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.
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:11 am
Henry, Ulric needs to show his work, not to me, not to a “braying pack”, not to Leif or Richard, but to the world. Do you think that we and the “braying pack” will somehow disappear if he publishes it in two years or five or ten years? Really?
Because I hate to disillusion you, but Ulric’s work will face the same identical hostile reception whether you publish today or in ten years.
This is not because people don’t like Ulric. It is because SCIENCE WORKS BY FALSIFICATION, and it’s a blood sport. Someone makes a claim, and then everyone who disagrees tries to rip the claim to shreds. You will face that no matter when Ulric finally decides to stop hiding his forecasts.
Your idea that you can avoid that blood sport by delay … sorry, not gonna happen. Science is not going to go away.
And while you may think that it is important that you approve of and agree with Ulric’s work, that means nothing. It’s not you that Ulric has to convince.
It is the world of scientists, including those here on WUWT, that you and Ulric need to convince. And the only way to do that is to publish all of your forecasts, the good and the bad, so that people who are not the claimant’s best friends and son-in-law can examine them. At present, your claim is equivalent to my saying “But my wife thinks I’m right about the science” … sorry but that doesn’t count. I could care less whether you think your father-in-law is a brilliant scientist. Yours is the total opposite of an unbiased opinion. I say again that the best place to give your work is to your worst enemies—if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.
Instead Ulric has shown it to his family and good friends … and you think that swings any weight? Get real.
As to whether it is “hard for us guys to grasp” that “the work will be shown”, we grasp quite clearly that a) you and Ulric are refusing to show it, and b) you say you’ll show it somewhere somehow sometime. Gosh … how reassuring, I feel much better now.
Call me crazy, but that kind of vague promise don’t impress me much. That’s like Wimpy in Popeye saying “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” … and near as I can recall, Wimpy never did pay Popeye.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:31 am
“Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands”
Exactly
Non-responsive nonsense. But as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w with a research budget you might do better…
Get real.
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:04 am
Clicking on the link brings us this “forecast” from Ulric
Gosh, thanks, Henry. You mean that Ulric predicts that some people might actually go hungry in 2016/17, or perhaps 2017/18, or perhaps 2018/19, or perhaps 2019/20, or perhaps 2021/22, or perhaps 2022/23, or perhaps 2023/24, or perhaps 2024/25, or perhaps 2025/26?
And this will happen because at some time during those summers, there may actually be spells that are colder than usual? That’s shocking news! How could Ulric possibly make such a detailed prediction? He must have deep insight into the climate.
I can’t thank Ulric enough for that forecast, I’m sure that the nations will take heed, and that many lives will be saved due to Ulric’s wisdom …
Do I need to add the /sarc tag? Considering who I’m addressing, I suppose I do.
w.
Leif, could you please clarify a few things for me:
— Regarding the graph “http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png” – is this a measure of the polar fields we observe for reversals or is this showing the offset of the dipole moment?
— You mention from your observation that you may think that the south has reversed. What imagery are you looking at to arrive at this? Got a link? And what do you look for in this imagery to arrive at this conclusion? I assume that you are looking at some sort of magnetogram that shows polarity.
— When will we be updated with the latest figures from WSO for Solar Polar fields? Last line is from 8/25 and shows the SH at 2sf. “http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html”
— Regarding heliospheric cosmix ray transport (GCR’s) I came across this slide from one of your ppt’s “Solar Wind During the Maunder Minimum”. (http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Wind%20During%20the%20Maunder%20Minimum.ppt)
My question is about slide 26. If I am understanding this correctly it seems as if in a positive N polar cycle the heliospheric current sheet pushes GCR’s out. Is this out push amplified by the solar wind? It also looks as if they cycle back into the sun riding above the sheet.
In a negative N polar phase it seems as if GCR’s are pulled into the sun centrally then sent out. In both phases, just how close to the sun do these GCR’s get before being blasted away by the solar wind or do they actually penetrate the sun? If they do, do we have any solid data or just theories on if they influence sunspots, TSI, etc..? I know that very high energies GCR’s can penetrate earth irrespective of our magnetic fields, which stands to reason that these can also penetrate the IMF without deflection and go directly to the sun.
Last question – That slide also depicts the heliospheric current sheet shape at minimum and maximun. Flatter at minimum and more corrugated at max. If we could visualize it now, taking into account this very weak solar max, would it fall somewhere in between in shape?
Sorry for all the questions, just a lurker here trying to learn more. TIA..
Willis Eschenbach says:
“How could Ulric possibly make such a detailed prediction? He must have deep insight into the climate.”
Bulls eye. Watch my winter 2013/14 forecast roll out, it’s deterministic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Get real.”
You should take your own medicine.
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event, hence I cannot supply you with a figure.
“But as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w with a research budget you might do better…”
Definitely need canned laughter for that one….
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:48 am
is this a measure of the polar fields we observe for reversals or is this showing the offset of the dipole moment?
It shows many things: red curve: polar fields in the south; blue curve: polar fields in the north; N-S green curve: difference between North and South [this is the overall dipole].
– You mention from your observation that you may think that the south has reversed.
At WSO we measure the average field in the black square shown in Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf from magnetograms as shown in Figure 2. The last three months that field in the South has been negative. We cannot at this time actually see the South pole as it is just over the limb but we can see what is close to the pole.
When will we be updated with the latest figures from WSO for Solar Polar fields?
It is up-to-date as of the latest data. There is one little subtlety: We average 30 days of observations [about one rotation] so the latest average is always about a month behind real time.
If I am understanding this correctly it seems as if in a positive N polar cycle the heliospheric current sheet pushes GCR’s out. Is this out push amplified by the solar wind? It also looks as if they cycle back into the sun riding above the sheet.
This is a very small effect. What happens is that for S-N polarity cosmic rays have [a little bit] easier access near the equator and for N-S polarity the access is [a little bit] easier near the poles. The arrows can be misleading as the solar wind always pushes the cosmic rays out.
If they do, do we have any solid data or just theories on if they influence sunspots, TSI, etc..?
The cosmic rays represent so little energy that they have no influence on solar activity.
If we could visualize it now, taking into account this very weak solar max, would it fall somewhere in between in shape?
Yes, take a look at Slides 15-16 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:59 am
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event,
Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.”
I do not agree with your description, and more detail can be readily included, such as regional impacts for the US and other continental areas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:59 am
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event,
Leif Svalgaard says
“Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Conflation, I am making a forecast for weather conditions, not number of deaths.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I am making a forecast for weather conditions, not number of deaths.
In that case it should be easy to produce the list of forecasts for the past several years that we have been asking for. So, where is it?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm
The cosmic rays represent so little energy that they have no influence on solar activity.
I know you say that the solar wind always pushes the cosmic rays out..but..
What’s the process that causes enough radioactive decay for the GCR’s to lose that much energy? Is it magnetic or electrical in nature due to interactions with the IMF/Heliospheric current sheet or something else? I am I even close? Just thinking for instance that a negative Bz in the IMF may “reconnect” with a positively charged cosmic particle, in which case their would be a sort of conduit back to the sun.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“In that case it should be easy to produce the list of forecasts for the past several years that we have been asking for. So, where is it?”
You have not cleaned up your act yet bully boy. And as before, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing this further.
Nor shall I.
Normals
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
What’s the process that causes enough radioactive decay for the GCR’s to lose that much energy?
The cosmic rays do not lose energy nor do they decay. The reason we have a solar modulation is that the path of the cosmics is changed such that the ‘bounce’ off the solar system and do not penetrate into the inner solar system. See Figure 16 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Am I even close?
no
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I will not be discussing this further
Without a list you have nothing to discuss, so your reaction is fully consistent and understandable, but then you also have no credibility. If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Nor shall I.
Good riddance.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Do you think that we and the “braying pack” will somehow disappear if he publishes it in two years or five or ten years? Really?”
I certainly do hope not, you can carry on braying in the background while I let some Gentlemen try and find holes in it. People that actually read what is said, who are not prejudiced, and who do not waste time by quoting misquotes made by others.
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Am I even close?
when a cosmic ray meets the solar system is will see a tangled magnetic field in the solar wind. Because magnetic fields can bend the path of the charged cosmic ray particles a cosmic ray may change its direction and by change head back out of the solar system again, so we see less cosmic rays the more tangled the field is. The heliospheric current sheet as it wraps around the sun some 25 times represents a large source of tangled magnetic fields so a cosmic ray trying to penetrate through those 25 spiral ‘arms ‘ of the current sheet can be deflected out of the solar system [this happens to a few percent of them]. If the cosmic ray comes in ‘above’ the current sheet [e.g. over the poles] it does not run the gauntlet of deflecting tangles and will not be deflected back out. Since at solar minimum the current sheet is rather flat, most cosmic rays will not hit it and be deflected and we have a maximum of cosmic rays. At solar maximum the current sheet extends to high latitudes and it is almost impossible for a cosmic ray to avoid hitting the sheet and some will be deflected back out again, so we have a minimum of cosmic rays. The polarity of the solar poles modifies that picture a little bit, because the deflection also depends on the direction of the magnetic field, but this complication is small compared to the general variation that simply is due to the variation of the latitudinal extent of the current sheet with the solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.”
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.”
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
Welcome to the real world. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you don’t have that you will find a very hostile reception everywhere.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
” It is the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere”
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
“Most people are probably unaware of the amount of extraordinary evidence required for most scientific claims. Not only must the experiments be written up in such a way that others can challenge the assumptions and be able to spot errors, but they must also be independently replicated. In addition, most scientific discoveries have provenance – that is, we know how and why we decided to test this claim in the first place. “
Salvatore, I can’t believe you asked Leif to tell you what he thinks the Sun might do. Because your premise depends on Solar parameters and mechanisms teleconnecting with Earth, you must already know a great deal about the parameters you list and therefore the Sun. So why then do you need to ask Leif? Because you did it seems to me you are not the expert on your thesis. That tells me a lot about the rest of your thesis. And should be a warning to all those who are your followers.
In fact most of our Solar/cosmic/climate thesis peddlers that comment on this blog and elsewhere are similar in that they are actually not the expert they need must be, yet they parade around as if they are. In reality they are naked and rather fun to watch being poked with a stick, probably as much fun as the young boy had when declaring the Emperor was walking around in such a state as you are.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..but they must also be independently replicated.”
Independently applied, by weather forecasters.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm you write in full
You do not know what a gentleman is. I offered you advice on what would be needed to publish a scientific paper in a scientific journal (n.b. I am a member of an Editorial Board of a journal) and your response was to deny I was sincere in my offering the advice.
Be assured, if you ever do publish something then be assured some absolute bar-stewards will set upon it like a pack of wolves. You have been treated gently here.
We DID “read what is said” by you and we asked you to explain it. Four days later you still have not.
We are sceptical, not prejudiced, but I guarantee that some prejudiced people will respond to anything you claim. And they will walk all over you and trample you into the dust if you are as vague, evasive and secretive as you have been here.
And it is our time you have wasted because after all this time and effort we have still not obtained any evidence from you that any of your claims of your forecast skill have any validity. All we have learned is that you have impressed some friends and relatives of yours.
Furthermore, your problem has been that whenever you have tried to evade an issue then you have had your ‘feet held to the fire’ by quotes – NOT misquotes – of your own words.
Frankly, your post could not have been more wrong. You could learn from this, but your posts on WUWT imply that you won’t.
Richard