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.
Carla says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place.
Luckily, the solar wind keeps all that far away from us.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:22 am
about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot.
We have drawings going back to Galileo. More importantly, there is a very simple way of checking if the sunspot number is correct: From modern observations we know that more sunspots means more UV from the Sun. The UV creates our ionosphere and winds there [caused by solar heating] form a dynamo that creates a [small] magnetic field which we can detect on the ground. This was discovered by Graham in 1722 and Wolf discovered that the magnetic effects was related to the number of sunspots. Because we have observed the magnetic effect since the 18th century we know that the sunspot number since then is correct, in the sense that the number we count now giving rise to a certain magnetic effect is the same number as they counted back then for the same magnetic effect. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf In fact, the ancient sunspot counts can be calibrated using their magnetic effect.
rikgheysens says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:28 am
Do you have examples of such photographs?
Yes, thousands, but it is hard to see in those photographs as the sunspots themselves vary.
Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’
A better description is that the magnetic field is still there but did not contrate enough to form a spot.
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?
I don’t think so.
that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?
Yes, as it is also my view.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:14 am
What part of “how much” do you not understand. RICHARD AND I ARE ASKING FOR SPECIFICS, not more of your vague blather. Waving your hands and saying that there will be a “big cold shot” is not science.
Why?
Because it is NOT FALSIFIABLE. You have not given anywhere near enough details to falsify it. As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.
So your unfalsifiable claim is meaningless. If you want to play, get a clue—we don’t accept that kind of nonsensical handwaving around here. And every time you try it again, you lose credibility. Get specific, or get out of here, so far your so-called “predictions” are just a waste of electrons.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:18 am
Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap. HOW BIG, AND WHERE?
w.
Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.
Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions”?
w.
@ur momisuglyUlric lyons
There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.
the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probability ?)
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 ?)
to answer the questions
(I am not on speaking terms with richardscourtney)
1) high probability, greater than 99%
2) 2021-2028, @ur momisuglygreater than [40] latitude, due to the cooling from the top
similar to 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
3) answered
4) 2029-2039 similar to 1940-1950: very cold
5) more rain/precipitation @ur momisugly -30<x<30 latitude from 1995 to 2039 due to the cooling from the top
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
clearly
@ur momisugly a number of folks here
there is no “pause”
it is either cooling or it is warming
since at least 2002 most data sets show it is cooling
(except UAH who have acknowledged calibration issues)
here is my own
(cooling from 2000)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
clealry,rather trust (your/my) own data sets as it seems there is already some “hiding the decline” going on again….
HenryP:
At September 14, 2013 at 8:25 am your post says
For the benefit of others I write to explain that you not speaking to me is because of a similar disagreement to that I am having with the equally evasive Ulric lyons.
You are either unable or unwilling to explain the method you used to create your so-called model. Hence, your model s unfalsifiable so it is worthless.
Also, I have no intention of considering the definitions you want to apply to the terms used by Ulric Lyons. He claims to be making his prediction – not you – so your interpretation of his words is worth no more than mine; i.e. it is worthless.
He needs to define the terms he is using in his prediction or he has not made a prediction.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
” As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.”
No I cannot because of what I have already stated, that would by definition not be a big drop in temperature, so you are up to the same kind of tricks as Richard.
“Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap.”
How do you know what have forecast and how well I have forecast?
and I have indicated that:
“..the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.”
Or did you want it to the nearest °C in Manhattan for every day?
for the sake of clarity to others here:
Richard called me a fool for which he did not apologize unconditionally
as he know he should
(if indeed he is a preacher at a church)
HenryP:
Try to stop being a fool and wasting space on threads with your nonsense.
Richard
HenryP and Richard! Go sit on the naughty chair! ROTFLMAO!
Super Nanny where are you?
richardscourtney says:
“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.”
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
“I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none.”
I picked up on two, your claim that there is always a big cold shot somewhere every year, and your:
“extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause”,
Which is just nonsense, there is nothing ambiguous about “extremely low temperatures for the time of year”, and when the AO goes very negative, few regions escape the effects.
“..your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.”
I regularly demonstrate deterministic forecasts.
Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 8:58 am you say
I have not noticed Willis using any “tricks” and I certainly have not.
The only action in this thread which could be thought a “trick” is your purporting to have made a prediction but refusing to define the terms used in that so-called prediction so you are able to define its success after the event.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?
Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am you egregiously assert I provided ‘red herrings’ in this thread when you know I have not.
You assert I made a ‘red herring’ when I said;
That is simply true and is NOT a ‘red herring’. For example, last year we had snow which lasted for days here in Cornwall. This year we had snow in Saudi Arabia. Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.
I listed the terms which are undefined in your so-called prediction and you have still not defined them.
And you also say I provided a ‘red herring’ when I said
That, too, is simply a truth and not a ‘red herring’. You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.
Ulric, I am willing to hold your shovel if you want to take a rest from digging.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:16 am
Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.
Next year, there will be a drought.
Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions?
___________________________________________________
That’s a really non-specific forecast, I’m used to giving down to daily detail for approx temperature deviations from normals and likelihood of rainfall for the UK region months and even years in advance. Something you could bet on, or rely on. Can I connect the dots to my predictions? what did you imagine I was up to, casting bones across my yard?
richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.”
There’s your straw man again, hard cold shots in winter are largely simultaneous around the hemisphere.
“You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.”
I have made a prediction despite your claims to the contrary, and will now cease to reply to your vacuous complaints.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 14, 2013 at 9:37 am you say to me
OK. Everybody will understand that. You have not been able and/or willing to define the terms in your so-called “prediction” prior to its outcome, so having been pressed to make a specific prediction you have ‘taken your ball home’.
And I notice that you have failed to answer the very reasonable request from Leif Svalgaard at
September 14, 2013 at 9:16 am for your to substantiate your claims of forecast skill.
Richard
interesting though….
Am I right that UAH only measures between [30] latitudes?
that would (also) explain to me why UAH does not yet see “the cooling”
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average.
More water vapour condensing there, releases more heat……
So, at this stage global cooling would only become more visible at >[40] latitudes
(excl. east USA and W-Europe due to weather related issues)
seeing as that temps. in Anchorage dropped by almost 2K since 2000
AND NOBODY NOTICED?
@Leif
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
“How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?”
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed. On a simple scale of three levels for temperature above and below normals, I would estimate performance has been around 80-90% for a call on intensity in the last couple of years, it has improved. There were some problems this winter in how it played out at ground level, e.g. I forecast a cold spell from 8/9th to 18/19th Jan, the westerly Atlantic flow picked up as expected from around the 18th, but didn’t manage to break the high pressure block for almost a week and we got loads of snow instead of a warm up. This repeated at the end of the February cold shots too, but I forecast all the onsets of the cold shots through the winter fine, and could readily see that the cold in March would be very deep. The only major winter cold shot I have missed since 2008 was the first two weeks of Jan 2010, I expected it to start mid Jan through well into Feb.
Leif,
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares. They suggested that we could perhaps predict solar flares because the rate of decay changed before the flare was apparent.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:20 am
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed.
Assuming you make one forecast per week that would put 47 of them in the good-very good category. But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted? over which area? over New Delhi or Petaluma? Any independent determination of your forecasts?
cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:22 am
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares.
This is VERY controversial and not ready for prime time predictions.
My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay? In other words when the sun is not ” disrupted ” by flares, the flow of neutrinos ( or whatever particle ) is more steady and regular ?
cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:33 am
My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay?
Neutrinos do not interact with matter enough to be influenced by flares [which only cover a very small fraction of the surface anyway] so I don’t think any effect would be observable.
science by news byte … they got me . Interesting about the 33 day cycle instead of the 28 day rotation duration.