1: %%% Astron. Nachrichten, instructions for authors coding with LaTeX2e. V2005.1
2: %%% -MWL- 2006-01-13 auf Verlagswunsch wieder altes Bibliographie-Format
3: %%%
4:
5: \documentclass[mathleft
6: % early%
7: ]{an}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9: \usepackage{times}
10: \usepackage{natbib}
11: \overfullrule5pt
12: \hfuzz 10pt
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \Pagespan{1}{}% Document's page range.
16: % If second parameter is left empty, the last page is computed automatically.
17: \Yearpublication{2007}%
18: \Yearsubmission{2007}%
19: %\Month{xx}%
20: \Volume{328}%
21: \Issue{10}%
22: \Pagespan{1087}{1091}
23: \DOI{10.1002/asna.200710836}%
24:
25:
26: \title{Are solar cycles predictable?}
27:
28: \author{M. Sch{\"u}ssler}
29:
30: \titlerunning{Are solar cycles predictable?}
31: \authorrunning{M. Sch{\"u}ssler}
32: \institute{
33: Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research,
34: 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany}
35:
36: \received{2007 Jul 19}
37: \accepted{2007 Oct 10}
38: \publonline{2007 Dec 15}
39:
40: \keywords{Sun: activity -- Sun: magnetic fields}
41:
42: \abstract{Various methods (or recipes) have been proposed to predict
43: future solar activity levels - with mixed success. Among these, some
44: precursor methods based upon quantities determined around or a few years
45: before solar minimum have provided rather high correlations with the
46: strength of the following cycles. Recently, data assimilation with an
47: advection-dominated (flux-transport) dynamo model has been proposed as a
48: predictive tool, yielding remarkably high correlation coefficients.
49: After discussing the potential implications of these results and the
50: criticism that has been raised, we study the possible physical origin(s)
51: of the predictive skill provided by precursor and other methods. It is
52: found that the combination of the overlap of solar cycles and their
53: amplitude-dependent rise time (Waldmeier's rule) introduces correlations
54: in the sunspot number (or area) record, which account for the
55: predictive skill of many precursor methods. This explanation requires no
56: direct physical relation between the precursor quantity and the dynamo
57: mechanism (in the sense of the Babcock-Leighton scheme or otherwise).}
58:
59: \maketitle
60:
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63:
64: Taken at face value, the question posed in the title has to be answered
65: in the affirmative: one cannot deny that there is on the market a whole
66: lot of predictions of future solar activity levels. A quick (and
67: unsystematic) search in the Smithonian/NASA Astrophysical Data System
68: (ADS) reveals that there are 50\% more hits for the combination of
69: "prediction" and "solar cycle" in title or abstract than for "solar
70: dynamo". In fact, there are alone 281 such hits for publications since
71: 2004 (status: July 16, 2007). Interestingly, the intersection of both
72: sets, i.e., papers dealing both with solar-cycle prediction {\em and}
73: with the solar dynamo comprises less than 5\% of the papers on
74: prediction. This is not very surprising because, until recently, solar
75: dynamo models have not been considered to have reached a state of
76: maturity to be used for predictive purposes.
77:
78: Most prediction methods in the literature can be categorized into one of
79: two classes \citep[cf.][]{Wilson:1994}:
80: %
81: \begin{enumerate}
82: \item {\em Extrapolation methods,} based on statistics
83: or pattern re\-cognition: most relevant information about the system is
84: assumed to be contained in the available data (e.g., the
85: sunspot number record), so that the future can be extrapolated from
86: the past. The simplest example is harmonic analysis
87: \citep[e.g.,][]{Echer:etal:2004}, but also concepts of nonlinear
88: dynamics are used \citep[e.g.,][]{Sello:2001}.
89: \item {\em Precursor methods,} assuming that certain physical quantities
90: measured during the descending or minimum phase of an activity cycle
91: contains information about the strength of the next cycle
92: \citep[e.g.,][]{Lantos:Richard:1998,Hathaway:etal:1999,Schatten:2003}.
93: \end{enumerate}
94: %
95: The overall success of the various methods in predicting the future is
96: rather limited (e.g., see Figure~14.2 in Wilson 1994 and Figure~6 of
97: Lantos \& Richard 1998). However, if the historical record of solar
98: activity is considered, some precursors show remarkable levels of
99: correlation with the strength of the following cycle. For instance,
100: \citet{Ohl:1966} took the minimum level of geomagnetic variations (as
101: measured, for instance, by the {\em aa} index) as a precursor for the
102: strength of the next cycle. This method does not have any adjustable
103: parameters and yet provides a correlation coefficient of $r=0.91$ for
104: solar cycles 12-22 \citep{Hathaway:etal:1999}. The method of
105: \citet{Thompson:1993}, which is also based upon geomagnetic variations,
106: even yielded $r=0.97$ for the same cycles, but utterly failed in actually
107: predicting cycle 23: the predicted value for the sunspot number of
108: $R=160$ turned out to be more than 30\% too high! This result reminds us
109: that a high correlation coefficient for post-dicting the past does not
110: necessarily imply a high skill of the method for predicting the future.
111:
112: \section{Solar cycle predition and dynamo models}
113:
114: The paper by \citet{Schatten:etal:1978} is (to my knowledge) the first
115: paper in which the words "dynamo theory" and "sunspot number prediction"
116: appear together in the title. The authors argue that, in the framework
117: of the Babcock-Leighton dynamo model, the polar magnetic field of the
118: Sun around solar minimum should be a predictor for the strength of the
119: next cycle: since for such models the polar field is thought to reflect
120: the global dipolar poloidal field from which the toroidal field of the
121: next cycle is being generated by differential rotation, the strength (or
122: magnetic flux) of this toroidal field should by higher for a stronger
123: polar field. Since measurements of the polar fields are rather uncertain
124: and consistent data series are available only since a few decades, a
125: stringent test of the suggestion of \citet{Schatten:etal:1978} could not
126: be carried out so far. Various proxies for the polar field have also
127: been considered, but with inconclusive results
128: \citep{Layden:etal:1991}. Nevertheless, the method has been used to
129: predict a rather weak solar cycle 24
130: \citep{Svalgaard:etal:2005,Schatten:2005}.
131:
132: Although they refer to dynamo theory (in fact, to a vague notion of the
133: Babcock-Leighton model), the proponents of the polar field precursor
134: have never actually used a mathematical dynamo model to support their
135: suggestion, neither in the original paper \citep{Schatten:etal:1978}
136: nor in any of the follow-up papers. In a very crude way, such an
137: attempt has been made only very recently by
138: \citet{Choudhuri:etal:2007}. These authors use a Babcock-Leighton-type
139: flux-transport dynamo model and arbitrarily rescale the poloidal field
140: at 4 cycle minima according to measured polar field values (from the
141: Mount Wilson and Wilcox solar observatories). It is not surprising (in
142: fact, almost trivial) that the toroidal fields of the respective
143: following cycles reflect the value of the scaling factor. In fact, any
144: linear or mildly nonlinear model would lead to the same result, so that
145: \citet{Choudhuri:etal:2007} effectively do not go beyond the original
146: suggestion of \citet{Schatten:etal:1978}. This is also demonstrated by
147: \citet{Brandenburg:Kaepylae:2007} who obtain practically the same result
148: with a heavily truncated toy model. Therefore, such a crude
149: approach to `data assimilation' does not provide more information than
150: simple correlation studies and, in particular, does not furnish
151: constraints for dynamo models.
152:
153:
154: The approach of \citet{Dikpati:etal:2006} and
155: \citet{Dikpati:Gilman:2006}, hereafter referred to as the DDG model, is
156: the first serious attempt to use a mean-field dynamo model to predict
157: solar cycle strength. These authors use an axisymmetric
158: (longitude-averaged) flux-transport dynamo model in a spherical shell
159: with a solar-like meridional flow (poleward at the surface) and a low
160: turbulent diffusivity in the convection zone. The differential rotation
161: is chosen according to the helioseismic measurements; it generates
162: toroidal magnetic flux near the bottom of the convection zone, the
163: amount of which which is taken as the predictor quantity. In such
164: models, the dynamo loop is usually closed by assuming an $\alpha$-effect
165: relating the toroidal field to a near-surface source term for the
166: poloidal field. In the DDG model, this kind of closure is replaced by a
167: source term that directly reflects the observed emergence of tilted
168: bipolar magnetic regions: the source with Gaussian latitude profile
169: drifts between 35 deg and 5 deg latitude during a sunspot cycle and its
170: strength is scaled with the historical record of observed sunspot areas
171: since 1876 (RGO data plus extensions since 1976). Through this data
172: assimilation procedure, the source term reflects the actual variations
173: of the flux emergence at the surface and incorporates them into the
174: evolution of the model. The DDG model provides amazingly high
175: correlation coefficients between the amount of low-latitude toroidal
176: magnetic flux in the deep convection zone calculated (`predicted') by
177: the model and the strength (maximum sunspot number) of the corresponding
178: cycle; values up to $r=0.99$ are obtained.
179:
180: The success of the DDG model is surprising given the various assumptions
181: and parametrizations entering the model, for instance: (1) arbitrary
182: prescription of the (unknown) meridional flow pattern in the deep
183: convection zone, (2) a strong radial drop of the turbulent magnetic
184: diffusivity between the surface layers and the deeper parts of the
185: convection zone, (3) schematic prescription of the profile, width and
186: latitude drift of the poloidal field source. This has led
187: \citet{Bushby:Tobias:2007} to argue that the correlations obtained by
188: DDG are either fortuitous or the result of parameter tuning, claiming
189: that it is "impossible to predict the solar cycle using the output of
190: such models". They give two examples to support this claim: a) a
191: flux-transport model with stochastic fluctuations of the meridional
192: flow, and 2) an interface dynamo with a strong nonlinearity
193: (back-reaction on the differential rotation). While the arguments of
194: \citet{Bushby:Tobias:2007} certainly apply to their kind of "ab-initio"
195: dynamo models with a closed dynamo loop, it is not so clear how much
196: weight they carry concerning the data assimilation approach of DDG: in
197: fact, using the observed flux emergence takes account of at least part
198: of the random fluctuations and nonlinearities certainly inherent in
199: working of the solar dynamo, namely those associated with the connection
200: between the toroidal field deep in the convection zone and the surface
201: field. Precisely these variations in the source strength eventually
202: determine the modulation of the cycle amplitudes in the DDG model, but
203: in a non-trivial way (as exemplified by the correctly reproduced drop of
204: activity from cycle 19 to 20, in spite of a strong source amplitude
205: provided by the flux emergence in cycle 19). Other fluctuations, such as
206: variations of the meridional flow, could also be incorporated into the
207: model once sufficiently detailed and extended measurements become
208: available.
209:
210: Even if the claims of \citet{Bushby:Tobias:2007} would apply to
211: the DDG model, the question remains why this model provides such
212: high correlations. Could it really be parameter tuning? This can be
213: tested in a straightforward manner: take the DDG model and use a source
214: with random amplitudes for 12 cycles; then tune the model parameters
215: such that the predictor (toroidal field) reproduces the actual maxima of
216: the last 9 cycles (with a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.95,
217: say). I very much doubt that the DDG model has such a degree of
218: flexibility and I would dare to predict that this will turn out to be an
219: impossible task indeed!
220:
221: So, after all, the DDG model cannot be brushed away off-handedly. We
222: need to understand where its predictive skill comes from, since this
223: might tell us something important about the solar dynamo: for instance,
224: does the evolution of the surface flux during a cycle play a crucial
225: role in the dynamo process (and affect the strength of subsequent
226: cycles) or is it just a superficial epiphenomenon of the hidden dynamo?
227:
228: \section{A simple flux transport model}
229:
230: Given its parametrization of poorly know properties (such as internal
231: meridional flow and turbulent diffusivity), is it conceivable that the
232: details of the interior in fact do not matter for the correlations
233: obtained by DDG? If that would be the case, then a pure surface
234: transport model driven by the same source (emerging flux) as used in the
235: DDG model should already contain and reveal the relevant information.
236: In a recent paper \citep{Cameron:Schuessler:2007}, we have therefore
237: considered a very simple (almost trivial) axisymmetric surface flux
238: transport model for the radial magnetic field component as a function of
239: latitude and time. Flux is fed into the system by a source term
240: analoguous to the DDG source and we follow its subsequent evolution
241: under the influence of a poleward meridional flow and turbulent
242: diffusion. We have considered various quantities as predictors. In the
243: spirit of the Babcock-Leighton model, the amount of magnetic flux
244: diffusing over (or reconnecting at) the equator is the most
245: relevant quantity: only this part of the emerged flux represents the
246: global dipole field that acts as the poloidal field source for the
247: toroidal field of the next cycle. If we match as closely as possible the
248: procedures and parameter choices in the DDG model, we indeed find
249: that the cross-equator flux during cycle $n$ is correlated with the
250: maximum sunspot number of cycle $n+1$ with $r=0.9$. The result turns out
251: to be fairly robust with respect to parameter variations; values up to
252: $r=0.95$ can be reached by `tuning'. Incidentally, taking the polar field
253: strength as a predictor results in much lower correlation coefficients.
254:
255: How do the high correlation doefficient with the cross-equator flux come
256: about? For instance, why is the comparatively weak cycle 20 correctly
257: `predicted' although a large amount of surface flux has emerged during
258: the preceding cycle 19? Fig.~\ref{fig:blowup} explains how this
259: works. The cross-equator magnetic flux peaks a few years before sunspot
260: minimum during the time when the source flux is supplied at low
261: latitudes, so that 1) the distance to the equator is smaller and 2) the
262: meridional flow (antisymmetric to the equator) is less forceful. Both
263: effects lead to a a strongly increasing rate of magnetic flux diffusing
264: over the equator when the source approaches the equator. As a
265: consequence, the amplitude of the predictor is determined by the amount
266: of flux emergence (sunspot area) in the declining phase of the
267: cycle. The relatively high flux emergence during the declining phase of
268: cycle 18 leads to a large value of the predictor for cycle
269: 19. Significantly less flux erupted during this phase in cycle 19, so
270: that the predictor for cycle 20 is lower, although the total flux
271: emergence during cycle 19 is much higher than that of cycle 18. This
272: result already indicates that the predictor could be rather sensitive to
273: the definition of the source latitudes in the model.
274:
275: Having understood that the level of activity a few years before minimum
276: mainly determines the amplitude of the predictor in our simple
277: surface-transport model, we may ask ourselves whether we need the model
278: at all in order to make a prediction. In fact, taking the level of
279: recorded sunspot number three years before minimum and correlating it
280: with the strength of the next maximum for all cycles since 1750 leads to
281: a value of $r=0.89$ for the correlation coefficient.
282:
283: On the other hand, can we possibly improve the flux-transport model? We
284: have detailed information about the areas and latitudes of individual
285: sunspot groups for the whole period since 1874 \citep[RGO, SOON and
286: Russian data, see][]{Balmaceda:etal:2005}, so that we can replace the
287: schematic source term of DDG by a procedure that separately takes into
288: account each sunspot group in the data. The surprising result is a
289: dramatic drop of the correlation between the cross-equator flux and the
290: strength of the following cycle: with $r=0.33$, the predictive skill
291: is almost gone. In fact, the predictor now correlates better with the
292: strength of the ongoing cycle than with the next cycle.
293:
294: \begin{figure}
295: \centering
296: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.9\linewidth]{blowup}
297: \caption{Observed sunspot area (solid curve) and rate of magnetic flux
298: diffusing over the equator (dashed curve), both normalized, for solar
299: cycles 18, 19, and 20. The dotted lines (scale to the right) indicate
300: the latitude drift of the centroid of the Gaussian source term
301: representing flux emergence (progression of the sunspot
302: belt). The cross-equator flux peaks during the decling phase of the
303: cycle, a few years before the minimum epochs, when the source has
304: reached low latitudes \citep[from][]{Cameron:Schuessler:2007}.}
305: \label{fig:blowup}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: \section{The origin of the predictive skill}
309:
310: The results sketched in the previous section leave us with puzzling
311: questions. Why is there predictive skill in the flux-transport model
312: with the schematic source and why does it completely vanish for more
313: realistic input data? Why does the 3-year precursor based upon sunspot
314: numbers work reasonably well? Has any of this anything to do with the
315: Babcock-Leighton dynamo scheme?
316:
317: With the benefit of hindsight, the answer to these questions seems
318: amazingly simple, almost trivial. Let us first remind ourselves that
319: there is a third possibility for the origin of predictive skill in
320: linear models like the DDG approach or ours: besides 1) intrinsic
321: validity of the model and 2) sheer luck or parameter tuning, there could
322: be 3) correlations in the input data themselves. We shall see below that
323: such correlations indeed exist and that they probably are responsible
324: for the correlations obtained with most precursor methods and also with
325: our simple flux-transport model.
326:
327: \begin{figure}[ht!]
328: \centering
329: \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{idea}
330: \caption{Schematic illustration of the amplitude-dependent shift of the
331: minimum between overlapping, asymmetric sunspot cycles and its
332: influence on a precursor quantity (sunspot activity 3 years before
333: minimum). A stronger follower cycle (solid curve) with a shorter rise
334: time leads to an earlier minimum (M1) and a higher predictor (P1) than
335: a weaker subsequent cycle (dashed curve, minimum M2, predictor P2)
336: with a longer rise time. Both alternatives for the follower cycle
337: start at $t=11\,$yr \citep[from][]{Cameron:Schuessler:2007}.
338: }
339: \label{fig:idea}
340: \end{figure}
341:
342: It turns out that a combination of two well-known properties of the solar
343: cycle explains (or, at least, contributes a significant part to) the
344: predictive skill of precursor-type models:
345: %
346: \begin{enumerate}
347: \item {\em overlapping of cycles:} active regions belonging to the
348: new cycle start to appear in mid latitudes while there is ongoing flux
349: emergence near the equator connected with the old cycle.
350: \item {\em Waldmeier's rule:} stronger cycles tend to rise faster towards
351: sunspot maximum \citep{Waldmeier:1935}.
352: \end{enumerate}
353: %
354: The important point is that both properties make the level and the
355: timing of the formal solar minimum (epoch of minimum sunspot number)
356: depend on the strength of the following cycle. This is exactly the
357: correlation in the sunspot number (or area) data that eventually leads
358: to the predictive skill of precursors. Fig.~\ref{fig:idea} illustrates
359: schematically how this comes about. Given are time profiles of
360: overlapping sunspot cycles according to an empirical functional form
361: that reproduces both the rise and decay parts of a cycle, including
362: Waldmeier's rule \citep{Hathaway:etal:1994,Li:1999}. The figure shows
363: the effect of the strength of the following cycle (dotted curves) on the
364: summed activity levels around minimum activity between the cycles. The
365: faster rise of a stronger follower cycle leads to an earlier and higher
366: sunspot minimum in the summed activity curve (solid line) than in the
367: case of a weaker follower cycle (dashed line). In the case shown, the
368: time shift of the minimum epoch is about one year. Since a sunspot cycle
369: is defined as the time between adjacent minima, the activity in the
370: declining phase of the first cycle, (i.e., in a fixed time interval
371: relative to the respective solar minimum epoch) is considerably larger
372: when the follower cycle is stronger than when it it weaker. When a
373: precursor is taken relative to sunspot minimum (e.g., our choice of the
374: sunspot number 3 years before minimum), it is obvious that its level
375: indeed will reflect the strength of the following cycle -- without
376: requiring any kind of direct physical connection between the precursor
377: and the following cycle amplitude.
378:
379: It is clear that the correlation in the input data (sunspot area record)
380: explained above also underlies the predictive skill of our
381: flux-transport model with a schematic source. In this case, we have
382: assumed \citep[following][]{Dikpati:etal:2006} a fixed latitude
383: progression of the source centroid from 35 deg to 5 deg between two
384: sunspot minima. Consequently, in the case of a strong follower cycle,
385: higher activity levels in the descent phase (a few years before
386: minimum) due to the correspondingly earlier minimum epoch are mapped to
387: lower emergence latitudes and, therefore, lead to a higher amount of
388: magnetic flux diffusing over the equator. If we directly take the
389: emerging active regions with their actual emergence latitudes from the
390: available record, then the near-equator flux emergence comes only from
391: the preceding cycle, and thus correlates with its strength. As a
392: consequence, our precursor does not show predictive skill any more and,
393: in fact, only reflects the strength of the `old' cycle. We are not in a
394: position to claim that the same explanation also holds for the
395: correlations found with the DDG model, but this can be tested by
396: replacing their schematic source term by the existing sunspot group data
397: with actual emergence latitudes.
398:
399: Apart from explaining the predictive skill of a many precursor
400: quantities measured during the descent phase or around solar minimum,
401: the overlapping of cycles and Waldmeier's rule also naturally accounts
402: for a number of well-known correlations in the sunspot record, for
403: instance: 1) strong cycles tend to be preceded by short cycles
404: \citep[e.g.,][]{Solanki:etal:2002b}, 2) minimum levels preceding strong
405: cycles tend to be higher \citep{Hathaway:etal:2002}, and 3) more asymmetric
406: cycles tend to be followed by weaker cycles
407: \citep[e.g.,][]{Lantos:2006}.
408:
409: \section{Conclusions}
410:
411: I think that the correlations introduced into the sunspot number and
412: sunspot area records by the combination of cycles overlap and
413: Waldmeier's rule go a long way towards explaining the predictive skill
414: of many precursor approaches as well as the correlations provided by the
415: flux-transport models with a schematic source. Consequently, there is
416: more to these models than just numerology or parameter-tuning. However,
417: the key point is not so much to predict but to {\em understand} the
418: solar cycle. So what have we learned in this respect? Not very much, I
419: am afraid: the correlation introduced by the Waldmeier effect of
420: overlapping cycles does not require any kind of physical relation
421: between the surface fields of the previous cycle(s) and the strength of
422: the following cycle; in particular, it cannot be taken as evidence in
423: favour of a Babcock-Leighton type dynamo model. In fact, it can be shown
424: that precursor methods successfully predict cycle sequences with
425: randomly varying strength \citep{Cameron:Schuessler:2007}. On the other
426: hand, these results do not exclude a physical connection between
427: precursor and following cycle strength. For instance, the precursors
428: could also be affected by flux emergence in high latitudes, e.g., in the
429: form of ephemeral regions preceding the appearance of the first sunspots
430: of the new cycle \citep[e.g.,][]{Harvey:1993,Harvey:1994a}, so that the
431: new cycle would already directly affect the surface flux during the
432: descending phase of the old cycle. These all remain valid possibilities,
433: it is only that the predictive skill of precursor methods per se does
434: not help us to decide which of these is in fact realised by the Sun.
435:
436: In all such considerations we should not forget that all the
437: relationships that may be used for prediction are `noisy' and thus valid
438: only in a statistical sense. The existence of grand minima like the
439: Maunder minimum reminds us that the Sun has much more variability in
440: store than simple statistical analysis of sunspot data would be able to
441: predict. And even if a prediction method has a good correlation record
442: for the past, it may completely fail for the next cycle. The split
443: opinion of the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle 24 Prediction panel\footnote{see
444: http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24} about whether the coming cycle
445: would be high or low provides a good illustration about the `state of
446: the art' -- and may actually reflect intrinsic limitations as
447: illustrated by the examples given by \citet{Bushby:Tobias:2007}.
448:
449: So, where do we stand now concerning the question in the title? We have
450: seen that, owing to the cycle overlap and the Waldmeier effect,
451: predictor methods can obtain relevant information about the new cycle at
452: the epoch around solar minimum. However, the underlying statistical
453: relationships contain a significant amount of scatter, so that actual
454: predictions are uncertain, as their mixed performance in the past
455: clearly shows. The skill of such predictor schemes does not seem to
456: provide constraints or relevant information about the working of the
457: solar dynamo, apart from the trivial fact that a valid dynamo model
458: ultimately will have to reproduce and explain the underlying
459: correlations. Ever since reading the paper of
460: \citet{Legrand:Simon:1981}, I had hoped that there would be more to
461: learn.
462:
463: In order to end on a more positive note, let me say that, of course, the
464: last word on these matters is not spoken. It may turn out, after all,
465: that the data assimilation model of \citet{Dikpati:etal:2006} and
466: \citet{Dikpati:Gilman:2006} will pass with flying flags the crucial test
467: of using the actual flux emergence events in its source - and that these
468: results will be independently confirmed by others and without excessive
469: parameter tuning. Then sceptics like \citet{Bushby:Tobias:2007} or
470: \citet{Cameron:Schuessler:2007} would have a hard time to search for
471: sources of the predictive skill other than the operation of a
472: Babcock-Leighton-type dynamo. It would also be worthwhile to look for
473: signatures of the new cycle during the post-maximum phase (or even
474: before) of the ongoing cycle, e.g., by monitoring flux emergence and the
475: evolution of large-scale magnetic patterns in mid/high latitudes and
476: compare with surface flux-transport simulations. Observational data
477: from SOLIS, Hinode, SDO and eventually Solar Orbiter will be
478: particularly suitable for this purpose. A positive detection of such
479: signatures could possibly extend the lead time for solar cycle
480: prediction using precursors.
481:
482:
483: %\acknowledgements
484:
485: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
486: %\bibliography{journals,papref}
487:
488: \bibliography{pap.bbl}
489:
490: %\begin{thebibliography}{}
491: %\end{thebibliography}
492:
493:
494: \end{document}
495:
496: