Sunspot Cycle 25 Could be Among the Strongest Ever, academic paper concludes

Says it will almost certainly be stronger than the just-ended Solar Cycle 24.

A new research paper has concluded that Solar Cycle 25 could be among the strongest sunspot cycles ever observed, and will almost certainly be stronger than the just-ended Solar Cycle 24 (sunspot number of 116).

The paper, by Scott W. McIntosh, Deputy Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, along with Sandra Chapman, Robert J. Leamon, Ricky Egeland and Nicholas W. Watkins, says SC25 will also most likely be stronger than Solar Cycle 23 (sunspot number of 180).

Monthly sunspot numbers since 1749. Data values are represented by dots while 12-month running average values are shown as red . Sunspot cycle numbers are shown in the shaded area—number 1 starting in the 1755 and number 24 presently drawing to a close.

As the abstract explains:

“The sun exhibits a well-observed modulation in the number of spots on its disk over a period of about 11 years. From the dawn of modern observational astronomy, sunspots have presented a challenge to understanding — their quasi-periodic variation in number, first noted 175 years ago, stimulates community-wide interest to this day. A large number of techniques are able to explain the temporal landmarks, (geometric) shape, and amplitude of sunspot ‘cycles;’ however, forecasting these features accurately in advance remains elusive.

“Recent observationally motivated studies have illustrated a relationship between the sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle and the production of the sunspot cycle landmarks and patterns, but not the amplitude of the sunspot cycle. Using (discrete) Hilbert transforms on more than 270 years of (monthly) sunspot numbers, we robustly identify the so-called ‘termination’ events that mark the end of the previous 11-year sunspot cycle, the enhancement/acceleration of the present cycle, and the end of 22-year magnetic activity cycles. Using these, we extract a relationship between the temporal spacing of terminators and the magnitude of sunspot cycles.

“Given this relationship and our prediction of a terminator event in 2020, we deduce that Sunspot Cycle 25 could have a magnitude that rivals the top few since records began. This outcome would be in stark contrast to the community consensus estimate of Sunspot Cycle 25 magnitude.”

See research paper here:
Overlapping Magnetic Activity Cycles and the Sunspot Number: Forecasting Sunspot Cycle 25 Amplitude
By Scott W. McIntosh, Sandra Chapman, Robert J. Leamon, Ricky Egeland and Nicholas W. Watkins, 14 Oct 2020

Thanks to Ian A Kellman for these links

“How does this affect “global warming, cooling and ice age” if sun plays a major role?” asks Ian. “If there is no Maunder minimum and expected cooling, how do we respond to potential increase of warming when the powers that be see it as anthropogenic, with no regard to the sun .  Food for thought.”

28 thoughts on “Sunspot Cycle 25 Could be Among the Strongest Ever, academic paper concludes”

  1. Sounds like there is an aginda here to try to debunk the declining solar cycles I’m not convince cycle 25 will be a big cycle but only time will tell.

    • NCAR, NOAA, NIST yes they got one of them in Boulder.
      That graph doesn’t look too exiting to me. However I’m a charter member of AFGW, ‘Alaskans for Global Warming’. In the meantime I’m happy to export our precious Cold Pool. Reunite Gondwanaland ! ¶%^}

  2. David, you and I both know that we are entering a 400yo GSM, which at the “very least” will be akin to the Dalton Minimum. However, the odds are that it will be another Maunder Minimum type.
    Thank heavens I have 52 acres of land, just south of Columbia, SC. I’m getting ready to prepare for all this, not for this Old Fart, but for my grandchildren.
    Keep up the Fire!

  3. Complete B.S., if Dr. Zharkova is correct.
    Is there any way to check this group’s prediction on Solar Cycle 24, if they offered one?
    Supposedly 150 experts weighed in on SC 24, with only 2 (including Dr. Zharkova) correctly predicting diminished sunspot activity.

  4. This needs a second opinion from an astrophysicist. The title has me thinking it is a ploy to salvage the global warming narrative.

  5. Just look at the sunspot counts and you can see that most odd peaks are stronger than the even ones, 21 vs 20, 19 vs 18 etc.

    And a linear fitting (or exponential) will show you that the number of sunspots in a thousand years would be infinite.

    For myself I see the sinusoidal trend.

    Unfortunately earths magnetic field drops exponentaly, so the smallest CME would have a rather large impact in a fewnyears.

  6. So I take we are at the bottom of sunspot numbers right now and will soon be seeing an upswing in spots for the next 11 years? The article seems to indicate that if I am understanding correctly. Well if this is true I won’t throw out my shortwave radio, which is nearly useless right now. No ionospheric propagation, so hard to even pick up stations at all. But the biggest problem is most shortwave station are long gone, at least broadcast stations anyway. So the lack of spots creating good long distance propagation is the least of it.

    • …and [expect] will soon be seeing an upswing in spots for the next [5] years or out to 2025, I’m counting on it up here in the Great White North.

    • NASA’s prediction for cycle 24 from May 2009:

      “The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90.”

      Please check your facts before posting.

  7. on the performance so far..low numbers and low flares nothing over the low C at best
    with many inc Nasa saying they expect another equal to or lower cycle 25
    Id not pay this meed
    of course the media will grab and promote this
    co2 AND the sun but mostly co2 ya know.

  8. “Sunspot Cycle 25 Could be Among the Strongest Ever, academic paper concludes”

    Give me a call when they can say “will be” or, in a few years, “was”.

    Any title containing “might”, “could be”, or ending in a question mark, is usually click-bait.

  9. Totally wrong. We’re gonna have a Maunder Minimum for the next 300 years now. There are no big sunspots coming anytime soon. This guy is out for an agenda trying to give more ammunition to the warministas – nothing else.
    Don’t pay attention to him.

  10. People apparently have short memories and people who make predictions appear to be intellectually challenged as well !

    “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle”

    “Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”

    “Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011

    “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,”

    says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

    I separated the sentence to highlight just how wrong the “experts” were – literally missed it by a mile !!

    Let’s see what happens to this current piece of alarmism as well although I always thought these guys say the Sun can’t cause warming above minus 18°C LOL !

    • Alarmism? Predicting an ice age is “alarmism”.

      As this projection has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming, it is just saying “business as usual”. How is that “alarmism”?

  11. Perfect timing for a Biden lockdown – bad carbon, bad carbon! How dare we breath upon your lands committee chair-persons!!
    With that said, please pass the Grey Poupon 🙂

  12. Solar Cycle 23 was also expected to be a big one. That was based on Cycles 17, 18 and 19 and expecting a similar result for 23. I remember a Solar Physicist named Hathaway who was sounding quite confident that 23 would be “superlative” – and it failed miserably. He, at least had a sequence to expect to be repeated.
    Not so, for 25.
    Hathaway did not even “go out on a limb” like these guys! And he was still wrong!

  13. Issues like this solely amount to forecasting. For this reason the only matter of importance is their forecasting record.
    If they don’t have one their forecasts should be filed for later comparison to actual data.

    If this individual does not have a successful forecasting record in these matters he is not to be taken seriously.

    His claims for the moment must be taken a possible obfuscation of the issues without such a record.

  14. Sorry, but it’s NOAA. They are not to be trusted as I’m sure they push only research that will support global warming agenda’s and ignore anything that might give further credence to a GSM!

    • It is not a NOAA paper, and none of the six scientists involved are employed by NOAA. Please don’t make up your own “facts”.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.