Solar Physics

, 292:95 | Cite as

Shannon Entropy-Based Prediction of Solar Cycle 25

  • Bharati Kakad
  • Amar Kakad
  • Durbha Sai Ramesh


A new model is proposed to forecast the peak sunspot activity of the upcoming solar cycle (SC) using Shannon entropy estimates related to the declining phase of the preceding SC. Daily and monthly smoothed international sunspot numbers are used in the present study. The Shannon entropy is the measure of inherent randomness in the SC and is found to vary with the phase of an SC as it progresses. In this model each SC with length \(T_{\mathrm{cy}}\) is divided into five equal parts of duration \(T_{\mathrm{cy}}/5\). Each part is considered as one phase, and they are sequentially termed P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5. The Shannon entropy estimates for each of these five phases are obtained for the \(n\)th SC starting from \(n=10\,\mbox{--}\,23\). We find that the Shannon entropy during the ending phase (P5) of the \(n\)th SC can be efficiently used to predict the peak smoothed sunspot number of the \((n+1)\)th SC, i.e. \(S_{\mathrm{max}}^{n+1}\). The prediction equation derived in this study has a good correlation coefficient of 0.94. A noticeable decrease in entropy from 4.66 to 3.89 is encountered during P5 of SCs 22 to 23. The entropy value for P5 of the present SC 24 is not available as it has not yet ceased. However, if we assume that the fall in entropy continues for SC 24 at the same rate as that for SC 23, then we predict the peak smoothed sunspot number of 63±11.3 for SC 25. It is suggested that the upcoming SC 25 will be significantly weaker and comparable to the solar activity observed during the Dalton minimum in the past.


Solar cycle Sunspots Models 



We thank the SIDC, SILSO team for the daily international sunspot data. This work is carried out under the Project ITAG-EMG(GV) of IIG, India.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Bapanayya, C., Raju, P., Sharma, S.D., Ramesh, D.: 2011, Information theory-based measures of similarity for imaging shallow-mantle discontinuities. Lithosphere 3(4), 289.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carbone, A., Castelli, G., Stanley, H.: 2004, Analysis of clusters formed by the moving average of a long-range correlated time series. Phys. Rev. E 69(2), 026105.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clilverd, M.A., Clarke, E., Ulich, T., Rishbeth, H., Jarvis, M.J.: 2006, Predicting solar cycle 24 and beyond. Space Weather 4(9), S09005.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Das Sharma, S., Ramesh, D., Bapanayya, C., Raju, P.: 2012, Sea surface temperatures in cooler climate stages bear more similarity with atmospheric CO2 forcing. J. Geophys. Res., Atmos. 117(D13), D13110.  DOI. ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. De Michelis, P., Consolini, G., Materassi, M., Tozzi, R.: 2011, An information theory approach to the storm-substorm relationship. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 116(A8), A08225.  DOI. ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. de Toma, G., Gibson, S., Emery, B., Arge, C.: 2010, The minimum between cycle 23 and 24: Is sunspot number the whole story? In: SOHO-23: Understanding a Peculiar Solar Minimum 428, 217. ADS. Google Scholar
  7. Dikpati, M., Charbonneau, P.: 1999, A Babcock–Leighton flux transport dynamo with solar-like differential rotation. Astrophys. J. 518(1), 508.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dikpati, M., Gilman, P.A.: 2008, Global solar dynamo models: Simulations and predictions. J. Astrophys. Astron. 29(1 – 2), 29.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dikpati, M., De Toma, G., Gilman, P.A.: 2006, Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a flux-transport dynamo-based tool. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33(5), L05102.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emmert, J., Lean, J., Picone, J.: 2010, Record-low thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37(12), L12102.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ermolli, I., Matthes, K., Dudok de Wit, T., Krivova, N.A., Tourpali, K., Weber, M., Unruh, Y.C., Gray, L., Langematz, U., Pilewskie, P., et al.: 2013, Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13(8), 3945.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feynman, J.: 1982, Geomagnetic and solar wind cycles, 1900 – 1975. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 87(A8), 6153.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gkana, A., Zachilas, L.: 2015, Sunspot numbers: Data analysis, predictions and economic impacts. J. Eng. Sci. Tech. Rev. 8, 79. Google Scholar
  14. Gkana, A., Zachilas, L.: 2016, Re-evaluation of predictive models in light of new data: Sunspot number version 2.0. Solar Phys. 291, 2457.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hajra, R., Tsurutani, B.T., Echer, E., Gonzalez, W.D.: 2014, Relativistic electron acceleration during high-intensity, long-duration, continuous AE activity (HILDCAA) events: Solar cycle phase dependences. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(6), 1876.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hao, Y., Shi, H., Xiao, Z., Zhang, D.: 2014, Weak ionization of the global ionosphere in solar cycle 24. In: Annales Geophysicae 32, 809. Copernicus GmbH.  DOI. Google Scholar
  17. Hathaway, D.H.: 2010, The solar cycle. Living Rev. Solar Phys. 7(1), 1.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hathaway, D.H., Wilson, R.M.: 2004, What the sunspot record tells us about space climate. Solar Phys. 224(1 – 2), 5.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hathaway, D.H., Wilson, R.M.: 2006, Geomagnetic activity indicates large amplitude for sunspot cycle 24. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33(18), L18101.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janardhan, P., Bisoi, S.K., Ananthakrishnan, S., Tokumaru, M., Fujiki, K., Jose, L., Sridharan, R.: 2015, A 20 year decline in solar photospheric magnetic fields: Inner-heliospheric signatures and possible implications. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120(7), 5306.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kakad, B.: 2011, A new method for prediction of peak sunspot number and ascent time of the solar cycle. Solar Phys. 270(1), 393.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kakad, B., Kakad, A., Ramesh, D.S.: 2015, A new method for forecasting the solar cycle descent time. J. Space Weather Space Clim. 5, A29.  DOI. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane, R.: 2007, A preliminary estimate of the size of the coming solar cycle 24, based on Ohl’s precursor method. Solar Phys. 243(2), 205.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Materassi, M., Wernik, A., Yordanova, E.: 2007, Determining the verse of magnetic turbulent cascades in the Earth’s magnetospheric cusp via transfer entropy analysis: Preliminary results. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 14(2), 153.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McComas, D., Ebert, R., Elliott, H., Goldstein, B., Gosling, J., Schwadron, N., Skoug, R.: 2008, Weaker solar wind from the polar coronal holes and the whole Sun. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35(18), L18103.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mundt, M.D., Maguire, W.B., Chase, R.R.P.: 1991, Chaos in the sunspot cycle: Analysis and prediction. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 96(A2), 1705.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muñoz-Jaramillo, A., Dasi-Espuig, M., Balmaceda, L.A., DeLuca, E.E.: 2013, Solar cycle propagation, memory, and prediction: Insights from a century of magnetic proxies. Astrophys. J. Lett. 767(2), L25.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ohl, A.: 1966, Wolf’s number prediction for the maximum of the cycle 20. Soln. Dannye 12, 84. Google Scholar
  29. Pesnell, W.D.: 2008, Predictions of solar cycle 24. Solar Phys. 252(1), 209.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pesnell, W.D.: 2014, Predicting solar cycle 24 using a geomagnetic precursor pair. Solar Phys. 289(6), 2317.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesnell, W.D.: 2016, Predictions of solar cycle 24: How are we doing? Space Weather 14(1), 10.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pishkalo, M.I.: 2014, Prediction of solar cycle 24 using sunspot number near the cycle minimum. Solar Phys. 289(5), 1815.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price, C.P., Prichard, D., Hogenson, E.A.: 1992, Do the sunspot numbers form a “chaotic” set? J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 97(A12), 19113.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott, D.W.: 1979, On optimal and data-based histograms. Biometrika 66, 605. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Shannon, C.E.: 1948, A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Solomon, S.C., Qian, L., Burns, A.G.: 2013, The anomalous ionosphere between solar cycles 23 and 24. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118(10), 6524.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Svalgaard, L., Kamide, Y.: 2012, Asymmetric solar polar field reversals. Astrophys. J. 763(1), 23.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Svalgaard, L., Cliver, E.W., Kamide, Y.: 2005, Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years? Geophys. Res. Lett. 32(1), L01104.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, R.: 1993, A technique for predicting the amplitude of the solar cycle. Solar Phys. 148(2), 383.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tripathy, S.C.: 2016, Predictions of solar cycle. Asian J. Phys. 25, 387. ADS. ADSGoogle Scholar
  41. Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S., Kovaltsov, G.: 2007, Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints. Astron. Astrophys. 471(1), 301.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S., Kovaltsov, G.: 2011, Grand minima of solar activity during the last millennia. Proc. Int. Astron. Union 7(S286), 372.  DOI. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vichare, G., Bhaskar, A., Ramesh, D.S.: 2016, Are the equatorial electrojet and the Sq coupled systems? transfer entropy approach. Adv. Space Res. 57(9), 1859.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wallis, K.: 2006, A note on the calculation of entropy from histograms. Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, R.M.: 1990, On the level of skill in predicting maximum sunspot number: A comparative study of single variate and bivariate precursor techniques. Solar Phys. 125(1), 143.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zachilas, L., Gkana, A.: 2015, On the verge of a grand solar minimum: A second Maunder minimum? Solar Phys. 290(5), 1457.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao, L.-L., Qin, G.: 2013, An observation-based GCR model of heavy nuclei: Measurements from CRIS onboard ACE spacecraft. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118(5), 1837.  DOI. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of GeomagnetismNavi MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations