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.
@ur momisugly u.k.
Nobody is saying it is going to be ice free for very long. You still need ice breakers to exploit the time before and after minimum ice. This has always been the case and always will.
Bill_W says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Leif, what time frame is this over? And is it +/- 0.05 C or +/- 0.1 C?
It is 0.1C from solar min to solar max [subject to a somewhat varying solar cycle maximum]. The point is that it is too small to worry about.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html
Steele says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm:
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/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
Leif. I know I was in somewhat ‘argumentative’ mood during our last discourse.
Apologies.
However, I would like you to express yourself about your opinions wrt radiation and matter.
The energy delivered to the Earth from the Sun is a spectral composite. That spectrum is a variable. As you have said ‘large, dark sunspots are cold areas’ on the solar surface. These result in a reduction of TSI. Agreed.
However, light isn’t always heat. An LED torch even at daylight brightness is ‘cold’. Generally for light to become heat it requires a radiationless transition from electronic to protonic vibration through identical available eigenstates. As an enhanced electronic shell pressure it cannot be 100% thermal. Light can be much a part of Earth’s albedo as a spectral filter, as a property of radiation and matter.
Therefore a reduction in the solar surface for light production (active Sun) in favour of a lower temperature which peaks in short wave infra red could possibly result in a spectral redistribution that is more directly ‘thermal’ and less prone to being electronically scattered and not thermalised.
This is physical certainty. At equilibrium, short wave thermalised= long wave outgoing to space.
The emphasis there being the ‘proportion’ thermalised.
This is not a trick question. 200 years ago physicists where scratching there heads having separated the ‘light’ from the ‘heat’ and focussed the ‘light’ onto their hands from an intense thermal source to find it didn’t burn. Some warmth but not the full heat content.
The Sun’s energy delivery is a spectral variable. Visible light can become part of chemical and biological energy storage or entropically thermalised as part of the ‘real time energy budget’ or be part of Earth’s albedo as a consequence of its production and absorption from and to electronic and not protonic energy states.
As an interesting aside there is no physical mechanism whereby visible light interacts with water. It does not vibrate its nuclear core nor interact with its electrons.
See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html
Dear Prof Svalgaard
I note your FFT of the solar cycle with interest. I too plotted that spectrum and got similar results. I also plotted the FFT of just the 19th Century vs the 20th Century and noted that the 19th Century had solar cycles generally a year longer than those in the 20th.
Could you confirm this?
What is the value of accurately predicting the extent of the next solar cycle other than a scientific achievement unless that prediction can be associated with other fundamental changes to the earth or solar system?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm
It is 0.1C from solar min to solar max [subject to a somewhat varying solar cycle maximum]. The point is that it is too small to worry about.
—
Why bother with tenths of a degree when the results of billions of dollars of research using climate models prove temp is co2 driven and are only an order of magnitude greater than that value from reality.
The above makes perfect sense given previous predictions about the solar cycle. The sun and climate are completely understood and one has nothing to do with the other.
There’s a pattern here and it’s not hard to see.
@ur momisugly Leif: what is your response to de Toma’s arguments in this article:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/The-Weakest-Solar-Cycle-in-100-Years-216752671.html
“But Penn acknowledges that magnetic field measurements from other studies don’t always see the same trend he sees. Some observations show that sunspots’ magnetic field strength varies with the solar cycle, and others (including de Toma’s) show that sunspots’ magnetic fields aren’t changing with time. De Toma was even able to reproduce Penn’s results by excluding small sunspots, suggesting Penn’s trend might result from the way his team selects the sunspots they measure. “
nuwurld says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Therefore a reduction in the solar surface for light production (active Sun) in favour of a lower temperature which peaks in short wave infra red could possibly result in a spectral redistribution that is more directly ‘thermal’ and less prone to being electronically scattered and not thermalised.
If light or ‘heat’ is absorbed by the ground [not always by water] it will result in a higher temperature no matter by which mechanism and no matter what wavelength.
As an interesting aside there is no physical mechanism whereby visible light interacts with water. It does not vibrate its nuclear core nor interact with its electrons.
If the temperature of the radiating body [sunspot] is lower, then the amount of infrared emitted is also lower, hence it ‘heats’ less. And if visible light does not interact with water, it should penetrate all the way to the bottom of the ocean, but it [as should be well-known?] does not penetrate that far as it is pitch dark down there: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html
John A says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm
I note your FFT of the solar cycle with interest. I too plotted that spectrum and got similar results. I also plotted the FFT of just the 19th Century vs the 20th Century and noted that the 19th Century had solar cycles generally a year longer than those in the 20th. Could you confirm this?
Yes: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-Sunspot-Numbers-1st-2nd-halves.png
That sort of kills the idea that sunspots are due to [or strongly modulated by] planetary tides [or other more exotic causes]
Sorry I compared the 18th Century to the 20th and found that the 18th appeared to have longer cycles. Not the 19th
Russians are extending territorial waters deep into Arctic ocean, claiming Siberian continental shelf as their exclusive deep see exploitation territory, which on this map roughly coincides with grey shaded area streching from Murmansk to Bering Strait. Their all seasons powerful navy controls Arctic sea routes and protects the asserted exploitation rights.
While the West spends billions on ‘green energy’ nonsense while Russians wisely spend billions to defend valuable natural resources.
This was the FFT spectrum when I compared the 18th and 20th Centuries: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8hcbceGNsK-TmlFYmh6SGlnbnc/edit?usp=sharing
Now I do know that there is a hypothesis linking length of solar cycle to warming or cooling of the Earth (Svensmark I believe). Without passing judgment on the merits, the solar cycle was generally longer during the 18th Century part of the Little Ice Age and cycles were weaker, as evidenced by the amplitude of the FFT spectrum.
Eric Barnes says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:01 pm
The above makes perfect sense given previous predictions about the solar cycle…
There’s a pattern here and it’s not hard to see.
good to see that you agree with me that we have a very good track record predicting the solar cycle.
jcarels says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:03 pm
“But Penn acknowledges that magnetic field measurements from other studies don’t always see the same trend he sees. Some observations show that sunspots’ magnetic field strength varies with the solar cycle, and others (including de Toma’s) show that sunspots’ magnetic fields aren’t changing with time. De Toma was even able to reproduce Penn’s results by excluding small sunspots, suggesting Penn’s trend might result from the way his team selects the sunspots they measure. “
Livingston amd Penn observes in the infrared [where nobody else has extensive measurements] with one of the best telescopes in the world by the most experienced observer [Bill L.]. deToma et al.. are the ones with a selection effect because they have a threshold below which they don’t observe, As to Livingston’s selection: since 2000 Bill observes ALL spots within his observing time with no selection at all.
Here is the magnetic field measured [using an objective computer algorithm http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Watson3.pdf ] from space by Fraser Watson: http://www.leif.org/research/Watson-Umbral-Data.png make up your own mind. The reaction from some other solar physicists smacks of ‘rearguard’ action, IMHO.
John A says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Sorry I compared the 18th Century to the 20th and found that the 18th appeared to have longer cycles. Not the 19th
Not to worry. The 19th is also longer than the 20th. For the 18th, our data is a bit more shaky so it is harder to draw firm conclusions. There are people who believe that a cycle was missed near the end of the 18th century and that the length of cycle 4 thus is wrong. I think the data is too poor to determine that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm
“Are you being dense on purpose [or is it for real] ?. ”
==========
It seems to vary…
Just like the weather:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/business/energy-environment/shell-oil-rig-runs-aground-in-alaska.html?_r=0
“An enormous Shell Oil offshore drilling rig ran aground on an island in the Gulf of Alaska on Monday night after it broke free from tow ships in rough seas, officials said. ”
===
lessons being learned in the soon to be ice-free arctic ocean.
With that said, I’ll stop digging now 🙂
John A says:
July 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm
…………….
Dr.S recommended to me this time scale breakdown
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.htm
Leif, thanks, point taken about the lower energy Plank distribution. This does of course depend upon black body ideology.
When the solar spectrum was measured by SORCE, the emittance was found to be unexpected, with spectral divergence at the surface due to process.
My wording was,
” the emphasis there being the proportion thermalised”
Light is more likely to be scattered despite its higher energy. Activity at the surface does not obey black body physics 100%, however thermodynamic stability requires energy radiation to approximately equal core production.
Light energy within the ocean does not penetrate to the bottom, due to sea water not being 100% pure water. I thought that was common knowledge. Life, for instance absorbs a deal of this ‘non thermally’ that results in oil deposits being available millions of years later in ocean sediment. Thought that was common knowledge.
Leif:
When calculating the sunspot number today with old telescopes, do we use the same number of telescopes in the same locations as they did then?
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Russia also claims that the Lomonsov Ridge is an extension of the Siberian continental shelf, giving them rights clear across the Arctic Ocean floor to Greenland. In July 2007, a Russian expedition of an icebreaker & two mini-submarines explored the region. Its scientists dived 14,000 feet down in August & planted a rust-proof titanium metal Russian flag on the seabed.
Russia is also fielding new, improved ballistic missile (SSBN “boomer”) & attack (SSN) subs.
nuwurld says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:32 pm
When the solar spectrum was measured by SORCE, the emittance was found to be unexpected, with spectral divergence at the surface due to process.
Apart from the spectral measurements being beset with great uncertainty, the effect of the purported change is considered by be very small [cf. slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf ] so is not really problematic
Activity at the surface does not obey black body physics 100%, however thermodynamic stability requires energy radiation to approximately equal core production.
!00% perfection is not required as you seem to acknowledge by saying ‘approximately’.
Light energy within the ocean does not penetrate to the bottom, due to sea water not being 100% pure water. I thought that was common knowledge.
What matters for the Earth’s energy balance is not the water being pure. We have the oceans we have and their properties are what counts. That ought to be common knowledge [but apparently I was mistaken in this]
Dr. Deanster says:
July 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
You need to spend more time learning how to derive sunspot numbers. If you count just 1, then the sunspot number is 11. 25 probably means there were 2 groups with 1 and 4 spots or 2 and 3 spots.
If you’re too lazy to read Leif’s paper (the 10 times the number of groups is right there on the first page), you shouldn’t bother to reply to his posts.
Just sayin’
vukcevic says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Dr.S recommended to me this time scale breakdown
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.htm
Kinda takes the wind out of the sails for the astrological cycle theories…
Tom in FLA: yes, I am aware that the basis for just about every prediction is based on different types of observations, and the researcher’s understanding of what processes produced those observations and how they behave. You totally missed my point. Every possible outcome for this cycle was predicted, from the most active in 400 years to a very weak cycle. My point was someone’s prediction HAD to be right, even if the theory and understanding of the phenomena was bollocks. You may be tempted to say Dr. Hathaway’s understanding was wrong, but there is the possibility that just by tweaking some weighting factors, his approach may be right, just as there is the possibility that Dr. Svalgaard’s theories my be quite wrong, but happened to give the correct answer this time. I would put my money on Dr. Svalgaard’s approach from this snapshot we have seen, but I suspect even he would be surprised if he has indeed ‘nailed down’ a theory that would yield accurate predictions of solar cycles in the future, without the need for significant modifications as more data are obtained. I suspect we will all see some more, “that’s funny (strange),” observations in the future.
Then there is the more important (for man) question, just what are the effects of these cycles on earth, if any? We have a long way to go in answering that question.
Finally, this must be remembered: we are dealing with an evolving system. Whatever is driving those processes will change over time. Theories may be correct and predict accurately until they day they aren’t and don’t. If Dr. Svalgaard has my luck, he will have accurately modeled all the process involved, just in time to see a fundamental change in what drives those processes!
milodonharlani says:
July 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm
………
http://barentsobserver.com/sites/barentsobserver.com/files/styles/grid_8/public/main/articles/Russian_flag_Bottom_North_Pole.jpg
Что касается вообще шельфа всех арктических морей, то там прогнозная оценка достигает 100 миллиардов тонн, а может, и больше.
As for whole of the shelf in the Arctic seas, estimates reach 100 billion tons (of oil), and maybe more.