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.
<blolemiere jacques says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
… nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis
FWIW: Major 100-year-record-breaking rains here in Colorado. It's been raining for four days, pretty much straight. Flash floods out of Boulder and St. Vrain Canyons, Clear Creek, Big Thompson… Can't wait for them to talk about the "ongoing drought", or predictable global warming effects. Predictions are nice, but reality always manages to throw a monkey wrench into them
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-flooding-nightfall-20130912,0,945098.story
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:49 am
……………………………
“It has actually not cooled either.”
For which we should be grateful. Cooling will cause some real problems as opposed to warming.
Maybe we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.
I’m not a scientist, but I have been lurking on these solar threads since about 2009, so perhaps I can answer this question, (Dr. Svalgaard, please correct me if my answer is not accurate):
_____________________________
Alberta Slim says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
______________________
Solar cycle activity is not symmetric around the peak of the cycle, but rather there is a relatively steep rise at the beginning of the cycle rising out of the previous minimum, and after the cycle peak a longer, less steep fall with a “tail” to the next minimum. See the above “Active Region Count” figure in the body of the main post. Note the (relative to the rise to maximum) long “tail” of the slope down to the minimum at the end of each cycle.
So, based upon the above, a cycle that ran an extremely long and rare 14 years would probably not see solar max at year 7 of the cycle, but more likely the peak would be 5 or 6 years into the cycle. We are now 4 years or so into cycle 24, and by at least one standard we have reached solar max. That does not mean that this cycle will be just 8 or 9 years long. We are (I think) more probably going to have a longer than average cycle in the 11+ years range. I believe that I have seen some posts that link longer cycles with lower solar activity, and higher solar activity with shorter cycles.
And for all of you out there wondering about the issue raised earlier about the counting of smaller sunspots, and sun “freckles”, Dr. Svalgaard has explained on these pages many times that OF COURSE solar scientists are aware that to have a valid comparison to the sunspots counted in previous centuries you cannot count spots that could not be seen with the technology used then. As he alluded to above, a standard was set in the 1940s to use an identical small telescope to one used in 1880 or so, to establish a current sunspot count that can be validly compared to sunspot counts done as early as the 1790 s.
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?
“Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-implications-for-UK-climate
Paul Hudsons BBC blog
“My guest on this weekends weather show is former BBC weather forecaster John Kettley, who offers interesting opinions on climate past, present and future. It will be available on the BBC iplayer later on sunday, click HERE”
@njsnowfan says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:15 am
Leif Svalgaard, What do you think of Carl Smith’s Rosetta Stone of Solar Science charts theory and Layman’s Sunspot Count process?
Not much. There are lots of comments on that here at WUWT. Just search through earlier articles [all the many thousands of them 🙂 ]
Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
I agree, our post-modernist culture now accepts a sham as an honest attempt in much of public life.
Using statistics to correct data is about as blatant as fraud gets, but accepted nonetheless. The BLS, the BEA, etc., all pass the unjustified and incredible off as a fair account why should academics be any different?
Dan Murphy says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:04 am
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?
Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.
How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877 (say)? This question really bothers me. Others have mentioned the recent spotless days recorded by the Layman’s Sunspot Count, and one of those days I certainly would have called spotless from looking at the SDO image. But how can we compare?
Well, did they not use to make sunspot drawings? Can we not make drawings today and compare them with (say) 1910 which was a cycle slightly stronger than this one but not by so much. And then, can we ask, for a sunspot group of a particular area, how many spots/specks are we counting in that group? Then, if we do it a lot of times, can we use statistics to see whether the number of spots counted today for a similar area is about the same as it was in 1910? Such a confirmation would be very comforting to me, because without it I am very dubious of counts like today’s, and many other days.
Perhaps Dr. LS can tell us that this has already been done?
Rich.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
“in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years.”
Back when Hathaway made his original prediction for solar cycle 24 the BBC and other media outlets had lots of quotes from scientists claiming that such an increase in solar activity would double the warming effect that CO2 had on the earths climate.
I have never read a retraction of these statements and I have never seen an article by the BBC or any other media with a man made global warming bias, have any scientist explain; that because solar cycle 24 is very weak, the warming effect that CO2 had on the climate would be halved or reduced. Its strange that there always seems to be a one-way influence on earth climate.
I did point this out on a solar thread about 2-3 years ago and Leif said; “never believe what you read in the papers” or something to that effect.
EPA’s proposed new regulations could keep coal industry reeling
http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4696059-74/coal-industry-gas#axzz2ena6RDjV
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/09/13/clean-coal-official-says-possible-epa-limits-are-too-low/
Clean coal official says possible EPA limits are too low
Obama’s EPA Getting Ready To Destroy The Coal Industry
http://downtrend.com/jrc410/obamas-epa-getting-ready-to-destroy-the-coal-industry/
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
… I think you meant to say projections. : )
No Warming Left To Deny…’Global Cooling Takes Over…CET Annual Mean Temperature Plunges 1°C Since 2000′
‘Global temperature data, such as HadCrut 4, show warming has disappeared altogether…Global temperatures have been showing many more signs of cooling than warming…warming is now in the history books, having died some 15 years ago’
Some so called VIP people think they are such mental giants that they can by force of their will, foist a belief in man’s culpability for worldwide climate and charge for it a global carbon dioxide tax. Of course the sole benefit is for the global world ruling elite. Little do they know, the Sun overrules them.
I don’t think people understand how devastating it’s going to be for the people who supported the Man-Made Global Warming movement. When they find out Man is not to blame, and It’s the Sun Doing it Stupid, they are going to freak the heck out.
Leif, could you address this again?I have to asked again.
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
I can not see how this holds up .
Leif, I’m disappointed in you, one could almost suggest that you are cherry picking, is not UAH the outlier?
Four other atmosphere and two sea surface data sets other than UAH ( http://tinyurl.com/k29l9ha ) suggests a more than decadal negative, if small, trend, with a fifth (Mosher’s toybox) in agreement through 9 years
If SC25 & 26 do emulate end up emulating SC5 & 6, we may have 20+ more years of cooling on the way
RIP “The Modern Winter”, aka CAGW.
I see that nobody is up to the challenge
REPLY: Mosh, you raised the issue, so rather than doing yet another drive by hit where all you do is complain, but do nothing beyond that, why not do it yourself? I look forward to you dealing with the lags. I would, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment as I’m working on a much more important project you also won’t like.
– Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:12 am
“Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.”
RE:Dan Murphy
“Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?”
Looking at past solar cycles on the sunspot area record I think July 2017 will be the beginning of solar minimum for cycle 24 and it may last up to 3-4 years, weaker cycles have longer minimums between peaks of solar maximums which makes them longer than average.
What is different today is this is the first prolonged solar minimum since the Dalton. Let us see the climate implications going forward. I expect many.
Hello Bill,
Sorry about the Colorado flooding. The impact on families can be swift and devastating, and recovery is slow.
Earlier this summer, Southern Alberta experienced major flooding that peaked on 21June2013, also due to record or near-record rainfall.
Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.
The 1932 flood was reportedly mitigated by the Glenmore Dam, built in 1931.
We experienced minor flooding in 2005, but 2013 was a major deluge. The Glenmore Dam and Reservoir were apparently not much help this time.
In our region, warmer is typically dryer and cooler is typically wetter, according to river flow records.
Is this one more indicator of the beginning of global cooling? 🙂
Regards, Allan
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/07/29/calgary-harry-sanders-flood-history-historic-week.html
P.S.
On 27June2013, I was asked by my federal Member of Parliament (MP) to line up some houses for a volunteer flood cleanup crew the next day. At 8am sharp the cleanup crew arrived at my friends’ house and got to work. They worked diligently for hours, until all the mud was removed from the basement (and we all wore our fair share of it). Then we moved on to clean up several more flood-damaged houses. There were no reporters or TV cameras. The cleanup crew worked for days in Calgary and High River, and consisted of about fifteen volunteers, including four Conservative MP’s and the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Tens of thousands of Albertans volunteered in this massive clean-up effort. Energy companies donated heavy oilfield vacuum trucks to remove water and sludge from basements, and the entire community pulled together. Calgary Stampede, the site of which was fully inundated, started on schedule on 5July2013. Love this city.
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Great idea. But nothing is free, n’est ce pas?
Please offer some direct funding (in cash only please) to perform your challenge. I recommend you send a draft agreement / contract to all WUWT bloggers. That might stimulate interest in your challenge. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
: )
John
Allan MacRae says:
“Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.”
That is a very clear signal on CET, a late summer warm blast then a sudden cool down:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/trend.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:14 am
How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Because the very instruments that were used in 1877 [actually since 1849] still exist and are used every day to count sunspots and sunspot groups using the same method. And have been in continuous use since back then. You can see more here: http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/ and here http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=109
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
Assuming the 5 specks form five groups, the sunspot number would be 55 and when multiplied by 0.6 to bring the count onto Wolf’s original scale would be 33. If the 5 specks are all together in one group, the sunspot number would be 15 or, when multiplied by 0.6 to bring it onto Wolf’s original scale, 9.
I can not see how this holds up
That you cannot see something does not mean much.
But let me explain: Wolf realized that what is important is not just the raw count, but that groups [we now call them active regions] are actually more important, hence the sunspot number is calculated as 10 times the number of groups plus the number of spots. Even if a group contains only one tiny spot its magnetic field [and the f10.7 flux] is still there and has effect. So the area of the spot is not so important. Statistically there is a VERY good correspondence between Wolf’s sunspot number and the area of the all the groups on the disk: Area [in millionths of the disk] = 16.7 * sunspot number. Simply because a group with many [including some large ones] spots tends to cover a larger area the more spots it has.
Gras Albert says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:43 am
is not UAH the outlier?
What does that matter? UAH is what WUWT ordinarily shows. The differences are so tiny that they are not significant.
herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
And from when you start. Try year 2000.