New research suggests Solar Cycle 25 could be strongest in 50 years

[Javier]

10 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

I agree completely. Solar activity is neat to observe, but can't be an overarching explanation for something with as many influencing factors as the climate.

Considering that the Sun provides nearly all the energy that powers what we call climate I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that it might be one of the main factors affecting climate.

The bean counters try to reduce the problem to W/m^2, but complex problems are not amenable to reductionism. Did you know that solar activity affects the speed of rotation of the Earth? Probably not.

Le Mouël et al., 2010 "Solar forcing of the semi‐annual variation of length‐of‐day"

And did you know that changes in the rotation speed of the Earth correlate with changes in climate? Probably not, but it is known since the mid-70s when they thought the climate was cooling.

Lambeck & Cazenave, 1976 "Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climatic Change". They say:
"Without a better understanding of the interactions between the two phenomena the use of the LOD observations in predicting climate is of very limited value but if the hypothesis is accepted then the continuing deceleration of m for the last 10 yr suggests that the present period of decreasing average global temperature will continue for at least another 5-10 yr. Perhaps a slight comfort in this gloomy trend is that in 1972 the LOD showed a sharp positive acceleration that has persisted until the present, although it is impossible to say if this trend will continue as it did at the turn of the century or whether it is only a small perturbation in the more general decelerating trend."
5 years after the sharp positive acceleration in LOD, the same year the paper was published, 1976, the gloomy cooling trend gave way to a gloomy warming trend. The rotation of the Earth, that responds to solar activity anticipates changes in climate by a few years.

Paleoclimatology has already told us that grand solar minima, particularly when they cluster, coincide with sustained periods of climate worsening characterized by decrease in temperature is most regions, increase of temperature in some regions, altered atmospheric circulation and altered precipitations patterns, as it was observed during the LIA. The LIA is just the last example. It happened before in 2700 BP, and it presents a repeating pattern in North Atlantic iceberg activity linked to the millennial (Eddy) cycle in solar activity.

[Aeon]

The Little Ice Age was a combination of several factors including ocean cooling, low solar activity and intense volcanic activity.
Most research shows these factors as the main cause.
The majority of people also do not know in the least how the so-called Little "Ice" Age behaved, despite the silly name that this era has.
However I don't see how this topic centers with this thread, at best we can open another one on the topic.
Here we talk about solar cycles.
It's nice to see that there is as much interest in the prediction of the next solar cycle 25 as there is between two football teams, unfortunately none of us have the skills to determine if Svaalgard, Kitiashvili, Zharkova etc. are right.
Our statements and opinions make all of us freshmen with respect to the skills of these scientists.
It would be of common interest to invite these scientists to debate with each other in this excellent serious forum.
In the meantime, to stay on topic, what are your (personal) predictions about solar cycle 25?

[braintic]

The only prediction I can make about cycle 25 is that it will wax and wane, and 11 years from now the same people will be predicting an "imminent little ice age" despite global temperatures having risen again over the previous decade (barring another Tambora).

[goldminor]

On 7/29/2020 at 5:10 AM, braintic said:

The only prediction I can make about cycle 25 is that it will wax and wane, and 11 years from now the same people will be predicting an "imminent little ice age" despite global temperatures having risen again over the previous decade (barring another Tambora).

Imo, we will see a global drop in temps for the next 16 years at least. I do not expect a new LIA as the planet is still in a longer term natural warm period. That warm period will likely continue for another several centuries. This current warm spike in the record will likely eventually become the peak of the Modern Warm Period.  It will obviously take the passage of over a century before that can be seen in the data though.

[Christopher S.]

46 minutes ago, goldminor said:

Imo, we will see a global drop in temps for the next 16 years at least. I do not expect a new LIA as the planet is still in a longer term natural warm period. That warm period will likely continue for another several centuries. This current warm spike in the record will likely eventually become the peak of the Modern Warm Period.  It will obviously take the passage of over a century before that can be seen in the data though.

So, what will break the current streak of 426 consecutive months of globally increasing temperatures, in your opinion? See this article for citation(add 6 months from authoring date): https://mashable.com/article/420-months-above-average-temperatures-climate-change/#:~:text=It's%20now%20been%20420%20consecutive,and%20Atmospheric%20Administration%20(NOAA).

[Aeon]

What sadness. We are stubbornly going off topic.
Are we talking about solar cycles and not global temperatures?
If I write it in Japanese maybe we understand it better?

[Christopher S.]

31 minutes ago, Aeon said:

What sadness. We are stubbornly going off topic.
Are we talking about solar cycles and not global temperatures?
If I write it in Japanese maybe we understand it better?

While I agree we've veered off from the original discussion, I've left the door open to an explanation from goldminor as to how it is related to the original topic, so I find it premature to pass judgment and declare this discussion over. How do you know if his answer will be unrelated to a strong SC25?

For the sake of policing ourselves and staying true to discussion threads, perhaps we should move our discourse to this thread: 

 

Relax. Grab some tea.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Christopher S.
Acquiesced, provided alternative thread for current track of discussion

[goldminor]

On 8/2/2020 at 12:45 PM, Christopher S. said:

So, what will break the current streak of 426 consecutive months of globally increasing temperatures, in your opinion? See this article for citation(add 6 months from authoring date): https://mashable.com/article/420-months-above-average-temperatures-climate-change/#:~:text=It's%20now%20been%20420%20consecutive,and%20Atmospheric%20Administration%20(NOAA).

Here is the cyclic pattern which I think drives the 60+ year warm/cool trends. My concept is that the global warming is driven by the southern hemisphere of the sun holding the excess ssn count. Global warming started in the late 1970s. The warming really takes off in the early 1980s as southern sunspots firnly assert their control. You can see at a glance that the south then remains dominant through to around 2008. That is what drove the global warming and caused the ocean to heat up. Note that prior to the mid 1970s that the north was dominant all the way back to at least 1950. That was the last 30+ year cooling trend where the 1950s/60s were certainly cooler as were the surface temps of the oceans all through those decades. The trend has now once again shifted back to a cooling trend with the north regaining dominance. This is not an immediate effect because of the amount of extra energy which the oceans have taken in during the 30+ year warming trend. It takes time for that excess to bleed off out of the oceans. ....

[dynastyll]

On 7/11/2020 at 4:32 AM, Marcel de Bont said:

I do not know to be honest but did some Googling and this is the earliest prediction (from 2005) which I could find that comes relatively close to the how SC24 panned out. It isn't perfect but considering this paper is from 2005 it deserves a mention; https://web.archive.org/web/20160121131245/http://192.211.16.13/z/zita/research/07dynamo/articles/Schatten2005GRL.pdf

Welcome by the way!

This further supports the polar field method when predicting solar cycles.

[JoeLudwig]

A solar cycle lasts about 11 years. At the end of a solar cycle, the north and south poles change places. During a cycle, the same fluctuation of solar radiation, solar flares and sunspots always takes place. Until about the middle of the solar cycle the activity of the Sun increases, the number of sunspots increases, the eruptions of the Sun are intense and frequent, then everything becomes quieter again, the transition from one solar cycle to the next is a phase of low solar activity, characterized by the (extensive) absence of sunspots. 

The year 2019 has gone down in the history of sunspot counting as one of the years that had the longest phase of consecutive days when NO sunspot was seen. For 281 days in a row (77% of the days) the Sun remained without spots. Since the counting of sunspots, only the year 1913 has seen more days without sunspots. 

The transition from solar cycle 24 to the new solar cycle 25 is special in that it is associated with an extremely long period of calm Sun. 

Scientists agree that solar cycle 25 will be weaker than solar cycle 24, i.e. fewer sunspots, fewer solar storms, a weaker magnetic field of the Sun, etc. How much weaker it will be is debatable. However, the long continuous phase without sunspots gives rise to fears.

[Javier]

18 hours ago, JoeLudwig said:

Scientists agree that solar cycle 25 will be weaker than solar cycle 24, i.e. fewer sunspots, fewer solar storms, a weaker magnetic field of the Sun, etc.

Scientists don't agree on such a prediction. In fact an international panel of experts coordinated by the NOAA and NASA, to which the WDC-SILSO contributed, released a preliminary forecast for Solar Cycle 25 on April 5, 2019. Based on a compilation of more than 60 forecasts published by various teams using a wide range of methods, the panel reached a consensus indicating that cycle 25 will most likely peak between 2023 and 2026 at a maximum sunspot number between 95 and 130. Therefore, solar cycle 25 will be similar to cycle 24, which peaked at 116 in April 2014.

http://www.sidc.be/silso/node/152

That's the official prediction. Whether it will be right or wrong it's a different matter.

[Drax Spacex]

If the Moon is a harsh mistress, the Sun is a tempestuous diva.  With an attitude of roiling complexity, she does not yield her secrets easily.  We can observe and record the activity of the Sun.  We can marvel at its intricacies.  But we cannot fathom the essence of it.  Seers and prognosticators (aka scientists) will be constantly put to shame when they try to predict and understand the details of its ordinances.  Those lucky enough to guess right in a given cycle will be lauded for their luck in rolling the dice.  But the averaged opinion across all the experts will always be "The next solar cycle will be of average strength and last about 11 years."

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Drax Spacex

[Aeon]

 

One cannot be sure how reliable these "official predictions" can be.
Better those of individual scientists.
I don't think there is this great consensus on intensity, but it will be a weak cycle that everyone agrees.

Considering that NASA has the most space expertise, I believe it deserves more credibility.
This is my opinion.

In 2005 Svaalgard had predicted a solar cycle 24 of 75 ± 8.
In 2008, Irina Kitiashvili had predicted a 24 out of 80 solar cycle.
Solar cycle 24 reached the second peak of maximum activity with 116.
Currently Svaalgard predicts a slightly stronger solar cycle 25 while Kitiashvili predicts a peak of 50.

As Joe Ludwig pointed out, this minimum is special given the record of immaculate days.
The start of solar cycle 25 is also peculiar.
Compared to solar cycle 24 whose sunspots appeared in 2008, those of solar cycle 25 have already appeared in 2016.
Two years after the solar maximum of the solar cycle 24.
I think this is a rather important clue.
As we saw at the beginning of solar cycle 24, radio flux is no longer a good indicator of sunspot activity.
However, the sunspots of 2016 could indicate that the activity of the solar cycle 25 started superimposed on the solar cycle 24 before the "formalized" start or when the presumed minimum solar nadir was reached.
It is also interesting to note that in the last solar cycles the distance between the solar maximum (two peaks) and the solar minimum has decreased. (1996-2001> 2009-2011)
While the distance between the two peaks of maximum activity has lengthened (2001-2003> 2011-2014).
All these differences could indicate that the interval between the solar minimum (24/25) and the solar maximum of the solar cycle 25 could be even shorter and the duration between the first peak and the second peak of maximum activity could be 5 years (2022 -2026), with a maximum of 103-107.

Surely these low solar cycles will be an extraordinary advantage both for space tourism and for the space economy, as well as for the nearby human missions to the Moon and Mars.
So, unlike the pessimists, there will be more positive aspects.

Furthermore, the solar cycle does not last 11 years, that is a rough estimate.

[Javier]

3 hours ago, Aeon said:

As Joe Ludwig pointed out, this minimum is special given the record of immaculate days.
The start of solar cycle 25 is also peculiar.

There is nothing special about this minimum. The number of spotless days has been higher in 4 other cycles. SC24-25 minimum has been slightly longer (~ 4 months) and slightly less active (~ 0.4 SILSO smoothed sunspots) than SC23-24 minimum. On principle I would expect SC25 to be slightly less active than SC24 according to the Brown rule:

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/174/1/185/970691

It is unlikely that SC25 will be much more active or much less active than SC24, so I believe the official forecast to be reliable, because it sticks to the evidence.

By the way, perhaps everybody knows this, but I just found out that Zharkova's 2019 article was retracted last March by the editors of Scientific Reports:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3
 

Quote

 

After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.

The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.

S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.

 

OUCH! That must hurt.

This is relevant because Zharkova is one of the researchers predicting a very weak SC25, and in fact predicting a grand solar minimum starting 2020. I wouldn't place much confidence on her predictions.

[Aeon]

I don't mean "exceptional", I mean "special" from a historical point of view over the last century.

I am not surprised that Zakharova's study has been retracted, although the reasons are different.
It contained controversial interpretative forcing of the data.
It is one of those that I have not considered.

However, it doesn't seem to me that your opinion is so different from mine.

[Chapette]

On 7/26/2020 at 12:21 AM, Javier said:

Interesting. However your model (according to figure 5 in your paper) gives two peaks in activity for SC25. As you say "the double overlap can be reasonably expected to lead to a cycle 25 with spread-out activity characterised by two detached peaks." The model is probably oversimplified. Solar cycles don't produce that. The first peak was in 2019, the year the minimum took place. And your model's peak in 2023 is about half the size of the peak in 2013. It is highly unlikely that SC25 has half the activity of SC24 if we are to trust the polar fields method.

Javier, the fact that it gives unique predictions is what hopefully makes this model falsifiable - and distinct from other ones   

"Solar cycles don't produce that", unless they do, in which case...

Apart from the above, I must say I miss the point of this sentence: "The first peak was in 2019, the year the minimum took place." No, it isn't - my guess is that you are looking at the small second "peak" of SC24? If yes, then two things about that "peak":

- It was at the end of a cycle so less activity was expected, but admittedly nothing quantitative can be said about it at the moment.

- This small predicted resurgence of activity is, however, compatible with the resurgence in 2017, which was strange by mainstream standards. So the "peaklet" you look at is actually a support for this model in SC24, and irrelevant to SC25.

I hope this clarifies some things, and thanks for looking at it (and apologies for the delayed reply).

[Jules5683]

On 7/3/2020 at 1:04 AM, northwind-adventurer said:

A new study with a novel method of solar cycle prediction has just been released last week, it can be read in full here.

I will try to summarize the findings in an understandable way, as they have used quite an interesting but complicated method.

Obviously, the thing that stands out the most is that they predict a massive cycle, similar to the solar cycles 19, 21 and 22, which were some of the strongest of the modern era of solar observations. The actual SSN they have predicted is 233, twice the size of the previous SC24 and about 50% stronger than the cycle before that one, SC23 (which peaked in around 2001).

The implications if this were to come true would be very significant - with potentially 2-3 times as many big aurora events as the previous cycle, and a much higher risk for 'super flares'.

• The purple line represents the prediction of this new study - 233 (McIntosh et al., 2020)

Key Points of the research:

Solar Cycle 25 could be one of the strongest since records began - with an SSN of 233. 95% confidence that it will be between 153 and 305 spots.

Calculations were made by correlating the length of time between 'termination events', marking the start and end of sunspot and magnetic activity cycles. From what I understand, a termination event is when a moving, discernible latitude band on the sun that produces sunspots completes its journey from the solar polar regions to the solar equator and cancels out. This takes 19 years on average.

The length of time between each terminator event inversely correlates with the strength of the upcoming cycle. For example, the terminator length prior to SC24 starting was about 12.8 years (happened in 2011) - leading to rather weak cycle. The SC25 terminator is expected to occur this year (9 years gap) - and that correlates with a strong cycle. The average seems to be around 10.5 years.

 

In any case, we will wait and see what happens, and if it turns out to come true that's good news for us aurora chasers!

Hi there! I am not a scientist, my elementary aged son wants to become a scientist when he grows up but I am a layman and I was reading your post because I am interested in knowing more about this recent alleged solar flare. In your post, are you suggesting that from the time a solar flare occurs to the time it effects earth is on average 10.5 years? Did I read that correctly? 

[Christopher S.]

12 hours ago, Jules5683 said:

Hi there! I am not a scientist, my elementary aged son wants to become a scientist when he grows up but I am a layman and I was reading your post because I am interested in knowing more about this recent alleged solar flare. In your post, are you suggesting that from the time a solar flare occurs to the time it effects earth is on average 10.5 years? Did I read that correctly? 

Hello Jules5683. A solar flare on its own typically has no effect on Earth unless accompanied by a Coronal Mass Ejection(commonly referred to as a CME), and if the arrival of a CME causes or is preceded by a Solar Particle Event(SPE). A CME "shockwave" can move vigorously through space, mostly unhindered by the Interplanetary Magnetic Field. The flare itself has a chance of charging protons that accelerate in our direction and cause radio blackouts.

That explanation is meant to aid in answering your question; The effects felt from a CME travel anywhere from 250km/sec to over 1,000km/sec, reach us within 3 days or so. A fast CME can reach us in less than a day, whereas a slow CME can take much longer. The energy released from a solar flare takes only tens of minutes to reach Earth, and disrupts the area of our atmosphere we use for sending radio waves across the terrain. NASA better explains the difference between a CME and a flare: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes

In short, yes, you read that wrong. He's referring to solar cycles, not solar flares. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Christopher S.