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.
Jim G says:
July 29, 2013 at 1:22 pm
The sun does not think,
Cheap shot, but apparently it feels:
Jim G says:
July 29, 2013 at 7:33 am
both “feel” the curvature
You are thinking in Newtonian terms in which there is a “gravitational force
I said that “The sun is in free fall, as is the Earth, and neither feel any such forces” so no Newtonian terms here. My comment was in response to Brent Walker: “The 6-7 fold increase in category 8+ earthquakes since 2004 suggests that the forces which cause the sun to change its orbit of the SSB”. Better to respond in the same formulation.
The point is that in both the Newtonian and the General Relativity [GR] formulation the Sun is in free fall and does not ‘feel’, ‘react’, ‘influenced by’, etc any ‘forces’, ‘curvature’, whatever. In another thread a commenter said that there are certain complications in GR for ‘extended bodies’ and that solar activity was an effect of GR. You want to go down that road?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
“There is no such observations. Claims galore, but none convincing. The polarity of the core? No such thing.”
Astronomical Ephemeris Data show The planets in our solar system interact with each-other.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/TYPE/ephemeris.html
And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
sunspot_area_1875-2040- ephemerides-de-102- Jupiter and earth
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sunspot_area_1875-2040-ephemerides-de-102-ej-dist-low.jpg
Sunspot Number 1749 – 2040 ephemerides-de-102 N= N1-N2 resonance Uranus, Jupiter and Neptune
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ssn-monthly-average-1749-2040-n-n1-n2.jpg
Planetary Resonance of Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn derived from ephemerides de-102
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance.gif
And here is a model test I have been working on, which is unfinished, but matches sunspot numbers almost exactly. Worth looking at!!
Sunspot number estimate derived from ephemerides de-102 (Unfinished Model)
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/unfinished-ssn.gif
The polarity of the core?
It’s an Idea, it’s not a claim, the Idea is basically described best as large magnetic planetary polarities interacting as we would expect them to interact under physics i.e. opposites poles attract and like poles repel each-other and looking for this process in the elliptical orbits of planetary bodies around the sun, the sun has a core, this core must have a north and south / negative and positive polarity and it must also be that any interactions should be clearly evident in planetary bodies as is the case with Uranus and Jupiters orbits, the timing of these planets are an exact match to the suns magnetic cycle including higher activity and greater sun spot development as well as solar minimum length.
The timing of the Jupiter-Uranus coupled system matches the distorted magnetic activity on the sun and is further highlighted by the evidence that; when Uranus is perturbed by the orbit of Neptune a remarkable change takes place on the sun. We have empirical observational evidence of this, and it is well noted by the astronomical community. as I’ve attempted to show in this image 1650-2012 http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/gravitation-perturbation-of-neptune-on-the-orbit-of-uranus1.jpg?w=900
You can view an orbital animation of the timing of the Jupiter-Uranus coupled system which matches solar activity here: http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/3-0.gif
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 28, 2013 at 6:53 am
Sorry about the very late response but been out of internet contact for a few days.
Re Weather Forecasts in our house we regard the 5 day forecasts by Meteo France as being nothing more than a work of (Science) Fiction. It’s something along the lines of if they were that good at predicting the future they wouldn’t be working for NASA/Meteo France/Met Office/DECC. Since they cannnot predict the future that well a publicly financed sinecure is the next best thing,
Retired engineer John said:
“Perhaps the chemistry is changing. Have you noticed the Noctilucent clouds that are being seen father South in greater amounts this year. Also a Nacreous cloud was photographed recently. These clouds are formed at very high altitudes by ice crystals and cold temperatures. They had not been seen until recent years”
I think the chemistry of the upper atmosphere is indeed changing.
Solar variations appear to have different effects at different heights and noctilucent clouds are between 80km and 100km up whereas the observed increase in ozone since the sun became quieter appears to be around 45km..
I would think that the weak sun is making it colder at the height of noctilucent clouds but warmer at lower levels by producing more ozone at 45km especially above the poles so that the tropopause height above the poles has fallen relative to the height at the equator thus forcing the jets and climate zones more equatorward.
The resulting increase in global cloudiness is reducing solar energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate system but it is a very slow process due to oceanic thermal inertia.
All we see at present is weaker El Ninos relative to La Ninas and cessation of the earlier warming.
Sparks says:
July 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm
And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
Except that they don’t line up. So much for that idea.
l’ve got lucky with the weather and in the next few days we will get the a split in the Polar jet like what l’ve been talking about. lf you click onto the Stormsurf global jet stream map and go to the +150hr forecast. You will see just the sort of pattern am talking about. Now what l would like to see is this jet pattern turning up during the winter and seeing what we end up getting.
Cold and snowy weather over large areas of the NH is my guess.
Some impacts have nothing to do with climate or weather:
“Stephen Wilde says: July 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm
…so that the tropopause height above the poles has fallen relative to the height at the equator thus forcing the jets and climate zones more equatorward.”
I have wondered what the lowering of the atmosphere is doing to the jet stream. As the Earth turns the atmosphere is heated and increases in height; when the Earth turns away from the Sun, the atmosphere shrinks and this causes the air to rush downhill. This adds rotational energy to the atmosphere and helps power the jet stream. When the height of the atmosphere decreases and the energy heating the upper atmosphere decreases, less rotational energy is going to cause changes in the jet stream. With time we will see how much effect this will have.
[snip . . OT . . mod]
Leif,
You wrote: It is all guess work. Now that the polar fields have finally reversed, we should be able to follow their build-up. After a few years the new polar fields should stabilize and we can make a prediction, not before.
According to wso.stanford.edu, the reversal of the fields of the north pole region took place around June 1, 2012, but the reversal of the fields of the south pole region has not yet happened. On the contrary, it seems the reversal of the south will take some time. How can you say that both polar fields have finally reversed?
Rik Gheysens says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:31 am
How can you say that both polar fields have finally reversed?
Because they have: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Thanks Leif and Peter B 🙂
Some of Manuel’s ideas may indeed be elegant. However, if the physical basis of it is bunkum, then it’s back to the drawing board.
Seems that there’s plenty still to learn about our solar system and its visitors, and there’s nothing wrong with making observations, looking for patterns and hypothesising on a physical mechanism or mechanisms. Continuing down the same path when that physical mechanism is plain wrong, though, seems to be the sign of somebody seeking validation of a pet idea rather than someone seeking enlightenment.
Livingston and Penn don’t have everything mapped out yet, but at least there’s a posited physical mechanism behind their work which hasn’t been disproved thus far. Like many observed factors in the solar system, it seems likely to me that the observed values of umbral intensity and magnetic field will follow a curve of some description rather than a straight line. Time will tell where the next inflection point will be, and therefore what the visible average sunspot number for cycle 25 may turn out to be, but at the moment they seem to have identified an important driver of the process.
“Luther Wu says:
July 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm
I’ve not reached that conclusion after reading Dr. Svalgaard for years. Your distillation of Dr. Svalgaard’s message is very clear, but where is the data to support your conjecture that the sun (operating within observed parameters) does affect our climate in any meaningful way?”
I always try to persuade people discover the physics of this rock we live on and our solar system for themselves. Don’t take my or anyone else’s word for it! I have been reading Svalgaard’s posts/info for years too and, although I do respect his posts (Might not read that way…I am very terse and could easily read as “hot headed”, it’s not meat that way, so deal with it!) however, there is plenty of research information available that contradicts his claim that the small changes in solar output (Commonly referred to as TSI), between solar min/max, has ZERO effect on climate. In this tread posties have suggested that there are simply too many variables to suggest that only ONE, that we know of (TSI), has NO effect on climate when it changes, given the primary energy source for this 3rd rock from the sun *IS* the sun. It’s similar to the position alarmists take that states ~50% of ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 IS the DRIVING mechanism, that “thermostat”, in climate change. The probability is that BOTH have an influence, measureable or not at this stage. No-one knows for sure!
The evidence so far suggests CO2 is not the driver of that change given we already know changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temps by ~800 years (This is accepted science) and we now have, reasonably reliable temperature data since 1979, that temps are not following CO2 concentrations as predicted. As Svalgaard has said in past posts, something else is going on.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“In another thread a commenter said that there are certain complications in GR for ‘extended bodies’ and that solar activity was an effect of GR. You want to go down that road?”
Not sure but can you cite me a source, I did not see that one? Could be interesting though it sounds more than a little out of the box.
Thanks,
Jim G
PS: You should never accuse others of cheap shots, I know, I know, as you told me once before, “no need to stoop to your level”, one of your best comments, ever.
Thanks Leif!
However, I prefer the filtered version of the WSO-graphs: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mfield-aggiornato-ciclo-24.bmp, because these graphs give a clear indication of the reversal for each hemisphere seperate. So, one can ascertain that the filtered curve of the southern hemisphere has not yet crossed the zero-line (last data of July 6: “+ 12”). I conclude that the fields of the south pole region have not yet reversed.
From the pictures of http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png, I can only deduce that:
– the northern polar fields have definitely reversed;
– the southern polar fields have crossed the zero-line but not definitely.
I don’t know what can be deduced from the unfiltered values N + S. From the unfiltered values N – S, one can conclude that the graph has crossed for the second time the zero-line but I don’t see how this can say something about the definite reversal of the fields of the south pole.
That’s why I prefer the filtered version because it gives a clear evaluation of the reversal for both hemispheres separate. Of course, I have no much expertise in this matter…
Thanks Leif!
However I prefer the filtered graph of http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mfield-aggiornato-ciclo-24.bmp. Here, it can clearly be seen that the reversal of the fields of the north pole region took place around the June 1, 2012 and that the value of the fields of the south pole region is still positive (latest value: + 12). So, the reversal of the south pole did not take place yet.
Looking to the graphs of http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png, I can only deduce:
– that the unfiltered graph of the northern hemisphere has definitely crossed the zero line;
– that the unfiltered graph of the southern hemisphere has crossed the zero line, but not definitely.
I don’t know which information can be taken from the N + S line. The N – S line has crossed the zero line for the second time, but it gives no information about the fields of the south pole region seperate from the northern fields. That’s why I prefer the filtered graph which gives clear information about the reversal of both hemispheres separately. Do you agree with this view? I have not much expertise in this matter.
rikgheysens says:
July 30, 2013 at 7:17 am
That’s why I prefer the filtered graph which gives clear information about the reversal of both hemispheres separately. Do you agree with this view?
We are not sure if there are systematic offsets of the zero level of the magnetograph. One way to eliminate any potential problem is to use the difference between North and South as a measure of the global polar fields. In the data produced at WSO that difference is shown in the rightmost column:
2013:03:28_21h:07m:13s 9N 25S -8Avg 20nhz filt: 11Nf 15Sf -2Avgf
2013:04:07_21h:07m:13s 10N 26S -8Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
2013:04:17_21h:07m:13s 11N 28S -9Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
2013:04:27_21h:07m:13s 14N 21S -4Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 14Sf -1Avgf
2013:05:07_21h:07m:13s 13N 16S -2Avg 20nhz filt: 12Nf 13Sf -1Avgf
2013:05:17_21h:07m:13s 7N 3S 2Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf -0Avgf
2013:05:27_21h:07m:13s 14N -2S 8Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf -0Avgf
2013:06:06_21h:07m:13s 16N -6S 11Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 13Sf 0Avgf
2013:06:16_21h:07m:13s 15N -8S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 12Sf 0Avgf
2013:06:26_21h:07m:13s 2N -5S 4Avg 20nhz filt: 14Nf 12Sf 1Avgf
2013:07:06_21h:07m:13s 4N -21S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 14Nf 12Sf 1Avgf
Jim G says:
July 30, 2013 at 6:31 am
PS: You should never accuse others of cheap shots
the receiver is the proper judge of how cheap a shot is.
rikgheysens says:
July 30, 2013 at 7:17 am
I don’t know which information can be taken from the N + S line.
It is very important because we can use that information to say something about the distribution of the field around the pole, see http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Sparks says:
July 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm
And this is what the Data looks like plotted in relation to the Suns Activity (notice this is all based on observations and not statistics).
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Except that they don’t line up. So much for that idea.
What exactly would you expect to line up?
My charts are not depicting an alignment between Sunspot numbers visible on the record of the solar disk with elliptical planetary resonances if this is what you mean.
The Sun is spherical the sunspot numbers are recorded from the view point of earth, the planetary orbits are elliptical and there are more than one. My charts use the sunspot record as a guide for the suns monthly state of activity over a period of time, the planetary measurements are a snapshot taken once per year on the 15th of January there are always going to be a slight misalignment based on the timeline and an anomaly or two between the two different data sets, If I was dishonest with the data I could torture it in such away as to compress and stretch the timelines to make them line up exactly, that actually wouldn’t be a problem for me to do as I am familiar with the data and the structure of it. As the data is based on observations and not statistics there are NO Harmonics no wave matching or squaring used in the data, what I think is important is that one half of the data can be very accurately modeled (which is the orbital values) years into the future. And with this accurate model (and higher resolution measurements) it is my hope that it will be possible to derive an accurate forecast of the state of the suns activity.
I Have the observational data I need to begin building low-resolution forecasts and testing them for accuracy, If it works, great, If it doesn’t work even better!
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance-ssn.gif
Leif, Just one more point. Just what exactly would you expect to line up? 🙂
Sparks says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Leif, Just one more point. Just what exactly would you expect to line up?
It is your graph, you tell me what is special about it and what I’m supposed to see. I don’t see anything as it is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 30, 2013 at 12:41 pm
It is your graph, you tell me what is special about it and what I’m supposed to see. I don’t see anything as it is.
Any physical relationship or influence between the Sun and its orbiting planets, I would expect it to appear slightly out of sync and for there not to be an exact match of time and influence, in this case I’m using planetary resonance to look for a relationship between the Sun and the planets.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/resonance-ssn.gif
Basically, In this graph, I use N=N1+N2 where N is the resonance from the observations of three orbiting planetary body’s, I then collect the data of N once per year over a any given period of time.
What you are looking at in the graph is a slightly out of sync relationship between an independent source of recorded sunspot number data from 1749-2012 and N which is the resonance data, to highlight the Relationship/influence I have plotted the difference in orange with a simple line between the data points. Using this difference value and following N is what I will be using to test for solar cycle forecast potential. As It is based on observation from data to the point of forecast I see nothing wrong at this point. I know it is also based on an Idea of a relationship/influence between the solar system and the Sun but that is all the more reason to test it, I don’t see how it effects any major aspect of solar science.
I haven’t fully read this paper below but it seems to have the basics of what I’ve been discussing.
orbital resonances and chaos in the solar system
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/rio97.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am
Carla says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:36 am
If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably …
What the heliosphere does has no effect on what the Sun does. So, the answers to your quest are all ‘no’
what about changes in length of rotation time(s) for the sun in this low activity period.
Generally, magnetic fields on the Sun slow down the differential rotation ever so slightly: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf “the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.”
—
Well you know me Dr. S., had to go search alittle and check back with you.
INTERNAL-CYCLE VARIATION OF SOLAR DIFFERENTIAL
ROTATION
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3970.pdf
K. J. LI1,2, J. L. XIE1,3, X. J. SHI1,3
1National Astronomical Observatories/Yunnan Observatory, CAS, Kunming
650011, China
2Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories,
CAS, Beijing 100012, China
3Graduate School of CAS, Beijing 100863, China
17 May 2013
Abstrct. The latitudinal distributions of the yearly mean rotation rates
measured respectively by Suzuki in 1998 and 2012 and Pulkkinen & Tuominen
in 1998 are utilized to investigate internal-cycle variation of solar differential
rotation. The rotation rate at the solar Equator seems to decrease
since cycle 10 onwards…
Contrasting the solar rotation rate of cycles 23 and 24
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012018/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012018.pdf
H. M. Antia1 and Sarbani Basu2
1 Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India
2 Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P. O. Box 20801, New Haven CT 06520-8101,
U. S. A.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 440 (2013) 012018
2. Results
In Fig. 1 we show the change in the latitude-independent part of the solar rotation rate at three
different depths. The latitude-independent part of the rotation rate was obtained by inverting
the splitting coefficient a1. The changes were obtained by subtracting the average rotation rate
from the rotation rate at each epoch. Note that there appears to be a solar-cycle related change,
with the fastest rotation at the cycle 23 solar maximum and the slowest during the two minima.
Also note that the rotation rate is slower during cycle 24 than it was in cycle 23, in particular
the solar rotation rate as shown by the latest data point which is close to the cycle 24 maximum
is lower than the rate at cycle 23 maximum, at least in the outer layers in the Sun. The data
are too noisy in deeper layers to determine whether or not the rotation rate in the deeper layers
changed too. The results with GONG data show some large variations at the cycle 23 maximum
which the MDI data do not, that could be due to some systematic differences introduced during
the upgrade of GONG instruments. Although, is comparable to errorbars at individual
points, if we take average over neighbouring points the value will be significant. Further, the
changes in the latitude-independent part of the solar rotation rate correlate well with the 10.7
cm flux, which is a proxy for solar activity. This can be seen in Fig. 2…
And on corona heating..
Long-term Variation of the Corona in Quiet Regions
S. Kamio1
· J.T. Mariska2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5575.pdf
c Springer •••• 25 April 2012
Abstract Using Hinode EUV Imaging Spectrometer (EIS) spectra recorded
daily at Sun center from the end of 2006 to early 2011, we studied the longterm
evolution of the quiet corona. The light curves of the higher temperature
emission lines exhibit larger variations in sync with the solar activity cycle
while the cooler lines show reduced modulation. Our study shows that the high
temperature component of the corona changes in quiet regions, even though the
coronal electron density remains almost constant there. The results suggest that
heat input to the quiet corona varies with the solar activity cycle…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 29, 2013 at 9:49 am
Carla says:
July 29, 2013 at 5:36 am
If the heliosphere has shrunk considerably …
What the heliosphere does has no effect on what the Sun does. So, the answers to your quest are all ‘no’
—
Not so fast Dr. S.
The galaxy is big. Bigger than the sun and its solar system. The spiral arm we reside in rotates, has magnetic field lines of unbeliveaable proportions. This just might create the scenario for waves..
How about if a magneto WAVE roles through the Local solar neighborhood, oooh let’s say every 8 to 14 years and just lifts that whole heliocurrent sheet up or down.
The heliosphere just doesn’t have a southern hemisphere offset in the up wind direction (dent in the nose) but also discovered by IBEX an offset in the helio tail as well… That inward, outward IMF may have an opening.
IBEX spacecraft images the heliotail — the last region of solar system’s boundary to be seen — revealing an unexpected structure
San Antonio — July 10, 2013
http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/2013/ibex-heliotail.htm#.Ufhel04o6Uk
…”We’re seeing a heliotail that’s much flatter and broader than expected, with a slight tilt,” says McComas. “Imagine sitting on a beach ball. The ball gets flattened by the external forces and its cross section is oval instead of circular. That’s the effect the external magnetic field appears to be having on the heliotail.”…
Sparks says:
July 30, 2013 at 2:03 pm
—
Are the orbits of the Jovian planets constant in terms of time? Could their orbits change (slow down, elongate) if the sun’s activity cycle slows down? I think they might, now your theory might have a problem..
Just thinking out loud..
Just the messenger don’t shoot me..