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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You mean you don’t make a forecast every week?”
You made an assumption that I forecast for each week:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417051
I forecast for all days in every month. I forecast for periods of above normal temperature, and I forecast for periods below normals, and of course I forecast for when I think it will be around normal, which is not much of the time. I couple that with what I have observed with temperature-precipitation relationships through the year to then estimate precipitation levels. I like to be within 2 days for temperature deviations, and would call a fail if it is more than 3 days out.
The weekly scale assessment I gave earlier is just a convenient and quick way to give an approximate performance level.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:41 am
The weekly scale assessment I gave earlier is just a convenient and quick way to give an approximate performance level.
So it will easy to produce a list going back many years with a skill-score every week.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So it will easy to produce a list going back many years with a skill-score every week.”
If you are a smart lad I could easily train you up to forecast as well as I can. But you again don’t seem to be following my drift, fine evaluation requires comparing forecast deviation from normal periods with those observed, the weekly division is arbitrary and would not give the most accurate performance evaluation. Anyways, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing the matter further, unless there is assured decorum.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:18 am
fine evaluation requires comparing forecast deviation from normal periods with those observed
One would assume that you do this as a matter of course to turn your method into science, but perhaps one is wrong about that.
Anyways, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing the matter further, unless there is assured decorum.
We have given you a lot of attention [more than you deserve IMHO], but you have not put that to good use. If you would promise to go away [for good] that would also help to keep the pollution of WUWT down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If you would promise to go away [for good] that would also help to keep the pollution of WUWT down.”
I’ll promise to watch you every step, and Willis too, and point merrily out at every available opportunity, where each of your individual slanders and insults are pure projections.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:36 am
where each of your individual slanders and insults are pure projections.
so you are giving science short shrift and will concentrate on personal stuff. Perhaps that is what you do better.
“keep the pollution of WUWT down” ??
Tell Willis to leave then, he’s the rudest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“so you are giving science short shrift and will concentrate on personal stuff. Perhaps that is what you do better.”
I am progressing science, you are the grand master of “personal stuff”, you readily and frequently insult certain folk on this blog, it’s full of it. Projection Number 1 on your new list Leif.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 7:44 am you assert
No! Absolutely not!
Your extreme rudeness in polluting WUWT with your unsubstantiated and pseudoscientific astrological claims is inexcusable. Willis’ responses to it are appropriate and proper.
Richard
@Leif
Yes I am concentrating on your personal stuff as I abhor it. Clean you act up and then we can discuss the science. End of.
richardscourtney says:
” Willis’ responses to it are appropriate and proper.”
E.g.;
“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?”
Are you a fascist Richard?
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 8:00 am you quote a good example of Willis making a clear and rational argument concerning why he is exposing your refusal to provide evidence to support your pseudoscientific claims.
You then ask me
No, I am at the other end of the political spectrum. I am a socialist of the old-fashioned British kind. And I don’t see what my politics have to do with anything under discussion.
On the other hand, I think it is very relevant that in this thread you have demonstrated you are a charlatan who is attempting to peddle unsubstantiated and pseudoscientific astrological claims.
Richard
well, this is festive season here.
I agree with Ulric that the rudeness by certain people here is intolerable
I am reminded of what I wrote a long time ago:
BASIC RULES FOR A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP
You and me have a relationship that is very important to me! Yet we are also different persons with differing needs, interests and values. Let us always be open and honest with our communication so that we may know and understand each other’s values and needs. If you do something that prevents me from getting what I need or clashes with what I value dearly, I will always tell this you openly, not blaming you, but offering you the opportunity to change your behavior out of respect for me. Equally, I ask you to do exactly the same if you find my behavior unacceptable and to forgive me if I wittingly or unwittingly hurt you.
In any relationship, conflicts are unavoidable; it is how you handle them that will make or break a relationship. Let us therefore agree that we will always solve our conflicts without using my or your power to win at the expense of the other. Particularly money (presents), sex or the threat of the ending of this relationship, should never be used to try to gain influence. We must always look for a solution to our conflict that will satisfy both your and my needs. Nobody loses, we both win.
When you experience problems in life, I will always listen to you with empathy and understanding and I will try and help you find your own solutions – not forcing my solutions upon you. Please listen to me when I am looking for a solution to my problems.
In this way we will both develop and grow and we will continue to be together because of our interest in each other. The most important thing to remember is that we nurture our love and respect for each other only by expressing it to each other every day when we meet.
Henry
richardscourtney says:
“..a good example of Willis making a clear and rational argument..”
Like;
“if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit.”?
You are the one who is attempting to peddle unsubstantiated claims, it’s not clear or rational, neither are you, goodbye please.
Ulric Lyons:
re your silly post at September 17, 2013 at 8:40 am
I am making no claims. But you are making unsubstantiated pseudoscieentific claims and you refuse to provide any evidence to back them up.
As for your saying to me
No chance! I don’t run away like you.
I am staying to keep holding your feet to the fire until you provide data which demonstrates the success and failure rates of your claimed forecast method.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“I am staying to keep holding your feet to the fire until you provide data…”
Fascist.
HenryP:
re your post at September 17, 2013 at 8:31 am
The “certain people” providing “rudeness” here are you and Ulric. It is very rude to enter somewhere and to pollute the floor with excrement as you are doing.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Why not do the whole witch hunt thing and submerse me, I was born in the Caul so I shouldn’t drown, so I guess you’ll end up burning me anyway.
@Ulric
please do provide an answer to me on my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1419251
to confirm the results of my final report
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
…/
thanks
HenryP says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:31 am
Well, I’m reminded of something I’m writing just now.
I’ve never met you, you seem totally lacking in understanding of the scientific method, and our relationship is of absolutely no importance to me!
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:00 am
Ulric, you seem to think that falsifying your preposterous claims (aka “puncturing your balloon”) is some terrible thing. In fact, that’s how science works. One man makes a claim and provides all his data, logic, code, math, and forecasts to back it up.
Then other scientists try to tear his ideas to shreds, to falsify his claims, to poke holes in his logic, in other words, to puncture his balloon. That process of falsification is the way, and the only way, that science advances.
However, that can only happen with an honest scientist who is willing to expose his ideas to the world. Phil Jones famously said he wouldn’t give his data to Warwick Hughes because Warwick would try to find fault with it … duh, Phil, it’s called the “scientific method”.
Me, I advise giving your data and claims and etc to your worst enemy … because if they can’t puncture your balloon, you’re home free. That’s why I publish all of my data and code and logic and ideas on the web. There’s lots of folks out there like you who can’t stand me … so when you can’t find holes in my work, I know it’s been seriously vetted.
You, on the other hand, hide in the darkness. You are continually finding every possible excuse to keep people from ever seeing your forecasts. At the moment you’re all on about Waaa, boo hoo, Willis is being mean and krool, so I’m not showing my data.
And you stupidly only give your forecasts to your friends, when your best course is to give them to people who dislike you.
Here’s the crazy part. You could easily have the last laugh on all of us if your forecasts actually worked—just publish them and the world will be in awe of your abilities.
Or not, we may find that they are so vague as to be useless, or just plain wrong … which of course is why you are concealing them from the world.
Your continuing insistence on hiding your data marks you as a charlatan.
Your attempt to justify hiding your data, on the pathetic grounds that I’m a beast, a heartless unkind beast who has been mean and unkind and impolite to your highness, marks you as a charlatan of the lowest order.
And as a pathetic excuse for a man, but that’s another question.
w.
Ulric Lyons:
I am providing the only appropriate response to your post at September 17, 2013 at 8:47 am.
Oooh, Diddums, who has dropped his rattle, then? Give me a moment so I can find it and put it back in your cot.
Richard
Willis says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1419429
Henry says
…actually …..
you just proved my point
(by not subscribing to the set principles)
So, home alone,
are you?
It was not that difficult to figure that one out
(no science needed)
don’t forget
science and religion are just two different ways of finding truth
Jesus said: I am the Truth
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Study Jesus and you will find the truth
Joe Bastardi@BigJoeBastardi3h
Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – NASA Science http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ …
from Dec 2006 on sunspot cycle now
These are the kind of predictions that tel me they don’t know what they are talking about, in contrat to the scientist that subscribe to anular momentum theory, who al predicted solar cycle 24 would be weak.
Mainstream solar forecast are as good as AGW theory temperature forecast. They are both CLUELESS.