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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field
The solar magnetic field [and the part of it dragged into interplanetary space] is indeed a bit lower:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png
—
Yes good link Dr. S.
You know how you say the sun is a messy place, well that image tells me, the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place. Head on with our messy, wavy, turbulent solar system. Always varying and never quite the same. Gee, that sounds like the background too.. Thanks for the image..
Leif is a strong advocate of mechanism. If one chooses ENSO variation as a mechanism then the PDO is a good index of its variability. The PDO was positive from around 1975-2005. The global temperature trend over that period was warming. Since the PDO moved into negative territory the global temperature trend has been cooling as measured by almost all the global data sets.
How does solar fit into this variability? One way would be to impact the formation of ENSO events. That is, it would have to create the environment where more El Niño or La Niña events occurred. I haven’t seen anything very convincing to make this happen. In any event, using the past as the best indicator of future events, we should see the negative PDO until somewhere around 2035. If the sunspot count does make a difference the cooling should be even stronger. We will see …
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]
++++++++++++
If cycle 24 is longer as it seems to be predicted, it will be skewed… there will be a longer dragged out decline, I believe.
“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.”
What I would like to see are each of the predictions David Hathaway made. It seems to me, and has for some time, his predictions are adjusted for the real data and are thus not really a prediction. If we could compare all his predictions and the rationale for each, then we might learn something about how he predicts things. That he has come down several times means whatever his basis was for those predictions was faulty. Unless he can explain why each of his failed predictions were wrong, he’s not going to have much credibility. How has what he knows changed to warrant the new “prediction”? Anyone can predict with hindsight.
Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low?
Leif Svalgaard replies:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
First: the data on CMEs count them all. I have not seen a specific study of ‘halo’ CMEs [Earth directed] so perhaps it is just you impression. If you have hard data, I would like to see them.
and Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am
The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.
Assuming that the numbers are correct (and I see no reason not to), there is obviously a very poor or no correlation between the total number of CMEs and the Ap.
It is, however, possible to reconcile the facts. We can use the number of M and X flares as a proxy for the number of CMEs likely to impact the magnetosphere.
Using the monthly data, see http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/ , as a comparison I select the 6 first months of 2003 and 2013. During those months in 2003 there were 86 M flares and 9 X class flares. In 2013 there were 30 M and 4 X flares during the same time interval. I would say we can assume there have been fewer large Earth directed CMEs just by taking into account the number of flares normally associated with the strongest geomagnetic disturbances.
We should also take into account that a large number of CMEs originate from filament eruptions. Those CMEs are generally smaller and slower than those associated with M and X flares. Assuming there has been no major change in the frequency of filament eruptions we could see almost the same number of CMEs in a small cycle (the current cycle) as in a medium cycle (cycle 23). So, at least in my view, the apparent discrepancy between the number of CMEs and the Ap index can have a reasonable explanation.
The thing about the flat trend in global temperature is it allows any kind of speculation to explain the “pause”.
The problem is that’s just not good enough.
There is absolutely no chance that the Earth’s climate is in some kind of equilibrium.
That means competing forces are at work to simultaneously warm and cool the earth , currently cancelling each other out.
Assuming the sun had no effect on climate, then I would expect the cold PDO ( to be followed shortly by cold AMO) to cancel out the effect of (still) rising greenhouse gas warming (though of course non of the water vapour positive feedback nonsense). In fact almost exactly the same as 1945 to 1975. i.e flat.
So, in conclusion, I think the next 10 to 20 years will define whether the sun (and more likely secondary magnetic/GCR/ Cloud feedback) is the primary driver of climate or not.
My guess, Svensmark is right. The severity of cooling will depend on the higher GCR count caused by the impaired solar magnetic field.
(apologies for the excessive use of brackets)
It’s worse than we thought!!
Solar activity is ‘slumping’ as the use of solar panels and other means of capturing solar energy is increasing. If we carry on like this, the sun will be completely drained by … oh, about 2099. We must put an end to this madness, NOW!
I suppose I’d better add (/sarc) just in case.
Me: How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Leif: 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
Me, now: Leif, you did not reply to my main point, which is not about the technology used, but about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot. In order to be satisfied that more specks are not being counted nowadays, I ask (perhaps some budding Ph.D. student) for a statistical analysis of sunspot counts within groups of similar area, for comparable periods within Cycle 24 (last few years) and Cycle 14 which you say evolved similarly. This could, of course, be a lot of work, and like Mosher I am not offering any money for it 🙂
But thanks for the links, and I hope next week to have time to follow them.
Rich.
No. But way to miss the point.
If someone is an English major those two words “Effect” and Affect” are as different as night and day. If someone is a Scientist then those two words are as much or even more clearly defined. Steve Mosher is IIRC both ( or one with a strong interest in the other ) and has written a book on Science. This makes it twice as strange.
Now back to your question. What would it matter if I was a computer programmer, farmer or garbage man when discussing specific facts? You could spend all day here at WUWT asking the same question to every one of the numerous commenters pontificating about climate, correct? So then why did you ask me that question? What was the point? Are you implying that only English majors should be pointing out what I cited? Or, do you feel that such things should not be cited at all? I sure hope it’s not the latter because then why do we bother going after every little climate error.
Blade says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm
and
From the dictionary, let me introduce you to what appears to be a foreign concept on your planet:
Steven, like many of us, often posts in a hurry … and as a result, he, like many others including myself, occasionally has typographical errors in his work.
If you’ve never made a typo, blade, then you are qualified to bitch about those of others … and since that’s not the case, could we get back to real issues?
w.
Steven Mosher says:
“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.”
We are going to need them, it’s not looking too clever. There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.
Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 3:31 am concludes saying
Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.
So I suppose you are right about what “could easily be”.
Richard
Leif,
1. According to the graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png, one can have the impression that a part of the distribution of sunspots is being cut off. The absence of sunspots above the pink colored line (intensity = 1.0) and beneath the 1500 Gauss line of the graph ‘umbral magnetic field’, is obvious. If the trend anticipated by Livingston and Penn will persist, a growing portion of the sunspot distribution will no longer be visible.
This implies also that more and more sunspots should be seen with lower intensity and umbral magnetic field. According to me, this must be obvious at first glance, if both pictures are taken in the same conditions (e.g. a picture of the sun with sunspots in 2003 compared to a picture taken this year). Do you have examples of such photographs?
2. Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’ in the sense that the same structure of a sunspot will persist, visible or not visible? I mean: When the field strength in a filament reaches a certain value, above 1500 Gauss, the filament becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes visible. If the field does not reach this value – what Livingston and Penn are expecting – the filament rises still to the surface but the contrast with the outer regions is minimal and a sunspot is no longer visible.
3. A team of researchers led by Northwest Research Associates (NWRA) are using data from the Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) and the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI). The team revealed subtle surface signs “when and where sunspots will emerge on the Sun, at least a day in advance.” (SCIENTISTS DISCOVER SOLAR PRECURSORS OF WHEN, WHERE SUNSPOTS WILL EMERGE”, 9 July 2013, http://www.nwra.com/news/sunspots/). How do you interpret these findings in the light of the findings of Livingston and Penn? Can the cause of the Livingston and Penn effect be explained by this finding?
4. David Hathaway made the power point presentation “Solar Cycle update” (See http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations.shtml). On page 40, he shows an interesting picture based on the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Fields. He deduces the strength the solar cycle from the rate of change in the polar fields. He concludes: Cycle 24 has far fewer (and smaller) sunspots than Cycles 22 and 23. Although the faster Meridional flow should help overcome this deficit, the slow rate of change in the polar fields strongly suggests that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?
richardscourtney says:
“Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.”
Perhaps you can provide some proof of that.
The Agra famine years is a good example of the type of events coming up. The cold reached most regions around the temperate zone, with crop failures in many countries.
March to August 1837: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/north_atlantic/nao_mon.txt
Ulric Lyons:
re your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 4:53 am.
Please don’t be silly. A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.
You are the one who has made a claim; viz.
Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.
Five years from now few will remember your undefined assertion about 2016/17 and “some following years”. I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.”
I gave a good example in my previous comment, I would not take your definition seriously as it is false. Your “A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.” is a shaggy dog tale whizzed up merely to distort the issue. I can guarantee when the famine years will occur, because I can forecast down to monthly and less scales.
” I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?”
Nothing is left unmentioned, that would be cheating.
Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post to me at September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am saying
Everything is left undefined, and that is cheating.
In your statement
the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probabilty ?)
2. famine conditions (where and how severe ?)
3. some following years (proportion of years ?)
4. big cold shots (big ? cold ? shots?)
5. growing seasons (of what and where ?)
I anticipate post hoc specifications of these terms.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am
Ulric, it appears you misunderstand the import of Richard’s question. If you are going to be making a prediction, it is WORTHLESS unless it is specific.
In your case you claim that there “could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17”. That is not a prediction at all, unless you believe Piers Corbyn makes predictions … to be a prediction, you need to define your terms in a very precise manner.
For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.
In other words, you are not making a prediction at all.
Perhaps it would help if you thought of a prediction as a bet. If I say “I’ll bet you that there will be a big temperature increase tomorrow”, you’d be a fool to take the bet (as would I) because we haven’t decided what is “big” and what is “not big”.
So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim that there “could easily be famine conditions”, which is meaningless in the scientific world (or the world of bets) … color me unimpressed. If you want to play that game, you’ll have to do much, much better than that.
w.
@richardscourtney
As I have posted several times on this blog, extremely low temperatures for the time of year, in April, May and June of 2016 with 100% certainty, with few regions escaping the effects. Certain regions do come up on suitable analogues, such as Asia, Japan, Canada, and parts of Europe, particularly Sweden and Ireland. Conditions the following year while not as severe, will be poor through May, June and July. Farmers can work out what crops that will effect, and I’ll describe what follows these years when I choose to.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.”
Both, that’s what happens when the jet is 1000 miles south of normal. As I keep reminding all, we have been hitting Maunder type temperatures already on some of the cold shots since 2010. I can be fully specific about the timing, intensity, and duration of the solar forecast, and the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.
Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post at September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am saying
I don’t doubt it.
Indeed, I predicted that in my post at September 14, 2013 at 5:20 am.
I also predict that you’ll describe what follows these years how you choose to.
For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.
Please note that the post from Willis Eschenbach at September 14, 2013 at 6:37 am shows that at least one person understands what I am trying to say to you.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
“So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim..”
Actually Willis, if you saw how I am doing it you see how rational it is.
richardscourtney says:
“For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.”
I gave the same type of forecast for March 2013 and it was correct, so what you call a get out clause is in reality a success. That’s number two straw man from you here. You’ve just got some weird jumbie in you that cannot help attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast, how sad for you.
And you had the clear specification already:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Ulric Lyons:
I am writing to object to your offensive twaddle at September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am.
You have pretended to make a prediction. It may be that you have fooled yourself into thinking you have made a prediction, BUT YOU HAVE NOT. You have only made a vague assertion comprised of unspecified terms which I listed in my post at September 14, 2013 at 6:15 am.
I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none. I have only asked you to define the terms which YOU are using.
I do not know what a “weird jumbie” is so I cannot say if there is one in me or not.
I am NOT making an “attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast”. I am asking the only person who claims he can give a deterministic forecast to demonstrate his claim. Volumes are spoken by your resort to unsubstantiated insults as an excuse for your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:43 am
pearls before swine.