Will Solar Cycles 25 and 26 Be Weaker than Cycle 24?

Abstract

The study of variations in solar activity is important for understanding the underlying mechanism of solar activity and for predicting the level of activity in view of the activity impact on space weather and global climate. Here we have used the amplitudes (the peak values of the 13-month smoothed international sunspot number) of Solar Cycles 1 -24 to predict the relative amplitudes of the solar cycles during the rising phase of the upcoming Gleissberg cycle. We fitted a cosine function to the amplitudes and times of the solar cycles after subtracting a linear fit of the amplitudes. The best cosine fit shows overall properties (periods, maxima, minima, etc.) of Gleissberg cycles, but with large uncertainties. We obtain a pattern of the rising phase of the upcoming Gleissberg cycle, but there is considerable ambiguity. Using the epochs of violations of the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule (G-O rule) and the 'tentative inverse G-O rule' of solar cycles during the period 1610 -2015, and also using the epochs where the orbital angular momentum of the Sun is steeply decreased during the period 1600 -2099, we infer that Solar Cycle 25 will be weaker than Cycle 24. Cycles 25 and 26 will have almost same strength, and their epochs are at the minimum between the current and upcoming Gleissberg cycles. In addition, Cycle 27 is expected to be stronger than Cycle 26 and weaker than Cycle 28, and Cycle 29 is expected to be stronger than both Cycles 28 and 30. The maximum of Cycle 29 is expected to represent the next Gleissberg maximum. Our analysis also suggests a much lower value (30 -40) for the maximum amplitude of the upcoming Cycle 25.

The Current State and Future Directions of Modeling Thermosphere Density Enhancements During Extreme Magnetic Storms

“…Finally, recent studies suggest that solar activity of SC25 will be approximately the same as the solar activity of SC24 (e.g., Javaraiah, 2017). However, McIntos et al (2020 predict that SC25 will not only be stronger than SC24, but SC25 will rival the magnitude of the strongest SCs on record.…”

“…However, McIntos et al (2020 predict that SC25 will not only be stronger than SC24, but SC25 will rival the magnitude of the strongest SCs on record. Additionally, Javaraiah (2017) suggests that the transition between SC25 and SC26 will coincide with the end of the current Gleissberg cycle. The Gleisseberg cycle is characterized by the periodic occurrences of solar maxima every 77-88 years or so (Gleissberg, 1967;Feynman and Ruzmaikin, 2014).…”

“Obstanovka” experiment on determining spacecraft surface charging aboard the International Space Station

“…This prediction supports the thesis for the beginning of a new grand solar minimum in 21 st century. Some authors suggestthat this grand minimum should be of centurial type as the Gleissberg minimum (1898-1924AD), while according to other ones it should be of Dalton-type [Abdussamatov, 2004;Javaraiah, 2017] or even of Maunder-type . By authors opinion the new grand solar minimum is of Dalton-type due to the circumstance that it is related to the downward and near minimum phase of quasi 200 yr deVries-Suess solar cycle [ see Komitov, 2021 and cites therein].…”

The European Beech Annual Tree Ring Widths Time Series, Solar–Climatic Relationships and Solar Dynamo Regime Changes

“…As of today (March 2021), this indirect forecast for cycle 24 can be considered successful. Its average annual maximum, which is manifested in the classical index Ri ≈ 80 in the new system introduced on 1 July 2015 [60], corresponds to Sn ≈ 120. It represents the weakest Schwabe-Wolf cycle, at least after cycle 14 (SC14; 1902-1913) and, very likely, after cycle 6 (SC6; 1810-1823) during the Dalton Minimum.…”

“…According to this determination the new epoch of low sunspot activity in 21st century will be super-centurial (Dalton type minimum) too. (Next 200 year minimum in 2060-2070 AD [60]; the violation of G-O rule is a fact for the pair SC22-SC23 [61] and may will be for the pair sunspot cycles SC24-SC25 [49] (see also Figure 9).…”