Latest SC25 Predictions

[Drax Spacex]

// Start Waxing Philosophic

I'm beginning to think that every solar measurement is a proxy to every other solar measurement.  And when we find a relationship between them, it seems we are making a new discovery.  But in fact we are just characterizing the same fundamental physical mechanism in a slightly different way.  

// End Waxing Philosophic

[Philalethes]

17 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

// Start Waxing Philosophic

I'm beginning to think that every solar measurement is a proxy to every other solar measurement.  And when we find a relationship between them, it seems we are making a new discovery.  But in fact we are just characterizing the same fundamental physical mechanism in a slightly different way.  

// End Waxing Philosophic

Well, clearly all of the mentioned indices are indeed proxies of the underlying periodic pattern of the Solar cycle, and by virtue of that of each other; but I think it's still a valid question whether or not some of them are more fundamental and reflective of that underlying pattern of activity, and thus better proxies in that sense. For example, if one of the indices has significantly more variance than the others, then it would be much more difficult to use measurements of that variable to establish exactly where in the underlying pattern of activity we really are.

As for discovering relationships between these proxies "just" being a different characterization of the fundamental physical mechanism, that in and of itself is still typically a good discovery, and can lead to more insight into what that fundamental mechanism is and how it works. Certainly a valuable pursuit if you ask me.

[Philalethes]

Let's talk in this thread @Patrick P.A. Geryl, since it's already dedicated to SC25 predictions.

As for the CM (combined method), it does not appear to predict a 2023 maximum:

You can see the different forecasts and information about them here. The information page for the CM gives this as the reference:

Quote

Ref: K. Denkmayr, P. Cugnon, 1997 : "About Sunspot Number Medium-Term Predictions", in "Solar-Terrestrial Prediction Workshop V", eds. G.Heckman et al., Hiraiso Solar Terrestrial Research Center, Japan, p. 103.

Keep in mind that this is by now a relatively old model, and that there's likely been some improvements in forecasting, but as we know it still remains difficult to say anything for sure, so it's probably worth considering anyway.

As for other 2023 predictions, there's one in the first post of this thread, but the rest seem to predict later times. I mean, most predictions pre-cycle were for 2025, 2024 is already quite early in comparison. Thus you're unlikely to find that many predictions for 2023, and in most cases such an early maximum would likely have yielded a more explosive rise to this cycle than what has been observed.

I definitely don't think you should preferentially look at those few that predict a 2023 max instead of looking at all of them and trying to see which ones make the most sense; that sounds a bit like confirmation bias to me, like you're starting with the conclusion and only seeking out the few data points that support that conclusion and largely ignoring all the ones that don't.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Philalethes
full reference

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur terug, Philalethes zei:

Let's talk in this thread @Patrick P.A. Geryl, since it's already dedicated to SC25 predictions.

As for the CM (combined method), it does not appear to predict a 2023 maximum:

You can see the different forecasts and information about them here. The information page for the CM gives this as the reference:

Keep in mind that this is by now a relatively old model, and that there's likely been some improvements in forecasting, but as we know it still remains difficult to say anything for sure, so it's probably worth considering anyway.

As for other 2023 predictions, there's one in the first post of this thread, but the rest seem to predict later times. I mean, most predictions pre-cycle were for 2025, 2024 is already quite early in comparison. Thus you're unlikely to find that many predictions for 2023, and in most cases such an early maximum would likely have yielded a more explosive rise to this cycle than what has been observed.

I definitely don't think you should preferentially look at those few that predict a 2023 max instead of looking at all of them and trying to see which ones make the most sense; that sounds a bit like confirmation bias to me, like you're starting with the conclusion and only seeking out the few data points that support that conclusion and largely ignoring all the ones that don't.

I calculated the growth 440 days after the smoothed start. Cycle 25 was as rapid as cycle 19. Meaning a high 44-47 months after the start.

That was the first approach

The second one is a bit similar to my published article. It gives May- August🤩
 

and the flip of the average polar field…

Edited July 28, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Philalethes]

7 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

I calculated the growth 440 days after the smoothed start. Cycle 25 was as rapid as cycle 19. Meaning a high 44-47 months after the start.

That was the first approach

The second one is a bit similar to my published article. It gives May- August🤩

At that stage it can still be hard to tell how the cycles are developing, but even at that stage it should have been quite obvious that the SC19 rise was far more dramatic than that we've observed for SC25; with more time that difference became even more pronounced:

Even if you were to pull back the start of SC25 you still can't get anywhere close to the same rate of SSN increase no matter what you do.

[hamateur 1953]

Regrettably true.  However our solar flux should steadily improve over the next year, at least that is my hope. Especially this winter for Ham radio and fireworks as well.  

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

1 uur terug, Philalethes zei:

At that stage it can still be hard to tell how the cycles are developing, but even at that stage it should have been quite obvious that the SC19 rise was far more dramatic than that we've observed for SC25; with more time that difference became even more pronounced:

Even if you were to pull back the start of SC25 you still can't get anywhere close to the same rate of SSN increase no matter what you do.

I explained myself not so good. You need to calculate growt factors after 100, 140…days… and divide them to each other. Also you need the baseline at the start minus 64. After some calculations…it gives the month from the maximum. 

[3gMike]

28 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Also you need the baseline at the start minus 64.

Now it sounds like you are talking about 10.7cm flux.

[Philalethes]

59 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

I explained myself not so good. You need to calculate growt factors after 100, 140…days… and divide them to each other.

That sounds very ad hoc to me, rather than a good model. In any case the huge differences in growth rate between the two are now very obvious, both in terms of SSN and F10.7.

[Drax Spacex]

On 7/10/2023 at 6:50 AM, Philalethes said:

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:

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:

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:

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

It is a  interesting paper, and time will tell whether it yields an accurate prediction for SC25.  True, using the amplitude and slope of the ascent phase within the solar cycle provides important information to improve solar maximum prediction.  A couple of areas of concern after having glanced through the paper:  1) Only a single peak is forecast; 2) The standard deviation (±2) in the MESN prediction 137±2 is an unusually small range.

[Philalethes]

13 minutes ago, Drax Spacex said:

It is a  interesting paper, and time will tell whether it yields an accurate prediction for SC25.  True, using the amplitude and slope of the ascent phase within the solar cycle provides important information to improve solar maximum prediction.  A couple of areas of concern after having glanced through the paper:  1) Only a single peak is forecast; 2) The standard deviation (±2) in the MESN prediction 137±2 is an unusually small range.

It'll be interesting to see how all these predictions fare indeed, just piling it in here with the others for the record since it struck me as reasonable both in terms of their method and in terms of the current trajectory of the cycle.

As for the two points you mention, they are both explicitly addressed in the paper:

Quote

Note that the averaged sunspot data shows a distinctive two-peak behavior in both Cycles 23 and 24 – this behavior is not present in all sunspot cycles – that is not captured by either of our algorithms. We expect the same to happen for Cycle 25 – none of our algorithms can forecast whether it may or may not have this two-peak feature.

Quote

Compared to the standard algorithm, our modified algorithm not only gives better results when tested against the observation for Cycles 23 and 24, it also gives more robust forecasts, as the standard deviation of the ensemble is smaller.

I personally don't find either of those points concerning scientifically speaking, but feel free to elaborate.

[3gMike]

There has been some discussion in another thread (related to flipping of polar fields) in which Patrick Geryl has been claiming that we passed solar max in June 2023 (with SSN at 115 and smoothed 10.7cm flux at 146). I thought it might be informative to take a look at what it would take in terms of 10.7cm flux and Sunspot numbers in the next few months to exceed these values. In order to investigate this I chose values to produce a later peak only slightly exceeding the June values. This is obviously an arbitrary solution, but it gives us a marker which can be compared with actual performance to help understand the likelihood of seeing a second peak, or exceeding the current peak.

                                                   

For the sake of not being over optimistic I allowed projected values for Jan 2024 to fall lower than those in December 2023, and then projected modest growth over the first 6 months, followed by a rapid drop to levels last seen in December 2022.

To be clear, this is not a prediction of what I expect to happen but a tool to assess progress as the real monthly means come in. As the real values become available I will update the plot.

[hamateur 1953]

Well I guess it all really depends on what happens over the next year as has been repeated here many times. Most of us Hams are only concerned with sfi, which typically rides about 20 to 40 percent above sunspot numbers as a general rule, this gives us something to really look forward to regardless whether the second peak exceeds the first substantially or not.  I will continue to watch the ss latitudes to see if old school sun measurements still apply to a modern day sun for fun and zero profit. Haha. 

4 hours ago, 3gMike said:

There has been some discussion in another thread (related to flipping of polar fields) in which Patrick Geryl has been claiming that we passed solar max in June 2023 (with SSN at 115 and smoothed 10.7cm flux at 146). I thought it might be informative to take a look at what it would take in terms of 10.7cm flux and Sunspot numbers in the next few months to exceed these values. In order to investigate this I chose values to produce a later peak only slightly exceeding the June values. This is obviously an arbitrary solution, but it gives us a marker which can be compared with actual performance to help understand the likelihood of seeing a second peak, or exceeding the current peak.

                                                   

For the sake of not being over optimistic I allowed projected values for Jan 2024 to fall lower than those in December 2023, and then projected modest growth over the first 6 months, followed by a rapid drop to levels last seen in December 2022.

To be clear, this is not a prediction of what I expect to happen but a tool to assess progress as the real monthly means come in. As the real values become available I will update the plot.

Just one question..  I am assuming you are using the International sunspot numbers in your projections @3gMike   Hopefully I am correct on this.   Mike/ Hagrid 

I have no clue why Patrick has sny interest in this, he is back to posting here again without explanations, of course.  See y’all later. Mike/Hagrid 

Edited January 10 by hamateur 1953

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

3 uren geleden, 3gMike zei:

There has been some discussion in another thread (related to flipping of polar fields) in which Patrick Geryl has been claiming that we passed solar max in June 2023 (with SSN at 115 and smoothed 10.7cm flux at 146). I thought it might be informative to take a look at what it would take in terms of 10.7cm flux and Sunspot numbers in the next few months to exceed these values. In order to investigate this I chose values to produce a later peak only slightly exceeding the June values. This is obviously an arbitrary solution, but it gives us a marker which can be compared with actual performance to help understand the likelihood of seeing a second peak, or exceeding the current peak.

                                                   

For the sake of not being over optimistic I allowed projected values for Jan 2024 to fall lower than those in December 2023, and then projected modest growth over the first 6 months, followed by a rapid drop to levels last seen in December 2022.

To be clear, this is not a prediction of what I expect to happen but a tool to assess progress as the real monthly means come in. As the real values become available I will update the plot.

SSN = 126!

flux. = 158!

with 365-day smoothing

[3gMike]

7 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

SSN = 126!

flux. = 158!

with 365-day smoothing

Yes, I used 13 month smoothing but the principle remains the same. You have not presented any scientific data to support your claim that June 2023 was the maximum for this cycle. My plot above indicates a current max at that point, but goes on to indicate that it is still possible to have a higher peak in future. If you have any data to show that is not the case then please present it.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

50 minuten geleden, 3gMike zei:

Yes, I used 13 month smoothing but the principle remains the same. You have not presented any scientific data to support your claim that June 2023 was the maximum for this cycle. My plot above indicates a current max at that point, but goes on to indicate that it is still possible to have a higher peak in future. If you have any data to show that is not the case then please present it.

167.2	163.2	111.3	117.8 (+3.5)	14.48 (current  SC25 peak)
2023.03	157.2	155.6	123.3	121.0 (+3.2)	14.42
2023.04	145.4	146.4	97.6	122.7 (+1.7)	13.40
2023.05	155.6	159.2	137.4	123.9 (+1.2)	10.67
2023.06	161.7	166.8	160.5	125.0 (+1.1) (SC25 solar max candidate)	8.95
2023.07	176.4	182.2	159.1	(124.6 projected, -0.4)	8.15
2023.08	153.7	157.6	114.8	(124.1 projected, -0.5)	7.19
2023.09	154.4	156.0	133.6	(123.8 projected, -0.3)	14.26
2023.10

[3gMike]

2 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

167.2	163.2	111.3	117.8 (+3.5)	14.48 (current  SC25 peak)
2023.03	157.2	155.6	123.3	121.0 (+3.2)	14.42
2023.04	145.4	146.4	97.6	122.7 (+1.7)	13.40
2023.05	155.6	159.2	137.4	123.9 (+1.2)	10.67
2023.06	161.7	166.8	160.5	125.0 (+1.1) (SC25 solar max candidate)	8.95
2023.07	176.4	182.2	159.1	(124.6 projected, -0.4)	8.15
2023.08	153.7	157.6	114.8	(124.1 projected, -0.5)	7.19
2023.09	154.4	156.0	133.6	(123.8 projected, -0.3)	14.26
2023.10

Yes, I have seen that table on Jan Alvestad's website, but that does not constitute proof that we will not see another higher peak later in the cycle. In fact Jan, reasonably, is only claiming June 2023 as a potential candidate for cycle max. Unless you can come up with a plausible theory that demonstrates that you can reliably predict future sunspot levels then your repeated claims that it is definitely cycle max mean nothing.

[Jesterface23]

5 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

167.2	163.2	111.3	117.8 (+3.5)	14.48 (current  SC25 peak)
2023.03	157.2	155.6	123.3	121.0 (+3.2)	14.42
2023.04	145.4	146.4	97.6	122.7 (+1.7)	13.40
2023.05	155.6	159.2	137.4	123.9 (+1.2)	10.67
2023.06	161.7	166.8	160.5	125.0 (+1.1) (SC25 solar max candidate)	8.95
2023.07	176.4	182.2	159.1	(124.6 projected, -0.4)	8.15
2023.08	153.7	157.6	114.8	(124.1 projected, -0.5)	7.19
2023.09	154.4	156.0	133.6	(123.8 projected, -0.3)	14.26
2023.10

Even Jan would want you to slow down a bit and wait, but you won't even listen to him. Instead of trapping yourself into one spot for who knows how long, maybe look into double peak cycles and see what you can find.

[Philalethes]

6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

167.2	163.2	111.3	117.8 (+3.5)	14.48 (current  SC25 peak)
2023.03	157.2	155.6	123.3	121.0 (+3.2)	14.42
2023.04	145.4	146.4	97.6	122.7 (+1.7)	13.40
2023.05	155.6	159.2	137.4	123.9 (+1.2)	10.67
2023.06	161.7	166.8	160.5	125.0 (+1.1) (SC25 solar max candidate)	8.95
2023.07	176.4	182.2	159.1	(124.6 projected, -0.4)	8.15
2023.08	153.7	157.6	114.8	(124.1 projected, -0.5)	7.19
2023.09	154.4	156.0	133.6	(123.8 projected, -0.3)	14.26
2023.10

3 hours ago, 3gMike said:

Yes, I have seen that table on Jan Alvestad's website, but that does not constitute proof that we will not see another higher peak later in the cycle. In fact Jan, reasonably, is only claiming June 2023 as a potential candidate for cycle max. Unless you can come up with a plausible theory that demonstrates that you can reliably predict future sunspot levels then your repeated claims that it is definitely cycle max mean nothing.

16 minutes ago, Jesterface23 said:

Even Jan would want you to slow down a bit and wait, but you won't even listen to him. Instead of trapping yourself into one spot for who knows how long, maybe look into double peak cycles and see what you can find.

Here's an up-to-date graph of the 365-day smoothed flux development:

By the looks of it I would tend to agree with Jan that we might be seeing the first peak, but there are still a few ways it could develop; these are the ways I can think of:

• We could see a relatively stable plateau moving from peak to peak, like SC20 (and to a certain extent SC21, with a bit more zig-zag), either slowly climbing like them for a later overall maximum, or perhaps slowly declining (which could leave us around the overall peak of the cycle like Patrick predicts, although I think that's unlikely).
   
• We could start seeing an immediate drop and a shape more like that of SC19, but much smaller; I find this highly unlikely.
   
• We could see a dip before a second peak, like the past 3 cycles, which could be either above (SC23, SC24) or below (SC22) the first.
   
• We could see the second peak much sooner (e.g. if the hemispheres remain synchronized), which could lead to a rise again before it even drops much if any at all, and also an overall shape more like that of SC19, but still of course not as sizeable, or perhaps something like SC15 (which isn't depicted above).

I'm definitely not sold on the idea that we can know that we've reached the peak of SC25, and I still strongly doubt we have, but we shall see. Personally I think we'll get either a rising plateau, a second higher peak, or a rise quite soon to make it more like a single peak.

I'm of course aware that there isn't a perfect correspondence between F10.7 and the SSN that is actually used to determine the "official" maximum, but it should work as a decent proxy to illustrate the overall point.

[hamateur 1953]

Post removed by originator.   I decided instead to review Jan Alvestad’s running chart.  The bottoms of the 10.7 dips are clearly rising since the 119 dip in Oct 2023. How anyone can decide that SC 25 is done for good is beyond me.  Currently we are at close to 190 sfi. Not too bad for an otherwise low- moderate cycle imho.  I have all the greater confidence that this summer should play out very well, especially given the current sunspot average latitudes. Mike/Hagrid 

Edited January 11 by hamateur 1953
Further encouragement

[Jay-B]

I predict that there will be zero x-class solar flares in the next five days! The weather calls for clear skies here in Ohio, USA during this time and it has been cloudy and dreary for the last 2 months here near the Great lakes. My luck dictates that there will be no significant CMEs during this time.....

 

Sorry for the inconvenience!

[Lawn Boy]

Sounds like as good of a justification for a prediction is any I’ve seen lately.

is it just me or does it seem like the far side of the sun is more active than the facing side? Is there some kind of planetary alignment, or even galactic alignment that might cause this

[tniickck]

6 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said:

Sounds like as good of a justification for a prediction is any I’ve seen lately.

is it just me or does it seem like the far side of the sun is more active than the facing side? Is there some kind of planetary alignment, or even galactic alignment that might cause this

😁😁😁😁

it is just a coincidence, planets and galaxies cannot influence solar activity

[Lawn Boy]

A Coincidence to what? Are there times when the opposite is true, the Earth facing side is more active than the far side? Are there people who keep up with this kind of thing?

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, Lawn Boy said:

is it just me or does it seem like the far side of the sun is more active than the facing side?

On average I doubt that's true; but it could be true within specific limited spans of time, either due to variance or due to certain longitudes being more active than others for other reason.

2 hours ago, Lawn Boy said:

Is there some kind of planetary alignment, or even galactic alignment that might cause this

It's been discussed a fair amount in some older threads that you can probably find if you search around, and there's an "Unproven theories" thread for discussing topics like that which you can check out and post in, although it's expected that you'll bring some facts and evidence to the discussion and not just a gut feeling or something you saw or heard somewhere. So far there's a lack of robust evidence for that particular hypothesis, but there have been written some papers about it.

57 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said:

Are there times when the opposite is true, the Earth facing side is more active than the far side?

There are definitely times when that's true, yes; but given how we don't have nearly as good coverage of the far side, activity level distribution across longitudes is not easy to investigate scientifically as of yet.