Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. –Paul Dorian, Vencore Weather, 30 April 2015
Overview
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.
Solar maximum
The smoothed sunspot number (plot below) for solar cycle 24 reached a peak of 81.9 in April 2014 and it is looking increasingly likely that this spike will be considered to be the solar maximum for this cycle. This second peak in the cycle surpassed the level of an earlier peak that reached 66.9 in February 2012. Many solar cycles are double peaked; however, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak. Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.

[Sunspot numbers for the prior solar cycle (#23) and the current solar cycle (#24) with its two peaks highlighted; courtesy Hathaway, NASA/ARC]
Consequences of a weak solar cycle
First, the weak solar cycle has resulted in rather benign “space weather” in recent times with generally weaker-than-normal geomagnetic storms. By all Earth-based measures of geomagnetic and geoeffective solar activity, this cycle has been extremely quiet. However, while a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous “superstorm” Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (#10) [http://vencoreweather.com/2014/09/02/300-pm-the-carrington-event-of-1859-a-solar-superstorm-that-took-places-155-years-ago/]. In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead.
Second, it is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity.
Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830 (below). Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.

[400 years of sunspots with “minimum” periods highlighted; map courtesy wikipedia]
Here are the latest value for NOAA’s Space weather prediction Center, they are for March 2015. I expect an update this coming week. Note that the Ap index made a big jum in March, I expect the new values for April to be much lower.
More at the WUWT solar Reference Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/




Today the SILSO SSN is 80, so the Sun ain’t quite dead yet. Such large swings are typical of weak solar cycles.
Leif,
According to your study “Sunspot Cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?”, the strength of the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to be an indicator of peak spot activity for the following cycle.
– A very recent paper by Robert Cameron and Manfred Schüssler states that the strength of the sun’s polar fields during the solar sunspot minimum is a decisive indicator for the activity of the next solar cycle. (http://notrickszone.com/2015/04/12/solar-cycle-24-continues-to-be-quietest-in-almost-200-years-suns-polar-fields-weakest-since-1900/) Is this really a credible indicator?
– Sometimes is said that the slope of the curve, built by the data of the magnetic polar fields during the period of 30 days before until 30 after crossing the zero-point, is important to predict the strength of the next cycle. I small slope means that a weak cycle will follow. (http://notrickszone.com/2014/02/07/more-signs-of-global-cooling-record-weak-polar-field-of-the-sun-may-forebode-maunder-like-minimum/)
Are these two methods really reliable?
The statement that the polar fields at minimum is a good predictor is not in contradiction with the statement that the field over the three years just before the minimum is the predictor. Three years before the minimum the polar fields stabilize and don’t really change much until after the minimum, so the field at minimum and the three-year average are really the same thing. I prefer the average as that is less sensitive to exactly WHEN the minimum is.
Using the slope over a short interval is not a good thing to do, so the method in your last link is not useful.
Anthony Watts you were right.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1430720402000
Leif thinks the past is always going to predict the future. A big mistake.
You seem to think the future [your wishful thinking] predicts the past. Even bigger mistake.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Without comments by you on my opinion.
The reason why I am not adding commentary about your opinion is because I would be saying the same thing over again. I have commented on your opinions to much in the past.
My stance is to wait and see what develops going forward. To argue about it at this point is a waste of time.
Yet you persist in NOT waiting.
Leif, I am waiting. What I have done is try to come up with some conclusions in the meantime.
I do not think any of us really know. We act as if we know (I am talking about myself as well) but in the end I can not honestly say I know I am correct and others are wrong.
Hence I am waiting to see.
If you are waiting, don’t shoot your mouth off with wishful thinking and unsubstantiated stuff.
How could the sun possibly have any effect on the climate?
.
Everybody knows only SUVs and power plants affect the climate.
.
There are no SUVs and power plants on the sun.
.
So the sun has no effect.
.
If you want to get serious about REAL variable that affect the climate, you ought to study Al Gore’s face time on TV.
.
The more he is blabbering on TV about the climate, as in the 1990s, the hotter it gets.
.
He’s been relatively quiet since the 2000 election … and the climate got cooler.
.
The sun is not the source of hot air — Al Gore is.
.
All this is according to my AlGore Climate Model, which works better than those darned stupidcomputers, or supercomputers, or whatever you call them, that those “climate scientist” PhD’s use
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V-NrtCIcXRYak8zT012ekk/view?pli=1
Slides 9 through 19 show not only how variable the sun is but how much weakening has taken place especially post 2005.
The data shows as presented by slides (9-19) how active solar activity was last century and how it strengthened last century , until an abrupt reversal came about (around 2005) which is still in full force presently.
Again solar activity increases dramatically. Earthquake Activity will increase?
Region Number of
sunspots Class
Magn. Class
Spot
2335 30 β – γ – δ EAC
2336 9 β DRO
2337 2 β BXO
2338 4 β BXO
2339 1 α BXO
This solar cycle looks like it could be one of the longest on record.
There is no evidence of that as yet.
It’s funny watching all of the people trying to figure out the variables in what many think is a zero-sum equation. We’ve had ice ages in the past. We’ll probably have them in the future. I suspect the balance of all of the influences on global weather patterns, as well as heating and cooling trends, is titled in favor of the natural ones.
If you are waiting, don’t shoot your mouth off with wishful thinking and unsubstantiated stuff.
Leif says in the above.
My question is how are we going to explore the unsubstantiated stuff is we do not look into it in detail and talk about it?. I thought that is how scientific progress is made. In other words a stance is taken and some try to prove it correct ,while others try to prove it incorrect based on observation and theory.
I think studying this stuff ,taking a position and talking about it is the only way to make any progress.
Then time will show if it is or is not correct. Until then, when the answer is not known I think exploring the pro and con side of all this unsubstantiated stuff is a good thing.
An example of unsubstantiated stuff: you said “This solar cycle looks like it could be one of the longest on record”.
On what do you base that? You see, there is a difference between science and just talk.
Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.[1][2] It is the current solar cycle, and began on January 4, 2008, but there was minimal activity until early 2010.[3][4] It is on track to be the Solar Cycle with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750.
I am basing it on the fact this cycle started Jan. 4 2008 and it is now over 7 years old and the maximum maybe has finally started to decline. I am thinking the decline in a so called 11 normal cycle is around 5.5 years and since this cycle is not your typical 11 year cycle in that it has been slow to rise and then the maximum lasted a very long time ,it might follow the decline will be long and slow. Thus a long cycle.
The cycle did not start on Jan. 4, 2008, but more like in December 2008 or perhaps Jan. 2009. So your ‘fact’ is not a real fact, is it? Cycle 14 also had a long, drawn-out maximum. So SC24 looks very normal.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
I have been basing this on the official start date Jan.04 ,2008 . I thought this is how it was done?
There is no ‘official’ start date, and you should trust your own eyes a bit more.
Let me know why you think this may not be the case?
see graph in previous comment above.
There is even some evidence that the ‘real’ minimum was somewhere is 2009, take e.g. the magnetic field of the sun-as-a-star:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Mean%20Field%202003-now.png
Click on the image to make it bigger.
It is already big enough, so no click needed. See how flatlined the field is in 2009.
Will the start date of this cycle be changed?
There is no ‘official’ start date, so nothing will be changed, but trust your own eyes. As Yogi Berra said “you can observe a lot just by watching” :
Yes I see what you mean when looking at 2009. I was basing all of this on that start date they give of Jan.04 2008. That was my reasoning.
Who are ‘they’? You claim that you research this and look high and low, so why don’t you?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/
NASA declared it. I figured that could be taken in stone.
The first spot of the next cycle always occurs a year or two before the end of the current cycle. You should better study a bit about solar cycles before making sweeping statements. Hathaway’s review is a good place to start: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.07020v1.pdf
Isn’t that how all of the sunspot cycles are determined? In other words are all the lengths of all the sunspot cycles determined in the same way? If yes then why is my reasoning wrong?
I think the solar flux needs to replace solar cycle length ,sunspot numbers, sunspot areas or anything to do with sunspots in order to get a true reading of where the sun is as far as activity is concerned.
The solar flux seems to be much more objective and consistent and that is what is needed when it comes to the evaluation of solar activity.
The solar F10.7 cm microwave flux correlates very well with the other indices we have, so they are all good. Measurements of the solar flux only goes back to 1947 so we need the other indices. We can use the geomagnetic response as a [VERY] good proxy fir F10.7, see http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux-1781-2014.pdf
F107-Flux-Reconstruction.png
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-Flux-Reconstruction.png
Thanks
thanks.