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:
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.
I am not convinced.
The Northern polar field changed from sign (– to +) on 2011:01:08, 2011:04:28, 2012:01:23, 2012:10:09, due to the yearly and inherent fluctuations.
The Southern polar field changed from sign (+ to -) on 2013:05:27. It is expected it will still change from sign several times in the future.
Why should it be not correct to attach some importance to the filtered values? Instead of choosing between the four dates of reversal of the Northern magnetic fields, http://www.solen.info/solar/ has chosen to place the reversal in June 2012, based on some calculation. I agree that all depends on the used methods of calculation but the filtered value has the advantage of presenting a single value instead of four or more values.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You seem to be afflicted with the same syndrome as some other [well-known] commenters on WUWT who compare themselves to Einstein and Newton.”
Another dose of Leif’s pollution of this blog. You just cannot help from keeping the personal stuff out can you, how pathetic. You are right down at Willis’ level of mindless insult, but instead of plain rude, it’s creepy slimy pretending to be clever, yuck.
To attempt to correct misconceptions and comprehension problems by serial offenders –
I have followed this work for 5 years. I have had complete disclosure and been invited for input at every step along the way and have no qualms with my claims about its revolutionary qualities. I have been asking for it’s (premature) publication for 2+ years because it will save lives. It will save livelihoods. It will reinvigorate some fields and, possibly create new ones.
Not because ‘I have been strung along too’ and ‘I haven’t called him on it’ or ‘I don’t really understand the scientific method’. Constant, unsubstantiated claims by gatekeepers who are not privvy to the facts do not alter anything. You had your chances. You blew them.
The work will be shown. Just not to a braying pack, barking up the wrong kettle of red herrings before it is published.
Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm you write
My “bullying”!? Are you mad?
You made a meaningless statement which you claimed was a “forecast”, and I demanded that you specify what the statement is intended to mean. And you call that “bullying”! Clearly, you are delusional.
What on Earth do you mean by “a non-specific forecast”?
If it is not “specific” it is not a forecast. To be a forecast it needs to specify (i.e. be specific about) what it is predicting. And the fact that it is “for the whole northern hemisphere” either makes it
(a) very specific because it applies to every place in the northern hemisphere (NH)
or
(b) completely meaningless because it is almost certain that somewhere in the NH will fulfill the forecast.
You said it was NOT (a) so your so-called forecast was – and is – completely meaningless.
You got upset because people DID “think” about that and could see you were spouting bollocks.
Richard
richardscourtney says:.
“You got upset because people DID “think” about that and could see you were spouting bollocks.”
That’s you doing the spouting. I forecast a deep low AO for March 2013, I put that out as a non-specific forecast for the N.H., and it came to pass, many regions had very cold conditions. I did a specific forecast based on that for the UK, and it was sound. For my 2016 forecast, I started the process of using analogues to investigate where this could impact most:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
If you want a specific local forecast for that, you can pay me for it like anyone else would have to, until then, there is no reason for me to talk to you about anything under the Sun.
Ulric Lyons:
In attempt to excuse your inexcusable behaviour, at September 18, 2013 at 3:52 am you make yet another falsehood.
You say
Oh, no. You claimed much more than that in another thread. You claimed at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1419649
When called on that you tried to bluster it out and failed. My response to your untrue bluster is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1420122
Ulric, stop making stuff up or choose to leave WUWT alone.
Richard
Ulric Lyons:
I have answered your change of subject in my post at September 18, 2013 at 4:20 am.
Perhaps you will now return to my previous post at September 18, 2013 at 2:21 am which your change of subject attempted to evade.
Richard
rikgheysens says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:07 am
I am not convinced.
You don’t have to be convinced. Often people believe what they wish to believe.
the filtered value has the advantage of presenting a single value
A more physical and perhaps less dubious value is the ‘dipole moment’, i.e. the difference between the North and South polar fields. It is also just a single value and the annual variation is automatically removed: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:10 pm
““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.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
Then simply do it and be done with it, many of us wait with baited breath. (yes I purposely used baited because it smells a bit fishy to me)
From the creep slimy pretension department:
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:11 am
I have followed this work for 5 years…about its revolutionary qualities. I have been asking for it’s (premature) publication for 2+ years because it will save lives.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:52 am
If you want a specific local forecast for that, you can pay me for it like anyone else would have to
What is the price of a saved life?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:36 am
Another dose of Leif’s pollution of this blog. You just cannot help from keeping the personal stuff out can you, how pathetic. You are right down at Willis’ level of mindless insult, but instead of plain rude, it’s creepy slimy pretending to be clever, yuck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Despite your claims of disgust you keep coming back for more. Based on this thread I would say your passion is being intellectually kicked around rather than forecasting.
There are many good contributors here on WUWT but, if someone were to ask who is the most willing to show their methods, work, data, and further to promote their mistakes so everyone can see? I would reply Willis and Leif. They have done so many times.
You, Ulric, on the other hand display none of those qualities. If you want to convince me of the low character of these two I will save you the argument and agree with you out of hand, because the truth of your argument is irrelevant. I can judge their contribution by the information they provide. For you, Ulric, I can do the same. You bring nothing to the table, and your worth is plain to see.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:54 am
Pretending to be clever but coming across as a quote mining conflation artist. That disgusted me.
Ulric doesn’t prompt me to say what I say. He probably wishes I would shut up – I don’t know because I don’t often discuss with him what is said in forums.
Ulric makes public any upcoming climate event he sees as a danger to individuals and nations. As he has done ^ in this thread ^.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416780
Isn’t that what started all this?
Ulric will still sell local forecasts after his work is published.
Where does that leave your sick question?
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:04 am
Isn’t that what started all this?
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
Sounds like the text on the paper slip in a Chinese Fortune Cookie.
Where does that leave your sick question
Without an answer, it seems.
What is the price of a saved life?
To the Met Office, many many millions, and they cannot forecast at long range to save their lives.
“Sounds like the text on the paper slip in a Chinese Fortune Cookie.”
Sounds like some cheap disparaging humour, more canned laughter please….
(you’ll get that one back at you at the appropriate moment, after all it is yours)
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:07 am
they cannot forecast at long range to save their lives.
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
So, how many lives do you estimate that forecast will save?
Ulric Lyons:
It seems we have returned to where we started.
My post in this thread at September 14, 2013 at 3:59 am is the post immediately following your post which it addressed and which started this argument.
That post from me said in total
Please note that the post I have copied was 4 days and many, many posts ago.
You have still not converted your arm-waving point into a forecast and you are still whinging that Leif, Willis and I point out it is not a forecast.
Richard
Leif, I want your best honest estimate on what you think the chances are for all of the following solar parameters averaging at or below the values I mention below for a period of at least three years or longer.
I want to first say with a question ,I think we have a fair chance because this looks like this could be a true solar grand mimimum?
Let me ask it to you this way. Do you think we are in the process of having a grand solar minimum? If yes, or if you think one was to occur would you feel the solar parameters I have mentioned would then be attainable under that condition of a grand solar minimum for a period of at least three years? thanks
the values as follows:
solar flux sub 90
solarwind 350km
solar irradiance off .015%
ap index 5.0 or lower
cosmic ray count 6500 or more per minute
e10.7 flux sub 100
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 10:36 am
Leif, I want your best honest estimate on what you think the chances are for all of the following solar parameters averaging at or below the values I mention below for a period of at least three years or longer.
Everything I say is my honest estimate or opinion. Before you were using a period of five years, now it is three years. You have to be specific: which years exactly?
I think we have a fair chance because this looks like this could be a true solar grand minimum?
‘could be’? or ‘will be’?
Henry (the teacher now,
not to be confused with Henry Galt)
says
This is like watching a Stephen King serial…
Surely the fact that Ulric refuses to comment on anything I ask him should have given you all the clues?
1)
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
2)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
:: a clear pattern emerging from my own investigations, where the best fit must be a sine wave fit of 88 years wavelength, otherwise I don’t know where we are going to end up.
3)
seeing as that maxima were dropping off since 1995 but we don’t see average temps. dropping until 2002 means that there is a bit of delay from energy in to energy out..On average I think the total per half cycle is 5-7 year, assuming no major volcanic eruptions happen on earth…
That brings us exactly at a 100 year cycle which has been identified from the flooding of the Nile, by William Arnold
4)
Both William Arnold and myself find a a correlation with the planets, mainly Saturn and Uranus, he on his own and me on my own.
5)
Ulric has mentioned somewhere his 110 year cycle cycle. This is also consistent with the above, where arguments could be made that the actual weather cycle varies from 90-110 years, but on average it is still 100.
6)
So, all Ulric does, is look at the weather pattern 90-110 years ago (if he has those data), see if he notices the similar weather pattern emerging now, including the lunar settings, and make fairly accurate predictions on the weather now or later.
I am still trying to find out exactly where we are on that scale, i.e. 90 versus 110 year cycle
– I am sure Ulric could give me more clues on that –
(I am pretty sure he has that identified in fine details)
but in the meantime I will stick with my own prediction that the major catastrophic droughts will occur from 2021 until 2028 on the great plains of America. . I think that drier conditions will increase above 40 latitudes from now until then, culminating in that severe drought, while rain/clouds/ flash flooding will increase -30>x>30 from now until 2039.
Henry
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So, how many lives do you estimate that forecast will save?”
With a research budget projections could be made. There’s a lot of variables though, particularly whether precautions are taken or not.
HenryP says:
“So, all Ulric does, is look at the weather pattern 90-110 years ago..”
False, I use no such analogue for anything at the scale of weather.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:14 am
With a research budget projections could be made.
Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands:
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
ric hard says:
“You have still not converted your arm-waving point into a forecast and you are still whinging that Leif, Willis and I point out it is not a forecast.”
You are still whinging that it is not a forecast, but here is that forecast:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands”
Exactly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420456