Guest essay by David Archibald
Recently, a number of newspaper articles spoke of the potential of cycle 25 to be “Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”. “We’re in a new age of solar physics,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Here is a collection of solar measurements that illustrate the current state of cycle 24, as well as provide insight into cycle 25.
Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2013
This graph suggests that it may be a further six months or more to solar cycle maximum. Neutron count tends to follow the solar cycle with up to a one year lag so it may be another 18 months before we get to the minimum neutron count for Solar Cycle 24.
Figure 2: Oulu Neutron Count for Solar Cycles 20 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
In terms of neutron count, Solar Cycle 24 isn’t much weaker than the previous four cycles at a similar stage of development.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2013
The Ap Planetary Magnetic Index has now spent the last couple of years below the levels of previous solar cycle minima, including an all-time record low for the data set.
Figure 4: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
Solar minimum is marked by the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle. This tends to be quite sharp. Solar maxima are a lot broader with the current maximum the broadest of the instrument record. There is no indication yet from this measure that solar maximum is over.
Figure 5: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2013
The F10.7 flux shows that Solar Cycle 24 is quite a weak cycle relative to the ones that have preceded it in the instrumental record.
Figure 6: F10.7 Flux of Solar Cycles 19 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
In terms of F10.7 flux, Solar Cycle 24 peaked two years ago. The relationship between F10.7 flux and sea level rise indicates that a flux of 100 is the break-over between climate warming and cooling. The flux level has been at about that value for the last three years.
Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2013
The 1970s cooling period had a weak and flat interplanetary magnetic field over Solar Cycle 20. Solar Cycle 24 could produce a similar result with a slightly lower average value over the cycle.
Figure 8: Solar Cycle 24 sunspot count relative to the Dalton Minimum
All things considered, the current solar cycle is tracking Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, fairly closely.
Figure 9: Predicting the year of maximum of Solar Cycle 25
Just over two years ago, Richard Altrock of the National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak published the latest version of his green corona emissions diagram.
He stated at the time that the progression of the Solar Cycle 24 was 40% slower than the average of the previous two cycles. That would make it 15.5 years long. Given that the cycle started in December 2008 and solar maximum is in 2013, that makes the Solar Cycle 24 fall time 11.5 years.
Figure 9 shows the strong relationship between fall time and the time from maximum to maximum. Based on that relationship, the Solar Cycle 24 fall time derives a period of 17 years from the Solar Cycle 24 maximum to the Solar Cycle 25 maximum – putting it in 2030.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David,
“The relationship between F10.7 flux and sea level rise indicates that a flux of 100 is the break-over between climate warming and cooling. The flux level has been at about that value for the last three years.”
Is this F10.7 relationship based on raw values or values adjusted for earth’s orbital position? Thanks.
Nice work David A. Easy to read for people who do not know much about what gives life to earth every day, the Sun.
Thanks
In 2006 Mr. Hathaway said SC 24 was going to be the biggest in 400 years. As far as I am concerned he has a large credibility gap.
Reference to Don Allen Above:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
Is this the same NASA that can send a ‘Rover to Mars’ ergo “must know what they are doing ” stated by a certain senator at the climate hearing the other week ?
Don Allen says:
July 28, 2013 at 6:14 am
Oh give him a break. Solar physicists have learned a lot from SC 24 and will learn a lot from SC 25. This is their “Golden Era,” and the knowledge gained since 2006 is stunning.
There were two groups with separate predictions for SC 24, Hathaway was in the group expecting a strong cycle. Leif was in the group that expected a cycle much like we are experiencing.
At least Hathaway isn’t griping that the sunspots are hiding under the surface of the Sun like some climate scientists gripe about “our” missing heat hiding under the sea surface on Earth.
In April 2007, a NOAA/SWPC prediction said:
See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html for some of the history of the SC 24 predictions.
Gee, it’s lucky that the Sun doesn’t have any effect on the global climate, or we could be in deep cooling-induced doo-doo in years to come /sarc
Solar cycle 5 didn’t had a peak of 80, what’s wrong with this graph? This sure isn’t the monthly data from the SIDC.
This is solar cycle 5:http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl5.html
Well said Ric. Hathaway constantly revises his predictions, fitting his projections to the evidence. He has little other choice – it would be obvious if he had his head in the sand.
Count on Archibald to be inaccurate. His Figure 8 purports to be ‘SIDC Monthly Data’. It is not. Here is what that graph should look like if the data had been from SIDC http://www.leif.org/research/David20.png
Verity Jones says:
July 28, 2013 at 6:47 am
Hathaway constantly revises his predictions, fitting his projections to the evidence. He has little other choice – it would be obvious if he had his head in the sand.
As he must do to give a forecast that is useful in real time. You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.
All I gots to say is that this is a moment in time that I”m sure solar physicists can thank their lucky stars for. Regardless of what the predictions are … Cycle 24 is without doubt different from the last 3 cylces, and that gives them the opportunity to actually learn something in real time.
It’s really kind of impossible, in my opinion, to go comparing cycle 24 to cycles of past, simply because we didn’t have any satelites floating around up there back in the 1800’s or early 1900s. It’s the same beef I have with these idiots pretending they can give you an accurate reading of what the temperature was based tree rings. it’s all good for academics .. but none of it is reality.
Also … the next 10-15 years or so will definitely settle the question whether Climate is driven by Natural forces, or by CO2. The Collection of data during this period should make for some really good study on if or how the sun may interact with our climate.
I cannot equate Hathaway’s approach to his solar revisions with the climate folks who continue to insist that anthropogenic-related heat is now hiding in places we can’t measure. In fact, I give him major props for his revisions. They are excellent examples of good science. It is good for researchers to remember that a Ph.D. gives you official license to publicly investigate what you don’t know. Hathaway appears to be taking that license seriously.
I found it interesting that there was an El Nino every time the Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle (fig 4) started to rise quickly. I guess this means the Pacific Ocean drives the Sun after all. 😉
I have not paid attention to the sunspot argument, so collection of charts could use more words. Solar cycle amplitude is measured in what? The amplitude looks to be inverse to neutron count? Maybe a blurb about what current sheet tilt angle is?
All of these answers are readily available on Google, but it would be user friendly to add just a few more paragraphs here.
Dr. Deanster says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:09 am
It’s really kind of impossible, in my opinion, to go comparing cycle 24 to cycles of past, simply because we didn’t have any satelites floating around up there back in the 1800′s or early 1900s.
The sunspot number for cycle 24 is not determined by satellites, but deliberately with small terrestrial telescopes like the ones shown in Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
KevinM says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:25 am
Maybe a blurb about what current sheet tilt angle is?
Although sparse on text this talk [giving for Japanese school chilkdren] at least has nice images:
http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
If you have the appropriate software, this version shows some movies
http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.ppt
. “We’re in a new age of solar physics,” said David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Without an accurate physical model, Hathaway and the rest use a statistical model [which is based on history] for prediction. Now that the statistical model has failed, “We’re in the new age of solar physics”. I thought that “solar physics was settled”!?!?
My physical model is based on the following:
1) Hydrogen burn rates on the surface of the core.
2) Hydrogen inflow rates [fuel supply for the burning of hydrogen].
3) Size of the Sun’s core.
4) Solar energy output.
5) Oscillatory time position [where we are in the burn cycle at the core surface].
The results are the following:
1) Every 360 to 380 years the surface of the core has consumed available hydrogen.
2) Hydrogen burning [consumption] decreases.
3) It takes 30 to 40 years for the hydrogen inflow to make up the deficiency.
4) The core pulses in size like a heart beat [360 years]. The entire size of the Sun is decreased.
5) Cycle repeats starting with hydrogen burning increasing.
The ~11 year cycle is caused by higher speed motions of the plasma near the Solar surface. These motions are a result of the surface of the core hydrogen burning [energy slowly flows to the Sun’s surface].
We are headed for a 10.7 cm Flux of 70 to 100 for the next 10 years. We will all see what this does to the Earth’s Global temperature.
Leif,
I asked this a week or two ago but was not back on the thread to see if you replied. Many seem to think that more sunspots are correlated with higher temp.’s on earth. But sunspots are actually cool areas on the sun. Awhile back you said you thought that some of the past temp. minimums (Maunder, Dalton, et.) were due to volcanos which just happened to occur during low sunspots. And you implied that maybe the sun was hotter with fewer sunspots and could increase temp’s on earth. What is the level of understanding and agreement in this area?
Leif,
One more question. Do you think we have hit solar max yet?
Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong.
“As he must do to give a forecast that is useful in real time. You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.”
Yes, we do. The statistical methods are grossly misleading and do not qualify as physical science. Statistical models assume the Universe has a steady state, rather than a variable state. We need a more accurate physics model to identify the actual physical processes taking place in the Universe, rather than a bookie service trying to play the odds.
Oliver Manuel has shown physical evidence from real measurements of the Sun and observations of the planets that the Sun has a solid core and composes from elements much heavier than just hydrogen and helium. This solid core sloshes around due to variations in the solar barycenter, which is determined by the combined planetary gravitational influences. The solar barycenter is just now completing an exceptionally long transit of the solar surface as opposed to oscillating perpendicular to the solar surface. The dynamics of the Sun are driven by the movement of the solar barycenter and not by statistics.
It is clear to those of us who follow physical processes that we are heading for an exceptionally cooler climate that will not fully recover for about 150 years. Based upon the exceptionally long transit of the solar barycenter over the solar surface, this grand cycle will be deeper than even the Maunder Minimum.
Also, watch the Gulf Stream. If shifting weather patterns and/or high energy weapons transfers significant heat to the Caribbean waters, and the Gulf Stream extends north into the Labrador Sea, then we will see a different event with even much colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere after a very violent weather phenomenon. However, although this secondary event is a real possibility, I have not yet seen evidence that such an event is imminent.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 6:49 am
“Count on Archibald to be inaccurate. His Figure 8 purports to be ‘SIDC Monthly Data’. It is not. Here is what that graph should look like if the data had been from SIDC http://www.leif.org/research/David20.png”
It looks like Archibald should have lined 24 up with SC6 instead.
Bill_W says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:36 am
What is the level of understanding and agreement in this area?
Medium to Low
One more question. Do you think we have hit solar max yet?
Solar max for a low cycle is usually a drawn-out affair [can last several years] and is hard to define. We have definitely entered the maximum ‘interval’ and will stray there for some time. The total solar irradiance is still going up and is now the highest ever measured by the reliable instrument on SORCE since 2003 [even though the sunspot number and F10.7 flux now are lower than they were in 2003].
Patrick says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:46 am
Leif says…(paraphrasing) “Nothing the sun does affects the climate on Earth”. Well, he’s wrong
As paraphrased Leif is very wrong. In reality, Leif maintains that the solar cycle causes a cyclic change of temperature [not 30-yr average climate] of the order of 0.1 degrees.
David Thomson says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
Yes, we do. The statistical methods are grossly misleading and do not qualify as physical science.
A successful [and scientifically correct] statistical method predicts that next summer will be warmer than the coming winter. Farmers rely very much on this prediction.
Oliver Manuel has shown physical evidence from real measurements of the Sun and observations of the planets that the Sun has a solid core and composes from elements much heavier than just hydrogen and helium.
Oliver is a crank and his ideas are baloney. You believing his nonsense makes you a crank too.