comments:
“as with Ulric, I try to avoid reading the nonsense you pump out at a rate of knots.”
“Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”
etc.
And you really think after all that, that you are worthy of being the scientific arbiter of the standards of my work?
Friends:
Ulric Lyons writing to Willis concludes his post at September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am saying
But nobody can be an arbiter of his work until he provides the report of his success/failure rate which has been repeatedly requested and demanded by both Leif and Willis.
Ulric’s arm-waving about Willis refusing “to examine the complete forecast method” is pure puffery. Nobody wants to do that. Willis, Leif and I want to assess the success rate of Ulric’s method.
Similarly, anybody who wants to assess the “work” of the famous astrologer Madam Zsaa Zsa wants to examine her success rate and not her “complete forecast method “.
So long as Ulric refuses to present information on his success rate there is no more reason to expend time and effort on examining his “complete forecast method” than there is to expend time and effort examining the “complete forecast method” of Madam Zsa Zsa.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“But nobody can be an arbiter of his work until he provides the report of his success/failure rate which has been repeatedly requested and demanded by both Leif and Willis.”
Yes they can, he wants to get trained up with my forecast method:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1418156
“Ulric’s arm-waving about Willis refusing “to examine the complete forecast method” is pure puffery. Nobody wants to do that.”
While you all would happily squeal that Piers Corbyn should not be taken seriously until he reveals the recipe to his secret sauce, what astounding duplicity. The pure puffery is yours, an emotional projection. To fully convince that I forecast e.g. a very cold March 2013, I need to show how I forecast it, and show that the heliocentric configuration responsible produces the same kind of result consistently where it reoccurs. The same with the Farmers Almanac, there is no reason to believe that there is any science in it until you can inspect what correlations they are making to the planets with the weather.
If I forecast a winter cold shot, I will grade it cooler than norm, much colder than norm, or extremely cold, which is what I rated March 2013 at, correctly. It is a simple task to translate into an approx local deviation from normals in °C. Now if someone is not interested in even accepting on face value that I did forecast that cold shot very well, purely on the basis that I have not presented “a number in °C”, that is like not letting me sit at your dinner table without a smart shirt and tie. Well stuff your dinner and you of all too, I’ll get plenty of weather forecasters to sit around my table.
Thank you for the great comments! Willis and Leif, your patience is astounding. This thread is a free lesson in how to spot BS.
Kristen says
Oh, for pete’s sake. you still don’t provide NUMBERS (or exact definitions) – science is not religion, you need hard data.
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1411264
Ed Mertin says
I do respect you a lot, Henry, for thinking of the farmer in advance of what appears to be a tough time. 1945 freshly planted crops got nailed with snow too, years afterwards.
Henry says
Thanks for the respect. I wish the others here would also notice that I am not doing this research “for myself”.
I think you got the jest of what I am saying. In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) in -30>x[40] latitudes
I personally checked this in Wellington, NZ. They had on average 14% less rainfall 1930-1940 compared to 1940-2000.
so yes, you can bet (your insurance) on that.
I think in the end they will just stop insuring….(the farmers living beyond [40])
What I am worried about that as far as yet, I think nobody is warning the farmers at >40 latitudes that things are not going to change there for at least the next 2 to 3 decades. Things, i.e. cooling and drought conditions, will only become worse there as times move on.
Henry@Willis
clearly
you never even read my post(s) properly
so I think that is also a form of disrespect?
never mind,
for what it is worth, I am sorry if I antagonized you in any way. It seems to me this was a misunderstanding.
It was not my intention to show you in a bad light.
I just thought you ignored my questions deliberately.
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) in -30>x[40] latitudes
That should read
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) @ur momisugly [40] latitudes
Leif,
– Regarding your graph “WSO Dipole, Phase within year”, do the blue squares show the axial dipole strength D = (N-S) from 2003.5 to 2005.7? The dipole appears stable.
– What’s the meaning of grading of the horizontal abscissa (phase within year: 0, 0.2, 0.4, …)?
– May I assume that these data are based on the data of the rightmost column of http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html?
– However, when I consult the data during the mentioned period I see an evolution from -56 Avgf (2003:06), growing to -65 Avgf (2004:02) and ending at -52 Avgf (2005:08). How can it be explained that I don’t see this increase (to – 65 Avgf)?
I appreciate your instructive explanations!
it seems the system is confused with my descriptions and symbolics
I try again:
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) at lower than [30] latitudes and less rainfall and more cooling at higher than [40] latitudes
The climate cools for the globe as a whole by -.8c if these average solar paramenters are realized between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 2019.
Now if these solar averages are realized and the temperature trend is flat or up I am wrong, very easy to falsify. I would say this is clear,specific and gives a specific outcome as a result.Very black and white and straight forward.
AVERAGE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED. Did not change a thing.
solar flux average 90 or lower.
solar wind average 350 km/sec or lower.
ap index average 5.0 or lower, 98+% of the time.
solar irradinace average off .015% or lower.
e 10.7 flux average sub 100.
cosmic ray count 6500 per minute or greater.
These values were likely attained or exceeded during the Maunder Minimum according to many studies. MOST of which for example show solar irradiance to be off by .3 to .6% during the Maunder Minimum.
.
Some will argue the sun is not as variable as that, as well as the sun does not control the climate through solar changes and the associated secondary effects, but this is what makes a ball game two sides in opposition.
Time will tell.
I welcome agreement and disagreement but all it is at best is speculationas to if I am wrong or correct,and does nothing to prove if I amwrong or correct.
Only time will show that result,which is right around the corner,2015-end of 2019.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm
“”””
I put it down to a game of semantics to give you the benefit of some doubt as to your insulting me based on my support of a system I have seen and had explained to me in detail, over a long period and that you have zero knowledge of outside of a forecast that you continue to claim has not been made to your liking.
You don’t know me from a hole in the ground so where you get off telling me “… you’ve lost the plot entirely …” and “… both you and Ulric seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay …” and other such insults, baffles and riles me in equal measure. The following may be more a result of the riled than the bafflement.
For someone clever, if not possessing superior intellect, why should this….
“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.”
need ANY explanation beyond what I said earlier:
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.
Yet you continue with: “”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”?””
and YOU claim that WE “”… seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay …””. ??? Thinking further; your snipe at Ulric – “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.” comes across as severe projection and is not becoming.
Fail #1. It so very DOES matter WHERE you are. The WMO insist upon it. The WMO insist on the climatology also. Currently this is stated as ‘The latest global standard normals period is 1961-1990’. These actualities, quite rightly, remain unsaid and unquestioned in any usual conversation between knowledgeable parties in a conversation about weather and climate. You are playing a game of semantics, for whatever reason.
Why do you persist in digging yourself this hole?
Next:
You were offered twice to meet up with Ulric and he would have shown you everything. So your continued wailing in this vein ….
“”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.””
and
“”… He’s refused to reveal his forecasts …””
and
“… he has flat-out refused to show his work …”
is utterly off target and becomes Fail #2. Not just for you. Leif and A have also been offered full, relevant disclosure and refused the offers.
Next, your:
“”… meaningless prediction …”
pertaining to this forecast, made in brevity elsewhere, but referenced by Ulric on this thread:
“”I am forecasting a long intense cold shot starting from around the 7th January 2014. The first signs of any warmer bursts are in the last 10 days of February, which for the UK/Euro will likely result in heavy snow falls, and the Atlantic flow finally breaking through early March. The (north east?) U.S. could see the cold continue further into March.
This is a solar based forecast, produced entirely from heliocentric planetary angular analysis.””
Again with the semantics. Long. Intense. Cold. From 7th Jan until @18th Feb by my reading. Then- Warmer. What’s not to like about the precision of this forecast versus one by any meteorological organization? Made months ahead?
I note the only real caveat (could) is with regard to a speculative (hence the ?) global extrapolation from a local forecast. The “… will likely result in heavy snow falls …” is mentioning a possible additional effect of the deterministic, precise dates mentioned. Months ahead.
It’s not long to wait until Jan 2014.
Fail #3 for you for this because the prediction is far from meaningless.
I now believe you may have other issues with all this. I could speculate that these may be related to your previous (not on this thread) statement that you had spent a long time looking for the mechanisms that Ulric has discovered and you failed to so do. This would not be uncharitable in light of your continued belligerence in this matter and is no different from your specious and unfounded speculations about me.
Maybe, when this system, eventually, is known to you, you personally may be able to interpret its results with such finesse that you will be able to forecast the exact number of degrees above and below normals on individual dates for the localities you choose. I certainly wouldn’t count it out after the process has been absorbed, investigated and discussed by a larger number of brains. That is truly NOT the nub of this thing. If it is possible to warn individuals, nations and mankind in general of upcoming, possibly disastrous weather events we don’t NEED fine numerical precision. If a farmer in Chile is informed that 2 years from now his entire spring and summer will be severely below normals there will be no need for specific numbers. He will have been warned that his spring and summer will be worse than lousy for the crops his family usually relies on. He will need to change tack, not complain because the deterministic forecast doesn’t tell him whether his local area will be -7C, -9C or -11C below his normals.
I feel some of your irritability Willis. Really. I have been pestering Ulric to publish for a couple of years now. It’s not up to us when he goes public. It is, however, very much our responsibility to look, prejudice free, when asked and report truthfully if the BS meter flickered at any time during evaluation. The finished product will need to be defended against considerably more than the 3 or 4 individuals here demanding evidence and throwing tantrums when it is not forthcoming. Allowing someone to line up their ducks before the big guns get pointed is common civility. It may well be that only constant successful forecasting will open people’s eyes to the efficacy of this system but I believe that the prejudgement offered, in haste by a minority here, recorded for posterity, portends a better reception from Joe Public who has no axe to grind.
HENRY AND ULRIC – what matters is to make a climate forecast for a specific time frame and give the reasons why and then see if it is or is not correct.
If people doubt you in the meantime I would not let it bother you, just be sure in what you are saying and go with it and see if you are correct or not and then act accordingly.
That is what I am going to do, wait and see if I am or not correct and then take it from there.
I am not going to waste to much of my time arguing with speculators as to if I may or may not be correct. The ones that do not agree with you are NOT going to change their minds unless it is in their face, and even then some probably will still insist that you are wrong.
Again go with what you think based on studies and past history and projections, and stand by it and if wrong admit it, if right fight for it.