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.
taxed says:
July 28, 2013 at 9:51 am
“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.”
If this sort of setup prevails global temperatures may not actually decline much. In fact, ocean temperatures may remain the same or elevate, to compensate for reduced radiation from NH continents. Oceans will continue to pump moisture into the air and land areas will receive the benefits, or perhaps too much of a good thing.
Basic Questions for the solar scientists:
1) If the chaotic atmospheric heat engines of earth make accurate weather prediction out past a few days difficult, why wouldn’t the more energetic heat engines of the sun make it’s atmospheric flow even more difficult to predict in the same manner ?
2) is it also true that the behavior of the sun – it’s climate – is based on empirical observation (for a very limited period), and similar to earth’s various ‘climates’, defined by arbitrary start and end points such that the probability of an exceptional event equals one divided by the total units of the defined period (e.g. the probability of a flood exceeding the 100 year flood for any future year equals 1/100) ?
3) Does anyone actually believe that we completely understand the long-term behavior of the sun and there is nothing basic left to learn about it’s behavior ?
As a biologist, I can say with accuracy that we know little and understand less about life on earth, speaking for myself at any rate. For example, we still have not described perhaps even half of the probably total species present on the planet and progress is “glacial”.
“Dr. Svalgaard kindly provided data for Danish Aurora observations.”
My father, lived as a young boy in Mo I Rana Norway in the 30s, and told me that the auroras then was spectacular and that felt that he could hear the cracking noise from it. Never felt the same since.
BioBob says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:29 am
1) If the chaotic atmospheric heat engines of earth make accurate weather prediction out past a few days difficult, why wouldn’t the more energetic heat engines of the sun make it’s atmospheric flow even more difficult to predict in the same manner ?
The Sun is very large and can only change slowly. Think of how to make a row boat change course versus turning around an oil supertanker.
2) is it also true that the behavior of the sun
see reply to 1)
3) Does anyone actually believe that we completely understand the long-term behavior of the sun and there is nothing basic left to learn about it’s behavior ?
We don’t need to understand something completely in order to make reasoned predictions based on what we know. I step on a tiger’s paw and can make a pretty good prediction that that is not a good thing to do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:25 am
…………..
So 11 year sunspot cycle is 9th harmonic of 100 year fundamental ?!
Hmmm…. that is a news to me, but I will buy it if reluctantly, you insist.
And what happened to Miss Feynman’s
“Eighty Year Periodicity in Solar-Terrestrial Phenomena Confirmed”
you were promoting only yesterday
See here:
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:46 am
So 11 year sunspot cycle is 9th harmonic of 100 year fundamental ?!
Hmmm…. that is a news to me, but I will buy it if reluctantly, you insist.
Peaks at ~50, ~33, and ~20 years are harmonics of the longer cycle. As the harmonics have decreasing amplitude you can hardly see their contribution to the ~10-yr peak. No need for you to pretend [?] to be stupid…
And what happened to Miss Feynman’s
Her analysis also shows the harmonics of the long cycle, so take that to heart.
Hathaway keeps talking/writing about the Maunder Minimum and an new Ice Age. It’s as if he is writing a book on the coming Coldpocalyse. If Suzuki can get 30 grand for lecturing students on how to hate man for what he has done to the world. I’d like to see Hathaway get 30 grand for giving students a view that nature, not man, has the power in this universe. Just don’t ask me for taxes to build heat-generating machines to offset the arrival of glaciers.
Back to our near-reality:
The Dalton is a lot more similar at this point. It would take a further collapse to take us from the Dalton to the Maunder. That being said, the weather in the Eastern United States was already cold prior to the Dalton. The Revolutionary War of the US was conducted – or should I say stopped – with horrible winters and the Valley Forge bit of American history. Our previous 30 years was better than the Dalton’s previous 30 years. If we are heading into a similar temp drop, we’re starting at a higher level. Of course, if we choose to say that each Cycle determines the temperatures in an intrinsic way, i.e. the Sun’s overall performance doesn’t change, then we can drop ourselves into the Dalton-as-was. But that will then say that even the LIA wasn’t a change in the fundamental heat output of the Sun but of energy redistribution here on planet Earth. Which has some arguments for it, though I am not of the opinion/personal bias based on conflicting data, that is so (I’m a geologist, by the way, concerned about past climate conditions every day of my professional life).
A Dalton-drop from today would take us only back to the 1920s, perhaps, or even maybe only to the 1940s. The mid-1940s had terrible cold winters in Europe – as the German army found out. But not civilization defining cold. Certainly enough of a change for these times to put an end to CO2 hysteria – actually, only to postpone it, as you know the Gore-ists and Suzuki acolytes would merely say the heating is “hiding” and will come back with a vengeance, two for one rise and crisp us all. All information can be spun by a determined mind.
This Archibald essay is fabulous, by the way. Letting the data speak for itself with mild interpretations. Two questions, though:
1. Various curves, including the sunspot number, show truncated peaks (and valleys, though less so). I mean that a nice smooth series of curves could be plotted up/down one side, through a maximum/minimum and down/up the other. These “truncations”: could they reflect negative feedback mechanisms that become meaningful, i.e. stronger, at the extremes? I don’t read of feedback mechanisms in solar or other physics, though I expect they exist.
2. The last graph, Figure 9, plotting Fall Time: although we see non-linear relationships everywhere, this graph has a linear relationship plotted. As with the temperature graphs, the sea-level graphs, all the climate change graphs, the linear treatment puzzles me. I understand that CAGW has, in the short-term, a linear response to CO2, so the warmists want that to be displayed. Why the skeptics do (with the exception of step-functions) I don’t know, as the curving nature of the ups and downs looks pretty obvious. With Figure 9, a non-linear relationship would honour our last data point better, pulling a curve up.
A curvi-linear relationship would then give a maximum of more like 18+ years, and a Cycle 24 Fall time of <11 years. (Start the curve above the lowest value, go through the mass of data, closely approach the highest/most recent value. With the number of datapoints, one can easily argue that true statistical validity is not certain as the current datapoints do not fully represent actual statistical distribution.)
Can someone explain why
Eric Barnes says:
July 28, 2013 at 10:10 am
It was an analogy, analogies are typically not perfect. Leif’s comment was directed at the several folks who think solar physicists should make a forecast and then stick with with it for the duration of a solar cycle. While people sort of do that to test climate model predictions, it makes far more sense to come up with better forecasts as the data, timing, and science permits, if your interest is in the future.
BTW, here in the US, the NWS is making seven day forecasts of some parameters. See http://www.weather.gov/ . New England Cable News is making 10 day forecasts on their evening broadcasts. Sometimes its not a very high confidence forecast. After all, it is New England.
Ric Werme says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:00 am
Leif’s comment was directed at the several folks who think solar physicists should make a forecast and then stick with with it for the duration of a solar cycle.
A forecast is needed long before the cycle so that people that build satellites [and insure them!] have as long a lead time as possible. Even satellite operations need long lead time forecasts. A good example is the Hubble space telescope. If cycle 24 would have been a very large cycle, Hubble would have fallen out of the sky. NASA was preparing to de-orbit the spacecraft safely, but when Schatten and I predicted a small cycle NASA [trusting that we knew what we were talking about :-)] decided to keep the telescope in orbit [making a lot more good science possible].
it makes far more sense to come up with better forecasts as the data, timing, and science permits, if your interest is in the future
It is amazing that some people can’t see that, but, hey, it takes all kinds…
> Leif said: The Sun is very large and can only change slowly.
> We don’t need to understand something completely in order to make reasoned predictions based on what we know.
———————————————–
Sounds reasonable but any one solar area can change quickly (like sunspots) and the whole is simply the sum of the parts couched in a theorized ‘system’. A ‘local’ solar flare of adequate size lasting hours can destroy some of earth’s human infrastructure. Integrating over the entire sun simply increases the sample size and standard deviation, in a manner of speaking. The same can be said for earth’s ‘climate’ as well. We can conjecture about the nature of global processes of the sun or earth but any scientist must admit that empirical observation of any system’s changes is based on the length or effort expended. Likewise, theories based on those observations can change on the same basis as ‘new’ behaviors are observed. Nothing wrong with this but it is important to understand our limitations and the limitations of prediction of inherently chaotic systems.
poches
What risks happening with the Polar jet pattern l have outlined is that it locks in a climate within these splits. Outside to the south of these patterns it can be warm as toast. But within these patterns you will get bitter winter weather. Also when the Polar jet splits the southern part will track further to the south. Pushing the cloud cover and colder air further to the south as well. While further to the north where the highs are clearer sky’s and snow cover will allow very rapid cooling. Any increase in moisture is likely to lead to more snowfall which would only add to the problem.
BioBob says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:12 am
Integrating over the entire sun simply increases the sample size and standard deviation
Integration decreases the error in the estimate [roughly error = standard deviation / sqrt(number of elements over which you integrate].
Nothing wrong with this but it is important to understand our limitations and the limitations of prediction of inherently chaotic systems.
and you assume that solar physicists are morons who does not know that and fully consider this.
Peaks at ~50, ~33, and ~20 years are harmonics of the longer cycle. No need for you to pretend [?] to be stupid…
Quite so…
Harmony of harmonics, cyclomania creeping in, its contagious you know…
Let’s see: If 100 year (not in my graph, link below) is the fundamental (but in the last century may have been 80, what a mess)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/DanAur.htm
50 = 2nd (not in my graph, link above)
but these are:
31 could be 33 with a bit of stretching = 3rd
21 with a bit of squeezing = 5th
12.6 = 8th
11 = 9th
there also 8.3 (12th) and 6.7 (15th)
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:28 am
there also 8.3 (12th) and 6.7 (15th)
Once you are on that side of 11, the harmonics of the long cycle have dwindled to nothing, but now there will be [and are] harmonics from the 11-yr cycle. People suffering from cyclomania do not accept harmonics and think every peak is its own independent, physically important peak.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“……… 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 …………”
Yes Leif … I know this. But really, if you are going to tell me that the methodology for counting sun spots has not changed since the 1500’s, I’ll have so say that I would find that amusing.
I look at a spot, … I count one … but the sun spot number says 25. Likewise, I seriously doubt that if today’s technology and methods were available during the Maunder Minimum, we’d see the same results of practically no sunspots. Surely there were a few “pimples” that were missed in those days that would have registered a sun spot number of 5-15 these days.
Just sayin’
Dr. Deanster says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
Yes Leif … I know this. But really, if you are going to tell me that the methodology for counting sun spots has not changed since the 1500′s, I’ll have so say that I would find that amusing.
The methodology was introduced in the 1850s and was applied to all records [one could find] back to the telescopic discovery of sunspots 400 years ago. Nothing amusing about that.
Now, unfortunately the method was changed slightly in 1890s and in the 1940s which have led to some in-homogeneities in the record. This was recognized recently and efforts are under way to correct that: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:28 am
Let’s see: If 100 year (not in my graph, link below) is the fundamental (but in the last century may have been 80, what a mess)
Yes, the Sun is messy. Most of the problems finding harmonics of the long cycle stem from the time series being too short. The longest one we have [with the smallest error] is the sunspot series. If you study the FFT of the SSN series since 1700 [when the data is perhaps good]: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png you can see the harmonics in actuion. Starting with the 100-yr peak we would expect a 50-yr peak, then 33, 25 [weak], 20, 16, 14,… and they are there. Put differently: if there is a long cycle which is not a pure sine wave, there MUST be harmonics, so no wonder we see them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 12:01 pm
…….
Yes agree, harmonics naturally dwindle, until 100 years fundamental’s fifth harmonic hits electromagnetic magnetospheric feedback resonance (Vukcevic hypothesis)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
and what do you know, we have polar magnetic field synchronised with 5th harmonic.
Polar magnetic field gives rise to the next sunspot cycle is the Svalgaard hypothesis.
Oh yea, there is a Hale cycle somewhere in there too.
Agree? No, what, too simple ?!
Yep, . the Sun is messy place
Off I go!
The main thrust of the article – “Solar Cycle 25 will be very weak.” – seems right to me. But, in my opinion, the data set we have available is too small in comparison to the overall phenomenon of Solar Cycle Behavior to be able to accurately predict what the next cycle will be like. I look forward to seeing Cycle 25 because each new piece of the puzzle gets us closer to the truth.
I like the Low Sunspot Number = More Cosmic Radiation = More Cloud Formation = Lower Global Temps idea better than the Slightly Increased CO2 = Runaway Greenhouse = Fireball Earth model, but we certainly don’t see the whole picture, yet, and we don’t really know.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
“So that they can exploit the Arctic sea routes opened up by global warming…”
======
Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway ?
They must have done a cost/benefit analysis.
They are still done, aren’t they ?, or is it just a race to spend taxpayers money faster than the other competitors in the race.
u.k.(us) says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Russian scientists tend to be CAGW skeptics. IMO Russia is building the new class of icebreakers to replace smaller, aging Arktika class ships, & to facilitate the growing economic importance of the Northern Sea Route. The large yet shallow draft nuclear-powered vessels will also be useful on Siberian rivers.
u.k.(us) says: July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm “Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway?” The sea routes may be opening up but the embayments, where the ports and economies are, will still be ice bound.
Our lakes shipping lanes are often ice free, but still we keep an ice breaker near by and sturdy fishing-tugs (boat) are occasionally used to break a path through the ice shoved into ferry breakwaters.
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Yes agree, harmonics naturally dwindle, until 100 years fundamental’s fifth harmonic hits electromagnetic magnetospheric feedback resonance
There is no need to invent unphysical extra causes for something that has a natural explanation. If a cycle is asymmetric some harmonics will be missing [which ones depend on the exact asymmetry]. As a simple illustration check this http://www.leif.org/research/Missing-Harmonics.png where with the particular asymmetry shown in the upper right causes the 2nd and 5th harmonic to go away.
Agree? No, what, too simple ?!
Too simplistic and unnecessary.
Steele says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm
The main thrust of the article – “Solar Cycle 25 will be very weak.” – seems right to me. But, in my opinion, the data set we have available is too small in comparison to the overall phenomenon of Solar Cycle Behavior to be able to accurately predict what the next cycle will be like.
We are not completely in the dark, see http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf “By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores. Such behavior would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum” Granted that there is extrapolation, but it is a reasoned one.
I like the Low Sunspot Number = More Cosmic Radiation = More Cloud Formation = Lower Global Temps idea better
The data we do have suggest that even if you like that chain of inference better, it is not solidly supported by the data: http://www.leif.org/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
u.k.(us) says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Getting the jump on things, by breaking the ice that is gonna melt anyway ?
Are you being dense on purpose [or is it for real] ?. The ice will freeze back on every winter [but still be amenable to ice-breaking] so having ice breakers would allow for opening up the sea route earlier in the year and continuing later in the year. That has economic benefits.
Leif says:
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.”
Leif, what time frame is this over? And is it +/- 0.05 C or +/- 0.1 C? (or Fahrenheit??)