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.
Well, I would say Dr Hathaway is practicing science as it should be done (in his predictions). This is quite a deviation from the CAGW crowd who are dead set on “The heat must be hiding somewhere”.
Its rather interesting how this maximum and now on to minimum is showing how magnetism and theoretical waves emanating from the sun may or may not be a factor in our climate. Its a fun time to be even a garage or layman scientist..
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:05 am
At least he’s a well mannered crank, though I’m a bit disappointed he hasn’t changed his lunch meat.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:56 am
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.”
And I am in no dispute, other than effect. You claim none, this rock appears to disagree!
Dr. Lurtz says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:33 am
Some time ago I tried to get Lief to understand the burn cycle. I was discounted pretty abruptly but this did not stop me from considering what is known fact. As a fire consumes its fuel it leaves inhibitors in the remaining burning fuel (especially important with fission reactions). While this may happen at the suns core it still happens and can not be attenuated out by the distance traveled to the surface.
Of another concern with a fission reaction is magnetic pull to remove those burned particles from the burning area. If the reaction is slowed by garbage in your process and it cools suspending that garbage for long periods of time where the burning should take place the sun could very well get very cool for a very long time before those particles leave the normal burning area.
Using your 360 year model and amount of dead material created in the fission burning area of the core, reduced output could be held at a low rate for 90,000+ years if it cools slightly and the expended material is slow to migrate to the center of the core. Low magnetic pull due to a decreased solar dynamo could very well be what sends us into a glaciation phase on earth.
12,000 years would create a substantial amount garbage in the burning chamber. It would also explain the gradual cooling after a rapid start up and then a sudden cool down when the reaction becomes overloaded.
In layman’s terms, this would equate with dirty injectors and no way to clean them out, making the motor run rough and the power robbed.. The suns magnetism is the injector cleaner. If it is low or non-existent the low output remains for a very long time.
Don Allen says:
July 28, 2013 at 6:14 am
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.
—————————————————————————————————————————
That’s funny, I was just thinking the same thing when reading his predictions for cycle 25.
Like in my line of work…. there are some that are really good at the job and some that are not, even though we are all qualified at the same skill set. Looks like this holds true in this line of work as well.
And to think of all the wasted time I’ve spent over the years seeking shade on a hot day !
Use of statistical methods to predict the future are valid as long as there is no change in the status quo [simplistic statement]. The Sun will apparently move around the equator -+23.5 degrees over a year period on a sinusoidal basis. So we can use this statistically verified physical model to predict where the Sun will be on a peculiar day of the year.
But if there is a change to the Earth’s orbit, or the the Earth’s tilt, the historical statistics will make an incorrect prediction. We need a new physical model. This is the same for the Solar Cycles and for the “Climate Change”. The status quo is changing, therefore, using history to try to predict the future is not only wrong but scientifically a travesty.
I just checked and found once again that the occurrence of CMEs (magnetic storms) this month correlate to daily increases in the UAH tropospheric temperature. These small increases usually last from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.
Since CMEs generally track the solar cycle (with a bit of a tail), could they be the source of the historic correlation between solar cycles and temperature? It seems like something worth studying. With data from 1979 available it would seem to be worth the effort of a master’s thesis at a minimum.
David Thompson says:
July 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
“If shifting weather patterns and/or high energy weapons transfers significant heat to the Caribbean waters …”
David,
I did not follow that bit. Could you clarify what process “high energy weapons” is referring to? Thanks.
The Russians are building new ice-breakers…hint hint! Why build ice-breakers? hint hint!
http://english.pravda.ru/news/science/24-08-2012/121976-russia_new_icebreaker-0/
I find this post deceptive. The graphs show weak cycle 20 and then label the 1970s cooling period. If we can claim that there has been a pause since 1998 then the mid 20th century pause was 1940s through 1970s not a 1970s cooling period. That 30 year period contained monster cycle 19.
The warmists have continually pointed out the not perfect correlation between temperature and solar cycles. When will Archibald be more honest in his presentation?
highflight56433 says:
July 28, 2013 at 9:23 am
The Russians are building new ice-breakers…hint hint! Why build ice-breakers? hint hint!
So that they can exploit the Arctic sea routes opened up by global warming…
David Archibald,
Thank you for supplying for our benefit the only solid and collective material by which we can anticipate what the future might be relative to climate. I don’t remember since 07 when I began to see your material posted here, any other climate scientist who was predicting the now well accepted fact that the earth will enter into a protracted cooling period. A great deal must be said about your foresight, courage, and intelligence to make bold predictions as you have. These predictions are baring out today and are now being expanded upon by the scientific community.
lf the less active sun does cause cooling, then am beginning to understand how it could do it and that the cooling could be sudden. Because during summer we have been getting a Polar jet that has been splitting in two. Where you get these splits you often have areas of high pressure sitting in the middle of them. What would be a real worry is that this pattern lasts into the winter. As these highs will set up large pools of cold air, due to drawing cold air down from the north and heat loss by clearer sky’s.
But because you got the jet running to the north and south of them. Then you will have areas of low pressure running to the north and south of them as well, along with the weather fronts they bring.
This sort of set up would bring cold and snowy winters to large areas of the northern half of the NH. lf this sort of pattern sets in for a dozen years or more, then you could be looking at the process of what causes ice ages to form.
I enjoy sitting back watching these discussions. IMO what the recent events have shown is that the sun’s behavior and it’s impact on Earth is still not well understood and not yet predictable. What’s that you say? Professior X predicted it? That group at y predicted it. Of course – every possible prediction for this cycles was made – someone’s prediction HAD to be right! Doesn’t mean the theories behing those predictions are correct and the future will be as they predict. Far from it. From what we have seen, everyone will be right on something and wrong on other things, leaving total doubt as to what the future will bring, and that makes for an E-ticket ride through this universe!
Coming soon to your neighborhood?
https://www.google.com/search?q=cold+europe+winters&client=ubuntu&hs=IeV&channel=cs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Xkv1UZi6B6KDiwL9zoE4&ved=0CFEQsAQ
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-39.shtml
Bill H says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
Paraphrased: I have a solar model.
How does a magnetic field move more massive nuclei out of a “burn chamber”? If the solar magnetic field is caused by the motion of charged particles, then it is consequence of the heat produced from fusion. In your model, if the magnetic field is weak, fusion would be reduced to a lower level. A weaker magnetic field would presumably make fusion even weaker, a positive feedback. Where does the feedback end?
It is hard to believe fusion rates change much in the Sun. Simply stated, it seems you’ve reversed cause and effect in your model. That reminds me of CO2 and global warming dogma.
Bill H says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
You are speaking of fission reactors, perhaps I am wrong but is not the Sun a fusion reactor?
What are the “burned particles” left over from fusion? Does fusion actually “burn” anything?
L Svalgaard,
“You don’t fault your local weatherman to constantly revise his predictions based on the latest data.”
Most weathermen don’t have the gall to make forecasts more than a few days out.
Dr. Lurtz says:
July 28, 2013 at 8:59 am
The status quo is changing, therefore, using history to try to predict the future is not only wrong but scientifically a travesty.
Whatever is changing is changing slowly enough that using the historical shape of the cycle adjusted to match the cycle so far is good science [and the only thing we have that is not just based on wild, non-quantified dreams]
Jtom says:
July 28, 2013 at 9:52 am
“I enjoy sitting back watching these discussions. IMO what the recent events have shown is that the sun’s behavior and it’s impact on Earth is still not well understood and not yet predictable. What’s that you say? Professior X predicted it? That group at y predicted it. Of course – every possible prediction for this cycles was made – someone’s prediction HAD to be right! Doesn’t mean the theories behing those predictions are correct and the future will be as they predict. Far from it. From what we have seen, everyone will be right on something and wrong on other things, leaving total doubt as to what the future will bring, and that makes for an E-ticket ride through this universe!”
I think you have to realize the difference in solar theory that is used by the predictors. Dr Hathaway’s SC 24 prediction was based on his understanding of the solar cycle and Dr Svalgaard’s prediction was based on how he understands the solar cycle. It appears that Dr Svalgaard’s understanding of how it works is pretty much on the money, for now. But as he always says, as more reliable data comes in understandings get modified according to where the data takes you, as Dr Hathaway is doing. That is a process we all can live with.
Eric Barnes says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:10 am
Most weathermen don’t have the gall to make forecasts more than a few days out.
The Sun is so big that it does not change from one day to the next.
Dr. Svalgaard kindly provided data for Danish Aurora observations.
These show expected coincidence with solar cycles, but it appears that during odd cycles the aurorae appearance has a better match with the SSN, i.e. aurora is relatively more frequent during odd cycles, resulting in a strong spectral component at Hale cycle, which is not so evident in the sunspot cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
Dr.S. obviously disputes this, just attributing longer periods to harmonics (I think he meant sub-harmonics, harmonic being an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency not its wavelength).
What is significance of the finding?
Only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth reacts differently to sunspot polarity.
Is there another independent set of data showing similar sunspot polarity digression effect?
Yes, data from Jackson-Bloxham show the LOD oscillations correlate with the sunspot polarity
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Why would this matter anyway?
It could be the long sought after evidence of a variable solar input beyond and above the TSI with profound consequences for the climate’s natural variability as discussed here in more detail:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:15 am
Only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth reacts differently to sunspot polarity.
Not reasonable as in every solar cycle there are sunspots of both polarities [Hales’s law], so there is nothing to react differently to.
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:15 am
Dr.S. obviously disputes this, just attributing longer periods to harmonics
The periods longer than 11 yrs are harmonics of the 100-yr long wave modulating the sunspot cycle, not ‘Hale cycle’ peaks.