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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
david eisenstadt says:
September 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm
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…
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1253897118.shtml
“some people argue that ‘A times less than B’ is ‘mathematically incorrect,’ ‘simply wrong,’ and so on. The theory is that ‘times’ refers to multiplication, so ‘5 times less than B’ to mean ‘B/5’ is mistaken, though ‘5 times more than’ to mean ‘5xB’ (or possibly ‘6xB’) would be fine.
This prompted me to do some more searching, and discover not only a usage of this phrase by Jonathan Swift (via Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage), but also by Isaac Newton (‘If the Diameters of the Circles … be made three times less than before, the Mixture will be also three times less; if ten times less, the Mixture will be ten times less’), Sir William Herschel (‘remember that the sun on Saturn appears to be a hundred time less than on the earth’), Erasmus Darwin, Robert Boyle, John Locke, and more. Nor is this some archaic usage; it remains routine today.”
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 2:57 am
First, I call you “Ulric” because that is your name, Your constant playing with my name is pathetic. My name is Willis. People will respect you more if you cease the childish name games.
Next, it’s true that I’ve never heard of a “breakdown” in the Arctic Oscillation. You said:
I’ve looked at your graph, and looked at it … and I see nothing in there that I might call a “breakdown”. Since it’s not visible in the graph that you linked, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what you are calling a “breakdown”, and how it is measured.
Bad news on that score … everyone gets to vet your work. Whatever you publish (which ain’t much to date) will get vetted by anyone who damn well pleases, and as I said before, if the janitors idiot son falsifies your work … it’s still falsified.
Your prediction was as follows:
The graph from the CPC looks like this:
I leave it to the readers to determine if your forecast was accurate or not.
w.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:29 am
Rich, you’d said:
All I did was point out that Ulric’s predictions were for the UK, Europe and the US. You want me to discuss your comment further? Sure. You also said:
That was a total fabrication. I specifically said that I don’t care about his methods … hang on, let me find it … OK, here it is:
Now, I’d say that’s quite clear, and if you didn’t understand it or didn’t read it, then more fool you. Ulric was attempting his usual false accusations when he claimed I wanted both him and Piers Corbyn to reveal their methods. That was a load of horse droppings from start to finish … then you come prancing into the discussion and falsely accuse me of the same thing.
That was bad enough, but now you’re back to whine that I’m treating you mean and I didn’t comment on your Turing-Bayes score? I never even got to the Turing-Bayes part of your accusatory comment, Rich. Once someone posts two total fabrications about me as the opening to their comment, I STOP READING IT.
What do you expect? I don’t tolerate that kind of nonsense, and you’ve been around here long enough to know that. I actually was being polite to you last time, I just pointed out that you were badly in error with your first fabrication. I figured I’d let your other fabrication slide, more fool me, sometimes I can’t be bothered to pick all the spitballs off the wall … but at this point you can be sure that if you try that nonsense again, next time I’ll just give you both barrels and be done with it.
Get your facts straight before posting, and if you disagree with something I’ve said, then QUOTE MY WORDS. It will save you a heap of trouble, because then we can all be clear about what you don’t like. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your twisted claims about my words. QUOTE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!!!
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Next, it’s true that I’ve never heard of a “breakdown” in the Arctic Oscillation.”
The breakdown was specifically for the UK weather forecast (wetter cooler conditions with lower pressure systems) though if you zoom in the graph you will see the AO go negative for the period that forecast the breakdown for, (23/24th July to ~6th Aug) within a couple of days:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
“Your prediction was as follows:
… the AO and NAO would be more positive through July-August.”
My prediction was for a more positive AO/NAO in July+Aug 2013 than in 2012. We do not eyeball graphs for this, we simply use the monthly average, as I linked to earlier.
NAO:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
Decisively more positive in July+Aug 2013.
And AO:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table
Slightly more negative in July and more positive in Aug.
Which suggests that the difference in the UK summer weather and the Arctic summer sea ice extent between 2012 to 2013 may be more dependent on the NAO than the AO. That agrees with papers that I have read, but I do not have the links immediately available due to a hard drive crash.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm
“Which suggests that the difference in the UK summer weather and the Arctic summer sea ice extent between 2012 to 2013 may be more dependent on the NAO than the AO.”
My bad, the summer UK weather pattern through July-Aug 2013 tracked the AO better.
Henry Galt says that I was wrong when I claimed above that he’d said he was leaving, to which I’d replied “Please do.”
Actually, I find upon re-reading that it was actually HenryP who said he was leaving and to whom I replied “Please do”.
My sincere apologies to Henry Galt for that error, my claim was wrong, and he was quite correct to call me on it.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm
I fear you missed the point, Ulric, likely my lack of clarity. Let me repeat my request again:
You still have not defined what it is you are calling a “breakdown”. Nor have you defined how it is measured. So I’m still totally unclear what you are claiming in your forecast, or how we would know if a breakdown has occurred.
Regards,
w.
It was probably a bit of both really for the UK. It got hot from the second week of July which relates more to what the NAO was doing then:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
But there was a breakdown from the 14th which follows the AO changes better:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
I think the sea ice extent variation may depend more on the NAO though, which is what papers have suggested.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“You still have not defined what it is you are calling a “breakdown”.”
Above if you missed it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1421573
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm
“But there was a breakdown from the 14th which follows the AO changes better:”
14th August, not July. Sorry I missed that.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Thanks, Ulric. I had read that. Nowhere in it do you define a “breakdown”, nor do you tell us how to measure it. The only mention is where you say:
Is a “breakdown” defined as “wetter cooler conditions with lower pressure systems”? And if how … how much wetter? How much cooler? How much lower pressure? And for how long?
This is the difficulty with all of your forecasts—a profound, overwhelming lack of numbers and specificity. For example:
Suppose it rains a tenth of an inch averaged over all of the UK, it’s 3°F cooler than the historical average for 1981-2010, it’s 5 millibars below average pressure for that day, and it lasts for one day … is that a “breakdown”?
Or suppose it only rains in the southern UK, but not the northern UK, the pressure is 10mb below average for that day, it lasts two days … but it’s not colder than average.
Is that a “breakdown”?
And if not … then what does define a “breakdown”?
At this point, I would normally say “I’m sure you can see the problem” … but let me spell it out. Unless you make your “forecasts” a whole lot more specific, NOBODY CAN TELL IF THEY CAME TRUE!!! This means that they are not falsifiable.
And sadly … I’ve not seen one actual, verifiable, falsifiable, specific forecast come from you yet. The problem is not that you haven’t given us a couple of what you call forecasts, including the one about a “breakdown”.
The problem is that they are far too vague, too unspecific, and too lacking in numbers to qualify as an actual forecast. Without a bright-line, clear, specific, numeric definition of what you are calling a “breakdown”, I fear that a forecast calling for a “breakdown” is meaningless.
Best regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm
The problem is that they are far too vague, too unspecific, and too lacking in numbers to qualify as an actual forecast.
And, in addition, there should be information about WHEN the forecast was made. How many years in advance. After all, you claim to be able to forecast decades or centuries in advance.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“And if how … how much wetter? How much cooler? How much lower pressure? And for how long?
This is the difficulty with all of your forecasts—a profound, overwhelming lack of numbers and specificity.”
A breakdown is a sudden change in the weather:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/break+down
You asked for the definition and I gave you the definition, It is a general term, you cannot put numbers to it. The figures given for a particular forecast is a different matter, so you are wasting time with conflation.
The biggest problem is actually that you haven’t given an apology for claiming that the NAO was not positive in July+August 2013. Making that mistake was bad enough, but to carry on as if nothing had happened is inexcusable.
I am honestly up for a fair scrutiny of my work, but you are not fair, and were incorrect in your challenges, as you were with your challenges to Piers Corbyn’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/15/willis-on-why-piers-corbyn-claims-such-a-high-success-rate/#comment-1034176
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/putting-piers-corbyn-to-the-test/#comment-1028201
All I see is a serial time waster who is highly abusive, I’m not playing in your sand pit anymore.
REPLY: Great, we’ll put you in the permanent troll bin then so you can make good on your promise – Anthony