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.
Look, I have nothing to gain by getting into this mess of words. All I can tell you is simple, I have some of the man’s forecast and they have been very accurate. It is a free world. You can believe or not believe. I could care less, one way or the other. And I am not an self-appointed expert. I am what I am. My word is my word. Take it or leave it. You don’t even know me and I don’t know you. I really don’t care to know you. I choose to spend my time with the real experts, people like Joe Bastardi. Joe Bastardi I do know and if I was a betting man, I would have to say that Joe Bastardi has already forgot more than you will ever know about the subject at hand. And with regard to my knowing about scientific method, I do not have to prove anything about myself to anyone except to GOD himself at Judgement Day! And by the way, you will do likewise! Have a Great Day! Len Holliday
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
I have some of the man’s forecast and they have been very accurate.
Undoubtedly you have some of the good ones. How many of the bad ones do you have?
Mr. Svalgaard, I’ll ask you the same question. How many of the bad ones do you have? Please send them to lenholliday@yahoo.com. If I am wrong, I’ll come on here and tell you I was wrong and that I am sorry! I’ll be looking for them! Thanks! Len Holliday
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:16 pm
I’ll ask you the same question.
Since Ulric has not produced a list or table with all his prediction, nobody here seem to have any. But you can show your scientific bent by posting your list here.
The latest New Scientist (14t September) has an article in which Lief features prominently. It is on the problem of how to count sun spots – the particular problem being that different standards have been used by different people over the centuries – and how a project is underway to re-analyse all the records going back over those centuries to use consistent definitions and get a more reliable index. Lief has mentioned bits of this in his comments, but it is interesting to see a more detailed version in print.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm
The latest New Scientist (14t September) has an article in which Leif features prominently. It is on the problem of how to count sun spots
http://www.leif.org/research/NS-Sept-2013-Sunspots.pdf
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Len, you seem to be operating under a massive misconception about how science works. You see, science is not about belief. It is about facts. As such, whether you believe in Ulric is immaterial. Whether I believe in Ulric is immaterial.
The sole issue of importance is whether his forecasts are accurate. To determine that, we need to examine all of his forecasts, good and bad, and assess their skill.
Unfortunately, Ulric refuses to reveal them. So it’s all just anecdote, and his claims, and your claims, are worthless.
You also say:
What part of “Ulric refuses to reveal his forecasts” seems unclear to you? We have almost none of his forecasts, good or bad. We just have his big mouth (and now yours) telling us how wonderful his forecasts are … oh, his son-in-law also thinks that Ulric is wonderful.
But without the actual forecasts, all of them, good and bad, there’s nothing there but a lot of empty claims.
w.
Normals.
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?
See http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html.
– Reversal of northern polar field (filtered): June 2012
– Reversal of average filtered polar field: April 2013
– Reversal of southern polar field (filtered): did not yet happen. “… the southern polar field as of July 2013 still remains weakly positive.” I just saw that the latest value is still + 2 (Sf).
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Since you have refused to reveal your forecasts to the world, you are not a scientist,”
You do not represent the World Willis.
“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.”
I have now refused to respond to your requests for very good reasons, I don’t care what you think anymore Willis.
“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.”
There have been two most excellent weather forecasters come on here and say how good my forecasts are.
“Bullshit. I’ve never said that about Piers. Far from it.”
That was Leif
“So are you ever going to reveal all your forecasts? Or are you just going to continue whining and producing excuses?”
Not to you, you have not apologized for your rude insults, and you have not rescinded from your prejudiced agenda.
“Len, you seem to be operating under a massive misconception about how science works.”
This is apparently how you think science works:
“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?”
You are still in Coventry.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“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.”
If you had visited you would have had your prejudice contradicted by what I would have shown you in forecasts, and in hindcasts.
You seem to be behaving as if your failed attempts to find any planetary-solar-weather connections, means that you can declare that there are none. If that is true, that would make you the charlatan, scientifically. Or maybe you don’t want anyone showing you up by finding all that you couldn’t find, so you are determined to keep the subject off the pitch. No doubt from your frequent rants you have acquired a strong prejudice publicly against all discussion of the subject. What makes you think that you have the right to set yourself up as such an arbiter? It’s not as if you are an expert on the subject.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 1:38 am you say to Willis in response to his clear and irrefutable complaints at your refusal to reveal your forecasting record of success and failure
Yes, earlier you also ran away from me like that when I demanded clear demonstration of your claimed forecasting skill.
Do you remember (up thread at September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am) your saying to me
and my replying at September 14, 2013 at 7:43 am
Days have passed, thousands of words have been written, and you are still making excuses for your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.
You see, Uliric, your claim that Willis “is not the world” is merely another of your excuses. By refusing to “demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do” to him then you are refusing to demonstrate it to all the world. As a scientist you don’t get to choose which PARTS of the world can have your demonstration: you reveal it to the world or you don’t get scientific recognition for your work.
Scientists who work in industrial, commercial or military research accept as part of their employment that they will not get scientific recognition for their work. When they take the job they agree that their work belongs to their employer and not to the world. But you are claiming you want scientific recognition for your work from people who are not employing you to provide that work. If you want that recognition then you must reveal the success and failure of your work to the world or
YOUR CLAIM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
” By refusing to “demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do” to him then you are refusing to demonstrate it to all the world.”
Huff puffery, I released public forecasts for all of last winter, and for Jan+Feb for this winter.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 3:31 am you say
There is no “Huff puffery” from me, but there is more evasiveness from you.
Anybody can make a forecast but of interest is whether those forecasts show any skill, and you adamantly refuse to provide data which demonstrates you have any forecast skill.
I will demonstrate.
I now provide my prediction for each day of the weather in London, England, over the next 12 months.
My prediction is that the weather on each day will be similar to the weather on the previous day.
I offer you a bet of £100 payable on 17 September 2014. If by that date my forecasts have been wrong on more than 183 days then I will pay you, otherwise you will pay £100 to a charity of my choice.
Will you take that bet?
You would be a fool to take it because I am certain to win, but I have no weather forecasting skill.
There are two reasons why my forecast is certain to win.
Firstly, I have not now defined “similar” and will choose my definition on 17 September 2014. Secondly, I would still be almost certain to win if we now agree a definition of “similar” because weather has persistence so most days ARE similar to the previous days.
See, I have now made a set of forecasts for a year (i.e. 365 forecasts). And I am willing to bet on the set. But I have no weather forecasting skill and I do not claim to have any.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Hindcasts are merely curve fitting..”
Not in this case, the correlations are so numerous and of such short and well defined time scales that a real connection can be safely assumed.
rikgheysens says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:09 am
Reversal of southern polar field (filtered): did not yet happen. “… the southern polar field as of July 2013 still remains weakly positive.” I just saw that the latest value is still + 2 (Sf).
The filtered values are somewhat artificial and smears out the timing.
Actual data is: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html#latest
2013:08:25_21h:07m:13s 11N -13S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 2Sf 6Avgf
The South pole [which is at this time a bit over the limb and not visible] looks reversed to me. When talking about ‘the polar fields’ we usually include all fields down to 55 degrees latitude.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:07 am
“Hindcasts are merely curve fitting..”
Not in this case, the correlations are so numerous and of such short and well defined time scales that a real connection can be safely assumed.
If they are so short, there should be thousands of them. Please prepare a list.
henry@ulric lyons
…sir….sir… can you please tell me,
(i have been holding my hand up for quite a while now, in this classroom,
even sitting up and standing up every now and then)
I just wanted to know from you, Ulric, whether or not you agree with William Arnolds theories
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
and is there perhaps an update to his theories,
indeed is William Arnold still alive?
richardscourtney says:
“..you adamantly refuse to provide data..”
To Willis yes I refuse, as he admitted that he does not bother to read what I write, very rudely too, evidenced by the fact that he jumped on board with Leif’s false account of what I had said, and that was after I had corrected Leif. Add that to all the venomous bile coming out of his mouth at me and at those here supporting my work as they have actually seen the results, and the fact the he has a self declared agenda to burst my balloon because His almighty self has decided it’s all bullshit, presumably because he found nothing there Himself. These are not suitable environs and conditions for an unbiased scientific evaluation of an important discovery. A tragicomedy for sure though, as those familiar with my work, know that it is the key to forecasting weather and climate at extreme range with precision. Why on Earth would Willis want to arrest such progress? 😉
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am
with Leif’s false account of what I had said
just quoting you:
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am you start your latest excuse for refusing to justify your claims saying
And you refuse to provide it to me, to Leif, and – it seems – anybody else who asks.
If your success is so good then please explain why you adamantly refuse to provide data which shows its success rate?
Oh, and do you accept my bet?
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If they are so short, there should be thousands of them. Please prepare a list.”
Many thousands and quit telling what me to do. I’ve had enough of you jumping the gun with your assumptions of how the data needs to be presented. There is no way I am going to start addressing all the hindcasts here on this thread, and I have no intention of responding to any more of your requests here either, for the reasons given earlier.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:55 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am
with Leif’s false account of what I had said
just quoting you:
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance
____________________________________________________________
There, not a word about forecasting for “EXTREME TEMPERATURES EVERY WEEK”, as I told you here earlier:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417265
You are wasting my time.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 6:01 am you say to Leif Svalgaard:
Well, I fully accept that because the only “reasons given earlier” by you is – freely translated – you are not able to provide data which substantiates any of your claims. But you are able – as in this case – to provide facile excuses for that inability.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:01 am
Many thousands and quit telling what me to do…. There is no way I am going to start addressing all the hindcasts here on this thread
If you want to taken seriously, you need to do what I tell you. Please don’t post the many thousand cases on WUWT, but make them available on your website or one of the many free sites.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:05 am
There, not a word about forecasting for “EXTREME TEMPERATURES EVERY WEEK”, as I told you here earlier:
You mean you don’t make a forecast every week? Well, since you haven’t shown us any and no table, how is one to know? One can only go with what you claim.
richardscourtney says:
“And you refuse to provide it to me, to Leif, and – it seems – anybody else who asks.”
Ray Ennis gets all my forecasts because I can trust him, and he’s on the whole a better long range forecaster than Piers for general weather types and temperatures, which is very impressive as he uses no solar factors. If you were a keen weather forecaster I would gladly share them with you too 😉
“Oh, and do you accept my bet?”
Only if you accept mine, I bet that there will always be weather.