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 am disgusted with the cyber bullying and name calling going on here, when we all should be working together to prevent a major catastrophe due to global cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I should perhaps remind everyone on this site that there will be a Judgement day.
So don’t think that your words don’t count.
(Matthew 25:41: Away from me, you that are under God’s curse)
So let us therefore rather try and agree to do what is righteous, which is to warn the world that it is globally cooling and that a natural consequence of that global cooling is that at the higher latitudes there will be less water/rain to come (naturally – just from the laws of physics)
We must also fine tune the date as to when the droughts http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
will start again in future.
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of cooling, on the bottom of the wave, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:41 am
when we all should be working together to prevent a major catastrophe due to global cooling.
I don’t think we can avert any catastrophes. Burn more fossil fuel perhaps. And keep you god out of it.
Leif says
Burn more fossil fuel perhaps.
henry says
that won’t help
The idea that (natural) global cooling can be stopped by pumping more CO2 in the air is as ridiculous as the idea that more CO2 causes warming
when clearly it has been proved by many people, including myself
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
that more CO2 is a (natural) result of more (natural) warming
not the other way around.
Humans putting some CO2 in the air, is merely incidental.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:58 am
The idea that (natural) global cooling can be stopped by pumping more CO2 in the air is as ridiculous as the idea that more CO2 causes warming
Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.
OK Willis. Way to go framing the conversation – if I defend myself against your calling me a liar or YOUR lies I become, somehow, a liar … again? Let us see ….
For the record, because people are watching, some in the future: I am not answering this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420620
because “”… of course, you’re once again discussing the lack of forecasts …””
I am answering the comment because I cannot let your lies stand Willis. Congratulations, you have made me angry. The word cowboy has a specific meaning in the UK. You are living up to it.
You call me a liar using two lies as support?
This may seem like entertainment to you but it’s not fun to me to watch a person fall apart. Even if they have popcorn for comfort.
You have already proven your inability to apologize – your lengthy attempt to belittle me about something you obviously did not grasp – ‘normals’ according to the WMO global standard – and then talking around that failure with long-winded bluster and projection. You cannot admit your shortcomings and now you show yourself to be a lying liar in attempting to bait me into breaking some rule you made up based on a reading comprehension fail?
Show me I am wrong and not only will I apologize profusely, I will never darken your door again. You will not reciprocate that particular offer.
I would need to be shown where, on this thread – “”You already said above that you were leaving”” – before my comment, misconstrued by you, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420552
where I was in actual fact stating that I would no longer engage with Leif due to his behavior.
Then I would need too be shown where you said “”“Please do.””” in reply to that fictional offer.
You claim to have a rule where anyone replying to you needs to quote your exact words before you can answer further query. In light of your accusations against me, without the corroborating quotes, this is proven to be a double standard.
Why make things up Willis? I am worried about your mental health. You exhibit signs of early onset Alzheimers or narcissistic personality disorder.
Either that or you are just masquerading as reasonable but you are something other. Even in my fury I feel sorry for you.
While I am at it – your avoidance of the meat of See – owe to Rich’s post is very telling, especially in your casual use of semantics and deflection. Well done.
Creating rules for others.
Reading comprehension failure.
Double standards.
Inability to apologize.
Contortion.
Deflection.
Projection.
Lies.
Care to add any more to that list cowboy?
Leif says
Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.
Henry says
Get a life,Leif
We don’t even know for sure whether the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling rather than warming,
or did you finally get so see that balance sheet which I have been asking about?
(deflected SW versus trapped LW, in the right dimensions)
but even so, the effect of CO2 on the weather is negligible,
we can say that with a fair amount of certainty,
so why bring it up in this discussion?
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:15 am
“Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.”
but even so, the effect of CO2 on the weather is negligible,
we can say that with a fair amount of certainty
CO2’s effect on climate is enormous if you have enough CO2. If doubling CO2 raises the temperature by 1 degree, doubling 8 times [to 256 times the concentration of today] raises the temperature 8 degrees, enough to avert the next glaciation in 50,000 years time.
leif says
If doubling CO2 raises the temperature by 1 degree,
henry says
we all know that is nonsense
you don’t even believe it yourself
because you say
if
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:33 am
we all know that is nonsense
“It is not what you know, but what you know that ain’t”
you don’t even believe it yourself because you say ‘if’
The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.
Leif says
The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.
Henry says
That amount would be wrong
You bring an old argument that has been proved wrong:
GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1.
So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:44 am
“The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.”
Henry says That amount would be wrong
It ‘could’ be wrong. We don’t know what it actually is, but various estimates suggests that 1C is not too far off.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give much for your analysis of 47 weather stations.
Leif says
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give much for your analysis of 47 weather stations.
Henry says
that is because your are too lazy just to check the weather station nearest to you \
meaning you prefer to stay with the “majority” opinion,
mostly for financial reasons?
\which will be counted against you
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:56 am
meaning you prefer to stay with the “majority” opinion,
The majority opinion is 2-5C [depending on who you ask]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
which will be counted against you
On Judgement Day?
Look at Earth and then look at Mars. Is it colder on Earth than it is on Mars? No, Mars has extreme cold compared to Earth. Now, take a look at CO2 levels on both. You know, Mars has way more CO2 than Earth. So, why is it not hot as hell on Mars? The fact is, we just really do not know much about CO2 with regard to its over all effect on temperature profiles on Earth, Mars or any other planet for that matter! But, it seems likely that CO2 levels follow temperatures up or down and does not lead. If temps. here on Earth go up regardless of the cause, CO2 levels increase after the fact of that event and not the other way around. And I will state, my opinion is unbiased as I have no agenda. The amount of food I put on my table for me and my family will not go up or down either way. So, with regard to my economic status, having a biased opinion on Global Warming one way or the other is meaningless! Now, on the other hand, that would not be a true statement for Al Gore who does have an agenda and a bias due to greed. It’s called money, as his net worth has grown from $2 million dollars to $200 million dollars in about a two-year period! That is insane! As a stockbroker for 20 years, no matter how hard I worked; I could never seem to get this kind of growth. Ten times your money back in two years. That’s no bad even if you are an Ex-Vice President of the U.S. And I like Ulric Lyons believe we are going into an extremely cold period that will cause a massive hardship on the human race. The sun has already entered a hibernation stage and I believe with all my heart we are going to have challenging decades ahead! And like all else; TIME WILL TELL! Thanks For Letting Me Share! Len R. Holliday(Lead Forecaster with Firsthand Weather)
leif says
And keep you god out of it.
leif says
On Judgement Day?
henry says
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
LEIF, I need your opinion once again. Here we go.
In your expert opinion, for the solar parameter averages I had mentioned,what are the most extreme solar parameter averages you think could be attained in a grand minimum, and over what period of time might those extreme averages exist?
The extreme solar parameter averages for all of the solar parameters I had mentioned, does not have to happen at the same time. Thanks.
I am glad to see that Anthony sent Richard C and Ulric to the sin bin to cool down – it was really getting out of hand. I second HenryP’s call for moderation, even if I can’t yet agree with his suggestion that sensitivity to CO2 is close to zero or negative.
As for Willis, I enjoyed his travelogues from England and Scotland, but perhaps some Glaswegian brusqueness rubbed off on him up there. Or is he home in CA now and his writings are suffering from jet lag? Whatever, I was offended by his latching on to my minor criticism of him and not even considering whether my Turing-Bayes score might be a reasonable way to test Ulric’s skill in the future.
Of course, I can go ahead with that anyway if Ulric complies. But keen though Ulric is, I am not sure whether he is going to knuckle down to giving specific forecasts along with his probability (q) for them such that we can compare with climatological estimates (p).
As for Leif, well hey we have some different opinions but I don’t think we are too far apart in our understanding of the scientific method. Pamela, though, she needs a viable mechanism. I wonder how she would have fared on the sea shore in the middle ages before the theory of gravitation explained the tides? She probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere near the sea, just in case the tide suddenly rushed in and drowned her.
Rich.
svp says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1421347
henry ask
Salvetore,
why don’t you learn to spell your name correctly?
Del
it cannot be a Capital
because it means: from
Never mind
we all know it is Leif talking to himself again
The rise and fall of open solar flux during the current grand solar …
That is how it is spelled.
6. The Floor Value of B
[19] Svalgaard and Cliver [2007, hereafter SC07] postulated
that annual means of the near‐Earth heliospheric field B
could not fall below a floor value 4.6nT. Because observed
values have fallen below this level during the recent solar
minimum, SC10 have revised this estimate to 4 nT. One
aspect in which the reconstructions in Figure 1 do differ
relates to their implications for any floor in annual mean B
values. In this section, we use the terminology that the floor
value is the minimum of B below which it cannot fall even
on millennial timescales. We make the distinction b
This paper shows the IMF field strength during the Maunder Minimum was much weaker then 4.0 nT
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open
solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data
and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications
M. Lockwood1,2 and M. J. Owens1
Received 17 October 2010; revised 12 January 2011; accepted 21 January 2011; published 21 April 2011.
[1] Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various
reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant
development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument
calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations
employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that
this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and
Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict
the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux. One area where there is still some debate
relates to the existence and meaning of a floor value to the heliospheric field. From
cosmogenic isotope abundances, Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that
the near‐Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is
considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. We here
combine cosmogenic and geomagnetic reconstructions and modern observations (with
allowance for the effect of solar wind speed and structure on the near‐Earth data) to derive
an estimate for the open solar flux of (0.48 ± 0.29) × 1014 Wb at the end of the Maunder
minimum. By way of comparison, the largest and smallest annual means recorded by
instruments in space between 1965 and 2010 are 5.75 × 1014 Wb and 1.37 × 1014 Wb,
respectively, set in 1982 and 2009, and the maximum of the 11 year running means was
4.38 × 1014 Wb in 1986. Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum
is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum
looks like the issue is not settled.
My conclusion is I think Leif, may not appreciate just how [variable] the sun might be.
I think the [sun] may vary by more then what is thought between grand maximums and grand minimums which will lend more support to my theory that a solar/climate connection, is real.
[Variability] is key, and everyone ,even Pam would agree if the sun were to vary enough, at some point effects would be felt on earth. The question is how much variance is needed. I gave my opinion when I stated average solar parameters needed to cause a solar/climate connection to become apparent, over x years. I don’t think 5 years is needed. It could be less,if sub-solar activity took place in general for several years prior to those avg. solar parameters being met. Which has been the case since year 2005.
Len Holliday says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:13 am
You know, Mars has way more CO2 than Earth. So, why is it not hot as hell on Mars?
One reason is that Mars gets 2.32 times less solar radiation than Earth. That alone makes Mars 50C colder.
I believe with all my heart we are going to have challenging decades ahead!
This is where we differ. I prefer to go where the data goes, rather than where belief takes me.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:19 am
where-is-your-faith
If there is a god, I believe she is absolutely evil, but, again, keep religion out.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:24 am
The extreme solar parameter averages for all of the solar parameters I had mentioned, does not have to happen at the same time.
But you also said that ALL the 5-yr averages had to extreme together [that is what ALL means, I reckon].
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:24 am
“Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum”
looks like the issue is not settled.
Science is almost never settled.
Now, the Lockwood & Owens paper bases its conclusion on this graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/Open-Flux-Model-Error.png
The Y-axis is the ‘Open Flux’ calculated from their model. The triangle symbols are actual observations. The strange bend towards zero of the grey band is torturing the model to make the curve go through (0,0). The data fit the red curve without any torture. Our view is that the Sun actually never gets into the region of the black rectangle at the lower left [if it did we would not see any cosmic ray modulation], so the open flux and the IMF B never get close to zero. The whole issue has recently been the subject of a workshop that I [and Lockwood] conducted and the result is being written up as we speak. The issue is also bound up with the idea of the ‘recent grand solar maximum’ [which very likely didn’t happen], so there is an agenda issue too.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm
My conclusion is I think Leif, may not appreciate just how varibable the sun might be
As I say: I can only go as far as the data goes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm
dr svalgaard:
I read your posts with great anticipation, you are a kind and generous intellect..
so I say this as someone who attempts to teach statisics to the innumerate undergraduates in my classes…
you just cant have 2.32 times less of something…
one times less of something gets you to zero.
what you mean, I think, is that in this case mars receives about 40% of the solar radiation that the earth does…
BTW you are extraordinarily patient with posters, i hope you will be that patient with me.