Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.09.018Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The method of solar activity prediction by Popova et al. contains fundamental flaws.

  • It is unreliable from the point of view of signal processing and lacks quality control.

  • The post-diction result contradicts the observational data.

  • The results of prediction cannot be trusted.

Abstract

The paper by Popova et al. presents an oversimplified mathematical model of solar activity with a claim of predicting/postdicting it for several millennia ahead/backwards. The work contains several flaws devaluating the results: (1) the method is unreliable from the point of view of signal processing (it is impossible to make harmonic predictions for thousands of years based on only 35 years of data) and lacks quality control; (2) the result of post-diction apparently contradicts the observational data. (3) theoretical speculations make little sense. To summarize, a multi-harmonic mathematical model, hardly related to full solar dynamo theory, is presented, which is not applicable to realistic solar conditions because of the significant chaotic/stochastic intrinsic component and strong non-stationarity of solar activity. The obtained result is apparently inconsistent with the data in the past and thus cannot be trusted for the future predictions.

Introduction

I was invited by a Guest Editor of the Topical Issue “Future solar activity” of JASTP journal to review the paper by Popova et al. (2017, denoted as P17 henceforth). Unfortunately, because of an unexpected technical problem with the publisher's online system, my review was lost during the manuscript processing and was not formally accounted for by the Editors when evaluating the P17 paper. However, it appears important to inform the scientific community about this review and, specifically, about scientific problems related to the P17 paper. This small Comment is written on the basis of the lost review and summarizes important flaws in the analysis method and results, published by P17.

Section snippets

The method

P17 aims to predict solar activity for 3000 year. The prediction method is based on a simple three-harmonic model of solar activity (two dipole and one quadruple components). The dipole components are periodic with frequencies being close to each other (21.41 and 22.62 years), which leads to a beating frequency of about 350–400 years. These dipole components were “defined” elsewhere (Zharkova et al., 2015) from a 35-year long set of solar data. However, as known from data processing,

Validation of the results

The result of the P17 paper factually voids the prediction by Zharkova et al. (2015) as appears obvious from Figs. 2 and 3 of P17, and the authors should have said clearly that their earlier results were not correct. However, even the new result disagrees with the available data for the last centuries. While the authors did not show a direct comparison between their results and other direct/indirect data on solar activity, I do it here in Fig. 1 for decadally averaged data (modulus of the final

Theoretical speculations

Theoretical speculations by P17 make little sense and are hardly relevant. The ad-hoc introduced quadruple component is vague. The authors wanted to add a third harmonic component to their model, but it is ungrounded why it should be a quadruple mode. The authors state that they are unable to find this mode in the real solar magnetic data and introduce it just out of the blue. Moreover, substituting the full dynamo equations with equations for “selected modes” is a dangerous exercise which can

Summary

Accordingly, as discussed above, the paper P17 contains several flaws which make the prediction of solar activity for the next thousands years unreliable.

  • The method of P17 is based on an oversimplified and unreliable ad-hoc multi-harmonic representation of solar activity, and lacks quality control. In particular, the background solar dataset (35 years) does not allow determination of periodicities with sufficient accuracy to justify the beating period of 400 years. It is therefore impossible to

Acknowledgement

This work was made in the framework of ReSoLVE Centre of Excellence (Academy of Finland, project no. 272157).

References (18)

  • I.G. Usoskin et al.

    Correlation between clouds at different altitudes and solar activity: fact or Artifact?

    J. Atmosph. Sol.-Terr. Phys.

    (2006)
  • J. Beer et al.

    Cosmogenic Radionuclides: Theory and Applications in the Terrestrial and Space Environments

    (2012)
  • F. Clette et al.

    Revisiting the sunspot number: a 400-year perspective on the solar cycle

    Space Sci. Rev.

    (2014)
  • W. Ebisuzaki

    A method to estimate the statistical significance of a correlation when the data are serially correlated

    J. Clim.

    (1997)
  • D.V. Hoyt et al.

    Group sunspot numbers: a new solar activity reconstruction

    Sol. Phys.

    (1998)
  • F. Inceoglu et al.

    Grand solar minima and maxima deduced from 10be and 14c: magnetic dynamo configuration and polarity reversal

    Astron. Astrophys.

    (2015)
  • M. Kremliovsky

    Limits of predictability of solar activity

    Sol. Phys.

    (1995)
  • R. Muscheler et al.

    The revised sunspot record in comparison to cosmogenic radionuclide-based solar activity reconstructions

    Sol. Phys.

    (2016)
  • M. Ogurtsov et al.

    Long-period cycles of the sun's activity recorded in direct solar data and proxies

    Sol. Phys.

    (2002)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (7)

  • The Spörer minimum was deep

    2019, Advances in Space Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Extrapolation of the model to the past showed that the 15-16th centuries did not experience a solar minimum but was a period of high activity comparable to that in the 20th century (Popova et al., 2018, Zharkova et al., 2018). The findings of Popova et al. (2018), practically cancelling the SM, have been also seriously criticized (Usoskin, 2018). Considering the above controversy it seems rather useful to study solar activity during the Spoerer minimum in more detail.

  • Reply to comment on the paper “ on a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles” by Usoskin (2017)

    2018, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    In this communication we provide answers to the comments by Dr. Usoskin (Usoskin, 2017, referred hereafter as U17) to our paper (Popova et al., 2017a, referred hereafter as PZSZ17).

  • Solar cycle prediction

    2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text