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
Nice to see the Academics finally getting around to forecasting cooling via quasi periodic patterns.
The projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.
How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required. It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi- independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.
A simple rational approach to climate forecasting based on common sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns has been developed on several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
There has been no net warming for 16 years indeed the earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003 which will continue until about 2035 and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that. For estimates of the timing and amount of the coming cooling based on the empirical 60 and 1000 year quasi periodicities and the neutron count data see the link above.
Obama’s and Britain’s Climate and Energy policy is based on the IPCC’s delusional fantasies of future warming.
Leif is still stuck on the last ison thread waiting for me to reply,
When Leif says this paper is wrong \ baseless speculation. I’d agree
meemoe_uk says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Leif is still stuck on the last ison thread waiting for me to reply,
>>>>>
I call him Dr. S., out of respect.
(The “S” stands for what I want it to stand for….)
It can’t be so, we have after all ‘settled science’ of the IPCC.
/sarc off
Can’t I go out to eat?
We can reconstruct the Ap-index back to at least 1844. Here is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png.
Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously.
Right or wrong in paper. Future will tell. But what’s been known for at least 70 years is that there will be a minimum within 2043-2343. There is a statistic discrepence which if one uses more traditional methods including placing a Chebysjev -thesis +/- on gives a different conclusion: 2043-2343. The big question isn’t the effects. Back in history of Earth Ice Ages always follows within a few year.
The big question isn’t a Domeday-question, but a more practical one – do we understand the impacts which it will have on our energy-depending society of today. What I mean is can we who live today prepare for colder period, short or long, so people will have heat and food enough for periods where today’s energy-system might fail to be effective… We humans could place a man on the moon, but can we live for longer periods than a month with ineffective or non existing electric energy due to break downs? Our ancestors could. Can we?
Already this thread is being taken over by the two assholes, geran and meemo_UK. It is getting disgusting to have to even see your names on the comment list. Since they do nothing to contribute to the subject discussion but rather engage in the tiresome bashing of Dr S, I suggest they be ignored. .
sunspot number was very high just a week or two ago
If the climate starts cooling, don’t be so sure that we will be rid of the climate activists who want to seize control of the world’s energy industries. I remember reading that during the 1970’s cooling scare the climate activists wanted to take drastic steps to reduce use of fossil fuels so that they would still be around to keep us warm during the upcoming ice age. As the saying goes, when you have a hammer …
Tom in Florida says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Already this thread is being taken over by the two assholes, geran and meemo_UK. It is getting disgusting to have to even see your names on the comment list. Since they do nothing to contribute to the subject discussion but rather engage in the tiresome bashing of Dr S, I suggest they be ignored. .
>>>>>>>>>>>
This “Tom” disrespects science, and has nothing to contribute other than her tireless sycophancy. Rather than ignoring her, I suggest we honor and appreciate her display of arrogance and tyranny as an example that none of us would want to live by.
Too bad I won’t be around in 2050, unless they develop a cure for aging. And, knowing the way I am, they’d probably withhold it from me anyway.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm
This “Tom” disrespects science, and has nothing to contribute other than her tireless sycophancy.
To my recollection you have never contributed anything worthwhile, so perhaps it is not appropriate for you to judge other’s contributions. You can stop doing that right now.
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:44 pm
…”To my recollection you have never contributed anything worthwhile, so perhaps it is not appropriate for you to judge other’s contributions. You can stop doing that right now.”
>>>>>>
Don’t fret Dr. S, I can help your recollection. Maybe 7-8 weeks ago when I pointed out the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not support CAGW. You tried to deny, but stuck your foot in your mouth. (Not an uncommon occurrence, heh?)
Hey Dr S (I know you’re out there) check Oct 19th WUWT open thread. Be there or be square.
Let me know if you need any more help.
The 2050 target is way too late, it’ll be recovering by solar cycle 26.
Wow, the sun matters?
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Maybe 7-8 weeks ago when I pointed out the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not support CAGW.
I don’t think that is worthwhile, and certainly on this and recent threads there have not been any substantive comment. All we get from you are silly attempts to put others in bad light. Perhaps it is time to stop doing that.
UnfrozenCavemanMD has already answered for me, but I’ll expand on his response. I have been thinking for myself. I’ve looked at the information and considered the arguments presented. As I said, I found them convincing. I also said “If he’s right” to allow for the possibility that there is a different explanation, because it’s always possible to make a mistake.
My question was if he’s right then would that invalidate the paper? That’s more thinking for myself.
What I’d like to know is why your thought I wasn’t thinking for myself? Was it because I agreed with something that you disagree with? Or is the person whose idea I’m agreeing with that you don’t agree with? In either case, that’s not a scientific approach. I’m happy to read an explanation of why Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion on the non-existence of a “20th Century Grand Maximum” is wrong, but you’ll need to show me where I can find the counter arguments.
If that’s your response to the question, then I will now think for myself and consider your argument… Okay, finished thinking. I found your argument unconvincing. Indeed, I find it to be complete nonsense.
I don’t think that is worthwhile, and certainly on this and recent threads there have not been any substantive comment. All we get from you are silly attempts to put others in bad light. Perhaps it is time to stop doing that.
>>>>>>
So, in your world, you get to define what is worthwhile, or not? That would be a cool world to live in, but sorry, we live in a REAL world.
You must take responsibility for what you say. If you are wrong, and you ‘fess up to it, you get to go again. If you are wrong, but you try to “spin” out of it, then you are a LIAR. Sorry, but I don’t make the rules.
You were busted Oct 19.
Show where I have ever lied.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:45 pm
You were busted Oct 19.
Show where I have ever lied.
Incompetent people often have an inflated opinion of themselves, you included.
So we are still doomed.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
“…If you have a refutation of Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusion against a 20th century “grand maximum” I am quite sure he would like to know it.” >>>>>>
geran says:
OK, this is the 21st century.
(Like I said, sycophants are so much fun.)
Mr. gergan
Perhaps the hand is typing faster than the brain is thinking? The statement refers to the debate on the existence of the Grand Maximum in the late 20th century.
Graeme W says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:34 pm
>>>>>>
Thank you for the long rambling redundant rambling long…….
Sorry, I fell asleep. But, I agree with your last sentence:
“Indeed, I find it to be complete nonsense.”
Are we able to do good predictions of SC24-25 minimum yet?