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.
All of them for any 5 year consecutive period in the time frame 2015-2030.
PAM,I appreciate that. Nothing wrong with that way of thinking.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:12 pm
I wish we really had clear hard fact data for the Maunder Minimum , but we don’t .
We do for the cosmic ray modulation.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm
All of them for any 5 year consecutive period in the time frame 2015-2030.
I think the chance is NIL. Just to take one: ap depends on the magnetic field strength and the solar wind speed. The cosmic ray modulation does as well, so ap cannot have been so low as you post during the Maunder Minimum otherwise the cosmic ray modulation would have been much subdued.
Pam ,I think if a solar/climate correlation should come about (I say if) then I think given all the current research on solar/climate possible connections that a solar/climate mechanism or mechanisms will be verified instead of just remaining as theory.
LEIF, THANKS.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Thanks for that, Richard. Here’s the hilarious part. Note that Ulric says he predicted that the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation “would be more positive through July-August [2013]“.
Why is that funny? Well, here’s the AO for that time period …”
Here we go again! cheap laughs come ten a penny. The NAO was much more positive than it was in summer 2012.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
I also forecast a breakdown from 23/24th July, and recovering from around 7th August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm
“See where it says the UK and Europe? See where it says the US? Still want to claim that his predictions were only for the UK? I thought not …”
It will be cold in the US too for sure, but I’m not forecasting for there, I left that up to Len.
I know the cold will hit Europe too, but unless I look at analogues I cannot safely do a forecast for there either because of regional differences. I’ll probably just stick to the UK for a specific forecast.
Ulric Lyons:
The climate may or may not be predictable, but you certainly are.
Having said you would leave everybody expected you would return and so you have at September 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm .
Importantly, your return post demonstrates the problem with your predictions: they are so vague that they can almost always be said to have been right after the predicted event.
In this case, you said
But Willis showed the AO and NAO were each negative through July-August. So, you now say
So, in your forecast “more positive” is now said to mean “less negative”.
Do you see the problem, Ulric?
There are many options of either or both being
1. more positive
2. positive
3. less negative.
And because either the AO or NAO could be “more positive” than 2012 to provide a partial success there are 9 ways you could be partially right.
But there is only one way for you to be wrong; i.e. both AO and NAO have to be more negative than in 2012.
That is a 9:1 probability of you claiming success. And you could stretch the claim to a 18:1 if you consider July and August separately. And …
You see the problem, Ulric? Do you understand why we want specific forecasts?
At present your vague forecasts would make Nostradmus blush.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“So, in your forecast “more positive” is now said to mean “less negative”.
[…] You see the problem,”
You are the problem, the NAO was much more positive than it was in summer 2012, nothing to do with forecasts, purely the observations:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
“Importantly, your return post demonstrates the problem with your predictions: they are so vague that they can almost always be said to have been right after the predicted event.”
Liar:
I also forecast a breakdown from 23/24th July, and recovering from around 7th August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
“But Willis showed the AO and NAO were each negative through July-August. So, you now say..”
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
And while we are at it, lets all see how much of a fool you made of your self on that other thread that you needlessly dragged in here to attempt to defame me:
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-1420437
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm
“That Ulric, his forecasts of the AO and the NAO are stupendous … positive in July-August?
Not …”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
AND YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO TELL ME HOW TO DO SCIENCE.
YOUR CREDIBILITY IS SHOT TO PIECES.
Why is that funny?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“That Ulric, his forecasts of the AO and the NAO are stupendous … positive in July-August?
The issue is not those hidden forecasts, but whether they were produced years ago [as you claim you can do] and exactly how the forecast was formulated: “more positive” than when and how much. The bottom line is the lack of openness, i.e. production of a complete list including when they were made and what the skill-score and how it was calculated. Without that you still got nothing worth writing home about.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm
A “breakdown” in the NAO? I have never, ever heard that term used in that manner. What on earth do you mean?
This is altogether typical of your pathetically vague “forecasts”, Ulric. You don’t define a “breakdown”. You don’t say what a “breakdown” might look like. You don’t give a single number, a scrap of an indication, or the slightest clue of what you mean by a “breakdown” in the NAO.
So whatever the NAO might do, you can claim success, and of course, you do … but since none of us have the slightest idea what your forecast means, I fear that we find your claims to be not just unfalsifiable, but ludicrous.
w.
Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm provides yet another of your falsehoods saying to me in total
NO! Checking what you claim to have predicted against what you actually predicted is NOT an “attempt to defame”. How dare you make such a disgraceful accusation!?
This is what an impartial observed had to say about your ludicrous excuse in your link
Richard
Bloke in Coventry says he has never heard of a breakdown.
I will not have someone who is ignorant to very regular weather forecast nomenclature vet my work. Bloke in Coventry also cannot assess my work as he lied and said the was NAO was negative when it was positive.
richardscourtney says:
” Checking what you claim to have predicted against what you actually predicted is NOT an attempt to defame”
You are an idiot or a liar. You falsely stated that I had made the sea ice forecast last year, and you are an idiot for regarding my example links for the temperature differential between the zones as evidence for said forecasts. You have admitted to neither of these errors. Until you do, I will not engage with any other matter.
richardscourtney says:
“This is what an impartial observed had to say about your ludicrous excuse in your link
phlogiston says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Ulrich Lyons
To quote former French President Jacques Chirac, you have “missed a golden opportunity to keep quiet”.
“Predicting” the sea ice minimum in August is like predicting the Grand National winner when the horses are aready on the home strait.
Shhhh.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Nothing ridiculous or any excuses, that’s all projections from you. I made it clear that my mention of the forecast was a passing point and not the central issue that I was discussing, yet you continue to ignore that and attempt to ridicule the actually successful forecast.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“I fear that we find your claims to be not just unfalsifiable, but ludicrous.”
Patently, yours are, re NAO, as well as all the other crap from Richard and Leif that you jumped on board with.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“If the janitor’s idiot nephew can falsify your work … it’s still falsified, even if he’s not a “Gentleman” …”
You never know, the idiot may actually keep track of the real facts better than you do.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Nor shall I.
You already said above that you were leaving. I said “Please do.”
That statement of yours seems to have been a complete fabrication. Now you say you won’t discuss Ulric’s cowardly refusal to post his forecasts.
We’ll see if that is a lie as well. If you answer this comment, of course, you’re once again discussing the lack of forecasts …
w.
_______________________________________________________
Point to where you said “Please do.”
Ulric Lyons:
You seem to think that abuse is a reasonable alternative to veracity. It is not.
Your most recent example is your post at September 19, 2013 at 3:14 am which says in total.
Thankyou for promising – although I don’t believe it – that you “will not engage with any other matter”. Hopefully you will fulfil this promise by leaving WUWT alone and going elsewhere.
I did NOT falsely state that you “had made the sea ice forecast last year”.
YOU MADE THAT FALSE STATEMENT.
In the WUWT thread 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/
at September 17, 2013 at 1:21 pm in your post said in total
Pamela Gray asked WHEN you had made the forecast of “greater Arctic sea ice extent this for this summer” and you answered that at September 18, 2013 at 3:24 am where you wrote
So, you DID claim to have made the sea ice forecast last year.
Richard
@Ric hard
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-1421107
@Ric hard says:
“So, you DID claim to have made the sea ice forecast last year.”
Not once you filthy liar.
Ulric Lyons:
The only “filthy liar” is you.
I cited, quoted, referenced and linked your words which you now claim you did not write.
Perhaps you can suggest the identity of the imposter who wrote those words?
Richard
PS I forecast that you would continue to “engage” and you have without interruption. Clearly, my demonstrated forecast skill is better than yours.
@Ric hard says:
“I cited, quoted, referenced and linked your words which you now claim you did not write.”
Filthy liar, I quote only what I wrote, period.
Alright, that’s enough from Richard and from Ulric. Take a time-out, both of you for 24 hours.