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 16, 2013 at 2:00 pm
But you already declared that; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”, so for all I know if I get as far as presenting you a proper assessment of say the last years worth of forecasts, you may turn around and say; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”,
If you make a forecast every week [do you?] then rate that forecast numerically [describe how rating is done]. That gives you 52 rating numbers per year. If you have been doing this for five years, you should have a list of 260 ratings. That would be the first step. Then you have to weed out the forecasts that are just climatology. For example, if I forecast that it would not rain in California where I live during the week of 15-21 July, 2013, that does not count as a successful forecast, because it never rains during 15-21 July. There are standard ways of doing the weeding.
Leif would you say that solar max is now over since both poles have now reversed polarity? It certainly seems as if it could very well be over as the xray flux has been on the floor for the past week. If not how much longer would you predict it will continue? If we are not on the downhill slope would you say we are tracking along with more of a resemblance to SC 5 or 14? What are your thoughts on the coming minimum of this cycle in terms of length?
Ulric Lyons:
In response to my providing you with helpful information, you have replied September 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm saying in total
Well, I can remove that very small part of your very great ignorance.
It was possible that what I thought I knew may have been wrong. This, too, I suspect you will not believe because the possibility of being wrong is an alien thought to you.
And if I were wrong then the information would have been helpful to you. I suspect you will also be unable to understand that as a reason for me offering the information because in this thread you have demonstrated you take great trouble to avoid being helpful.
Richard
project722 says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Leif would you say that solar max is now over since both poles have now reversed polarity?
Solar max for a low cycle is a drawn-out affair. See for example http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html When was maximum? and when was it over?
It certainly seems as if it could very well be over as the xray flux has been on the floor for the past week.
The sunspot number has also been small, but both of these indicators hide the fact that the Sun also has a backside, and the backside is rather active right now: http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_farside.shtml
If not how much longer would you predict it will continue?
At least two more years.
If we are not on the downhill slope would you say we are tracking along with more of a resemblance to SC 5 or 14?
SC14, obviously, if not for any other reason than our knowledge of SC5 is poor, so a comparison is difficult.
What are your thoughts on the coming minimum of this cycle in terms of length?
Small cycles last longer than strong cycles, so I would guess solar min in 2020-2021.
Thanks Leif, I appreciate the quick reply!
richardscourtney says:
“Well, I can remove that very small part of your very great ignorance..”
That’s not how people who actually know me see me:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1418673
Ulric Lyons:
re your post at September 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Yeeah, whatever.
Richard
Subject: stratospheric warming and solar activity
This graph shows observed temperatures in the 70 millibar region of the stratosphere from the latitudes of 65N to 90N. The red line illustrates the actual observed temperatures, while the green line shows average temperatures for that time of year. The light gray lines depict the minimum and maximum temperatures observed to this date for any certain time of year. Looking at this past summer, where the red line begins to arch up, we see the observed temperatures were consistently above the green line, meaning the stratosphere has been above normal for a while. It then tapered off for a little while, but as the zoomed-in portion on the bottom right shows, stratospheric temperatures have been on the rise for a bit, to the point where they are above normal.
The temperatures have been above normal for good chunks of the last few months, but the question now is: What is causing these above normal stratospheric temperatures?
An examination around the solar activity reveals daily sunspot trends may be at fault. This chart shows many things at once, but we want to focus on the red line, which shows daily sunspot values. Take a look at the red line after the big spike in the middle of the chart. After that spike, sunspot values take a dive, and stay in slightly below normal territory for a while.
To get full details google the weather centre and read story on web-site that came out today.
This is just another verification of the may secondary effects which will manifest itself in earth’s climatic sytem Willis and Leif ,and all the other non believers as the prolonged solar minimum continues.
Leif you are a speculator and an assumption man when it comes to variablity of the sun going forward and the climatic impacts it may or may not have. You have no detailed data on what the sun actually did during a prolonged solar minimum period and what impacts it might have had on the climate of the earth.
.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
You have no detailed data on what the sun actually did during a prolonged solar minimum period and what impacts it might have had on the climate of the earth.
Neither do you, or anybody else for that matter.
I put myself out on the line right or wrong ,with my solar average parameters going forward, and my temperature estimate of -.8c by 2020 due to those average solar parameters taking place between 2015-2020
I am also speculating that the sun will be that quiet and that yes the climatic impacts will happen.
The difference is I have used past history to support this theme and have studied the latest solar/climatic relationships and interpret it differently then what Leif does ,if indeed he has done the same.
My point is we do not know who may or may not be correct here. So to say something just is not so, or for that matter is so without the data and observation is just premature.
But I think to suggest coincidence if it should go the way I say given the detailed approached I have taken is not a fair assessment of what I had to say ,especially if on the other hand if it were to go against what I said,and those of you that did not agree with me in that case, would say see we told you, you were dead wrong..
In other words I would loose no matter what outcome and that is not fair or the correct stance to take in my opinion and that does bother me some.
Secondary effects with my avg. low solar parameters are as follows:
Weak solar irradiance equates to less visible light lower ocean heat content.
Low solar wind will equate to a high cosmic ray count which will equate to more clouds,and more high latitude volcanic activity, a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
Low EUV light will equate to less UV light less ozone and or distribution, hence a more meridional atmospheric circulation . This would lead to more clouds,snow cover and precipitation.May slow down the thermohaline circulation. This applies mainly to N.H. where the biggest temp. declines will occur if I am correct.
Low ap index with occasional spikes will promote an increase in volcanic activity which will put more so2 into the stratosphere the result being it will aid in creating a more meridional atmospheric circulation and cause overall surface global cooling.
Increase in earth quakes due to prolonged solar activity will effect the spin of the earth which will favor a cold pdo, due to perturbation of the waters in the ocean basin. A cold PDO will promote more La Ninas, less El Ninos. This one I admit is highly speculative, and by far the most speculative out of all the others I have mentioned.
This is what is being speculated and or what I speculate might happen. Time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am
Since you have refused to reveal your forecasts to the world, you are not a scientist, and we cannot possibly assess the value of your forecasts.
As to your claim that I “refused [your] offer for [me] to examine the complete forecast method”, I did nothing of the sort. You invited me to come by your place. I declined. What does that have to do with your lack of transparency and openness, the willingness to reveal every scrap of data and information and method that is the hallmark of a scientist?
Let me say it again, you don’t seem to be getting it. UNTIL YOU REVEAL YOUR FORECASTS IN DETAIL TO THE WORLD, WE CANNOT TELL IF YOU ARE A GENIUS OR A FOOL. However, there is one thing we can tell—since you’ve consistently refused to reveal them, we can certainly tell that you are not a scientist.
Your refusal to publish them in detail clearly marks you as a charlatan … which I have known for a while from observing your outlandishly vague claims coupled with your unwillingness to be transparent about your forecasts, and which is why I had no interest in visiting you.
I have no desire to deal with a charlatan, Ulric. Oh, I don’t mean that you are consciously trying to fool folks, Ulric. It’s clear that you truly believe your brand of BS … but because you won’t reveal your forecasts, color me totally uninterested.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am
Say what? Whether you reveal your forecasts openly, clearly, and totally to the public so others can judge your work determines whether you are a scientist or a charlatan.
And that has nothing to do with my qualifications in the slightest, that’s entirely up to you.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am
Bullshit. I’ve never said that about Piers. Far from it. I’ve stated right out front that Piers has every right to conceal his methods, he’s a businessman. Here’s my quote from 2012, showing that once again you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about (emphasis mine):
So once again, Ulric, your claim is 180° in opposition to the facts.
I’ve said the same thing to Piers as I’ve said to you—reveal all of your forecasts and we’ll see whether you’re a genius or a fool. Note that just as with Piers, I have not asked you to reveal how you do what you do. You could do it by examining your underpants for all I care.
What Leif and Richard and I have asked for is a complete record of your predictions so we can assess your success. It has nothing to do with your method, that’s just more of your attempts at misdirection.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am
I’m interested not only in that forecast, but all of your forecasts, Ulric, as are Leif and Richard. Why do you think we keep asking for them? Because we’re interested in them, as any scientist would be.
So are you ever going to reveal all your forecasts? Or are you just going to continue whining and producing excuses?
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:16 am
Henry, you sound like one of those new age touchy-feely kind of folks who think everyone is worthy of respect.
Me, I’m not that politically correct. You want my respect for your science, you have to earn it by your actions, which in this case means making forecasts which are falsifiable. That means forecasts where we can tell, unequivocally and without dispute, whether your forecast is right or wrong. To date, I’ve seen nothing of the sort from you … so you are right, Henry—I have no respect for your scientific abilities at all.
Now you can change that … and I encourage you to do so.
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:20 am
This is a perfect example of what I discussed above, a forecast which is not falsifiable because there is an overwhelming lack of specificity. First, you don’t say what the “[40] latitudes” are. 40°-50° South? 40°-50° North? Both?
Next, you don’t say what would qualify as “some more rainfall”. One drop?
Next, you don’t define “flash flooding”, a very imprecise term for which there is no agreed upon definition.
Next, you don’t define what is a “cooling period”, a “warming period”, or (presumably) a “neutral period”. Cooling where? Globally? At 40°-50° North? Nor have you defined how much it would have to cool to qualify, or how long the cooling would have to last, or whether you are discussing minimum temperatures, average temperatures, or maximum temperatures …
Finally, although the band from 40° to 50° is huge, you look at one location and declare success, viz:
… yeah, that’s the ticket … compare ten years to sixty years, without any definition of what’s happening (cooling? warming? neutral? different at different times?), and then proclaim how good your method is
Do you see why I don’t respect someone who thinks that this vague piffle actually means something? That’s not a forecast, that’s a joke.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 3:44 pm
My point is we do not know who may or may not be correct here
My point is that I base what I say on how the Sun has been observed to behave in the past. You base it on how you wish it to behave in the future.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:24 am
Just as bad, same objections apply, see above.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:34 am
Come back when Ulric actually posts his forecasts, and we can talk. Until then, you’re defending a man who refuses to follow the basic rules of science by revealing his forecasts, all of them, in detail. His not doing that marks him as a charlatan. You defending his concealing of his forecasts marks you either as someone who doesn’t understand that science requires transparency, or as much of a charlatan as Ulric.
I don’t care in the slightest if Ulric has spent ten thousand hours explaining his system to you in detail and has revealed to you his every forecast. That’s meaningless.
The scientific method doesn’t say “Ulric has to reveal his forecasts to Henry”. It says Ulric has to reveal them to the world to be considered a scientist. He hasn’t done so. You do the math.
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Oh, please, please, yes, do that. Please go bother someone else.
Don’t go away mad.
Don’t go away mad.
Just go away … and take Henry Galt with you, there’s a good chap.
w.
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Whoopee. Why should anyone place any weight on your opinion? Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.
The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba”, meaning don’t take anyone’s word for anything. Including the word of Len Holliday, self-appointed expert.
Until Ulric posts his forecasts, all of them, he’s not ever going to get any traction here, nor should he. Real scientists reveal all of their forecasts, Len, every one of them including the ones that failed, so we can JUDGE FOR OURSELVES. Your pathetic attempt to substitute your judgement for ours marks you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the scientific method.
w.