Latest SC25 Predictions

[Bean]

As we get nearer to the time when all will be become clear as to which way the present cycle might go as regards strength here's some predictions that have been or are (monthly) updated as more information becomes available.

.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/full#B19

= 184+/-17 Sept23>Dec24...............McIntosh et al

 

.

http://solarcyclescience.com/forecasts.html

50%= 145.3 Sept/Oct 2024.........................Upton/Hathaway

.

https://www.nasa.gov/msfcsolar

50%= 130.2 Sept/Oct 2024

.

https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Solar/1/6

= 115  Oct 2023

If you have any links to other serious predictions that have been updated recently please post below.

Edited February 17 by Bean
edit link

[Drax Spacex]

Are these "serious predictions" (ranging from 115 to 184) all for the maximum 13-month smoothed monthly total sunspot number for SC25?

Edited February 17 by Drax Spacex

[Bean]

Do you know of any other predictions for the SC that don't use the 13month box car SSN as an end result ?

[Drax Spacex]

I presume that's a long version of the word "yes".   A predicted max might nail the maximum monthly SSN but overestimate the 13 month SSN.  So was the prediction for the envelope of the monthly SSN or for the 13 month SSN?  It's a valid question and an important question when it comes to scoring the predictions after the fact.

 

 

 

[Bean]

I'm a bit unsure what you mean to be honest , in your post when you say the monthly SSN are you referring  to the monthly mean SN ?  I've always thought the monthly SSN was the same thing as the 13 month SSN because that,s how its produced .

[Archmonoth]

I made a thread recently, and my amateur prediction is that due to the course/route around the barycenter, SC 25 will be similar to SC23.

 

So my prediction... SC 25: +/- 5% of SSN 180 (170-190)

 

 

[MissNeona]

Solar flux 343, that's a decent flex. 

 

[Drax Spacex]

5 hours ago, Bean said:

I'm a bit unsure what you mean to be honest , in your post when you say the monthly SSN are you referring  to the monthly mean SN ?  I've always thought the monthly SSN was the same thing as the 13 month SSN because that,s how its produced 

Sorry I added one too many S's.  Yes I meant monthly sunspot number.  https://www.sidc.be/silso/ssngraphics chart legends uses simply "monthly" for monthly mean sunspot number and "monthly smoothed" for 13-month smoothed monthly sunspot number.

https://www.sidc.be/silso/infosnmstot defines the algorithm for calculating  the 13-month smoothed monthly sunspot number.  That web page also says that "a wide range of other smoothing functions can be used, often with better low-pass filtering and anti-aliasing properties. As the optimal filter choice depends on the application, we thus invite users to start from the monthly mean Sunspot Numbers and apply the smoothing function that is most appropriate for their analyses. The classical smoothed series included here should only be used when direct comparisons with past published analyses must be made.

[Philalethes]

34 minutes ago, Drax Spacex said:

Sorry I added one too many S's.  Yes I meant monthly sunspot number.  https://www.sidc.be/silso/ssngraphics chart legends uses simply "monthly" for monthly mean sunspot number and "monthly smoothed" for 13-month smoothed monthly sunspot number.

I believe the vast majority of publications dealing with predictions of sunspot numbers are using the SSN. As far as I can tell all of the ones in the OP do.

[Philalethes]

Heh, I just came across this, and I guess I'll file it here in the extreme event that it ends up being right. I'm not sure if I can call it "serious" or not, but it is a prediction; a prediction based on a physics framework that would probably score extremely high on the crackpot index, but a prediction nonetheless. According to this, we will observe a maximum for SC25 no sooner than 2027, based on alignments of the Jovian planets with each other and with the galactic core:

Caveat lector.

[helios]

I found Dr. Keith Strongs analysis interesting, he made different predictions, based on different predictors, you can find the full video here.
He was also involved in the NOAA prediction panel for earlier solar cycles, I don't remember which.

Edited February 21 by helios

[Drax Spacex]

6 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Heh, I just came across this, and I guess I'll file it here in the extreme event that it ends up being right. I'm not sure if I can call it "serious" or not, but it is a prediction; a prediction based on a physics framework that would probably score extremely high on the crackpot index, but a prediction nonetheless. According to this, we will observe a maximum for SC25 no sooner than 2027, based on alignments of the Jovian planets with each other and with the galactic core:

Caveat lector.

Ah yes, a second higher peak in the epoch of maxima.  Certainly a possibility.

I wish these papers would use the phrase correlated with planetary alignment rather than caused by planetary alignment since the minimal gravitational effect on the sun is typically a main point cited in dispelling such theories.

This closing statement from the article, however, I wholeheartedly agree with:  "GIMP gives me a headache."

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, Drax Spacex said:

I wish these papers would use the phrase correlated with planetary alignment rather than caused by planetary alignment since the minimal gravitational effect on the sun is typically a main point cited in dispelling such theories.

This person in particular explicitly claims that's incorrect, and rather claims that planetary alignment and alignment with the galactic core are the primary causes for activity, rather than just a synchronization factor; not that I think that's true personally, but at least it's something they do address. The mechanism they cite is a continuous flux of charge between the various celestial bodies, not just from Sol and outward, but back from the other planets (particularly the Jovian ones, they claim) and into Sol, with the main source of charge feeding the entire system coming from the galactic core. Again, not my words, but I believe that's a summary of their arguments.

Due to how divergent this is from "mainstream" Solar physics, I'm not sure there's really much point in discussing the feasibility of this model unless their predictions miraculously turn out to be correct and accurate, until then it's just another prediction out of many.

[Philalethes]

As I was checking out some astronomy libraries for Python yesterday I was curious to see if I could find any of the same correlations between the alignments mentioned in the model above by programmatically looking for such alignments from the perspective of Sol; what I found definitely doesn't seem very promising for their model at all: in 2019, from around spring to fall, Jupiter, Saturn, and the galactic core were all almost perfectly lined up as seen by an observer on Sol, which according to that model should have produced a lot of activity even despite the poor placement of the other two Jovians, but as we know that was at minimum, and there was practically zero activity at that point in time. Here's e.g. a screenshot from Stellarium of how it would have looked like from Sol on May 30, 2019 (at which point the sum of the cosines of all four angles, both latitude and longitude for both planets, was maximized):

I don't think I'll be holding my breath for a 2027 maximum...

Edited February 24 by Philalethes Bythos

[Sam Warfel]

I would think that even the strongest supporters of alignment theory wouldn’t say it could cause major activity right in the middle of Solar min?

It might be more a case of when alignments happen to fall near Solar max. (I’m just brainstorming here, I don’t necessarily subscribe to barycenter or galactic alignment theories)

[Philalethes]

1 hour ago, Sam Warfel said:

I would think that even the strongest supporters of alignment theory wouldn’t say it could cause major activity right in the middle of Solar min?

It might be more a case of when alignments happen to fall near Solar max. (I’m just brainstorming here, I don’t necessarily subscribe to barycenter or galactic alignment theories)

That's definitely true for most alignment hypotheses I've come across too, and certainly far more reasonable, but this particular person quite adamantly insisted in their writings that those alignments are the primary drivers of the Solar cycle itself, and that you get Solar maxima when you both have an alignment between the major Jovians (most prominently Jupiter-Saturn and Jupiter-Neptune alignments) and the galactic core, especially if these are all aligned with Sol, and even more so if both planets are on the same side of Sol as the core.

So what I essentially did here was find a time when the conditions were ideal according to this model, with both Jupiter and Saturn almost perfectly aligned with the core as seen from Sol, and both on the same side as the core. According to the model there should be a ton of Solar activity at that time, if not a maximum, but instead all there was was Solar quiet and a minimum.

There's naturally always a chance that I might've misinterpreted something, or that there are complexities they bring up that I've failed to account for, but all in all it just makes it less likely for me to consider this particular model in the future unless their predictions are somehow spot on.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

6 uren geleden, Sam Warfel zei:

I would think that even the strongest supporters of alignment theory wouldn’t say it could cause major activity right in the middle of Solar min?

It might be more a case of when alignments happen to fall near Solar max. (I’m just brainstorming here, I don’t necessarily subscribe to barycenter or galactic alignment theories)

Sam,

I found a theory that explains why alignments give almost nothing at the low : the Solar dynamo goes up and down. With this theory alignments are only activated when the dynamo goes up! Please read carefully and give comments. Thank you.

(1) (PDF) A New Mathematical (and Physical) Principle to Combine Gravitation with Rotating Oscillating Magnetic Fields. A unifying algorithm that solves the Sun's differential rotation problem


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329023855_A_New_Mathematical_and_Physical_Principle_to_Combine_Gravitation_with_Rotating_Oscillating_Magnetic_Fields_A_unifying_algorithm_that_solves_the_Sun's_differential_rotation_problem

[Philalethes]

Here's an interesting paper from earlier this year using a combination of physical modeling and machine learning; they arrive at the same conclusion as many others in that Solar cycle prediction is limited to one cycle ahead:

Quote

We conclude that the algorithm Echo State Network (ESN) performs the best, but predictability is limited to only one future sunspot cycle, in agreement with recent physical insights.

They thus developed a modified version of this ESN algorithm to account for this, MESN (Modified ESN), which achieved better performance in forecasting previous cycles. The predictions of the two are as follows:

Quote

The two algorithms agree that Cycle 25 is going to last for about 10 years. They also agree on the approximate time location of the peak, the ESN places the peak in July 2024, while the MESN shows it in April 2024. As for the maximum number of sunspots, the ESN forecasts it to be 131±14, whereas the MESN forecasts 137±2. Hence, both algorithms forecast that Cycle 25 will be slightly stronger than Cycle 24, but weaker than Cycle 23.

Given how the latter is what they claim is the most robust, that leaves their best prediction at 137±2 in April of 2024. Visualization of the two predictions:

Notably they predict it at two different years, as they claim (not unexpectedly) that the prediction becomes more accurate when including data from the ascent of the cycle:

Quote

We also note the forecasts given by both algorithms strongly depend on when we stop training and start forecasting, and that the best forecasts are obtained when we are at the rising phase of the cycle.

Just thought I'd leave another prediction here to see what stands the test of time the best after the fact.

[Sam Warfel]

Space weather enthusiasts, to SC25:

 

[3gMike]

There has been some chat in another thread about Cycle 25 possibly matching Cycle 19. The historical cycles data on this website clearly indicates that it is nowhere near matching Cycle 19. Whilst investigating the claim I noticed that Cycle 19 peaked at 42 months after previous minimum, almost exactly where we are now in Cycle 25. I wondered if there might be any correlation between rise time and peak amplitude, so plotted time to maximum versus peak amplitude for all cycles.

The plot clearly shows that there is no direct correlation, but there is a tendency for faster rise times to produce higher maximum values and, more often than not, the longest rise times produce the lowest sunspot maximum (violated in cycles 11 to 15). It can also be said that generally an increase in rise time over the previous cycle tends to be matched by a reduction in maximum sunspot value (violated in cycles 5,6, 12 and 14). Obviously we need to be careful to avoid giving too much significance to apparent patterns in a limited data set. However, if we accept the statements above, we can then say that in order for cycle 25 to have a higher maximum than cycle 24 the rise time for this cycle must be less than 62 months, and the maximum will probably be less than 300. At present I cannot see how to arrive at a more accurate prediction based on this data.

[hamateur 1953]

excellent and concise.    Thanks!  

[Philalethes]

51 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

There has been some chat in another thread about Cycle 25 possibly matching Cycle 19. The historical cycles data on this website clearly indicates that it is nowhere near matching Cycle 19. Whilst investigating the claim I noticed that Cycle 19 peaked at 42 months after previous minimum, almost exactly where we are now in Cycle 25. I wondered if there might be any correlation between rise time and peak amplitude, so plotted time to maximum versus peak amplitude for all cycles.

The plot clearly shows that there is no direct correlation, but there is a tendency for faster rise times to produce higher maximum values and, more often than not, the longest rise times produce the lowest sunspot maximum (violated in cycles 11 to 15). It can also be said that generally an increase in rise time over the previous cycle tends to be matched by a reduction in maximum sunspot value (violated in cycles 5,6, 12 and 14). Obviously we need to be careful to avoid giving too much significance to apparent patterns in a limited data set. However, if we accept the statements above, we can then say that in order for cycle 25 to have a higher maximum than cycle 24 the rise time for this cycle must be less than 62 months, and the maximum will probably be less than 300. At present I cannot see how to arrive at a more accurate prediction based on this data.

Good visualization, and definitely looks like a strong relationship overall to me, even with the couple of exceptions. Looking at the general weakness of SCs 12-14 in particular despite their short rise times makes me wonder if maybe there was some overall diminished activity at that time, like during the Dalton minimum perhaps.

I would note that I've seen mentions of this relationship a number of times both on the forum and in the literature, and that it's known as the Waldmeier effect, which from reading about it is from Waldmeier having pointed it out in his 1936 doctoral thesis Neue Eigenschaften der Sonnenfleckenkurve ("New properties of the sunspot curve"); I believe I've also read that this appears to generally hold for sunspot area and F10.7 as well, the latter of which seems to check out very well based on the cycles we have F10.7 measurements for so far at least.

Regarding the SC19 comparison I also think that's not really realistic for SC25 at all, and that hoping for that is more like hoping for a miracle. While we only have a limited number of cycles to base ourselves on there's not really any indication that we're headed for SC19 levels, neither in terms of sunspot numbers nor F10.7. At this point I think it will be more interesting to see if we flat out like SC20 or keep rising some more to come closer to SC23. Either way it's better to concentrate all that SC19 hope on one of the upcoming cycles if you ask me!

[hamateur 1953]

http://www.ham-radio.com/n6ca/50MHz/K6MIO_50MHz_F2Prop.pdf. We hams are always “ chomping at the bit” awaiting the 10.7 of that.  Me too. even though my six meter quad is doa now!!  bummer!  long story and way off topic here!!  However as an afterthought I remembered reading an easily understood paper awhile back and linked it above for anyone interested in radio and muf. ( maximum useable frequency).   Mike. 

Edited July 15 by hamateur 1953
added good propagation information

[3gMike]

14 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I would note that I've seen mentions of this relationship a number of times both on the forum and in the literature, and that it's known as the Waldmeier effect, which from reading about it is from Waldmeier having pointed it out in his 1936 doctoral thesis Neue Eigenschaften der Sonnenfleckenkurve ("New properties of the sunspot curve"); I believe I've also read that this appears to generally hold for sunspot area and F10.7 as well, the latter of which seems to check out very well based on the cycles we have F10.7 measurements for so far at least.

I had not come across that, so thank you for providing that information. In a brief search of the literature I came across this paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/527360/fulltext/22425.text.html#:~:text=Waldmeier (1935) first showed that,found in Kane (2008). which suggests that it does not apply to sunspot area. When I have time I will investigate further.

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, 3gMike said:

I had not come across that, so thank you for providing that information. In a brief search of the literature I came across this paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/527360/fulltext/22425.text.html#:~:text=Waldmeier (1935) first showed that,found in Kane (2008). which suggests that it does not apply to sunspot area. When I have time I will investigate further.

Very interesting, definitely bears looking more into. I wonder if there is any readily accessible sunspot area data available or if one has to use old images and deproject them oneself if one wants to do similar analyses. What's also interesting about it to me is how both area and F10.7 seem like good alternative proxies for Solar activity, but how this seems to contest the relationship between rise time and amplitude while the flux data I've looked at seems to confirm it.

I'd certainly be interested to know what you might find out about it in the future.