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.
BobW in NC says:September 13, 2013 at 5:44 am
Do I recall correctly that back in early 2007 WUWT reported a stunning and unexpected downward step shift in one of these metrics?
Bob, it is the step function at Oct. 2005 that I believe Anthony pointed out in the AP Progression chart.
Madman2001 said on September 13, 2013 at 6:18 am:
This is how I recall it, but I am not now nor have I ever been involved in the managing of this blog thus this shall not be considered authoritative.
As a bog-standard free WordPress-dot-com blog, the ads are the “price” of the free hosting. Thus originally WUWT got nothing. Ad clicking just showed your appreciation of said free hosting.
A few years back, being one of WordPress’ most highly-trafficked blogs earned Mr. Watts a small cut of the ad revenue. Figuring in time spent on running the blog versus revenue share, he would have made considerably more by wandering the streets of Chico looking for recyclables to turn in for the deposits.
Lately he had a good offer from WordPress to become an Enterprise site, which would come with some nice perks at the cost of paying hosting fees, and it was tried out, but didn’t quite work out. Maybe the site will go that way at a later date, maybe not.
The sun’s been in a bit of a funk for the last week. Unless it picks up quite a bit over the next two weeks, Sept’s numbers are going to be a lot lower than Aug’s.
I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro telsa) plot changes between cycles with the peak being skewed right in cycle 21, roughly centered for cycle 22, then skewed left for cycles 23 and 24. Is this a fair observation and can anyone suggested an explanation? Perhaps something to do with speed of circulation and quantity of material cycled to the poles?
Hathaway saw the same things Svalgaard saw way back when, but in my opinion he hadn’t the courage of his convictions. The following was my observation at the time (and Svalgaard took issue with that comment):
Claude Harvey says:
January 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
The following is pure supposition on my part and is supported by nothing more than a curious, 180 degree change in course I observed in Hathaway.
I don’t think Hathaway is the total idiot his series of prognostications might imply. I distinctly remember an article he either wrote or that featured him in which he expressed alarm that the great solar conveyor belt had essentially ground to a halt. That was long before cycle #24 punked out almost entirely. A couple months later he was being quoted as saying in effect, “There is nothing at all unusual about the current dearth of sunspots. Everything is perfectly normal.”
My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure. There was immense pressure to deny any development that might distract from the political mantra that “We’re all going to burn up and die soon if we don’t drown first, unless we drastically restrict fossil fuel use.”
How about a contest to guess the first month with a spotless day?
MJB says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro tesla) plot changes between cycles
The sun is just a messy place…
Claude Harvey says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
“My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure.”
As Leif has said numerous times, the insurers of satellites depend on the solar predictions to set rates. So perhaps erring on the high side wasn’t so agenda driven as it was precautionary.
The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless. I don’t use it as a metric for the strength or lack of strength of solar activity. Instead I rather use the daily solar flux reading and ap index to get a much more objective reading on what the sun is doing.
The predictions have been terrible by mainstream, and the month of Sep. just brings this fact out more and more.
Two shoes are going to fall this decade and have infact already started, the first being solar activity in general is turning out to be much weaker then what has been predicted by mainstream, and secondly the solar /climate connections will become much more established as this decade proceeds.
The temperature trend contiunes to show no increase despite increasing amounts of co2. If anything since this very quiet period of sub solar activity started post 2005,the temperature trend has been slightly down.
It will be acclerating going forward.
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
And why does the SORCE have a gap at the beginning of August for TSI, is the instrument having trouble?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
One of the things, and Lief may have pointed this out, the Sun TSI is still high even though it seems to have reached it’s peak. The low level activity on the Sun’s surface even though it is not very visible is spread over the entire solar disk and is a significant component of Solar maximum. As long as the TSI is at it’s maximum, we still have a Solar maximum. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
As one can see from this article from the web-site icecap; as recently as year 2006 NASA was predicting solar cycle 24 to be the strongest in 300 years!
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
This article is by Art Horn, on the web-site ICECAP.COM and can be viewed there.
CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:59 am
The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless.
The counting of sunspots has not changed since 1947. You know not whereof you speak.
LT says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
The instrument has failed.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
As predicted.
One of the most remarkable items of this cycle is the lack of earth directed CME’S,and this is verified by the ap index over the course of this cycle which is as a wholeis close to if not at record lows.
What counts as far as the climate is the CME’S effect on the AP index which will have an impact on the climate, if certain thresholds are attained.
TonyK says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:58 am
Quick! Send Cillian Murphy with a REALLY big bomb…..
____________________________
Hey, Sunshine was a great movie. Don’t mock it… (well it had some great CG shots of the sun anyway)
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
COUNTER TO WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED NASA WAS PREDICTING SUNSPOT CYCLE 24 TO BE ONE OF THE STRONGEST IN 300 YEARS, AS RECENTLY AS YEAR 2006.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:08 am
CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.
You know not whereof you speak. There have been more CMEs this cycle than in the previous cycle.
Re. solar slumps, is there any update on the “no sign at all of Cycle 25” story from a couple of years ago, as mentioned e.g. here?
I appreciate Dr. Svalgaard’s contributions to WUWT even if they are somewhat acerbic! 🙂 He keeps it real. Maybe this paper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf
suggests the mechanism by which the Sun’s activity can affect the climate. We certainly have a real-life laboratory to study this and other hypotheses about the Earth’s climate.
Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it. Other sites count micro-specks and then put the total through some mumbo-jumbo formula, dividing the number of specks by 60%, or some such thing. That doesn’t make much sense to me, because if it couldn’t be seen then it couldn’t be seen. Zero is zero, and putting zero through mumbo-jumbo and getting a number like fifty just doesn’t seem right.
For example, the layman’s site just went through five straight “spotless” days, but Locarno was getting raw numbers like 70. I looked at the pictures of the sun from those days, and you can barely see the specks even with the sun so magnified that only a quarter of the golden orb fits on your video screen. To say such a sun would be called anything other than “spotless” during prior times is patently absurd.
I think our modern counts come out on the high side, especially when you are comparing with counts from SP5, back around 1795.
Of course, some will now say spots aren’t a good way to measure. We have better gizmos and gadgets to measure with, now. However, because they didn’t have those gizmos and gadgets back in 1795, we can’t compare. Unless, of course, we use a gizmo-and-gadget-proxy from 1795.
You’ll have to forgive me, but I seem to have developed an odd allergy. When I hear the word “proxy” I am hit by unconquerable spasms of squirming. So could we please stick with just “sunspots,” out of compassion for people with my handicap?
Every one should view the solar disc today and look at the modern sunspot count. They have the ridiculous number of 58 ,with a solar disc which is almost blank.
Area coverage sure will not jive with this susnpot count. Infact the sunspot count for the whole month of Sep, is a joke and does not jive with area coverage in the least.
LT says, September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
Details here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status
Caleb you are exactly right , and area coverage which they do on Layman gives the true picture of sunspot activity.
This modern methold of sunspot counting is in a word USELESS.