2012 Solar Magnetic Cycle Update

[William]

The following is an update of the solar magnetic cycle. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decrease linearly. It appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. Livingston and Penn are predicting the sun will be spotless starting 2014, and a Maunder minimum for solar cycle 25

There should if I understand what is happening to the sun and how a special interruption to the solar magnetic cycle affects the earth, be a set of unexplained solar and earth based observations starting sometime in 2013.

I am working on a paper just in case my understanding of the mechanisms is correct.

2012 Solar Magnetic Cycle Update

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

Solar maximum? Oh, you just missed it

2011 Solar Magnetic Cycle Update.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lar-cycle.html

The eerily lethargic sun shows no signs of perking up, solar physicists say. The sun may wallow in inactivity for the next decade – or longer, which could affect Earth's climate as well as the health of orbiting satellites.

The sun has been unusually placid lately. In 2008, the solar wind slowed to a 50-year low, coinciding with the least active point in the 11-year sunspot cycle. That dip in activity has also been deeper and longer than usual.

And the sun may sit out the following solar maximum as well. Another team led by William Livingston, also of the National Solar Observatory, has observed magnetic fields necessary to produce sunspots steadily weakening for the past 13 years. If the trend continues, the fields may be too weak to birth new sunspots for the following cycle in 2022, they say.
A third team led by Hill has been tracking winds that blow beneath the sun's visible surface. A wind pattern that preceded previous solar cycle peaks has not appeared on schedule, which is another indication that the normal behaviour has broken down, they say.

[Shaula]

The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decrease linearly.

Is this the assertion based on that paper which has been shown to be in error several time already on here? Or have you any new evidence that doesn't come from a cherry picked very short time window?

[William]

Is this the assertion based on that paper which has been shown to be in error several time already on here? Or have you any new evidence that doesn't come from a cherry picked very short time window?

You appear to not understand how science works.


It is normal in science for there to be incompatible theoretical interpretations and predictions. Observations determine which theoretical model is or is not correct. Observations will determine whether Livingston and Penn’s assertion (Livingston and Penn have observations and analysis in two papers published in peer review journals to support their assertion) is or is not correct.

Livingston and Penn have made a testable prediction that the sun will be spotless in 2014 which is one year after the incorrect predicted peak of solar magnetic cycle 24.

I notice other specialists have found other observational and model data to support the assertion that the sun is moving towards a Maunder minimum. (See this link for details.)
We will now have a chance based on observations to determine if a major solar magnetic cycle change does or does not affect the earth.

P.S.
In this forum, I noted that it appears (my comment was made based on the analysis of solar specialists) that the solar cycle 24 maximum occurred late 2011, early 2012. It appears that comment was correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

According to Altrock, the southern prominences are still on the move, but slowly. If they continue at the current rate, he says, the south will not reach its maximum until February 2014.
Such a large asymmetry between hemispheres could be a sign of big changes ahead, says Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, who models what drives the sun's magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum. "Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle," he says.

Grand minima can last for decades. The previous one took place between 1645 and 1715, and has been linked to the little ice age in Europe. A new one might also cause localised cold periods, but many climate scientists see a silver lining to such a turn of events: a grand minimum offers ideal conditions for testing the effects of solar variability on Earth's climate (see "Our star's subtle influence").

[William]

"The comparison with recent cycles is interesting to track the development of cycle 24. The X axis in the chart is the number of months since the cycle started, while the Y axis is the monthly smoothed sunspot number."

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

[Swift]

You appear to not understand how science works.

Leave such comments out of the discussion.

I hope everyone will keep this conversion civil.

[Shaula]

The weaknesses of the Livingstone and Penn paper have been covered before. What new results do you have to justify your assertion:

The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decrease linearly.

New Scientist is not really a scientific journal. The articles are popular science, not peer reviewed piece of work. Do you have anything more substantive to back your claims up?

[William]

The weaknesses of the Livingstone and Penn paper have been covered before. What new results do you have to justify your assertion:


New Scientist is not really a scientific journal. The articles are popular science, not peer reviewed piece of work. Do you have anything more substantive to back your claims up?

I supposed the early change of the Northern solar magnetic field and the late change of the Southern magnetic field would be a substantive observation to back "my claims" that the solar magnetic cycle appears to have been interrupted.


What will happen next to the solar magnetic cycle and will the solar magnetic cycle changes affect the earth in any manner?

To answer those questions, we can watch this graph change with time, look for any unexplained solar observations, and see if there are any unexplained changes on the earth which require an explanation.


"The comparison with recent cycles is interesting to track the development of cycle 24. The X axis in the chart is the number of months since the cycle started, while the Y axis is the monthly smoothed sunspot number."

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

[Tensor]

The following is an update of the solar magnetic cycle. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decrease linearly. It appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. Livingston and Penn are predicting the sun will be spotless starting 2014, and a Maunder minimum for solar cycle 25

I’ve already presented Watson et al; 2011 , and pointed out figure 7 shows and increase in sunspot magnetic field strength in 2007-2008 along with and increase in 2010. I presented Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt; 2012 , where figure 6, the first graph on the left indicates a higher field strength from the start of Cycle 24 to the preset (Cycle 23 is indicated by the dashed vertical lines). Livingston and Penn themselves using their graph , shows a basically level field strength from the start of Cycle 24 to now. And, it’s really interesting that if you do a linear trend from 2008 to 2012 (since the start of Cycle 24), there has been on INCREASE of 200 G. Want to explain that one, William?

I’ve also said that Livingston and Penn did not model the rise of Cycle 23, so their claim cannot be used as a valid comparison to the rise of Cycle 24 as far as the field strength of sunspots go. For support I presented Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012 (see previous paragraph for link) ,which compares the fields strength of sunspots during the rise of 23, with the rise of 24 and find them very similar. What I’ve found is that both Rezaei 2012 and Watson 2011, both have the fall of the last two years of Cycle 22 and the rise and fall of Cycle 23. The fall of Cycle 22 and Cycle 23 and the rise of Cycle 23 and Cycle 24, as far as the field strength of sunspots appears to be within error bars.

2012 Solar Magnetic Cycle Update

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

Solar maximum? Oh, you just missed it

Just missed it? There was this nugget in the link you provided:

According to Altrock, the southern prominences are still on the move, but slowly. If they continue at the current rate, he says, the south will not reach its maximum until February 2014.

2011 Solar Magnetic Cycle Update.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lar-cycle.html[/QUOTE]

The eerily lethargic sun shows no signs of perking up, solar physicists say. The sun may wallow in inactivity for the next decade – or longer, which could affect Earth's climate as well as the health of orbiting satellites.

No signs of picking up? You really should look at the data before picking your sentences. That article was published in June of 2011. At that time the smoothed sunspot number was ~40 (41 in May, 37 in June). For the rest of 2011 the count was 43, 50, 78, 88, 96. 73. And, except for the month of Feb, this year has all been over 55, with 6 or the 9 over 63.5. Is this a low cycle. Sure, but it's already higher than cycle 14, almost as high as cycle 16 and higher than cycles 4-5-6.

And the sun may sit out the following solar maximum as well. Another team led by William Livingston, also of the National Solar Observatory, has observed magnetic fields necessary to produce sunspots steadily weakening for the past 13 years. If the trend continues, the fields may be too weak to birth new sunspots for the following cycle in 2022, they say.

Yeah, we've covered this before. There hasn't been a decline since the beginning of cycle 24.

A third team led by Hill has been tracking winds that blow beneath the sun's visible surface. A wind pattern that preceded previous solar cycle peaks has not appeared on schedule, which is another indication that the normal behaviour has broken down, they say.

Again, you are using material that has been shown to be wrong. Back on May 11, 2012 in the old thread Solar Cycle 24, in a press release your provided there was this:
Next month, Dr. Hill(along with his co-authors (Howe, Schou, Thompson, Larson, and Kommwill) be presenting a paper explaining the zonal flow that should have appeared in 2010, actually did, but couldn't be seen due to a change in the background differential rotation. However, it has been seen now, according to Dr. Hill.

[Tensor]

You appear to not understand how science works.

It is normal in science for there to be incompatible theoretical interpretations and predictions. Observations determine which theoretical model is or is not correct. Observations will determine whether Livingston and Penn’s assertion (Livingston and Penn have observations and analysis in two papers published in peer review journals to support their assertion) is or is not correct.

We already know it's incorrect. The strength has increased since the end of cycle 23 and now. Can you explain the almost level magnetic strength of sunspots since the start of 2010 after the increase at the beginning of Cycle 24? How does Livingston and Penn explain it? And in my last post, I present two papers published in peer reviewed journals that show that Livingston and Penn have not yet (after 8 years and two new papers) taken into account the fact that the vast majority of their data only comes from the decline of cycle 23 and has no direct comparison between the rise of cycle 23 and cycle 24. The two papers I linked to, in my last post, show if you make a direct comparison between the rise of the two cycles, is that they are pretty much the same. Not to mention the point that the magnetic field strength has INCREASED since the start of Cycle 24.

Livingston and Penn have made a testable prediction that the sun will be spotless in 2014 which is one year after the incorrect predicted peak of solar magnetic cycle 24.

What do you base the statement of an incorrectly predicted peak for cycle 24? The peak is based on the smoothed sunspot number, which lags by six months. Our latest actual smoothed number is only from February. We have no numbers for after February. Forecast numbers are higher later. For instance the September smoothed number is forecasted to be 70, which would put the peak in September, possibly later.

I notice other specialists have found other observational and model data to support the assertion that the sun is moving towards a Maunder minimum. (See this link for details.)
We will now have a chance based on observations to determine if a major solar magnetic cycle change does or does not affect the earth.

P.S.
In this forum, I noted that it appears (my comment was made based on the analysis of solar specialists) that the solar cycle 24 maximum occurred late 2011, early 2012. It appears that comment was correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

What observations do you have from, say August of this year, that supports your contention that the smoothed sunspot number will be lower than February, when the smoothed numbers since February indicate a higher smoothed number in August and September? Would you also care to explain the difference between your claim above of a maximum in late 2011 early 2012 with the passage you cited from the link:

According to Altrock, in the very link you presented, the southern prominences are still on the move, but slowly. If they continue at the current rate, he says, the south will not reach its maximum until February 2014. So now you have made claims that the maximum of the sunspot cycle has already occurred late 2011-early 2012 or in 2014 (since you don't know what the maximum for the southern hemisphere will be). Meanwhile, current data shows that the forecasted high smoothed number will be reached in September of 2012(That's according to Jan Alvestad's Solar Terrestrial Activity Report, with possibly higher numbers after. Which one is it William?

[Tensor]

I supposed the early change of the Northern solar magnetic field and the late change of the Southern magnetic field would be a substantive observation to back "my claims" that the solar magnetic cycle appears to have been interrupted.

Except that's not the case. The graphs at the Wilcox Solar Observatory indicate that the north polar magnetic field has not changed yet. It has crossed into the positive side twice, but it has fallen back down into the negative values again, where it currently is (to be clear, for this cycle, the north polarity has been in the negative values this cycle). During the previous two changes both the south and north went from positive to negative (or negative to positive) four to six times before the final change. As for early and late changes, both south and north did not change together. Previous changes indicate a one polarity change could be up to a year later than the other one. So, no, the cycle has not been interrupted, it's running pretty much as it always has. About the only thing different from the last cycle is the amount of the polarity. Graphically, it's a bit shallower than Cycle 23. Doesn't mean it's been interrupted, could mean there's been a change.

What will happen next to the solar magnetic cycle and will the solar magnetic cycle changes affect the earth in any manner?

As we've been over that in another thread in ATM, there really isn't much to discuss there. You were asked specific questions and when given a chance to answer those questions, declined and withdrew from the thread.

To answer those questions, we can watch this graph change with time, look for any unexplained solar observations, and see if there are any unexplained changes on the earth which require an explanation.

Well, how about you start with this graph? Tell us why, for a period of 20 years, from 1950-1970 almost all of the sunspots were in the northern hemisphere. What effect did that have? After all, the period since then, have pretty much been even, with excess southern on the declining side.

"The comparison with recent cycles is interesting to track the development of cycle 24. The X axis in the chart is the number of months since the cycle started, while the Y axis is the monthly smoothed sunspot number."

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

Actually, this graph is a bit more interesting. While starting later than all the other cycles, Cycle 24 is very similar to cycles 12 and 16. Both those cycles have a one year wide hump for the maximum starting about four and a half years into the cycle. Cycle 24 is now three years into it's cycle and is currently higher than Cycle 12, but not quite as high as Cycle 16. Cycle 24 is forecasted (based on observed smoothed numbers) to dip a bit, much like 12 did. 12 had rises and dips before it starts it's maximum hump, while 16 has a slight decline before the start of the maximum hump. Either way, Cycle 24 is already higher than 14, but it appears it will not reach the highs of cycles 10 and 13. As a point of interest, the cycles following those in this graph had the following smoothed sunspot numbers:

Cycle 10-98_______Cycle 11-142
Cycle 12-75_______Cycle 13-88
Cycle 13-88_______Cycle 14-65
Cycle 14-65_______Cycle 15-108
Cycle 15-108______Cycle 16-78
Cycle 16-78_______Cycle 17-122

Cycle 24-67 Current maximum smoothed number
70 Highest forecasted number (September 2012)

Your claims of doom and gloom see a bit farfetched, when you look at the actual numbers from all the cycles, not just specially picked cycles.

[Shaula]

OK so no real evidence has been accumulated, your starting point is a paper that Tensor has provided lots of material on and no current model has been peer reviewed. I guess the only real response can be "Come back next year if evidence is forthcoming". There isn't even enough to discuss here when you par it down. A few words in a popular science journal that may or may not agree with an unpublished and unreviewed model.

[tusenfem]

Just a reminder of my message of 12 May:

William, if you want your thread/ideas to be taken seriously, that means that you have to take the objections by other members seriously. Just keep on making the same claims (e.g. declining B field) without actually addressing the comments that are made about those claims by various posters is not the way for a fruitful and eventually interesing discussion.

In your next post you will seriously engage your opponents, and actually answer questions that are put to you. And please do not come with your "good-for-all" answer that we will have to wait for more data, because I doubt that the authors of the papers you seem to like so very much would have written those papers with that kind of attitude.

If you do not start following this advice you will be infracted.

I still hold you to this warning.

[Jens]

New Scientist is not really a scientific journal. The articles are popular science, not peer reviewed piece of work. Do you have anything more substantive to back your claims up?

It may be true that it's not peer reviewed, and they may sometimes be a bit on the speculative side of things, but I would note in support of William that I interviewed a guy a couple of months ago who analyzes data on solar activity from the Hinode satellite, and he basically said that he feels that this asymmetry is puzzling and that nobody is really sure what to make of it. When I asked him if we were entering a Maunder minimum, he said basically that it's not possible to tell, but definitely did not reject the possibility. So as far as William is asserting that we are, I think he's wrong, but certainly I don't think it's really anti-mainstream at all to considering the possibility.

[Jens]

But now I'm not sure. After reading some of the later comments, maybe the situation is fully understood and there isn't really anything to discuss about the current situation. I don't really understand it enough to be able to make a judgment that way. . .

[William]

Thank-you again for all the thoughtful comments.

I have no additional comments at this time.

[tusenfem]

Thank-you again for all the thoughtful comments.

I have no additional comments at this time.

That's all, after the warning you had received about this topic?
Infraction.

[Tensor]

It may be true that it's not peer reviewed, and they may sometimes be a bit on the speculative side of things, but I would note in support of William that I interviewed a guy a couple of months ago who analyzes data on solar activity from the Hinode satellite, and he basically said that he feels that this asymmetry is puzzling and that nobody is really sure what to make of it. When I asked him if we were entering a Maunder minimum, he said basically that it's not possible to tell, but definitely did not reject the possibility. So as far as William is asserting that we are, I think he's wrong, but certainly I don't think it's really anti-mainstream at all to considering the possibility.

I don't think either Shaula or I think it would be wrong to consider the possibility, nor (looking at your next post) would we say the situation is fully understood. There are quite a few things that are still being worked out. But repeating and citing the same papers over and over again, and not acknowledging problems or refutation of those papers does not support one's contentions. Nor does picking particular sentences and data while ignoring other parts of papers or articles.

For instance, the fact that several parts of my posts 8, 9 and 10 are simply copy and pastes, with minor changes to include new data, of posts I've made going back to 2010 should speak volumes.

[William]

Is there a solar change underway?

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/c...ent_cycles.png

This is an interesting site to watch to see if there is a solar change underway.

http://www.solen.info/solar/


I will keep you updated if there is something anomalous that requires explanation.

[tusenfem]

Is there a solar change underway?

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/c...ent_cycles.png

This is an interesting site to watch to see if there is a solar change underway.

http://www.solen.info/solar/


I will keep you updated if there is something anomalous that requires explanation.

As Tensor already mentioned, if you look at this pic of the same site things look much differently, beware what you compare.
With respect to 21, 22, 23 you find that 24 is rather low.
With respect to 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 you find that 24 is almost median, so was there a solar change after these (10, 12, 13, 14, 16)? And if there was not, would you then expect a solar change after 24?
You might just want to spend a wee bit of time thinking about such things, instead of willy nilly posting this kind of stuff.

[William]

There are published papers that predicted the sun is heading towards a Maunder like minimum.

A 1987 paper that predicts the sun is heading to a prolonged minimum of solar activity.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion, Rhodes W. Fairbridge and James H. Shirley, January 1987

We employ the JPL long ephemeris DE-102 to study the inertial motion of the Sun for the period A.D. 760–2100. Defining solar orbits with reference to the Sun's successive close approaches to the solar system barycenter, occurring at mean intervals of 19.86 yr, we find simple relationships linking the inertial orientation of the solar orbit and the amplitude of the precessional rotation of the orbit with the occurrence of the principal prolonged solar activity minima of the current millenium (the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder minima). The progression of the inertial orientation parameter is controlled by the 900-yr great inequality of the motion of Jupiter and Saturn, while the precessional rotation parameter is linked with the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion previously identified by Jose (1965). A new prolonged minimum of solar activity may be imminent.

A 2003 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD....34.0603S

Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?

My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using "solar dynamo precursor" methods, notably a "SODA" index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun's dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun's fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun's dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun's polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.

The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a "Maunder" type of solar activity minimum - an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn't so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.

The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder like minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..81B

….We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology… last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle….

[Shaula]

Is there a solar change underway?

Without better data on the variability previously seen it would be very bad science to even suggest that you could tell anything meaningful from 4 data points.

Trying to extrapolate from those graphs is kind of like saying "yesterday was warmer than today so by January we will be under six feet of ice".

Basically you need to do a far, far better job at analysing the data than looking at graphs like that.

Edit: Are these the same three papers you have cited time and time again on here to support your ideas? The ones with methodological flaws? Or are these new finds by you?

[Swift]

Edit: Are these the same three papers you have cited time and time again on here to support your ideas? The ones with methodological flaws? Or are these new finds by you?

Let me make that official William - I would like an answer to those questions.

[Torsten]

There are published papers that predicted the sun is heading towards a Maunder like minimum.

A 1987 paper that predicts the sun is heading to a prolonged minimum of solar activity.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

...snip

I don't have time at the moment to look at the other papers you linked, but this one has already been discussed here. After William telling us for months, if not years, that this paper predicted a Maunder Minimum, I finally found a copy of the full text seven and a half months ago. I quoted the cautious statements contained in it here and they were further discussed here by Tensor.

[William]

Without better data on the variability previously seen it would be very bad science to even suggest that you could tell anything meaningful from 4 data points.

Trying to extrapolate from those graphs is kind of like saying "yesterday was warmer than today so by January we will be under six feet of ice".

Basically you need to do a far, far better job at analysing the data than looking at graphs like that.

Edit: Are these the same three papers you have cited time and time again on here to support your ideas? The ones with methodological flaws? Or are these new finds by you?

What methodological flaws are you refering to? i.e. Be specific ....

Perhaps if you could site a paper.

[Shaula]

If they are the same papers you keep using then you have been given the refutations. Over and over. Please answer my question - are they the ones you have used before, the ones that you have been shown to be wrong before. If you have forgotten then may I suggest you review all the other threads where you have tried to prove that the Sun is undergoing a significant change in its magnetic field?

[Swift]

What methodological flaws are you refering to? i.e. Be specific ....

Perhaps if you could site a paper.

Let me make that official William - I would like an answer to those questions.

Your post is not an answer to my question (though Torsten has already answered it for the 1987 paper). I want an answer in your next post.

[William]

The 1987 paper does predicted a Maunder like minimum. In 1987 of course the authors of the paper would have no knowledge of the cycle 24 changes.

I look at this link. I do not see a reference paper that refutes the paper's claim that a Maunder like minimum is eminent. I do not see a comment that supports the assertion that there are methodological flaws with the 1987 paper.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...68#post2010868


Torsten said:

Further down that page, their actual prediction was stated this way:

Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987:
Our tentative prediction is for the inception of a new prolonged minimum within the time span of the solar barycentric orbit of 1990-2013.

William's reply. Yes it appears I am not misquoting the authors of the 1987 paper. Note the cycle 24, solar cycle change occurred as predicted.

If I remember correctly there were a number of comments in this forum that solar cycle 24 would be a normal cycle (i.e. Where normal is defined to be similar to the other 20th century solar magnetic cycles. Interesting the solar magnetic cycle activity was the highest activity and the longest duration high activity period in 8000 years during the last half of the 20th century.)

Observations indicate that comment was not correct. It appears the solar magnetic cycle 24 maximum may have occurred in February, 2012 with a high of 66.9. If you look at the link I provided, which provides pictures from the solar observation satellite, the sunspots are becoming fainter and smaller. I have been observing the sun for roughly 10 years and have looked at past observations from solar cycle 21, 22, and 23.

There are now comments in this forum that solar cycle 24 could be similar to a set of very weak solar magnetic cycles that occurred a 100 years ago, rather than a Maunder minimum. There are no papers quoted to support that assertion.

[William]

This is the other comment concerning the 1987 paper.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...97#post2010997

The above comment references a 2009 paper by Lockwood that does not appear to be related to the subject of this thread. The 2009 Lockwood discusses a subject which is not germane to this thread. If someone wants to discuss that subject could they start a separate thread.

This thread is a discussion of solar cycle 24 which is an exceptional solar magnetic cycle and an exceptional change in the solar magnetic cycle.

All of the solar specialists agree solar cycle 24 is an exceptional magnetic cycle and an exception change in the solar magnetic cycle.

If I understand the view or concern of the above comments is related to whether solar cycle 24 will be the weakest solar magnetic cycle in 100 years or whether it will be a precursor to a Maunder minimum.

[William]

I believe I have responded to the comments concerning the 1987 paper.

I do not see an comments concerning methodological errors in the 2003 and and 2004 quoted papers. Did I misquote the 2003 and 2004 papers?


A 2003 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD....34.0603S

Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?

My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using "solar dynamo precursor" methods, notably a "SODA" index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun's dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun's fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun's dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun's polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.

The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a "Maunder" type of solar activity minimum - an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn't so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.

The following is a 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder like minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..81B

….We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology… last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle….

[William]

http://www.solen.info/solar/
The following is a link to a graph which shows how the solar magnetic field strength has changed for solar cycles 22, 23, and 24.

Solar cycle 24 obviously is significantly different than the past solar cycles.

http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html

I believe I stated the northern polar field reversed in June 2012. It appears that statement was not correct. The official reversal of the northern polar field has in July, 2012.

The northern polar field reversed in July 2012 while the southern polar field could reverse early in 2013.