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.
Salvatore Del Prete, why do you keep posting the same thing again and again and again?
Even assuming that you think postings are going missing, you repeat the same thing again and again in the same message. Why?
Gary Pearse says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
… I have to grudgingly admit he’s taken considerable heat out of my thinking in the debate.
=========================================================================
Cerebral cooling eh? 🙂
I also echo that spotless is what the sun has been for much of the last 5 days.
Today for example I could perhaps see a sunspot count of 20, but 58 is ridiculous.
Zero is more representative then 58 for today.
steveta don’t read it.
Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it.
The problem with the LSC is that it is uncalibrated. They say it is supposed to match Rudolf Wolf’s counts for sunspot cycle 5 but Wolf wasn’t even born during SC5. The modern counting method was introduced by Wolfer [counting everything] in 1877. During 17 years of overlap with Wolf, the two observers agreed that multiplying Wolfer’s count by 0.6 make them match Wolf’s [this holds for periods of a month or larger]. The LSC is just plain junk.
This paper by Coughlin and Tung 2004 employs nonlinear EMD (empirical mode decomposition) analysis to stratospheric temperatures, and finds a strong 11 year solar cycle.
This may be the right kind of analysis to look for nonlinear forcing of the climate system by solar and other astrophysical cycles. Check out figure 3.
Stephen Wilde might be interested in this.
The AP index is what matters Leif, I don’t care about CME’S per say although very few have had much of an effect on the goemagnetic index with this cycle in contrast to earlier cycles.
Just look at the ap index for previous recent cycles versu this one if you don’t believe it.
In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.
Good to know Dr S at el are improving their theories & methods.
Sunspot coverage is the way to go because it is objective, and sunspot coverage by sunspots for the month of Sep. will give you the true picture of just how low solar activity in regards to sunspots has been thus far for this month of Sept.
The modern way of counting sunspots is useless.
Salvatore Del Prete:
I read solar threads in hoping I can learn because I know very, very little about solar matters. And I am sure there are others who read solar threads for the same reason.
In response to steveta asking you to desist from iterating points in a post and in series of posts you have replied at September 13, 2013 at 8:28 am
No! That will not do!
Those of us who are trying to follow a thread need to read your posts if we are to determine if you have said something new.
Your iterations are wasting the the time and effort of all of us who are trying to follow threads. This is annoying to all of us, not only to steveta.
Please stop it.
Richard
predictions are irrelevant, but nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis
Leif,
Your {and your associate(s)} prediction of cycle 24 is looking reasonably on target. Well done.
Questions: Leif, can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction? Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment? I am very very nosy : )
John
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:32 am
The AP index is what matters Leif
The Ap index this cycle is much at it was for cycle 14 and even back in the 1880s. There is no long-term trend in the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:35 am
In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.
You know not whereof you speak [so shut up]. The very same equipment used in 1877 [and manufactured in 1822] is still used today: Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.
John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
<can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction?
As soon as the polar fields have build up enough that they have become stable. This usually happens about 3 years after their reversal, so in 3-4 years time would be a good guess.
Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment?
No, except that it is not clear what the L&P effect will do. Perhaps I’ll predict the microwave flux [as Ken Schatten does] or TSI instead of the SSN.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:50 am
Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.
As you bring nothing to the table, tone ALL THE WAY DOWN.
Leif, okay.
I made my points.Done for today.
When referring to Mr. Hathaway’s PREDICTIONS, you may want to disclose which revision number is represented on your graph. It has to be about revision #7, at least. I would like to see his original prediction graphed against actual!
Good thing we’re saving so much coal for the impending coal-ed spell.
With all the new discoveries going on about the near interstellar neighborhood (which should now increase now that we have at least some rudimentary sensing out there) I must wonder about interactions between Sol and the overarching plasma “sea” that we are sailing through, nice and comfy inside the bubble.
Sun spot activity is linked to Earth’s climate. Sun spot activity is not linked to Earth’s climate.
TSI does not vary enough to affect climate. TSI does vary enough to affect climate.
The AP index is linked to climate. The AP index is not linked to climate.
CME’s affect climate. CME’s do not affect climate.
(I need a long weekend drunk!)
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
This is what I like about Lief’s reply’s … short .. simple, to the point.
BUT … depends on what you mean by “has actually not cooled”. Significantly?? .. yeah , I totally agree. But .. the trend line is negative trend since 2002 .. which, and yes, I know it is indistinquishable from “zero” without the statistics, .. but is “cooling” none the less. 🙂
Here is a compilation of predictions for SC24.
As you can see, there are 45 of them, more than enough to fill a roulette wheel, and they are “all over the map”, so somebody had to be close.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
SC25 is just around the corner.
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!