Guest essay by Javier
Solar cycle 24 is ending and we are approaching a time of minimal solar activity between solar cycles 24 and 25, known as a solar minimum. Despite claims that we understand how the Sun works, our solar predictive skills are still wanting, and the Sun continues to be full of surprises.
The surprising 2008 solar minimum
Solar scientists did not pay much attention to the early warning signs that the Sun was behaving differently during solar cycle 23 (SC23), and to most the surprise came when the expected solar minimum failed to show up in 2006. The SC23-24 minimum took place two years later (Dec 2008, according to SIDC), and despite showing only a tiny difference in total solar irradiation compared to previous minima of the space age, it displayed significantly reduced solar wind speed and density, extreme-UV flux was 10% reduced, the polar fields were 50% smaller, and the interplanetary magnetic field strength was 30% below past minima. In response to the changes in the Sun, the density of the Earth thermosphere dropped 20% lower than in previous minima. In 2007 Svalgaard & Cliver proposed a floor to the interplanetary magnetic field at 1 AU in the ecliptic plane of 4.6 nT based upon 130 years of data. This floor has implications for the solar wind during grand minima. After the solar minimum, in 2011, Cliver & Ling were forced to revise down the floor to 2.8 nT, a 40 percent reduction! The SC23-24 minimum was truly shocking to solar scientists, showing them how little they knew of what happens to the Sun when it becomes very inactive. And it was just a centennial-type solar minimum, not a grand-type solar minimum.
We are now approaching the SC24-25 solar minimum, and again the Sun’s behavior surprises us. Or doesn’t it? On April 26, NOAA informed us that “current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast.”
The rapid decline in solar activity plus the appearance of the first SC25 spots suggest that SC24 could be both a low-activity and short solar cycle. This would not be unusual since cycle length and cycle activity do not correlate significantly (figure 1).
Figure 1. Solar cycle activity versus cycle length. The activity is the sum of the monthly sunspots for the entire cycle. SC24 (in red) is still provisional, and the dashed arrow indicates a possible path it might follow until the solar minimum takes place. The Dalton Minimum (purple), Gleissberg Minimum (blue), and Modern Maximum (orange) cycles are indicated. The Modern Maximum is a period of seven consecutive high activity solar cycles in a period that coincides with high anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming (1935-2005). The longest such stretch of high solar activity known.
We have read at WUWT both that the solar minimum may have already happened, or that it might take place in 2026. None of these opinions appear to be based on much fact, so we should examine the question in more detail.
Defining a solar minimum
While intuitively we all understand that a solar minimum is the period of time that shows the least amount of solar activity between two cycles, how the solar minimum is defined can make a difference of months in the date of the minimum. Harvey & White reviewed in 1999 the different methods used to define a solar minimum:
“In addition to the time of a minimum in the smoothed sunspot number, historically the basis for the determination of the time of cycle minimum since 1889 includes the time of the minimum or minima in the monthly averaged sunspot number, the number of spotless days, the start and end times of the minimum phase, the number of regions belonging to the outgoing (old) and incoming (new) cycles, and the use of different smoothing windows.”
Some of them are shown in table 1 from Harvey & White 1999.
Table 1. Illustration of the problems of defining the solar minimum. Column 2 shows the date given by prominent researchers. Columns 3-7 give the date of the minimum activity as calculated by different methods. Source: Harvey & White 1999.
According to Harvey & White 1999, the SC22-23 minimum should be placed, based on an average of five parameters, on Sep. 1996. The Solar Influences Data Center (SIDC), responsible for the World Data Center for Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations (WDC-SILSO) at the Royal Observatory of Belgium (Brussels), uses the following 13-month smoothing formula:
Rs= (0.5 Rm±6 + Rm±5 + Rm±4 + Rm±3 + Rm±2 + Rm±1 + Rm) / 12 …….[1]
Where Rs is the smoothed sunspot number and Rm the monthly sunspot number for the central month. The end months in the average are given half weight.
This formula produces Aug. 1996 for the SC22-23 minimum so, despite being very simple, the result is generally quite close to more complex calculations.
This formula requires that at least 7 months have passed since the minimum and produces a 6-month delay in the calculation of monthly solar activity. For this article, I wanted to reduce this delay without compromising accuracy too much, so I have used the following 9-month smoothing formula with a more skewed weighting:
Rs= (Rm±4 + 3 Rm±3 + 5 Rm±2 + 7 Rm±1 + 10 Rm) / 42 …….[2]
Figure 2 shows the result of smoothing [2] compared to SIDC smoothing [1].
Figure 2. Sunspot smoothing used in this article [2] (grey line) compared to the SIDC smoothing [1] (black line).
Have we reached already the SC24-25 minimum?
The answer is almost certainly not. We can base this answer on two kinds of data. The first is the number of spotless days. Astronomers have been counting the number of spotless days since 1818, and this number in the current minimum, as of first of June is 198 (Figure 3). As the solar minimum usually takes place after at least half of the spotless days in a minimum have taken place (the rising phase of the cycle is usually faster than the declining phase), that would imply that this minimum should have less than 400 spotless days if it ended now. Such a low number has only taken place in minima between very active solar cycles during the Modern Maximum in solar activity (1935-2005). Given that SC24 has been a low-activity cycle we should expect 200-300 spotless days more before the minimum is reached, and that is about a year of very low solar activity.
Figure 3. Number of spotless days per cycle minimum transition (red) and the yearly international sunspot number (Sn, inverted, green) since 1818. Note that, in general, a low amplitude cycle is preceded by a solar cycle transition with a high number of spotless days, and vice versa. The blue dot to the lower right represents the number of spotless days (198) for the current cycle transition. Source: WDC-SILSO.
The second kind of data are the number of SC25 sunspot groups. SC25 sunspots have been appearing since December 2016, but the solar minimum is usually located at the time when the numbers of SC24 and SC25 sunspot groups are even, or slightly later. As it can be seen in figure 4, we aren’t there yet.
Figure 4. Monthly number of sunspot groups (having received a NOAA number) from SC24 (black) and from SC25 (white) since 2016. The red curve represents the smoothed monthly international sunspot number. Source: Solar-Terrestrial Centre of Excellence.
When is it most likely that the SC24-25 minimum will occur?
Most of the analyses I have seen have one problem. They only look at a subset of solar cycles, and the space-age records are biased by the high activity of the Modern Maximum. I have been inspired particularly by Belgian astronomer Jan Janssens’ SC24 tracking webpage. Using the smoothing filter [2], and following Janssens, I have defined the starting point of the analysis of each minimum as the last month that showed ≥ 30 monthly smoothed sunspots before the minimum. In figure 5 I have represented the number of months it took for each transition from that starting point to reach its solar minimum (lowest smoothed monthly sunspot number or central month when several consecutive zero values).
Figure 5. Distribution of solar cycles by the time it takes them to go from ≥ 30 monthly smoothed sunspots to their solar minimum. The distribution shows a clear difference between cycles with less than 14 months and cycles with more than 19 months.
The distribution is clearly bimodal. 13 transitions took between 8 and 14 months to reach the solar minimum from ≥ 30 smoothed sunspots (short or fast solar minima), while 11 transitions took between 19 and 44 months (long solar minima). For the SC24-25 transition the value of 30 smoothed monthly sunspots was reached in October 2016, 20 months ago as of this writing. For graphical convenience I have divided the long solar minima in two groups. The medium solar minima (19-32 months), and the slow solar minima (38-44 months).
Figure 6. Comparison of the present solar minimum (in red) to the group with fast (short) solar minima.
The present solar minimum does not belong to the group characterized by short solar minima. The sunspot number is falling too abruptly, and the solar minimum should have been hit by December 2017 to belong to the group. As of June (corresponding to January 2018 smoothed data) the smoothed sunspot number is still decreasing and given the evolution it will decrease again next month.
Figure 7. Comparison of the present solar minimum (in red) to the group with medium speed solar minima.
The present solar minimum could belong to the medium group. This group includes solar cycle minima from the Dalton and Gleissberg extended minima, but also the unusual 1986 SC21-22 minimum. If SC24-25 belongs to this group the minimum should take place between May 2018 and September 2019. For that to happen the decrease in sunspots should slow down soon, since the chance that its smoothed value hits zero or near-zero is quite low, as only one of the seven (SC6-7) in this group did so.
Figure 8. Comparison of the present solar minimum (in red) to the group with slow solar minima.
The present solar minimum could also belong to the slow group. As we can see fast declines in sunspots are common in the early phase of this group, but they are usually followed by a recovery of activity that can last up to a year before the decline resumes. The last SC23-24 minimum belonged to this group and they usually reach very low values or even zero as in the case of the extreme 1810 SC5-6 Dalton solar minimum. If SC24-25 belongs to this group, the minimum should take place between late 2019 and mid-2020. For that to happen the decrease in sunspots should actually revert soon and increase for several months before declining again.
Considering all solar minima since 1750, we can say that it is most likely that the SC24-25 minimum will take place between the summer of 2018 and the summer of 2020.
Reasons why it is likely that SC24-25 turns out to be a long solar minimum
The reason why a slower decay of sunspots had been predicted for SC24 is that the rising and decaying phases of past solar cycles were generally slower for low-activity cycles than for high-activity cycles, so the minima of low-activity cycles tend to last longer than average. We can see this in figure 9.
Figure 9. Solar minima since 1750 and the sunspot record. Solar minima are represented as black boxes with their length corresponding to their time below 30 sunspots (grey horizontal line), and classified as fast, medium, or slow according to their time to the minimum as in figure 5. Arrows mark the positions of the cyclical lows of the centennial and bicentennial solar cycles.
More than half of the minima between a high-activity and a low-activity cycle are long, and every minimum between two low-activity cycles is long. Since SC24 is a low-activity cycle, and SC25 is expected to be also a low-activity cycle, the SC24-25 minimum is expected to be a long one.
Additionally, we observe that most of the long minima, and particularly the longest ones, take place at the lows of the centennial and de Vries (210-yr) cycles of solar activity (arrows in figure 9). As we are currently at a centennial low in solar activity it is more likely than not that the SC24-25 minimum is a long one. Thus, SC24 should not be a particularly short cycle.
We can also get an idea of when the SC24-25 minimum might take place by looking at the speed that some solar features are “migrating” towards the equator. Sunspots are not useful for this, but looking at regions of local maxima in the spectral corona at the Fe XIV 530.3 nm line we can still see them appearing closer to the equator (figure 10; Aliev et al., 2017).
Figure 10. Latitudinal-temporal diagram of the position of local corona maxima at the solar spectral corona in the green Fe XIV 530.3 nm line. Source: Aliev et al., 2017. Arrows mark the position of solar maxima, and vertical black lines of solar minima. Red lines indicate the axis of the displacement over time towards the equator of the position of corona maxima. Blue lines indicate the same for the displacement towards the poles. Lines added by me.
Analysis of the rate of displacement (figure 10, red lines) of active coronal regions, as observed at the green 530.3 nm coronal line, suggests that the SC24-25 minimum could be reached by February 2019. For more on the green spectral line in the solar corona see here.
A similar analysis has been done more in depth by Petrovay et al., 2018 using another feature of the green coronal line, the rush-to-the-poles (RTTP) coronal polar regions. These are active coronal regions that appear at ~ 55-60° at the time of the solar minimum but move progressively closer to the poles, reaching them near the time of the solar maximum (blue lines in figure 10). This “migration” is postulated to be a manifestation of the buildup of the poloidal field.
Petrovay et al., 2018 find a correlation between the rise rate of the RTTP and the time delay from the ending of the RTTP to the maximum of the following cycle. A rapid rise of the RTTP rate indicates the maximum of the next cycle will take place earlier. From that correlation they expect the maximum of SC25 to occur at October 2024.
From that prediction they use two other known correlations, the Waldmeier effect, or anti-correlation between time from cycle minimum to maximum and cycle amplitude (figure 11A), and the correlation found between the amplitude 2.5 years before the minimum and the amplitude at maximum (figure 11B). Using these two correlations Petrovay et al., 2018 deduce that SC24-25 minimum will take place at April 2019 and SC25 will have an amplitude of 130 smoothed sunspots, same as SC16 and slightly above SC24 (116 sunspots). The date they give is in general agreement with the rest of the information presented here.
Figure 11. Solar cycle correlations. A) Correlation between cycle rise time from minimum to maximum (trise, in years) vs maximum cycle amplitude (Rmax, in smoothed sunspots), known as the Waldmeier effect. B) Correlation between maximum cycle amplitude Rmax and sunspot number value 2.5 years before the previous minimum R(tmin − 2.5). Red dashed: fit to all data points; blue solid: cycle 19 treated as outlier. Source: Petrovay et al., 2018.
Other official predictions for the coming solar minimum
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology Space Weather Services runs a solar activity page on monthly sunspot numbers and 10.7 cm solar radio flux. They predict a solar minimum slightly lower than the SC23-24 minimum for July 2019. No information is provided about the model they use.
SILSO also runs several prediction methods. The Standard Curves method (SC, based on Waldmeier) and the Combined Method (CM, based on Denkmayr & Cugnon) are part of the 13-year sunspot number and forecast graph displayed at SILSO home page (figure 12A). Over the past year the CM method performed quite badly, predicting more than double the activity that has been observed (figure 12A, black curves), while the SC method has performed better. For the next year the SC method predicts a fall to zero sunspots average for at least 11 months starting this month (figure 12B). I consider that prediction to be very unlikely. The CM method predicts a solar minimum for February 2019 (figure 12C), which is in general agreement to the evidence presented. A third method not shown, the McNish & Lincoln method, is also available at the forecasts page of SILSO, and predicts the solar minimum for December 2018.
Figure 12. WDC-SILSO sunspot record and forecasts. A) 13-year record of daily (yellow), monthly (blue), and monthly smoothed (red) sunspots. Dotted line shows the 12-month sunspot prediction by the Standard Curves Method, and Dashed line by the Combined Method. In red the current prediction, and in black the prediction from May 2017. B) 12-month sunspot prediction by the Standard Curves Method. C) 12-month sunspot prediction by the Combined Method. Source: WDC-SILSO.
Table 2. Predicted dates for the coming solar minimum presented in the article. The predictions are centered on March 2019.
Conclusions
At this time everything appears to indicate that the SC24-25 minimum should take place by late 2018 to mid-2019. If this is the case SC24 will be ~ 10-10.5 years long, not unusual for a solar cycle. The time from ≥ 30 sunspots to the minimum should be above 24 months, but probably below the 38 months of the SC23-24 minimum. Since the length of the low activity period is usually related to its depth, it is likely that the SC24-25 minimum should not be as deep as the SC23-24 minimum. This is in contrast with the recent prediction by James Marusek at WUWT that “this upcoming period of minimal sunspots shall be longer and deeper than the last one.”
As usual, extreme opinions that this could be a monster minimum (David Archibald, 2017), or that it will take place so soon (or already) that will make SC24 one of the shortest cycles, are unlikely to be correct.
If the minimum takes place indeed by early 2019, we can expect the next minimum by 2029-30, indicating that the current period of below average solar activity should extend until ~ 2032. Afterwards I expect that solar activity should return to levels typical of the 20th century Modern Maximum.
Bibliography
Aliev, A. K., Guseva, S. A., & Tlatov, A. G. (2017). Results of Spectral Corona Observations in Solar Activity Cycles 17–24. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 57(7), 798-802.
Cliver, E. W., & Ling, A. G. (2011). The floor in the solar wind magnetic field revisited. Solar Physics, 274(1-2), 285-301.
Harvey, K. L., & White, O. R. (1999). What is solar cycle minimum?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104(A9), 19759-19764.
Petrovay, K., Nagy, M., Gerják, T., & Juhász, L. (2018). Precursors of an upcoming solar cycle at high latitudes from coronal green line data. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
Svalgaard, L., & Cliver, E. W. (2007). A floor in the solar wind magnetic field. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 661(2), L203.
The latest butterfly diagram:
http://solarcyclescience.com/bin/bfly.jpg
Sunspots updated:
http://solarcyclescience.com/bin/Zurich_MASN.png
The minimum not before 2020.
Since June 1, there has been a large drop in the activity of the solar wind.
Just checked one of my old physics books. The magnetic field intensity At a point perpendicular to a dipole varies inversly with the 3rd power of the distance from the dipole. At 93 million miles a small difference in the dipole strength will make a large difference in the magnetic field strength at earth.
he magnetic field intensity At a point perpendicular to a dipole varies inversly with the 3rd power of the distance from the dipole. At 93 million miles a small difference in the dipole strength will make a large difference in the magnetic field strength at earth.
Varies INVERSELY, so a small difference at the Sun is a negligible difference 93 million miles away. But that is not how the physics works for the sun. The expanding solar atmosphere brings the magnetic field our into the solar system, so the magnetic field falls off a lot less than from a vacuum dipole field.
Astronomers have been counting the number of spotless days since 1818,
The problem here is that this could not be done in those days because of the clouds in w-Europe for months on end…there were no satellites?
richard verney writes
“Whilst I am one whose gut tells me that the sun probably plays an important role in climate change, I have yet to see any quality data backing that up.”
Here is a quality paper backing that up: “On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures”. Recently published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (JASTP), it is a rare example of a peer-reviewed connection between solar variations and climate which is founded on solid statistics. It is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.01.026 (paywalled), or https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1X30-4sIlkaszt (free access until July 4th 2018), or in publicly accessible pre-print form at https://github.com/rjbooth88/hello-climate/files/1835197/s-co2-paper-correct.docx .
Regarding the time in 1996 when the solar minimum occurred, my paper “On the influence of solar cycle lengths and carbon dioxide on global temperatures” (available in publicly accessible pre-print form at https://github.com/rjbooth88/hello-climate/files/1835197/s-co2-paper-correct.docx ) addresses the matter in Appendix B and comes up with 1996.5, which is earlier than most of the values given in Javier’s Table 1. Here is how:
The standard statistic with which to determine the minimum is the mean of two 12-month sunspot means offset by one month from each other (equivalent to a 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,1 filter). Using the data at ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/daily-sunspot-numbers/daily-sunspot-numbers_1996.txt (and 1995.txt and 1997.txt) this gives:
The presence of two minima, at 96/05 and 96/08, is what causes the difficulty. A natural choice would be the mean of these two, 96/06.5. However a more subtle procedure is available, as follows. Postulate any particular whole or half month, m, for the minimum, and then calculate differences between the mirrored months (m+x) and (m-x) about that point. A preponderance of positives (respectively negatives) means that m was chosen too large (resp. too small).
So for example, the aforementioned choice of 96/06.5 gives, with increasing x:
The negative preponderance indicates that m = 96/06.5 is too early. But for half a month later we get:
m \ x 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
96/07.0 -0.22 +0.41 +0.36 +0.08 +0.24
The positives indicate that m = 96/07.0 is too late, but in order not to split hairs we accept this value. This monthly value, 7.0, is then converted into a decimal value by (7.0-1)/12 = 0.5 (just as the next minimum, in December 2008, gets converted to (12-1)/12 = 0.917 ~ 0.9 giving 2008.9).
The conclusion is that the minimum preceding SC23 should be recorded as 1996.5.
As I said in the article, the position of the minima depend on the criteria employed. No criterion is a priori intrinsically superior. Different smoothing formulas give different positions for the minima. The result of all this is that solar cycle length is a relatively imprecise measurement that depends on the method employed.
For the 1996 minimum, my smoothing formula, which is more responsive, confirms two minima but places them in April and October 1996. Logically, I would assume that the last minimum is the real one, after which the new cycle increases in activity. So I would place the minimum in October 1996, or 1996.8, as the authors of the paper do. Sunspots from solar cycles 22 and 23 only reached parity in 1997.0, confirming the later minimum. All over 1996 the old cycle sunspots dominated.
Then solar cycle length does not correlate with solar activity, as figure 1 in the article shows. What little correlation is there is coming from the very active short cycles in the Modern Maximum, and the very inactive long cycles in the Dalton minimum. The rest of the cycles show no correlation at all.
Your article is interesting, congratulations. However I am uncertain about how the correlation between solar cycle length and temperature can be produced if it is not through solar activity.
I have 3 theories to calcualte the start of a new sunspot cycle. are in review… Others you can find here http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7246
This is a joke of a paper.
“Important remark: WSO changed the values on March 21, 2018… and made the
UNFILTERED southern field FAR TOO STRONG during January – May 2017… with also
negative values for my algorithm. This gave a false alarm for the start of a new cycle and
delayed this article with 3 weeks! See correspondence with Leif Svalgaard.”
Javier, the problem with having different criteria for minimum is that then people can pick and choose. The 13-month sum-of-two12-month averages is well established and often gives an uncontroversial result. But for SC22/23 there were two minima; my method unpicks that to find the point around which the counts are most symmetrical, still using the 13-month data. This gives July 1996. I should (TODO) probably use my method on other minima to see how it pans out. Then perhaps I might be able to seek greater acceptance of it!
Regarding the correlation between solar cycle length and temperature in the next cycle (and slightly the cycle after that), I believe there is a non-linear function involved, and I have seen someone write on WUWT that a sunspot count below 40 leads to relative cooling, though a peer-reviewed paper on that would be a great thing! A long cycle naturally involves a longish period with a count of below 40.
And regarding your Figure 1, I believe that is activity of Cycle n against its length. I am sure I have read that the length of Cycle n is better correlated with the activity of Cycle n+1. Have you considered this?
As stated I have several new theories to calculate the start of a new cycle. One of them (in review) agrees with all the official starts, except for September 1996. There I find a start for August 1996.
Here you can find other theories that give a start for February, March or April 2018 for solar cycle 25:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7246
Javier or anyone else, if interested in the polar field calculation, you can mail me patrick.geryl addd skynet.be.
Patrick, looking at your Table 1, you could be right – but I don’t think so. First note that in 2008 the solar sunspot minimum (2008/12) was 6 months after the flux minimum. Second, note that you are assuming that the flux minimum already occurred around March 2018. Now, in May the sunspots and flux have been higher, and you may well say “there you go, we are past minimum”. But the number of spotless days and the butterfly diagram, mentioned up-thread, are both against you. Rather, we are still on the bumpy descent to minimum.
So I think that in 2 years time, when we can finally see that solar minimum has passed, you will have to reexamine your theories very carefully.
Moment! I use the ADJUSTED FLUX and that was spot on in December 2008! Furthermore the strength of the polar fields was also negative in December 2008… Like in February from 2018…
My criteria for solar minimums is solar flux readings 90 or less.
Javier ,this is what Theodore White has to say about the solar/volcanic tie in. He said it excellently far better then I could.
Read below what Theodore White has to say on this subject. Thanks Theodore for the great explanation which I believe is correct.
The ‘mechanism’ Dave Burton is electromagnetic. All seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are triggered by external pressures being forced on the Earth’s magnetic field.
The stress that is put on Earth’s magnetic field begins at the ionosphere, which can be observed by the appearance of luminous phenomena very close to regions showing tectonic stress, seismic activity or soon-to-be volcanic eruptions.
The connection between prolonged minimum and maximum solar phases to large magnitude earthquakes and increased volcanic eruptions is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence that is easily found online.
There is strong statistical data which shows powerful correlations between major volcanic activity and numerous earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more on Richter scale to the Sun’s Grand Minimum states.
Over the last several decades scientific papers began to appear that clearly show correlations between galactic cosmic ray and low solar activity with a rise of destructive geological events like earthquakes & volcanic eruptions.
This has been supported by statistical evidence that extend back centuries.
A 1967 study published by the Earth & Planetary Science Letters discovered that solar activity plays a significant role in the triggering of earthquakes.
Then, In 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, also discovered a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.
Additional research by The Space & Science Research Center found direct correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world.
The study examined data of volcanic activity between 1650 – 2009 along with earthquake activity between 1700 – 2009 while utilizing solar activity data.
The findings of study said that there was very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events – worldwide.
The correlation for volcanic activity was larger than 80 percent and 100% for the greatest magnitude earthquakes measured with Solar activity lows.
Moreover, the findings concluded that there was proof of a strong correlations between global volcanic activity among the largest of classes of eruptions and solar activity lows; with 80.6% occurrence of large scale global volcanic eruptions taking place during the Sun’s minimums and 87.5% occurring for the very largest volcanic eruptions during times of major solar minimums.
We are entering such a period of a Grand Solar Minimum with the start of solar cycle #25 – due to begin anytime between now and the year 2020.
When I forecasted back in 2006 that the world would enter global cooling just before the Sun entered its Grand Minimum and would see an ‘increase in large magnitude earthquakes and numerous volcanic eruptions, some conventional scientists derided me by saying that there was no physical mechanism.
This, despite the fact that I named that mechanism – which is electromagnetic and penetration of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system.
Then, two years later, in 2008, NASA announced that a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending earthquakes on the ground below has been found.
The finding fell into agreement with additional scientific studies performed by other space research institutes.
For example, orbiting satellites above the Earth picked up disturbances that were 100 to 600 kilometers above regions that have later been hit by earthquakes.
Fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the Earth’s ionosphere have been observed, and huge signals have been detected many times before large magnitude earthquakes struck.
These are climatic events which feature seismic activity connected to atmospheric disturbances caused by celestial bodies and the Sun’s quiescent phase, which is underway.
During times when the Earth’s axis rotation slows, in concert with the Sun’s minimum output and weakened heliosphere allows cosmic rays to enter our solar system and straight into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Planetary modulation relative to the Earth and the condition of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) of outer space where our planet lives and transits – all play significant roles.
The fluxes of cosmic and solar radiation charges the Earth’s ionosphere.
The result means a rise in anomalies of the Earth’s geomagnetic field which produces Foucault currents – also called ‘Eddy Currents.’
Eddy currents are essentially loops of electrical currents that are induced within conductors by a changing magnetic field in the conductor. This is due to Faraday’s law of induction.
Anyway, eddy currents flow in closed loops within conductors, in planes that are perpendicular to the magnetic field.
The eddy current heats the rocks inside faults as the shear resistant intensity and static friction limit of the rocks decrease.
This is the physical mechanism that trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruption, but it is an ‘effect’ of what is happening where the Earth lives – and that is in outer space.
You see, during eras of solar minimums high energy cosmic radiation can and does penetrate deep below the Earth’s surface.
It is the reason why most earthquakes that occur during solar minimum are deep earthquakes.
The stress on the Earth’s Magnetosphere during solar minimum is higher because the Sun’s Heliosphere is weaker which allows the high-energy charged particles of cosmic rays to flood into our solar system.
For instance, on average, the flux of cosmic rays is 20 percent or more – higher during solar minimums.
Over the last 250 years consider the fact that these major volcanic eruptions took place during strong solar minimum and Grand Minimums:
*Grimvotn (Iceland) 1783/84 (14 km3)
*Tambora (Indonesia) 1810 (150 km3)
*Krakatoa 1883 (5.0 km3)
*Santa Maria (Guatemala) 1902 (4.8 km3)
*Novarupta (Alaska) 1912 (3.4 km3)
[?? .mod]
3
ply
I want to add the weakening of the geo magnetic field is going to compound all of this.
Common, Salvatore. This is all a wild conjecture without a modicum of fact or evidence, and without a single scientific citation.
I have looked at four articles exploring the possible connection between solar activity and volcanic activity:
Stothers 1998
Strestic 2003
Herdiwijaya et al., 2014
Ma et al., 2018
The numbers are awful and totally unconvincing. The most honest of them, Jaroslav Strestic ends saying that a millennium of data would be required to conclude if there is a relationship.
The alternative explanation, that changes to continental ice load are responsible for increased volcanic activity, appears a lot more probable and already has a clear mechanism that is known to be physically possible.
The mechanism I think is there, as he explained.
For the record I expect an uptick in explosive volcanic activity over the next several years which will aid to the global cooling scenario.
Even without that I expect the global cooling of late to continue as long as the sun stays sub par. I will be shocked if global temperatures should resume an upward trend from here. At best I see no change but more likely colder.
How much cooling is the question, but the overall sea surface temperatures are now only +.13c above means (still warm) but down from around +.35c above means this past summer and global temperatures thus far are down this year in contrast to last year according to satellite data.
I have called for 2018 to be the year the global warming trend ends and a new cooling trend begins based on my two solar conditions coming to be, which are sub solar activity for 10+years and within the sub solar activity very low average solar parameters. Now present.
The Siberian Traps, fingered as the cause of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, aka “The Great Dying”, c. 252 Ma, released an estimated 4000 billion tons of sulfur dioxide during their 900,000 year-long flood basalt eruption, among other pollutants.
Sorry. Wrong post.
Dunno how to delete. Seems not to be an option in Edit.
(next time just erase the whole comment)…
We have another estimate for the SC24-25 minimum from Dr. Leif Svalgaard. In a recent document about the relationship between cycle activity and magnetic dipole moments (DM):
“25 Cycles of Magnetic Dipole Moments”
Leif observes:
Table 1 gives Leif’s estimate for the SC23-24 minimum and sunspot maximum (red ovals).
The problem is that Leif’s estimate for the minimum is an outlier. At January 2021 it would make the SC24-25 minimum the longest ever with 50 months from ≥30 sunspots to minimum (see figure 5). So it does not appear correct at this time.
By choosing such a late minimum Leif is probably overestimating slightly the maximum activity of SC25.
I think a minimum in early 2019 could cause a slightly lower value for SC25 max using Leif’s methodology because PFavg, (N-S)/2, was slighly lower in January 2016 than it was in January 2018, which I believe was the HMF date evaluated by Leif for a hypothetical sunspot minimum in January, 2021.
see http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html.
Note also that PFavg was even lower in January 2017, which should result in a correspondingly lower SC25 max value for a sunspot minimum in 2020 using Leif’s methodology.
In either case, I also think the actual values for GNmax, SNmax, DMgn, and DMsn at the actual time of sunspot minimum will be lower than values estimated three years prior to minimum, and will result in a correspondingly lower HMF strength.
I agree. One problem with the Polar Field method this cycle is that unlike previous cycles, instead of “over the three years preceding the minimum is relatively constant with only a slight decrease over time,” it has shown an increase that is not clear if it has ended or not.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
This should affect the predictions depending on the date chosen as you comment. When we think we have the Sun figured out, it surprises us again.
This is an interesting exchange and so with all things on this blog, I expect people to want to hear absolutes. I also want to make a fortune in the stock market. Javier has a great post, but extrapolations are very difficult and so we all could be surprised in the end when SC25 is nothing that you would all expect.
Agree there are no absolutes when it comes to the sun and for that matter the climate.