Leif Svalgaard writes:
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Graph source: NASA News
This would be stunning, because it suggests that the sun has skipped a solar cycle (#24) . Researchers, three from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the other from Marshall Space Flight Center-NASA, have published a paper that suggests this possibility.
Does a polar coronal hole’s flux emergence follow a Hale-like law?
A. Savcheva1, J.W. Cirtain2, E.E. DeLuca1, L. Golub1
ABSTRACT
Recent increases in spatial and temporal resolution for solar telescopes sensitive to EUV and X-ray radiation have revealed the prevalence of transient jet events in polar coronal holes. Using data collected by the X-Ray Telescope on Hinode, Savcheva et al. (2007) confirmed the observation, made first by the Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh, that some jets exhibit a motion transverse to the jet outflow direction.
The velocity of this transverse motion is, on average, 20 kms−1. The direction of the transverse motion, in combination with the standard reconnection model for jet production (e.g. Shibata et al. 1992), reflects the magnetic polarity orientation of the ephemeral active region at the base of the jet. From this signature, we find that during the present minimum phase of the solar cycle the jet-base ephemeral active regions in the polar coronal holes had a preferred east-west direction, and that this direction reversed during the cycle’s progression through minimum.
In late 2006 and early 2007, the preferred direction was that of the active regions of the coming sunspot cycle (Cycle 24), but in late 2008 and early 2009 the preferred direction has been that of the active regions of sunspot cycle 25. These findings are consistent with the results of Wilson et al. (1988) that there is a high latitude expansion of the solar activity
cycle.
Full paper here:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does this mean then that if the sun skips a bunch of cycles and we go into a kind of Maunder Minimum it will be sort of like the Sun is in Mauno-pause.?
jorgekafkazar (15:08:49) :
From the media? “CO² Cause of Solar Inactivity, Scientists Say.”
From the general public? “Solar cycles? Great! Can you ride ‘em on the freeway at night?”
From the Warmist Willies: “We don’t know what this means, but we’re sure it’s worse than we thought.”
😀 You may just be right. If it even gets noticed at all, which isn’t likely IMHO. Some Hollywood starlet with big boobs would have to blog about it first. 😉
Now we know what we don’t know.
What we didn’t know, is still an unknown.
LOL
If we consider that a solar cycle is a mechanism for producing certain behaviors including sun spots on the Sun. Is it possible to have three solar cycles active on the Sun at the same time?
Ken S (17:00:24) :
It must be true because we already have a SolarCycle25 web site up and running!
http://solarcycle25.com/
Actually that’s the kind of site that really grates with me because it’s basically a subject-based spam blog. There’s no original content – it just reproduces other people’s content elsewhere and adds Google Adsense.
“John A (18:38:06) :
Ken S (17:00:24) :
It must be true because we already have a SolarCycle25 web site up and running!
http://solarcycle25.com/
Actually that’s the kind of site that really grates with me because it’s basically a subject-based spam blog. There’s no original content – it just reproduces other people’s content elsewhere and adds Google Adsense.”
I should have been more carefull in how I worded that.
When I said “we already have a SolarCycle25 web site up and running”,
I wasn’t refering to myself in any way other than we all belong to a collective group
of humans, thus the “we”. I am in no way associated with that web site nor any others.
I agree in what you say, “There’s no original content – it just reproduces other people’s content elsewhere”. I’ll add that this seems to be the common practice of a number of like web sites.
Let me guess, none of this is affecting the climate? smile 🙂
This just in, this unexpected skipping of a sun cycle could not be put into the climate models and the effects of too much CO2 are still warming the earth….but this has cooled it for a short period of time. LOL We still expect Florida to be underwater once the ice thaws in 2050
Based upon my lurking here, my understanding is that, early on in the cycle, sun spots tend to originate in the polar regions. As the cycle progresses, the sunspots tend to be closer in latitude to the solar equator. This is why you can have sun spots from 2 solar cycles present at the same time. Old cycle spots near the equator, and spots from the new cycle starting in the polar regions. My understanding is that this is also the reason that the “official” end of one cycle and the start of the new cycle can normally only be determined months after the fact. That was a hot topic here for a while, but there are much more interesting questions at the moment. I’d guess, since Lief linked to some solar scientist humor, that he is enjoying all of this. Extended cycle indeed!
Dan Murphy
that is not what they report. The report that there are magnetic regions in the polar caps with polarity different from cycle 24, i.e. what we would expect for SC25 and what we had for SC23. So, yes, in a sense, 2 cycles [23 and 25] can have the same polarity, although that was probably not what you meant.
Leif
Would you mind speculating a bit what this might mean if this type of transition is happening on the sun? Is there any magnetic orientation data available for the solar cycles that happened during the Maunder minimum?
It is my understanding from you as well as from other sources that during the MM the solar cycles were still extant due to the Be-10 and C-14 variability detected in various proxies. If this is the case, and if it is also the case that this magnetic switch has happened, is there any data in the proxy record that would support this type of switch in the past? I don’t see it myself but would like to get your opinion.
Additionally, with the slow increase in the 10.7 numbers that you periodically post, it would seem that we are moving into CY24, no matter what the other indications are. This would be consistent with MM conditions as measured in other proxies, except…..The Cosmic ray numbers from Moscow are now showing much of a decrease.
Interesting stuff indeed.
Edit:
he Cosmic ray numbers from Moscow are NOT now showing much of a decrease.
40 years of cooling? Better get out the Nuc Powered Desalination plans and start building. Colder climate means less precipitation which means less water for agriculture output. 40 years of cooling. Where have I read that before?
Re: Solar cycle 25??
This is a very interesting paper. It is a neat example of what we all have been calling for… , a fresh look at seemingly obscure data. Hats off to the authors!!
The nice thing is that we won’t have to wait 100 years to see if their hypothesis holds together!!
G.
What a pity that Al Gore Himself doesn’t grace us with His presence on this humble blog. He could enlighten us greatly.
“Leif Svalgaard (13:35:31) :
Tom (13:24:46) :
The direction of travel of the jets in 2006-7 was that predicted for cycle 24, while the direction of travel for 2008-9 is the direction predicted for cycle 25 (or 23).
One assumption that may be wrong is that the small bipolar regions have a preferred direction [polarity change]. When one plots the angle between the line connecting the two spots [or specks], one finds that for large regions that line is pretty much East-West [with a small tilt – Joy’s law], but with decreasing size of the region this tendency becomes smaller and the line is more and more randomly oriented. For the smallest one [like we see in the polar regions] the orientation may be random enough that we can see almost what we want. The only way out of this is to wait and build up more statistics. But interesting, nevertheless.”
OT and no disrespect to Lief however, your point about assumption being wrong prompted me to respond bacause I watched a movie last night called “Meteor”. It’s what I’d call a very low budget “B” movie but what made me laugh was one of the actors playing some kind of “expert scientist” while trying to work out some trajectory calculations said “They got the assumption wrong!”. Given the science of climate change is largely based on assumption, I thought it was rather funny.
Dennis Wingo (19:51:49) :
Cosmic ray numbers from Moscow are NOT now showing much of a decrease.
Smoothed numbers or higher numbers of thermal neutrons? Dennis, it is very important for me to know all about the intensity of GCR. Would you be so kind as to inform me about this issue?
BTW, I don’t think that Leif Svalgaard has thought in a Sun ruled by an external operator. Even so, speculations from this article are getting its authors closer to the belief that the Sun’s core is a dynamo, I mean, a neutron star or something of the kind. 🙂
All I can say… as a father of four…
It’s really bad when you skip a cycle.
’nuff said.
It’s probably still cycle 23…. It hasn’t skipped anything.
It’s funny how every now and then you get some ‘specialists’ proclaiming they know what’s happening with the sun and every time the sun shakes a bit of dust they come up with new “discoveries”.
Nobody know and nobody will known at least for the near future so just lay back and watch it happening live.
Personally I think it’s just cycle 24 taking it slowly.
Jimmy Haigh (20:14:16)
LOL No, he’ll tax us for siting under the sun…
This is the stuff real science is about – making observations & trying to figure out what it all means. Fascinating!!
Leif / Anthony, please keep us up to date with any new developments on this story as they become available. Thanks!!
Dennis Wingo (19:50:08) :
Would you mind speculating a bit what this might mean if this type of transition is happening on the sun? Is there any magnetic orientation data available for the solar cycles that happened during the Maunder minimum?
No, solar magnetism was suspected by Bigelow in the 1890s and first measured by Hale in 1908 [I think]. The orientation data in the polar caps really had to await modern spacecraft observations.
It is my understanding from you as well as from other sources that during the MM the solar cycles were still extant due to the Be-10 and C-14 variability detected in various proxies. If this is the case, and if it is also the case that this magnetic switch has happened, is there any data in the proxy record that would support this type of switch in the past? I don’t see it myself but would like to get your opinion.
The cosmic ray modulation was strong during the Maunder Minimum, but we can’t really tell yet what the polarity was. In principle that should be possible because the shape of the GCR solar cycle variation is subtlety different depending on the sign of the polar fields [the flat versus peaked variations]. Since this is a second order effect, the noise level has to be beaten down an order of magnitude before we could see this effect, but with many more ice cores that should be possible in future.
Additionally, with the slow increase in the 10.7 numbers that you periodically post, it would seem that we are moving into CY24, no matter what the other indications are.
Every day, in fact.
This would be consistent with MM conditions as measured in other proxies, except…..The Cosmic ray numbers from Moscow are not showing much of a decrease.
Since April, almost all stations show a decrease or at least no more increase, here are some: http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm
WOW!!! Thanks a lot, Leif! I’d like to have the databases from the six monitors. Please, tell me where I can find them, if it doesn’t bother you.
Nasif Nahle (21:04:45) :
WOW!!! Thanks a lot, Leif! I’d like to have the databases from the six monitors.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/bri_table.html
Solar Cycle 25? highly unlikely….the SC25 flows have not started yet. This is more like the situation in SC4 where the dying cycle gets a boost (Neptune/Uranus alignment) before finally giving up. The position of SC24 and SC23 is now identical including the very important planetary line up.
Just another coincidence?
Are these questions well-defined? If there will be a lot of solar activity, it is likely that we will be able to see the sign. But assuming that the magnetic fingerprint will agree with SC23, what is the general rule that decides whether we will see a continuing Cycle 23, that was just temporarily weakened, Cycle 25, or whether we have skipped Cycles 24-34 by small fluctuations around zero and we will see Cycle 35? 😉