By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone
In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).Only solar cycles 5 and 6 were weaker.
A sunspot was detected only on 6 of 31 days.
An observation made on April 10, 2018, allowed us to say that at approximately 30° southern heliospheric latitude the SDO solar research satellite saw a tiny spot (it was too small to be officially counted as a sunspot) that certainly belonged to the next approaching solar cycle no. 25.
Sunspots are magnetic phenomena. The thermally conveyed plasma at the sun’s outer layer generates electric currents. Each of these currents produces a magnetic field. Depending on the direction of the current, the magnetic field is polarized and changes on the sun with each change of cycle.
The SDO instrument is able to determine the polarity of the magnetic field for each sunspot, and provided this image:
Is that the end of cycle 24, some 20 months before the expected month no. 132?
Certainly not. And solar cycle 25 has yet to begin as more spots with the same SC 24 signature are still in the pipeline. Moreover solar cycle 24 could resemble the end of solar cycle 5, see Figure 1. In the months during a minimum, spots can appear that belong to the next cycle, as there is a transition phase where spots of both cycles appear.
The solar minimum has started
It can still take quite some time before the next cycle makes its debut. Whether the current solar cycle turns out to be both an especially weak one and a short one is still unknown. Historically weak solar cycles have lasted longer than strong ones, It is difficult to say if solar cycle 24 will be an exception. We’ll keep you up-to-date!
Next is a comparison of the deviation from the mean (112 months into the cycle) of all the solar cycles recorded thus far since the 18th century:
For estimating the strength of the upcoming cycle 25, we regularly cast a look at the sun’s polar fields. The current data are suggesting that solar cycle 25 will be similar to the current solar cycle 24. Thus we have to anticipate that the solar activity will not be returning to normal levels until at least 2031 – the year solar cycle 25 should end.
The good news is that it is highly improbable the sun will enter a Grand Minimum, such as the one that occurred from 1645 – 1715, the period known as the Little Ice Age.
Bonus:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis Eschenbach May 2, 2018 at 2:46 pm
Forty degrees latitude is way too far south to be meaningful. Please check out insolation at 70 degrees N, where the Laurentide Ice Sheet forms on Baffin Island.
The whole axial tilt cycle is 41,000 years, and, sure enough, for the first half (or so) of the Pleistocene, glacial cycles were indeed of that length. The thing is, that after the mid-Pleistocene switch to longer glacial cycle, the “obliquity” cycle still dominates. But now you get two or three such cycles in a row, with aborted interglacials between them. Glacial phases of 82K and 123K average out to ~100K years.
Some advocates of man-made climate change argue that CO2 caused the transition from single tilt cycle glaciations to longer such phases. But IMO, it was just because the world got progressively colder, such that what would have been weak, short interglacials simply became interstadials of a continuing glacial phase.
Besides just time spent in a glacial epoch, the world cooled also because of topographic, geographical and geological changes, leading to meteorological and oceanographic changes that enhanced cooling. More extensive, longer lasting ice sheets encouraged their growth and stability, from greater albedo.
From ETH Zurich (Einstein’s alma mater), 2013:
Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
“Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.”
Unlike GCMs, more geographically restricted meteorological, atmospheric circulation models do a good job of simulating past and present climates, validated by data. For one thing, they try to find out the truth, not reach foregone conclusions.
Felix May 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Not true. All that changes as you go further north is that the AMPLITUDE of the cycles increases. However, the TIMING of the cycles is identical, and that’s what we were discussing. Take a look at my second link, where I used 60° north … it makes no difference.
w.
Felix May 2, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Any model trying to explain the ice ages is definitely trying to reach a foregone conclusion, the ice ages. If it doesn’t explain them, the researchers will change parameters over and over until they do reach the foregone conclusion … and you believe them?
I’ve been programming computers, not using them but programming them, for 55 years now. Believe them at your own risk.
And no, this was not a limited model, nor was it “unlike” a GCM. It was a GCM plus another model, so you have a notoriously incorrect and unreliable GCM plus more chances for error from the second model, plus unknown effects from the combination … from your link:
Color me unimpressed …
w.