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.
I may not agree with Willis and Leif, but I respect each of them and learn from each of them ,and do value their opinions.
At the same time I have been tough with Leif, but so has he with me, but I think for the most part we keep it civil.
I think the exchange on balance has been educational at least from by view point.
As I have said I rather be wrong then not know.
HenryP says:
September 17, 2013 at 9:49 am
Say what? Home alone? I’m in a friend’s house in England, and there are about fifteen people in the house at the moment.
Well, I did as you suggested. Here’s what I found:
Consider this a streetcorner, put down your trumpet, and please take your religion elsewhere. While it is clearly important to you, this is not the place for it.
w.
Salvatore, a true scientist should not have any emotional stake in being right or wrong. The hypothesis is either rejected or kept. So to rephrase your comment, “I would rather my hypothesis be wrong than not know” might demonstrate what I am commenting on here. I know those are not your words but said thusly you can see where your bias may be playing with your ability to see your work unemotionally, no bets on either side of the hypothesis, which is a must. A scientist states an hypothesis and then creates a controlled experiment to test whether or not the data supports or rejects the hypothesis. You seem to have placed yourself into your experiment. You should not be there. At its worst, emotional belief in the desired outcome leads to fudging the data, laundering it, and putting it through a spin cycle. At best it prevents the researcher from carrying out his/her all important due diligence to falsify his/her own hypothesis.
I would rather not know, than want to be either right or wrong. Else I violate one of the basic tenants of good research.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Ulric, you seem to think that falsifying your preposterous claims (aka “puncturing your balloon”) is some terrible thing.”
Come off it, you declared that is was bullshit and nonsense on face value. You are just attempting to wriggle out of your hasty prejudgement.
“And you stupidly only give your forecasts to your friends”
I wisely give them to weather forecasters, they are my peers.
“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.”
My winter 2013-14 forecast is public, as was last winters forecast, and it has gathered a fair amount of attention.
“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.”
You are the charlatan due to your prejudice, don’t bore me with your excuses any more.
“And as a pathetic excuse for a man, but that’s another question.”
Climbing on mirrors again.
Willis says
our relationship is of absolutely no importance to me
Henry says
Even among “friends”, you have no relationship with anyone.
You are pathetic.
.Normals.
I will just get this in, for posterity and … the children.
It’s quite funny seeing the demands for a quick fix/inquisition. But then, I have been on tenterhooks for many years and had to hang fire.
This discovery will lead to many new things. Chillax guys.
At one end;
A new celestial mechanics is being uncovered. Prizes await, in more than one field for those who figure out the why(s) from Ulric’s what(s).
At the other;
With a little effort anyone will be able to forecast temperatures for their family, county, state, country and, the world.
Who knows what between?
Scoff away. Time will tell. Mark my words.
Numen in Coventry says to Len:
“Your pathetic attempt to substitute your judgement for ours marks you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the scientific method.”
Mr. Holliday holds an advanced degree in the field of Mathematics as well as Meteorology. Of course remain sceptical until you have seen for yourself, but do not insult a superior who has given his professional opinion, it is far more than pathetic.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:56 am
then we can discuss the science.
As far as I can tell, you have no science to discuss. But produce your science and we shall see.
PAM, I am going to stick with what I said , no changes, no spin. Let the chips fall where they fall. Again my theory is very easy to falsify.
I would be interested on your take. I think you think earthly random events terrestrial in origin phase randomly into different patterns which gives a different climate. To summarize it very briefly.
Maybe ?
If that is not correct say so , and tell me where it is wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:02 am
Mainstream solar forecast are as good as AGW theory temperature forecast. They are both CLUELESS.
I am mainstream solar science and my forecast is good because I have good clues.
You were good on your prediction. Many were not. Why is that?
What were they missing?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 17, 2013 at 4:12 pm
You were good on your prediction. Many were not. Why is that?
What were they missing?
My prediction was based on good physics. Many were based on extrapolations, curve fitting, and statistics, which, as we know, are not guaranteed to work.
thanks
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:12 am
It seems you do not understand this strange “scientific method” thingie, where a scientist shows the world his work, and people try to find fault with it.
I declared your work bullshit and nonsense because you refused to show it to the world. Scientists show their work to everyone. Bullshit artists don’t.
It is clear which category you fall in. And no, I’m not trying to “wriggle out” of anything—I said your claims were bullshit then, I say they are bullshit now, and I will continue to say that until you produce your forecasts to prove me wrong … which you seem curiously reluctant to do.
Why are you so reluctant to prove me wrong, Ulric? You could give me and Richard and Leif a big thumb in the eye by publishing your forecasts and proving us all to be fools … and yet you don’t.
Gosh … I wonder why that might be …
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm
It doesn’t matter if Mr. Holliday is God himself and sees every sparrow fall. Science progresses by exposing your ideas, claims and forecasts to your enemies for falsification …
Science is not even in the picture when you only expose your ideas to your friends for falsification, no matter if they have more degrees than a thermometer.
I can just see Einstein saying “I have this brilliant idea, but I’m damn sure not going to tell anyone who disagrees with me, especially that fool Willis who was mean to me”.
Einstein, like all true scientists, exposed all of his ideas, root and branch, to everyone including people who truly believed he was an idiotic upstart fool. I strongly encourage you to do the same, otherwise people will continue to point and laugh …
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:57 am
If I understand you correctly, I’m sorry Ulric has kept you on “tenterhooks” for years and you’ve had to “hang fire” … sounds like Ulric is stringing you along too, and you haven’t called him on it. Your choice …
I note that you neither cite nor quote your imaginary “demands for a quick fix/inquisition”. That’s because there haven’t been any.
All we’ve asked is what is asked of every single scientist the world around—show us your ideas root and branch, with all the details, so we can see if they contain flaws.
That is not a demand for a “quick fix”, nor is it an “inquisition”. It is the burden placed on everyone who wants to be a scientist—transparency.
The fact that you interpret a call for transparency as a call for a “quick fix/inquisition” is quite revealing, however. It shows you don’t really understand the scientific method, which requires the same thing from me as it does from Ulric, the same thing my high school chemistry teacher drilled into me a half century ago. This is not some new idea, it’s not a call for an inquisition. It’s the same old requirement that each and every scientist must meet, or be considered a charlatan.
SHOW YOUR WORK
That’s all we’re asking Ulric to do. Show his work. He and you seem to consider this an outrage, an extreme requirement, something special we’re asking Ulric to do. It’s none of those, just the simple basic rule of science:
SHOW YOUR WORK
Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
w.
Willis, Leif, Richard et.al.: Though I am cringing as I read through your comments, I’m learning something about the strict integrity that is required to pass muster in the science world. If only you folks could have been among the peers that review papers that are used by the IPCC to endorse their charter… The outcome would have been a whole lot different.
“I declared your work bullshit and nonsense because you refused to show it to the world.”
You called it “Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.” at first, because you jumped on Leif’s bandwagon demanding numbers, which was before refusing anything. Talk about bullshit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417132
And here you say: “Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416900
What was junk, useless, and meaningless, were your criticisms, as the forecast cold shot for 2016 will affect most regions in the temperate north hemisphere.
But you have an agenda to keep up, so you jumped on board with Richards bullying for specifics, which is well stupid as it’s a non-specific forecast, it’s for the whole northern hemisphere. But you didn’t stop to think did you.
“If I understand you correctly, I’m sorry Ulric has kept you on “tenterhooks” for years and you’ve had to “hang fire” … sounds like Ulric is stringing you along too, and you haven’t called him on it. Your choice …”
Can we have some canned laughter please….
“Why are you so reluctant to prove me wrong, Ulric? You could give me and Richard and Leif a big thumb in the eye by publishing your forecasts and proving us all to be fools … and yet you don’t.
Gosh … I wonder why that might be …”
Simply because you’ll all get much worse than a thumb in the eye when I publish the whole thing.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Simply because you’ll all get much worse than a thumb in the eye when I publish the whole thing.
You seem to be afflicted with the same syndrome as some other [well-known] commenters on WUWT who compare themselves to Einstein and Newton. Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect