Guest essay by David Archibald
Two useful things we would like to know are the length of Solar Cycle 24 and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. Figure 1 below shows the NOAA version of Solar Cycle 24 progression with the 23/24 transition copied onto the end of their projection. This crude method (we don’t have another) suggests that the 24/25 transition will be at the end of 2021 which would make Solar Cycle 24 twelve years long. Solar physicists have generally given up forecasting Solar Cycle 25 amplitude. The only extant forecast is Livingstone and Penn’s forecast of an amplitude of seven. In the bigger picture, almost a decade after Schatten and Tobiska forecast a return to a Maunder Minimum-like level of activity, another solar physicist, Mark Giampapa of the National Solar Observatory in Tuscon, Arizona, is of the opinion that “we are heading into a Maunder Minimum” that could last until 2080.
Figure 1: Solar Cycle 24 Progression
Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field
While in recent days the surface of the Sun became almost blank of sunspots, some solar activity parameters have taken off. The interplanetary magnetic field reached a peak higher than it reached during Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure
Similarly, solar wind flow pressure is now higher than it was during most of Solar Cycle 23.
Figure 4: Oulu Neutron Count
Neutron count generally takes a year to respond to the solar wind flow pressure and the interplanetary magnetic field so we may not have seen the lows in neutron count for this solar cycle. That may be in mid-2016. Solar Cycle 24 may be going stronger for longer, to borrow a term from the financial community.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
All we can say at the moment from this figure is that Solar Cycle 24 seems to have had a broader top than any of the previous three cycles.
Figure 6: Sum of Solar Polar Field Strengths
The magnetic poles of the Sun reverse at solar maximum when the sum of the polar field strengths falls to near zero. Sunspot activity showed a double top for Solar Cycle 24 and this is supported by Figure 6 which shows that the Sun had about a year at solar maximum.
Figure 7: North America Ex-Greenland Monthly Snow Cover
Onset of an ice age requires snow to survive through the summer and cool the earth due to its higher albedo. Despite the recent cold winters, we have yet to see summer snow survival get back to the levels of the 1970s cooling period.
Figure 8: Lebanon, New Hampshire Average Monthly Temperatures 2000 – 2015
As a followup to this post on the cold start to the year in Maine, this figure shows average monthly temperature for Lebanon, New Hampshire just to the west of Maine. The years 2000-2014 are used as the reference period as this is the period of the pause and people’s most recent personal reference point. The year 2015 to date is shown as the dark blue smoothed line. February 2015 was 12.1°F colder than the average for the fifteen year of 2000-2014 with an average of 11.6°F. This is the second coldest February back to 1900 with the coldest being 1934 at 8.1°F.
The biggest dispersion in average monthly temperatures is in January and then it tightens up such that the spread in June is only 3°F. The temperature for April was back in the pack though 1.3°F cooler than the average of the prior 15 years. All that can be said is that it will be interesting to see how it goes.
David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)
What do you get when you cross a weak cycle 25 with a rapidly falling AMO? Answer: You get a blend of “Who could have known” mixed with populist leaders attacking food companies and food hoarding, maybe even a windfall food profits tax a la Jimmy Carter.
I sure hope you’re wrong, BBQ Greenies sounds horrid.
I think that there is a good chance for the minimum to set in around 2018/20. If this does become a double dip drop that forms a Maunder type event then the cold will last till 2066, approximately. Otherwise, if this is only going to be a Dalton level of cold then the cold will break around 2035/36
“Onset of an ice age requires snow to survive through the summer and cool the earth due to its higher albedo.”??????????
Or a cooler earth allowing snow to survive through the summer????????????
Kudos to lsvalgaard and William Astley for providing us with the spirited debate. Always interesting. Always something to learn.
A very interesting time is coming in the next few years with the declining days of solar cycle 24 and start of solar cycle 25 when predictions of the strength of cycle 25 become robust. Some ideas/theories/views may as Leif put it be, “gone with the Dodo.”
Maybe they will do away with the science by committee this time in solar cycle predictions. That should have gone out with the Dodo.
You must make a distinction between a Committee and a Workshop [where actual science is done].
Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a GIF image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at: ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/f107_predict.gif
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
I am reposting David Archibald’s post, but I recommend that readers look at the comments. As expected Leif Lsvalgaard does not agree, but he provides some useful information. I found most of thoughtful comments to be interesting.
Leif and William both do not know. Not really.
The difference is that William firmly believes and mercilessly boasts that he does know. The certitude of such people is touching, naive, and a bit sad, but he is in good company with all the other know-it-alls [including you 🙂 ]
But I do not know.
You used to, or at least claimed that you did, but it is good to see some humility. Keep it up.
For God’s sake look in the mirror
I have been fooled by solar cycle 24 many times.
Expect surprises.
Based on what? SC24 does not look all that strange.
Since we don’t have modern data, the definition of “strange” is … lacking. Now, since we have predicted SC25, it can not be “strange”.
Let’s just look at the amount of energy under the curve [assuming that increased/decreased energy will somehow affect the Earth]. It will be an interesting “future”.
We don’t need ‘modern data’ for that. We have 400 years of sunspot observations, and the ‘modern’ observations of sunspots are deliberately made using technology centuries old, even to the point of using the physically very same instruments:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png
Again, are Sunspots a proxy for Solar energy?? Or is the 10.7cm Flux a better indication for the Solar energy reaching the Earth??
Sunspots are great, kind of like a great drink; but they do not measure the energy reaching the Earth!
They are a good proxy for that measure. What you are saying is like the length of the string of mercury in an old-fashioned thermometer does not measure your temperature [it does not], but the length is a good proxy for the temperatire.
Based on the extreme solar lull that took place 2008-2010 for a start.
The predictions for solar are not there if they were you would be able to give us a month by month solar flux /AP index prediction which would be spot on, which you can not do , which no one can do, because are present knowledge and understanding of solar dynamics is not adequate.
If you disagree, prove it by giving a solar flux/AP index prediction for each month from this point forward.
No one will be able to do this with any sense of accomplishment.
what are the chances of a complete ice age ? we have 2 unknowns colliding .we have a cooling sun so less heat for the planet .we also have a earth magnetic flip going on .
so greater cosmic radiation penetrating. creating more cloud more water ..
at the same time you have weather patterns that look like those of the last ice age .cold in eastern usa warmth in Greenland cold in northern eu .
you have a massive southern pole pushing cold northward every yr on the melt with such extensive cooling and 2 unknowns is it time to worry ?
Again, we will not know the result until after it happens!! Prediction is almost “anti-science”!!! All that we can do is use the “proper input variables”, and hope to determine the result [with verification; after it happens].
If we had a perfect model, we could be “reasonable certain of the future”, given no extreme changes. I am hunting for that “perfect model”.
I feel that the extensive increase in Antarctic Sea Ice is an indications that “cooling” is upon us. The Arctic lags behind due to the blocking of ocean flow into the Arctic Ocean [via land masses].
Not all predictions. I can fairly predict the temperature where I live for this day in 2016 to a few degrees, say five, which will be within 2% of the correct value. I can predict TSI to much better than 1%, etc.
Then predict which predictions count and which don’t; so that we will know predicatively!
It is obvious which ones work and which ones don’t. What is not reasonable is a blanket statement that none of them do.
Again, you avoided the question! Before the fact, predict what is important!
your question is ill posed and don’t deserve an equally ill-considered answer. The prediction in itself show if it is good or important: did it work or not? Did it work in enough cases in the past? If so, there is grounds to believe it will in the future, don’t you think? Certainly, it holds in reverse: if it didn’t work in the past, why should it work in the future?
I never stated that “none of them do”, you did!
You did not qualify your statement, a la ‘some predictions etc…’. Just ‘predictions…’ imply [as you say] almost all
You choose, after the fact, which predictions are valid and worth considering. List your predictions NOW! On anything you choose [must after 2016] [SC25, Earth Global Temperature 2016, May 8th, 2016]. Let us decide which ones are successful.
It is only after the fact that one can decide if the prediction was successful. Here is our prediction of the size of cycle 24 (made in the fall of 2004):
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Now, go ahead and decide.
I am an old man and I have worried about many things, most of which never happened – Old Chinese Saying
Cold in northern EU isn’t correct. At least Scandinavia has been unusually warm for the last two winters. Instead, there seems to be interesting pattern of rainy seasons and dry seasons during that time. Pattern has around 1-1,5 month interval in switching the modes. Regards, a man from Finland.
This is exactly what I said above, and you disagreed with.
“Again, we will not know the result until after it happens!! Prediction is almost “anti-science”!!! All that we can do is use the “proper input variables”, and hope to determine the result [with verification; after it happens].”, jlurtz.
Enough of playing your game! Sunspots do not predict Solar energy or Solar energy reaching the Earth. If you disagree -> Prove it!
Sunspots monitor the variation of the energy output of the Sun. This is well established, perhaps you need to read up on this? Here is a comparison:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-TSI.png
Note how the sunspot number SSN (top) matches that of the total energy (bottom) falling on a square meter at the Earth. You drive-by-comment betrays your ignorance about this, so take this opportunity to learn.
Typical Isvalgaard, if you don’t agree, attack the person with “ignorance” and the “ability to learn”. Again, are Sunspots a proxy for Solar energy?? Or is the 10.7cm Flux a better indication for the Solar energy reaching the Earth??
“Sunspots are great, kind of like a great drink; but they do not measure the energy reaching the Earth!”, jlurtz.
Don’t change the subject, Prove that Sunspots directly affect the “total energy falling on a square meter of the Earth”. If you do, then you have proven that the Sun affects the Earth’s energy input!
Sunspots and F10.7 are both good proxies for the energy output of the sun. I don’t need to prove that, because that is generally accepted.
Equations are easy: Total energy (actually power W/m2) = 1360.5 + 0.083 * Sunspot number
Relative Change in Temperature = one forth the relative change of Total energy received
A bunch of graphs are not proof. Show me your equations of Earth’s temperature verses Sunspots! Then show me 400 years of equations to temperature!
I think the sunspot number is a very bad measure of what the activity of the sun is. I think it is a terrible metric to use.
I will take solar flux over sunspot number, which corresponds much more closely to sunspot area rather then sunspot number.
Likewise sunspot number and sunspot area do not correspond to one another.
The sunspot number is a good proxy for F10.7, but we can also reconstruct F10.7 directly. Here is F10.7 back to 1840:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-Flux-Reconstruction.png
And here is how it was done:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux-1781-2014.pdf
SC24 is like several other low cycles in the past, e.g. between 1875 and1935. Not strange or unusual at all.
Leif,
If 24 isn’t abnormal, just different, historically what’s the cycle after that one like? Are there any patterns to series of cycles?
Likewise sunspot number and sunspot area do not correspond to one another
But they do:
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Area-vs-Number.png
The red is sunspot areas, the blue is sunspot numbers. The reason the blue is above the red after 1846 is that the solar observers in Zurich [and Locarno] started to count big spots more than once [a really big one would be counted as five spots] which artificially inflates the sunspot number. But we can correct for that and restore the excellent correspondence between sunspot area and sunspot number.
BTW, here is the Sun a few days ago:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2015/loc-d20150506.JPG
at the upper right is a table. The column marked f is the inflated count, and the column marked LW is the real, actual count of spots.
micro6500 May 9, 2015 at 8:42 am
If 24 isn’t abnormal, just different, historically what’s the cycle after that one like? Are there any patterns to series of cycles?
http://www.leif.org/EOS/SC23-not-as-Deep.pdf
“We find that when hemispheres are treated separately, almost every one of the past 12 solar minima reaches a point where the main contribution to magnetism comes from the small-scale component. However, due to asymmetries in cycle phase, this state is very rarely reached by both hemispheres at the same time. From this we infer that even though each hemisphere did reach the magnetic baseline, from a heliospheric point of view the minimum of cycle 23 was not as deep as it could have been.”
Great story here from Parkes observatory Alien radio bursts over the last several years turn out to be the microwave in the kitchen, I love it.
“Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag.”
Is it important in order to rocket was on the proper orbit?
Is the density changes cause in the winter waves in the stratosphere?
[“Is it important in order to rocket was on the proper orbit?” ?? .mod]
“It is important in order to ascertain if the rocket……..”.
Satellite accelerometers, such as those carried on the CHAMP and GRACE satellites, can provide
valuable data for improving our knowledge of thermosphere density and winds. These data are now
available over a wide range of the defining conditions, including more than half a solar cycle. Continuity
and enhancement of this multi-satellite accelerometer data set will be provided by ESA’s Swarm mission.
This investigation covers the processing steps required for accurately converting accelerometer data into
density and wind data, and the subsequent use of this data for improving the understanding of the
thermosphere.
The investigation of the data processing is based on data from the CHAMP and GRACE accelerometers,
star cameras and GPS receivers and equivalent simulated data that has been created for Swarm. The
investigation encompasses the calibration of the accelerometer instrument, accurate aerodynamic and
radiation pressure force modelling and the enhancement of processing algorithms. This has resulted in
improved accuracy of the data and increased insight in the possible sources of error.
The largest remaining error sources in the density derivation are the gas-surface interaction modelling,
modelling of the satellite geometry, the calibration scale factor for the in-track accelerometer component,
and the knowledge of the atmospheric in-track wind speed, composition and temperature. These sources
lead to density errors which are largely systematic in nature and are estimated at about 15% of the density
signal for CHAMP, GRACE and Swarm.
The crosswind determination accuracy is very much dependent on the strength of the aerodynamic drag
signal, compared to solar radiation pressure modelling errors and accelerometer cross-track calibration
errors. Therefore, reliable results can only be obtained for a combination of a sufficiently low altitude, high
enough solar activity and a favourable orbit geometry in terms of radiation pressure accelerations. For
CHAMP, a multi-year time series of crosswind speeds has been obtained that is within the statistical
uncertainty of current empirical thermosphere wind models. However, for the higher altitude GRACE
satellites, radiation pressure modelling errors dominate.
The CHAMP- and GRACE-derived density and wind data has subsequently been used in extensive
evaluations using empirical and physical models of the thermosphere, and geophysical studies of large
scale structures and patterns in the data. Experiments with an accelerometer-calibrated empirical density
model indicate that improvements in the standard deviation of data/model ratios of at least 30% are
possible. The work concludes with recommendations for Swarm and other possible future thermosphere
missions.
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/acceldrag_finalreport_compressed.pdf
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/seismo/HELASVI/posters/howe_torsional.pdf Check this aut, now we can see it absence of solar cycle 25
Hi Leif,
Do you have any update on the following from 2013 re SC 25?
Eagerly awaiting 2016…
Best, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/bbc-real-risk-of-a-maunder-minimum-little-ice-age/#comment-1461494
Allan MacRae says: October 30, 2013 at 11:38 am
Have you made any prediction for SC25?
lsvalgaard says: October 30, 2013 at 11:43 am
A highly speculative one is here: http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
Come 2016 we should see the new polar field build and from then on I think we can predict with some confidence, not before.
As we now have seen the polar fields grow, we can give a lower limit for SC25, namely 2/3 of SC24. But there is an important issue: which index or measure should be use. The index I would prefer is F10.7. In another wild speculation it might be that sunspots will become harder to see [but still be there] such that the sunspot number will be progressively too low: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
If so, that would be really news and exciting.
On page 33 of your article -Working Hypothesis you are indicating a possible change in the way the sun is behaving.
A ‘possible’ change, that if it happens will be great news, but this is just wild speculation. There is very little that indicates in a compelling way that it is actually happening. In science it is sometimes interesting to suggest what to look for [minimizes surprises].
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
The polar fields still look very flat for the given heliospheric current sheet tilt angle of 40 coming off a recent maximum, contrasted to the past under the same scenario.
David Archibald’s data showing this to be the case in this article.
Archibald has no data. The current sheet tilt comes from our measurements at Stanford:
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
and is quite normal for this point in the cycle.
No it is not normal.
Can you quantify its abnormality? 10% abnormal, 50% abnormal? 100% abnormal?
My take away from the data is post 2005 the sun is behaving much differently then it was prior to 2005 thus far.
Speaking as a true believer in the abnormal…
I have eyes and I can see it clearly..
I said thus far. Let’s see what happens from here.
Here are the cycles for which we have the tilt, put on the same image:
http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Tilt-Overlay.png
The red dot is where we are now. Looks pretty normal to me.
Every metric shown by David Archibald in this article shows much different solar behavior post 2005 versus prior to 2005.
looks pretty much the same to me, and the world did not begin in 1966. We have good data at least a century and a half back. Recent activity in that context is not unusual.
What is making you say possible change? You must be seeing something to make you suggest it?
read the rest of the presentation
I was suggesting in the past when the tilt angle was at this value and on the decline that the polar fields were not as flat in comparison to now.
Words do not cut it. Quantify it. And remember that the Tilt angle is a highly artificial thing: derived from a mathematical description of the magnetic field, in particular the ratio of polar to equatorial fields. There is no physical object on the Sun that actually has that tilt.
Your presentation is good. I am still looking at it.
I will look at the presentation more.
as you said: you have eyes.
I think you are saying that the polar fields thus far are relatively flat and this is why at this point in time you are expecting solar cycle 25, to likely be weaker then solar cycle 24 which is rather weak.
No, the polar fields are not ‘rather flat’, but are increasingly sharply after their reversal. So far, they are about 2/3 of what they were prior to the 2008-2009 minimum, but they are still increasing, so SC25 will be AT LEAST 2/3 of SC24. Probably more. Whether or not the sunspot number will behave is uncertain. The number of spots per sunspot group [active region] has been decreasing the past three cycles and is now only half of what it used to be for at least a century. If this decrease continues [and we don’t know if it will] be may get cycles with very low sunspot numbers, but not so low F10.7, EUV, magnetic field, and TSI. Perhaps the Maunder Minimum was like this.
In addition I think your view of solar activity going forward is it is likely to be weaker rather then stronger, but thus far nothing that unusual has happened. Still you expect further weakening at least through the end of solar cycle 25.
weak solar cycles often come in bunches [but not always: SC20] so just on that ground a weak SC25 [and even SC26] will not be a surprise. But we CANNOT [as yet] predict with confidence that far ahead. Accurate solar cycle prediction is of large societal importance as it strongly influences planning for space assets [even insurance premiums for satellites].
Have a great day.
Thanks.
Why is there little mention of coronal hole streams, filament eruptions, coronal mass ejections, solar flares and our weaking magnetosphere in relation to Earths climate. If any of the Suns phenomenons that I listed are Earth facing when they occur, they can put tremendous amounts of energy into Earths atmosphere above and beyond what TSI or sunspot number can account for. If these solar phenomenon can effect Earths electrical transmission grid, which it can and does, wouldn’t it be possible that it effects weather? ex. High/ Low pressure systems, Toradoes, Cyclones and Earthquakes, Cloud formations.
Because all of these other things put very little energy into the climate system compared to just ordinary sunlight.
On average yes but not per occurance. A CME or Filimentry eruption that’s Earth directed can wreak havoc on Earths upper atmosphere( ozone), Troposphere ( electrical transmission grid) It really depends on the frequency of these phenomena that determines how much energy they put into Earths climate system. With the Earths weaking Magnetosphere, the more likely these phenomena directed towards Earth occur, the more likely they will effect Earth.
On average yes but not per occurance. A CME or Filimentry eruption that’s Earth directed can wreak havoc on Earths upper atmosphere( ozone), Troposphere ( electrical transmission grid) It really depends on the frequency of these phenomena that determines how much energy they put into Earths climate system. With the Earths weaking Magnetosphere, the more likely these phenomena directed towards Earth occur, the more likely they will effect Earth.
Climate is average weather, so it is the average that counts. The energy released in a single hurricane exceeds that of all power stations in the world…
The energy in the climate system is many orders of magnitude greater than that of all the solar manifestations you mentioned. You seem to think the tail wags the dog.
Leif , you have this wrong. Then again diversity of opinion is always a good think.
Produce the papers that document your claims
So are you saying that Earth is the dog and the Sun is the tail in your metaphor?
The tiny variations of solar output [one in a thousand] are the tail.