Guest essay by David Archibald
The most accurate method for predicting the amplitude of the next solar cycle is to use the strength of the solar polar magnetic fields at solar minimum. But with solar minimum likely to be three years away, who can wait that long?
The strength of the solar polar magnetic fields at solar minimum is a very accurate indicator of the maximum amplitude of the following solar cycle, as per this graph from Dr David Hathaway of NASA:
Up until late 2014, solar polar magnetic field strength was still quite weak as shown in this graph of the history of that parameter by solar cycle from the last four solar minima:
Over the last year the solar polar magnetic fields of Solar Cycle 24 have strengthened to almost the level of Solar Cycle 23 at the same stage. But for the previous two cycles, they also weakened a bit from this point. All things considered, the amplitude might be around 40 at solar minimum, which may be three years away. That in turn corresponds to a maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of about 55.
There is another methodology that derives a similar result. The following graph plots up sunspot area for the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun from 1874:
What is apparent is that the two hemispheres have different drivers. The northern hemisphere had a consistent rate of increase in amplitude from Solar Cycle 12 to Solar Cycle 15. The southern hemisphere had the opposite trend but with a step-like change. During the 8,000 year peak of solar activity in the mid-20th century, the hemispheres had very similar amplitudes. They started diverging again from Solar Cycle 22. The northern hemisphere is weakening faster than the southern hemisphere. If they both maintain their established trends for one more cycle, then we can predict the maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 (assuming we get the year correct). By this method an maximm amplitude of 56 is derived if the hemispheric peaks are aligned. As this method relies upon the disciplined decline evident over Solar Cycles 22, 23 and 24, that is shown in more detail in the following graph:
The original data is available here. If this relationship is true, then the fall in maximum amplitude from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24 should be the same as the fall from Solar Cycle 22 to Solar Cycle 23. The respective falls are 39 and 38. A fall of 39 from the maximum amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 gives us a result of 43.
In 2014, Dr Javaraiah Javaraiah of the Indian Institute for Astrophysics in Bangalore published a paper which has a similar prediction for the maximum amplitude of Solar Cycle 25 of 50 (on page 15).
In summary, a few methodologies are givings us predictions for Solar Cycle 25 which straddle the amplitudes of the Solar Cycles 5 and 6 of the Dalton Minimum which had maximum amplitudes of 49.2 and 48.7 respectively.
Expectations of climate can be adjusted accordingly.
David Archibald’s most recent book is Australia’s Defence.
Certainly interesting times ahead. I hope some of us can “stick around” and see!
Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are living a miserable life) Apophis will strike the Earth in 2036 and end it all. Well, at least it was fun while it lasted.
NASA claims it will miss. It’s probably too small to wipe out all of humanity, anyway, so Greens will have to do that on their own.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid20130110.html#.Vk46Jl5aZ_A
“NASA claims it will miss.”
So you can understand my concern.
I share your concern Tom. Kinda like dealing with the ever changing “Cone of Uncertainty” with our hurricane forecasting here in Florida. .
Tom,
Since NASA can’t be sure this far in advance, it would be wise to spend money on asteroid moving missions rather than PC, ideology-driven climastrology.
Gloateus Maximus November 19, 2015 at 5:35 pm
” ….climastrology.”
I like it, however it does disparage astrology a bit.
Sun spot data are dominated by the rectification of two cycles at about 20 and 23.6 years, which is equivalent to a cycle at 20.2 years modulated by a cycle at 262 years.
When rectified, these produce components at about 10, 10.8, 11.8, and 131 years:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/ssn2.jpg
These are not pure sinusoidal components, but rather the modal responses to wideband, effectively random, forcing. As a result, the peaks are not uniform, e.g., the peak midway between 1950 and 2000 is lower than would be expected if the series were the sum of uniform sinusoids.
We can replicate similar behavior in simulation. E.g., using this model:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/sunspotmodel2.jpg
we can get results such as this:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/2mode.jpg
The above plot is obviously not a fit to the real data, so please don’t anyone give me grief from that point of view. It is an open loop run of the model. But, it shows similar features to the real data, e.g., in the anomalous lowering of the peaks just before 1900, and before midway between 1950 and 2000.
Abrupt changes such as this may not be as unpredictable as they appear. They are the result of two smooth components interfering either constructively or destructively:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/ssnsim.jpg
In theory, those smooth components should be fairly predictable.
Anyways, the upshot is, we should expect continuing decline in the next cycle. If could bottom out as in the simulated data of the last plot just before 1850. Or, it could suddenly bottom out as just after 1800 in this simulated plot
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/2mode2.jpg
and suddenly leap back up again. We will see what the future holds…
“Sun spot data are dominated by the rectification of two cycles at about 20 and 23.6 years, “
Jupiter-Saturn synodic period =19.859
2 x Jupiters orbit = 23.724
As employed in ‘vukcevic formula’ published Jan 2004.
Feedback modulation between three strongest sources of the magnetic fields within solar system.
Eh, maybe. But, there are so many celestial harmonics to choose from that you can always find something, somewhere with a superficial match. And, there is the non-uniformity I referred to that makes me believe it unlikely this is a manifestation of highly coherent planetary forcing, not to mention the very weak coupling mechanisms that we know of.
I think it is more likely these are two resonant modes of the Sun, and they are randomly excited by processes within its nuclear furnace.
This particular [and wrong] idea is not new and was put forward e.g. by Brown in 1900:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1900MNRAS-Brown-Sunspot-Tides.pdf
Bart, Sunspots are magnetic events, thus it make sense (until we know better) to consider that cause-consequence is interaction within strong nearby magnetic field sources, and the periodicity numbers as you found in your analysis are there. Without presence of the external fields, solar sunspot activity would still exist, but possibly more ‘random’, a kind of the Earth’s volcanic activity, throw in a bit of positive magnetic feedback and hey presto you get relatively regular osculations.
Due to the supersonic solar wind, there are no magnetic effects from Jupiter, Saturn [or any other planets for that matter] on the sun.
follow magenta coloured arrow within the spiral, or for that matter the multiplicity of the red arrows
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
all emanating from the sun and returning back to the source.
No, the magnetic effects do not ‘return to the source’. What the figure shows are energetic electrons streaming along the magnetic field to and fro the sun. much as they do in the Earth’s magnetic field.
The red arrows show the direction in which a compass needle would point as the compass is hurtling AWAY from the sun at 400 km/sec. No magnetic field frozen into the superconducting plasma moves upwind against the solar wind. I think I have explained this dozens of times.
Sun generated magnetic field is spreading through heliosphere as either open or closed field. Closed field lines configuration is continuously ‘interfered’ by orbital properties of two gas giants, which happen to be the next strongest sources of the magnetic field within the solar system. Time varying magnetic fields give rise to electric fields and vice-versa. We then must speak of electromagnetic fields rather than of ‘detached’ electric or magnetic fields. Solar wind is no obstacle to the low frequency electromagnetic propagation, as the ordinary atmospheric wind (generated by atmospheric pressure difference) is no obstacle to the low frequency sound propagation by varying the atmospheric pressure.
Somewhat nonsense. The solar wind drags the sun’s magnetic field out into space. Electromagnetic waves are sunlight, not waves in the solar wind plasma. The waves in the plasma are magneto-hydro-dynamic waves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics and cannot propagate upstream because the solar wind outward speed is an order of magnitude faster than the Alfven speed with which MHD waves propagate. Your ideas are physically incorrect [nonsense] as you have been told numerous times.
“Electromagnetic waves are sunlight” and that it’s then. Have you not ever heard of the ELF?
NASA’s Dr.Hathaway found hard way that ‘vukcevic formula’ works, fact that you wish to ban, proscribe, forbid or prohibit its presence is inconsequential for its validity.
in your own words:
” Of course, there are always ‘rearguard’ actions to preserve status quo even in the face of the evidence. ”
Have a nice day .
ELF is radio waves which are just long wavelength ‘light’. The Sun [and all bodies for that matter] emits such waves. You do too.
inconsequential for its validity
Except that it is not valid, nor original, nor worthy of consideration. Dr. Hathaway was completely correct in his assessment of your nonsense.
ELF is significant factor in the polar jet stream lat/long orientation, controlling the N. Hemisphere’s weather patterns. Solar wind can’t stop propagation of the ELF regardless of it going up- or down- stream.
“Except that it (‘vukcevic formula’) is not valid, nor original, nor worthy of consideration.”
BUT IT WORKS ! funny that.
You know very well that ‘vukcevic formula’ is valid, it is original, it is worthy of serious scientific consideration; testament to it is the time and effort you spent over last half a decade of your valuable time in the fruitless ‘rubbishing’ of it .
You resorted to the pointless ‘‘rearguard actions to preserve status quo even in the face of the evidence. ”
ELF is significant factor in the polar jet stream lat/long orientation, controlling the N. Hemisphere’s weather patterns. Solar wind can’t stop propagation of the ELF regardless of it going up- or down- stream.
Solar wind also cannot stop light from the stars reaching us. The point is that there is almost no energy in those waves.
testament to it is the time and effort you spent over last half a decade
I shall always oppose pseudo-science when it rears it ugly head.
“The point is that there is almost no energy in those waves.”
Now that is a nonsense!
ELF energy (and it is initially pure electromagnetic energy) produced by a single CME hit at the Earth’s magnetosphere (with only a small fraction of the impact is absorbed) is equivalent to energy of an M6 quake. For Jupiter’s magnetosphere multiply that by 19,000^2 (The magnetic field of Jupiter is 19 thousands times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field).
Sun’s magnetic ropes pulsate at rate of about 8 sec (not related to the sun-Earth distance), making it ultra ELF, since time varying magnetic fields give rise to electric fields and vice-versa, we then must speak of electromagnetic fields and energy.
Sun’s light is not the only electromagnetic energy permeating the heliosphere. It has been shown that the TSI that measure’s it varies very little, but the energies I spoke of at the above, vary greatly, power is enormous, and the Earth and its climate are not immune to it, the case is to the contrary
ELF energy (and it is initially pure electromagnetic energy) produced by a single CME hit at the Earth’s magnetosphere (with only a small fraction of the impact is absorbed) is equivalent to energy of an M6 quake.
No, the energy in a CME [and in the solar wind in general] is not in the form of ELF but is kinetic energy of the particles and takes 1-4 days to get from the Sun to us, versus the 8 minutes a radio wave would take.
At instant of the ‘magnetic reconnection’ all incoming energy is converted into electromagnetic. “Time varying magnetic fields give rise to electric fields and vice-versa, we then must speak of electromagnetic fields and energy.”
Reconnections or short-circuiting of solar ‘magnetic ropes’ at the Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheres are many thousands times stronger, and since magnetic field is still connected to the source,
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/true_dimen/fig3.gif
the effect provides the feedback, while the ordinary common solar wind is swept out of the way. You are constantly misinterpreting the point by pointlessly repeating ‘ no planetary magnetic field can reach the sun’.
Nonsense. When a plasma is traversing a magnetic field [solar wind blowing into Earth’s magnetic field] an electric field is generated. This field drives a current of charged particles [see Figures 1 and 2 in http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf ]. The current accelerates charges in the upper atmosphere and their kinetic energy when crashing into the air creates the aurorae. No electromagnetic waves in play.
Doc, you need to go back and read some of the stuff written by James Clerk Maxwell.
He [like you] had no idea or knowledge about plasmas. You could benefit from reading http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8454.html
On the other hand, since you seem resistant to learning, my advice may fall on deaf ears.
About Parker’s book that I referred you to:
“Parker is arguably the world’s leading authority on solar wind and the effects of magnetic fields in the heliosphere, and his originality of thought and distinctive approach to physics are very much in evidence here. Seeking to enrich discussions in standard texts and correct misconceptions about the dynamics of these large-scale fields, Parker engages readers in a series of “conversations” that are at times anecdotal and even entertaining without ever sacrificing theoretical rigor. The dynamics he describes represents the Maxwell stresses of the magnetic field working against the pressure and inertia of the bulk motion of ionized gases, characterized in terms of the magnetic field and gas velocity.”
Dr. S. It is perfectly acceptable for you to continue to rubbish my equation, for now it works and that is the fact but opinions are not; now we have to wait and see what happens with the next cycle.
Having said that, one vast majority of readers takes for granted what you write, so it is not good sport to put up misleading information as:
“No electromagnetic waves in play.”
So called ‘magnetic reconnection’ releases a transient electromagnetic disturbance better known as an electromagnetic pulse.
Telegraph cables were not damaged by ‘kinetic energy of charged particles crashing into the air ‘, they were damaged by the electromagnetic pulses of the Carrington event.
A similar, but milder, storm occurred in March 1989. It knocked out power supplies in Quebec, Canada.
Both events are easily, accurately and scientifically explained by the Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, who as you say apparently knew nothing about plasma.
“He (J.C. Maxwell) [like you] had no idea or knowledge about plasmas.”
Thanks for the compliment, however flattering, but not correct. I can say with high degree of certainty that Maxwell’s equations work, and as it happens my equation appears to work too, that is where any, however unlikely, similarity ends.
Next thing you might say that Tesla was another charlatan who knew nothing of electromagnetism, electromagnetic waves or plasma.
So called ‘magnetic reconnection’ releases a transient electromagnetic disturbance better known as an electromagnetic pulse.
Telegraph cables were not damaged by ‘kinetic energy of charged particles crashing into the air ‘, they were damaged by the electromagnetic pulses of the Carrington event.
No, again, you do not know what you are talking about. The reconnection event does not release an electromagnetic pulse [ELF radio waves]. What happens is that reconnection on the dayside of the magnetosphere drags the magnetic field lines onto the nightside forming a long tail of magnetic field lines in the antisolar direction with one polarity in the northern part of the tail and the opposite polarity in the southern part of the tail. This configuration has a lot of magnetic energy stored in it, and reconnection in the tail releases that magnetic energy accelerating charged particles towards the Earth forming strong electric currents. These currents vary strongly and thus induce strongly varying magnetic fields in conductors on [and in] the Earth. Strongly varying magnetic fields induce further electric currents, and those currents do the damage to our infrastructure. No ‘electromagnetic waves’ in play. No ELF [radio waves], just DC currents.
“… radio waves” ?! ?!
“These currents vary strongly and thus induce strongly varying magnetic fields in conductors on [and in] the Earth.”
Huh….. you do need to go back to do some reading.
for the rest, best forgotten.
Yes, you claimed that ELF waves were responsible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency
“Extremely low frequency (ELF) is the ITU designation[1] for electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) with frequencies from 3 to 30 Hz, and corresponding wavelengths from 100,000 to 10,000 kilometers.[2][3] In atmospheric science, an alternative definition is usually given, from 3 Hz to 3 kHz.[4][5] In the related magnetosphere science, the lower frequency electromagnetic oscillations (pulsations occurring below ~3 Hz) are considered to lie in the ULF range, which is thus also defined differently from the ITU radio bands.
ELF radio waves are generated by lightning and natural disturbances in Earth’s magnetic field, so they are a subject of research by atmospheric scientists.”
X-rays and extreme UV radiation reach Earth at light speed, ionizing the upper layers of our atmosphere; side-effects of this “solar EMP” include radio blackouts and GPS navigation errors.
Are not CMEs and solar wind related. Again, you are conflating, confusing, ranting about things you do not understand.
For anyone interested or curious:
NASA science:
Extreme solar storms pose a threat to all forms of high-technology. They begin with an explosion–a “solar flare”—in the magnetic canopy of a sunspot. X-rays and extreme UV radiation reach Earth at light speed, ionizing the upper layers of our atmosphere; side-effects of this “solar EMP” include radio blackouts
and GPS navigation errors.
EMP = electromagnetic pulse
read more here: NEAR MISS: THE SOLAR SUPERSTORM OF JULY 2012
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm/
I blame global warming…
David Archibald,
The projections from your 2006 and 2008 papers published in Energy & Environment re imminent global and mid latitude cooling due to reduced solar activity during solar cycle 24 appear to have failed.
Reduced solar output indeed occurred; just not the global or even regional cooling predicted. In fact, according to all the global data sets we have, both surface and satellite, there has been an increase in global surface temperature since the onset of solar cycle 24, which began in Jan 2008 (according to Wiki).
Perhaps you could expand on this and maybe give an insight as to why you believe your projections failed so drastically on these occasions.
Thank you.
I should clarify that the satellite data of course represent lower troposphere average temperature, rather than surface temperature. Apologies for that.
Even so, both the lower troposphere (satellite) data sets also show warming since January 1998, the onset of solar cycle 24.
Thanks again.
That should be January 2008, not 1998. Not my night!
David’s predictions never fail because he just keeps moving the goalposts. We’re now looking at SC 25 for our “expectations of climate to be adjusted”. Though David won’t admit it, when he first started his making climate predictions he predicted significant cooling by then end of the long 23 cycle. When that failed to materialise he shifted to “cooling over cycle 24”. We’ve now moved on to SC 25.
To justify his Solar Cycle Length/Climate correlation he claims that there was a 1970s cooling period when, in fact, the cooling period began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s and included the most active cycle ever recorded (SC19).
The fact is that there is no evidence that the small changes in the sun’s output has anything other than minor affect on global climate.
Sorry, didn’t go to plan. (November 20, 2015 at 7:42 am)
Referring to “That should be January 2008, not 1998. Not my night!” below. It’s still not your night: SC24 started in December 2008/January 2009, so you were a year out.
Rich.
I’d suggest you run a tepid bath, warmed by ceiling mounted IR lamp with an expectation of more comfortable ablutions in a couple of decade’s time. Don’t forget to let off a couple of large, sulphur-rich roman candles at some random point and monitor ozone concentration plus temperature near the ceiling throughout. You may also need an enormous deciduous plant and a small birthday cake candle burning in the corner for solace, despite being unable to change the gravitational constant and reposition the lamp on a daily basis. Do let us know how you plan to eliminate all sources of external influence and measurement error. /sarc
Glo.Bull Warming is causing the Sun to ” Act Stupidly ” ….B.H.O.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Some insight into potential solar activity during the next solar cycle. A Dalton Minimum will most likely not be as severe as a Maunder. Only time will solve the issue.
Matt G;
Matt G;
“This change has not been observed yet and something that this theory when verified will have occurred in future.”
Did you think that made sense? It doesn’t.
Thanks Brian, I don’t think it does either.
This change has not been observed yet and something that this theory needs to occur in future for it to be verified.
Just guessing:
This change has not yet been observed and something needs to occur in future for the theory to be verified.
For weekly updated polar fields:
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
Is that 30 year sunspot chart depicting both hemispheres your handiwork? I see that the northern hemisphere has remained the more active region for several weeks now. I would like to continue to follow the progression of any changes as I believe that this will lead to an important change in the ENSO regions relatively soon. Your 30 year high resolution version has been a great aid to me.
Yes, the 30 year chart is mine. I am still making original contributions to solar science. Bizarre.
First, it is not a ‘contribution’ to solar science [there is no science in it] and there is nothing original about it. Bizarre, indeed.
Thank you for the courtesy of your replies.