An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum
Abstract Over the last decade there has been mounting evidence that the strength of the Sun's polar magnetic fields during a solar cycle minimum is the best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Surface flux transport models can be used to extend these predictions by evolving the...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | Geophysical Research Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078387 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850075332038623232 |
|---|---|
| author | Lisa A. Upton David H. Hathaway |
| author_facet | Lisa A. Upton David H. Hathaway |
| author_sort | Lisa A. Upton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Over the last decade there has been mounting evidence that the strength of the Sun's polar magnetic fields during a solar cycle minimum is the best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Surface flux transport models can be used to extend these predictions by evolving the Sun's surface magnetic field to obtain an earlier prediction for the strength of the polar fields, and thus the amplitude of the next cycle. In 2016, our Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model was used to do this, producing an early prediction for Solar Cycle 25. At that time, AFT predicted that Cycle 25 will be similar in strength to the Cycle 24, with an uncertainty of about 15%. AFT also predicted that the polar fields in the southern hemisphere would weaken in late 2016 and into 2017 before recovering. That AFT prediction was based on the magnetic field configuration at the end of January 2016. We now have two more years of observations. We examine the accuracy of the 2016 AFT prediction and find that the new observations track well with AFT's predictions for the last 2 years. We show that the southern relapse did in fact occur, though the timing was off by several months. We propose a possible cause for the southern relapse and discuss the reason for the offset in timing. Finally, we provide an updated AFT prediction for Solar Cycle 25 that includes solar observations through January of 2018. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-dfde2717d2cc4c129b045d686b3c7e6d |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 0094-8276 1944-8007 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Geophysical Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj-art-dfde2717d2cc4c129b045d686b3c7e6d2025-08-20T02:46:20ZengWileyGeophysical Research Letters0094-82761944-80072018-08-0145168091809510.1029/2018GL078387An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern MinimumLisa A. Upton0David H. Hathaway1High Altitude Observatory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USASolar Observatories Group Stanford University Stanford CA USAAbstract Over the last decade there has been mounting evidence that the strength of the Sun's polar magnetic fields during a solar cycle minimum is the best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Surface flux transport models can be used to extend these predictions by evolving the Sun's surface magnetic field to obtain an earlier prediction for the strength of the polar fields, and thus the amplitude of the next cycle. In 2016, our Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model was used to do this, producing an early prediction for Solar Cycle 25. At that time, AFT predicted that Cycle 25 will be similar in strength to the Cycle 24, with an uncertainty of about 15%. AFT also predicted that the polar fields in the southern hemisphere would weaken in late 2016 and into 2017 before recovering. That AFT prediction was based on the magnetic field configuration at the end of January 2016. We now have two more years of observations. We examine the accuracy of the 2016 AFT prediction and find that the new observations track well with AFT's predictions for the last 2 years. We show that the southern relapse did in fact occur, though the timing was off by several months. We propose a possible cause for the southern relapse and discuss the reason for the offset in timing. Finally, we provide an updated AFT prediction for Solar Cycle 25 that includes solar observations through January of 2018.https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078387Sunsolar cycleGleissbergCycle 25advective flux transportMaunder Minimum |
| spellingShingle | Lisa A. Upton David H. Hathaway An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum Geophysical Research Letters Sun solar cycle Gleissberg Cycle 25 advective flux transport Maunder Minimum |
| title | An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum |
| title_full | An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum |
| title_fullStr | An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum |
| title_full_unstemmed | An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum |
| title_short | An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction With AFT: The Modern Minimum |
| title_sort | updated solar cycle 25 prediction with aft the modern minimum |
| topic | Sun solar cycle Gleissberg Cycle 25 advective flux transport Maunder Minimum |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078387 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lisaaupton anupdatedsolarcycle25predictionwithaftthemodernminimum AT davidhhathaway anupdatedsolarcycle25predictionwithaftthemodernminimum AT lisaaupton updatedsolarcycle25predictionwithaftthemodernminimum AT davidhhathaway updatedsolarcycle25predictionwithaftthemodernminimum |