Method uses the Ap geomagnetic index, which has been in a slump since October 2005:
The Hockey Schtick tips us to a paper published today in Advances in Space Research predicts that if the current lull in solar activity “endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling.”
The graph they produced with the paper:
The author uses a new “empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index” of solar geomagnetic activity to predict sunspot activity several years in advance.
The author notes solar activity has been at a higher level in the 20th century saying”
“the Sun has emerged from a Grand Maximum, which includes solar cycle 19, the most active solar cycle in the last 400 years. Earth was cooler in Grand Minima. The trend line indicates we have entered a period of low solar activity.”
Note the red horizontal line on the graph show 50-year mean solar activity was at the highest levels of the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.
The author also has a slide show that has some interesting elements. For example, here is their TCQP of the Ap Index:
They summarize:
The paper:
An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle
H.S. Ahluwalia University of New Mexico, Department of Physics & Astronomy
Abstract
The common methodologies used to predict the smooth sunspot number (SSN) at peak (Rmax) and the rise time (Tr) for a cycle are noted. The estimates based on geomagnetic precursors give the best prediction of Rmax for five SSN cycles (20-24). In particular, an empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index has made accurate predictions of Rmax and Tr for two consecutive SSN cycles (23 and 24). The dynamo theories are unable to account for TCQP. If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling. The current status of the ascending phase of cycle 24 is described and the delayed reversal of the solar polar field reversal in the southern hemisphere in September 2013 is noted.
Open access here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007473
Annual Mean Sunspot Numbers
Leif
so you may have cause and effect reversed
Very strange then that HMF increased after 1990 and temp also increased.
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 9:48 am
Very strange then that HMF increased after 1990 and temp also increased.
1: HMF has decreased since 1990
2: temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades
3: coincidences on short time scales are not strange
Cosmic rays seem to be interacting enough to produce beryllium that it gets deposited in layers of ice. So, can cosmic ray interaction overpower solar wind during weak solar cycles?
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm
“more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases.” [Climate, weather].
Or a possible 50-65 year lag which I mentioned above.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:22 am
Cosmic rays seem to be interacting enough to produce beryllium that it gets deposited in layers of ice. So, can cosmic ray interaction overpower solar wind during weak solar cycles?
The cosmic rays reaching the Earth are controlled by the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field [stronger field = less cosmic rays]. weak cycles = weaker field.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
Or a possible 50-65 year lag which I mentioned above.
No, there is no lag for the 10Be production except the 1-year lag it takes to fill the heliosphere with solar wind.
Leif
Sorry, I was looking at your fig.10.
“temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades”
Don’t be silly, http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1990/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1990/mean:12/normalise/plot/wti/from:1990/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1990/normalise/trend
“coincidences on short time scales are not strange”
Ok, puzzling then, like the 1880-1900 period.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:30 am
The cosmic rays reaching the Earth are controlled by the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field [stronger field = less cosmic rays]. weak cycles = weaker field.
I understand this, tho, it suggests that 10Be production weakens or stops altogether during high solar activity, which I know cant be, there is still cosmic rays interacting with the suns magnetic field even at times when it’s stronger, therefor there is still 10Be production taken place, most likely further out in the solar system, I would even suggest that 10Be production increases when the suns magnetic field is stronger and that the 10Be gets deposited during times when the suns magnetic field is weaker, and this causes the increase in 10Be concentration.
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:49 am
“temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1998/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/mean:12/normalise/plot/wti/from:1998/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/normalise/trend
“coincidences on short timescales are not strange”
Ok, puzzling then, like the 1880-1900 period.
Why puzzling? HMF decreasing, temps flat. Why is that strange? on such short timescales it is not climate to begin with. Perhaps mother Nature is just telling you that your ideas are wrong.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:58 am
I would even suggest that 10Be production increases when the suns magnetic field is stronger and that the 10Be gets deposited during times when the suns magnetic field is weaker
Unfortunately, Ma Nature does not listen to your suggestions. It is the other way around.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:05 am
“Unfortunately, Ma Nature…”
Is that your way of giving an answer without saying that 10Be production weakens or stops altogether during high solar activity??. I think 10Be production continues during high solar activity and is deposited in greater consideration during weaker solar activity. Which has a lag of around 50-65 years, I don’t believe it is due to “[Climate, weather]”.
*consideration = concentration, Freudian slip 😉
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:22 am
“Unfortunately, Ma Nature…”
Is that your way of giving an answer
That is my way of telling you that 10Be production is weaker at high solar activity and that the deposition is a direct consequence of production [if we ignore the slow change of the Earth’s magnetic field and any climate effect]: produce twice as much and twice as much is deposited. And that there is abound a 1 year lag, no more.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
“10Be production is weaker at high solar activity and that the deposition is a direct consequence of production.”
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the production of 10Be takes place further out in the solar system and as solar activity decreases the deposition of 10Be increases.
Your suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production, the magnetic field is still there and the cosmic rays are still there, it makes logical sense that 10Be production is still there.
Leif
“Some cosmic ray experts think that part of the variation is CAUSED by climate changes”
Isn’t that supposed to mean, lower temperature -> higher pseudo-neutron monitor count, in your fig.10? After 1990 it has been the opposite, higher temp -> higher pseudo-neutron monitor count.
So which is it?
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:50 am
So which is it?
I don’t think there is any evidence that the cosmic ray flux and the temperature are related in any way.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:49 am
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the production of 10Be takes place further out in the solar system and as solar activity decreases the deposition of 10Be increases.
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the stronger solar wind keeps some cosmic rays away from entering the inner solar system. As solar activity decreases, more cosmic rays enter the inner solar system [after a lag of 1 year] and more 10Be is produced. The 10Be produced is directly deposited [after a further delay of 1-2 years], so that the deposition simply follows the production. The climate can interfere with this because most of the 10Be is produced elsewhere and must be transported [by atmospheric circulation] to the polar regions to be deposited on the ice. This climate effect can be as large or larger than the solar modulation.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:59 am
“10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the stronger solar wind keeps some cosmic rays away from entering the inner solar system.”
You’re still suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production,
Leif Sparks seems to have no inkling of how 10Be is produced in the atmosphere by spallation.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
You’re still suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production
I’m telling you that at high solar activity the solar magnetic field keeps some [a few percent] of the cosmic rays away. This lowers the 10Be production. No magic ‘switch’, but well a magic small modulation of what comes in, so instead of [say] 6000 cosmic ray counts per hour we get only 5500 counts.
Sparks When solar activity is high the stronger solar magnetic field prevents the Cosmic rays from outside the solar system from entering the earths atmosphere where 10 Be is created by breaking down oxygen and nitrogen.
This is the on off switch or rather high low switch.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm
This is the on off switch or rather high low switch.
Except that the solar modulation is only a few percent of the cosmic ray flux, so a ‘switch’ is perhaps a stretch.
Participants in the above discussion may benefit from reading this paper
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Field_etal_2.pdf
extract: Beryllium-10 (and 7Be) are produced mainly in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere; after production, 10Be and 7Be are rapidly scavenged by aerosols (primarily sulfates). The average residence time in the lower stratosphere is 1 to 2 Eventually the aerosols descend into the lower troposphere where they are deposited at the surface by both dry (turbulent) and wet (precipitation related) processes.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Leif Sparks seems to have no inkling of how 10Be is produced in the atmosphere by spallation.
Calm down there Norman, Earth isn’t the only magnetic field in the solar-system 😉
Obviously, there is a misunderstanding about what I’m trying to get across, I’ll leave it for now as its bed time here, and I have a feeling that I’m about to be lynched… 🙂
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Obviously, there is a misunderstanding about what I’m trying to get across, I’ll leave it for now as its bed time here, and I have a feeling that I’m about to be lynched… 🙂
On my part there is no misunderstanding. I think you are trying to push your theory and don’t like what you are hearing. Unfortunately, that is how Nature works, like it or not.