by David Archibald
Figure 1: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2012
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle is currently at 67°. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.
Figure 2: Ap Index 1984 – 2012
Three years into Solar Cycle 24, the Ap Index has now risen to the level of previous minima.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2012
Figure 3 shows that solar wind flow pressure has returned to levels prevailing over most of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 4: Solar Cycle 20 compared to Solar Cycle 24
The last time the planet had a discernible cooling period was in the 1970s, associated with Solar Cycle 20. This figure was developed to compare the Ap index and neutron count of Solar Cycle 24 with Solar Cycle 20. In Solar Cycle 20, the Ap index diverged a long way from the neutron count.
Figure 5: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1968 – 2012
Similar to the Ap Index, the Interplanetary Magnetic Field is now up to the levels of previous solar minima.
(note this figure has been corrected from the original, thanks to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
Figure 6: Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it.
Figure 7: Aligned neutron count by solar cycle
In this figure, the neutron count of the last five solar cycles is aligned on month of minimum. It shows that Solar Cycle 24 hasn’t departed much from where Solar Cycle 23 was at the same time. On the other hand, the neutron count could go sideways from here.
Figure 8: Predicting year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum
It is estimated that Solar Cycle 24 maximum will be centred on May 2013 and using Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram, we can derive the year of the 24/25 minimum as 2026. This means that the fall time for Solar Cycle 24 will be 13 years. For all the numbered solar cycles, plotting fall time from the maximum against the maximum to maximum time enables us to make an estimate of the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum. From Figure 8, the Solar Cycle 25 maximum will be 19 years after the Solar Cycle 24 maximum in 2013, which makes it 2032.
Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040
The large decline in the sunspot number and F 10.7 flux at the beginning of the year, prior to the recent major flare, suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will look like Solar Cycle 5 in having a low base of activity with periodic spikes. The estimate of 7 for the peak of Solar Cycle 25 is from Livingston and Penn.
Very interesting post. Considering the performance of the experts just a few years back in predicting the beginning of cycle 24, how confident can anyone be of the size and shape of the end of 24 and the start of 25?
Much of this was over my head … but the prediction for Cycle 25 is brave and eyecatching.
Stock up on winter woolies.
My interpretation of what many WUWT commenters seem to be thinking these days: Linear extrapolation of “L&P” = global terrestrial temperatures go down.
Not saying I agree or share conception, but I do have a question for those who may be thinking this way (NOT for those who are NOT thinking this way): How do you suggest time of terrestrial year fits into this “model”?
Paul Vaughan says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:39 am
> Not saying I agree or share conception,
Glad to get past that!
I kinda don’t trust the forecasts made in the last two figures. Cycle 23 is quite on the edge and cycle 24 seems to be way out of known territory and I don’t think it is appropriate to expect the system will continue behaving linearly with such stretched parameters.
Figure 6 is not correct. Cycle 5 did not begin in 1796, but in 1798 or 1799:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
What happened to the Ed Fix model?
From my understanding, the plumetting umbral magnetic field is what is so disconcerting about solar cycle 25. It’s normally averages around 3,000 gauss and it’s already fallen to below 2,000 and continues to fall at 70 gauss per year. When it falls below 1500 gauss, there is insufficient magnetic force to hold sunspots together, so they virtually disappear altogether.
It’s now projected that the umbral magnetic field is currently projected to fall below 1500 gauss towards the end of solar cycle 24 around 2018, which I assume is why solar cycle 25 is projected to be so weak.
If all this does happen, at least we’ll have the perfect opportunity to verify the Svensmark Effect on a global scale rather than in some small cloud chamber at CERN….
Leif Svalgaard says: Figure 6 is not correct.
But apart from that David’s post is correct? Usually you have a bit more to say about his posts.
I’d like a little clarification here: What is the soure of the neutron count? the interplanetary magnetic field?
Also, regarding the solar cyhcle 25 prediction, I will still be alive in 2032 so I will hold you to account.
meemoe_uk says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:27 am
But apart from that David’s post is correct? Usually you have a bit more to say about his posts.
Well, because of his error, it is also not correct to say that SC24 is a year ahead of SC5. Finally, SC5 data is very uncertain to something like a factor of two, so any detailed comparison is meaningless. Wolf’s original data for SC5 had a much larger cycle, but his successor Wolfer, in 1902 reduced the sunspot number significantly for SC5. In any case, the data for SC5 is not very reliable.
Questions:
1) How does the neutron count compare to the recent Sunspot Cycles? In sync, out of sync?
2) Why is the neutron count in sync or out of sync? What, where in the Sun drives these counts?
I follow what Leif Svalgaard posts over at SolarHam.com. A few weeks ago on the discussion board he spoke about the L&P effect and if it caused the week solar cycles of the Dalton minimum. The answer was quite interesting. No the Dalton minimum was probably not caused by the L&P effect but it was likely a factor in the Maunder minimum. Does that give us a hint at where Leif thinks the sun is headed?
Robert of Ottawa says:March 15, 2012 at 6:38 am
I’d like a little clarification here: What is the soure of the neutron count? the interplanetary magnetic field?
The neutrons are made when galactic cosmic rays hit the atmosphere and generate a shower of particles, so the neutron count is a measure of cosmic ray activity, which in turn is an inverse measure of the solar wind, which tends to sweep cosmic rays away from us. At least that’s my take on it.
Help me out here.
I can’t be the only reader who doesn’t know what Ap index stands for, or what it’s significance is. Of course I googled to find it and searched Wikipedia, back when you previously used the term, but I admit I failed.
Actually can I ask you to do a thumbbnamil description of each of the headings you use, explaining the terms and the significance of the data? Without being an idiot, I am nevertheless clearly profoundly ignorant in this are.
meemoe_uk says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:27 am
Leif Svalgaard says: Figure 6 is not correct.
But apart from that David’s post is correct? Usually you have a bit more to say about his posts
David’s post contains it’s usual incorrect assertions. For example, he says
RE: my post above. This bit is my comment – not David’s
There was no cooling in the 1970s. The 1970s saw the onset of WARMING. There was a cooling period which began in the 1940s, but this was 20 years before the start of Solar Cycle 20 so it’s difficult to see how this can be associated with the cooling.
Perhaps you can explain this as David seems reluctant to do so.
John Finn says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:08 am
There was no cooling in the 1970s. The 1970s saw the onset of WARMING. There was a cooling period which began in the 1940s, but this was 20 years before the start of Solar Cycle 20
It seems ground hog day is with us again John. I have pointed out to you several times that solar cycles alone are not enough to explain climate shifts. Once again think of the PDO.
John Finn says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:08 am
“There was no cooling in the 1970s. The 1970s saw the onset of WARMING.”
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Well spotted Dr Svalgaard. It is an obvious mistake. I have sent a corrected version to Anthony which he might use to replace the deficient one. The corrected version looks exactly like Solar Cycle 5.
Geoff Sharp says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:00 am
My take on the Ed Fix model is that in times like these, the Sun hits Hilary Clinton’s reset button. All the momentum gets washed out and the magnetic poles may not reverse at maximum. Ed Fix’s model remains the best model going and others can now build on what he achieved. I am very happy that I helped to get Ed’s paper published.
If we go back five years, I was saying at the time that we are not seeing any spotless days – Solar Cycle 23 is going to be longer that what NASA thinks. A similar situation exists today. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram suggests that the path of a sunspot cycle is set at its inception at solar maximum of the previous cycle. As Altrock himself said, Solar Cycle 25 is 40% slower than the previous two cycles. So, if it continues its straight line move and does not bend towards the equator and speed up, the 24/25 minimum will be in 2026. NASA’s diagram has it in 2020. Solar Cycle 24 is starting out like Solar Cycle 5 but will have a very much longer fall time. I believe I am right on this and NASA will spend years playing catch up, as they have done with their estimate of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude. This cycle is not like anything we have seen for 400 years.
What is new in this post is the estimate of year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum. It will be true if the relationship it is based on does not change during this minimum.
It would be good to get an update on the state of the Sun’s UV flux and where the thermosphere is at. The Earth’s atmosphere shrank 25% at the beginning of the 23/24 minimum.
To repeat my question asked in comments at yesterday’s solar post,
Have there been any changes in the day-night temperature differences as a result of the current Forbush decrease? (Possibly supporting the Svensmark hypothesis.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/new-paper-links-cosmic-rays-clouds-and-temperature/
Samauri writes “If all this does happen, at least we’ll have the perfect opportunity to verify the Svensmark Effect on a global scale rather than in some small cloud chamber at CERN….”
I realise this is off topic, but let me hang a question of this comment. There was a recent Forbush Decrease of 15%. What effect did this have on clouds? Has Svensmark’s idea been tested by this event? I have asked in many places, and have not got an answer. Anyone know?
I’m not selling the fleece-lined Drizabone I bought in Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) during one cold winter that I was staying there.
Robert of Ottawa says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:38 am
“I’d like a little clarification here: What is the soure of the neutron count? the interplanetary magnetic field?
Also, regarding the solar cyhcle 25 prediction, I will still be alive in 2032 so I will hold you to account.”
Your prediction regarding being alive in 2032 is the single boldest prediction I have seen on any of the posts on WUWT so far. I hope you are correct.
David Archibald says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:25 am
Well spotted Dr Svalgaard. It is an obvious mistake. I have sent a corrected version to Anthony which he might use to replace the deficient one. The corrected version looks exactly like Solar Cycle 5.
Which lasted only 12 years…