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:
“But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted?”
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range. I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK, it does take studying local weather data to forecast well for a different region.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range.
Numbers, Ulric, numbers! how many degrees for how long, etc.
I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK
But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?”
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons. The Arctic warms when the temperate zone cools, at the same time as ENSO moves to Nino conditions, and there’s a range of maritime, continental and topographical circulation patterns all around the temperate zone which change through the seasons. It’s not exactly all moving together in unison, so while I forecast for very hot weather from the 6/7th July for the UK, I would not have done the same for the US, or the Arctic for that matter.
.
The verdict is not in everyone. You can all argue all you want about what climate prediction is or is not right, but to do it you need to put up specifics and stand by them.( Put up or shut up I think they say.) In addition, if the solar parameters I mention below are acheived and the temperatures remain flat or do not go down I will admit to being wrong.
I will say it again if these solar parameters are reached, I expect the temperature trend going forward is going to be down,down and down.
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500or greater sustained.
Those conditions following several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since late 2005.
You can all say what I say is nonsence, but that will be meaningless unless the solar parameters I mention are achieved and the temperatures do not respond down. Time will tell, if this prolonged solar minimum lives up to expectations .
In addition thresholds have to be considered ,becasuue they are out there , but I don’t know what it may or may not take to have them be approached. Maybe a solar wind less then 300 sustained , or a solar flux sub 72 sustained.
The ap index and solar activity will be global but that does not mean the whole globe wlil be affected in the same way . For example a more meridional atmospheric circulation would cause those places under a ridge to be warm while places under a trough would be very cold.
Next example:
Volcanic eruptions while they would cool the globe as a whole not all places at all times on the globe would cool as a result. Some would warm depending on where the volcanic eruption took place during certain seasons.
If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
Will it ,time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.
So for some places, temps go up with Ap, for others they go down, for others yet, they stay the same.
And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:07 am
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500 or greater sustained.
Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? And from which date, exactly? Yesterday? What does ‘sustained’ mean? That not a single value is off? and if not, how many?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
As predicted.
Here are my numbers Leif for my global temperature forecast if, and only IF those solar parameters are reached. My forecast is global temperautres will be .8c colder by 2020 for the globe as a whole.
Greatest cooling will occur in the N.H. between 30 n and 70 n, while the smallest amount of cooling will be in the equatorial regions (next too nothing) and the S.H as a whole. Avg. for the globe -.8c, but contingent upon those solar parameters I mentioned being realized. If not cooling will be less.
Also possible thresholds are not being taken into consideration, and the big wild card is future volcanic activity, or lack of it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:28 am
Here are my numbers
You are not responsive to my questions at
September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Your prediction places you in a precarious position. If indeed we do have a cold spell, your solar-related predictions are still meaningless. I wonder if either of you know why?
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:33 am
Your prediction places you in a precarious position.
Pamela, always refer to exactly whom/what you are commenting on.
They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
For my 2020 forecast to be realized I would need those solar parameters to be realized no later then year 2015.
Another words the average of all the solar parameters I mentioned would have to be those solar parameter values I mentioned or lower going forward through time.
It does not happen very often as we know.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out correct or not correct.
Will it , I don’t know but if it does then it would meet my criteria. The same theme for the other solar parameters.
Wait and see, I think there is a chance these values can be attaned and sustained,once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by.Y…
Pam you would then be in denial under those circumstances.Time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am
Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
In addition, you’ve not answered Leif’s questions, viz:
The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Or as Leif said,
Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.
w.
Friends:
Ulric Lyons says he will not engage with me because I asked him to make a specific – and not vague – forecast. I repeatedly asked him – with no success – to define the terms he was using in this so-called “prediction”
The following words of his demonstrate the problem with what he claims is a “prediction”.
At September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning his so-called “prediction”
At September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning all his claimed “predictions”
So, in his so-called prediction which are the “few regions escaping the effects” (where, how large, and how many?) when “The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.”? And somewhere is unusually cold – and somewhere is unusually warm – to some degree at almost any moment.
Simply, whatever eventually happens “in April, May and June of 2016”, it could be argued to agree with the so-called prediction.
Richard
Salvatore, you appear to be taking lessons from Ulrich in wasting electrons. Leif asked very specific questions, viz:
You’ve come back, acting like you’ve answered his questions with the following:
Sorry, unresponsive. I know it’s boring, but you need to take each and every one of Leif’s questions, and ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. For example, you say it’s supposed to start “once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends” … but what are you defining as the “end” of the solar max? And are all of them supposed to be in effect by then?
Answer the questions as asked, one by one, Salvatore, because at present you’re just channelling Ulrich in uselessness. And very soon, everyone is just going to start ignoring both of you, for good reason. A non-specific forecast without numbers and exact details is a waste of everyones’ time.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:41 am
Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Let me repeat: “Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? ”
Your example is silly. Since from the time the maximum ends until the next cycle we will be in or approaching minimum conditions the solar flux will by definition be low. The average will be about 90 even according to the prediction in this very post. That is not particularly low or unusual for a cycle like SC24. For cycle 14 [see slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20and%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf ] that average was about 75.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?”
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here. And to compare like with like, the standard Met Office long range forecast has a fraction of the detail or levels (7) of temperature that I have described, and all manner of uncertainties, so if anyone is setting the standards on this kind of range, it would naturally be the superior product.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here.
But if you are not, then your claim has no value.
ferd berple September 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm
…” I propose the hypothesis that the sun’s influence on climate is a chaotic fractal at all time scales. The TEST of this is that no one will be able to accurately predict the effect of the sun on climate using existing mathematical theory.”
———————
Bingo! Gold star for ferd.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”
There is a standard for a heat wave, and I would not call a heat wave unless I expected that to be exceeded, I do know what that is, and of course it is relative to normals, so it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. A forecast for a particular month or months for say the north hemisphere is relevant, because a big change in the AO/NAO will effect most regions, but no hard numbers can be put to it until looking at a particular location, which I do regularly do, but is not what I am addressing here.
Yes those solar parameters are suppose to apply all of the time.
Let us say the maximum of solar cycle 24 is behind us enough that all of my solar parameters start to be acheived. Let us take a start date of Jan.01 ,2015.
I am saying yes all those solar parameters from Jan.01 ,2015 will have to be acheived all of the time through year 2020 , to meet my climatic forecast I made of global temperatures -.8c by year 2020.
I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong. I want to know one way or the other.
I also realize these kind of sustained solar parameters are quite unusual over such a long length of time, the five year period I refer to.
I say if they should be attained , they would follow 10 years of sub-solar activity in general and that combined with the extreme quiet condtins should be enough to make the temperature trend drop significantly between those years 2015-2020.
I hope I answered the questions. I appreciate your previous post Willis.