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
meemoe_uk says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Are we able to do good predictions of SC24-25 minimum yet?
I don’t think so. Wait 3-4 years, then we can make a good one.
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.
>>>>>>>>>>
gergan? geran, LMAO.
(It’s like Warmists are never allowed proper keyboards. Or, maybe they are never allowed proper brains….)
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:48 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>
Translation: You cannot produce any evidence that I have ever lied, so you must result to insults.
(Not to make fun of you Doc, but we are not really impressed with insults. We expect more from the “elites”. If you want to be a street person, get your nose pierced. If you want to impress us, bring out the facts about the Sun, Moon, comets, etc. If you have nothing, then keep up with the insults. We also like comedy.)
I don’t trust the prediction of a solar minimum in 2050 any more than I trust the IPCC’s so-called “global average temperature” predictions for the same year. But if there is a Dalton-type solar minimum around 2050, what would be the effect on the energy balance of the globe? (If possible, please quantify in terms of Hiroshima bombs) 🙂
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:12 pm
“Incompetent people often have an inflated opinion of themselves, you included.”
Translation: You cannot produce any evidence that I have ever lied, so you must result to insults.
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
If you want to impress us, bring out the facts about the Sun, Moon, comets, etc.
I do not want to impress you, but to teach you. Be receptive and learn.
Poor ol’ geran, acting like a chimpanzee again.
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
>>>>>>>>
Oh Dr S, the tangled web you weave for yourself.
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Your choice.
Your are a liar, or you are confused. Your choice.
Bob Diaz: “Also, weren’t there other studies suggesting we’d be entering a cycle similar to the Dalton-like minimum?”
Another analysis leading to much the same conclusion:
Abdussamatov, Habibullo. Grand Minimum Of The Total Solar Irradiance Leads To The Little Ice Age. Science and Public Policy Institute, November 25, 2013. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
dalyplanet says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Poor ol’ geran, acting like a chimpanzee again.
>>>>>
Yeah, I remember that too. I have to live up to it…..
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:35 pm
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Of course, I always stand up for what I say, but you are not the judge of that. People can go to that comment and see for themselves: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/weekend-open-thread-8/
lsvalgaard;
I don’t think you can call him a liar as this would require competence combined with a deliberate intention to mislead. Having encountered him before, I have seen no evidence of the former. I also have not seen evidence of ability to learn. Your patience with people like him is remarkable.
davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:41 pm
I don’t think you can call him a liar as this would require competence combined with a deliberate intention to mislead.
I didn’t. He invited me to show him where he lied. No need for me to do that, as you note.
geran, your presentation on Oct 19 was clearly flawed and open to ambiguous interpretation as you never specified a flat non rotating disk as representative rather than an an alternative ideal black body earth with a stated albedo of 0,3.
The problem with chaotic systems is CHAOS. lol
About all you can do with any statistical reliability is to enumerate known past ranges of behavior and determine approximately how noisy the system is. Prediction is a waste of effort, generally but always fun. I especially find it amusing like fleas on a brontosaur estimating where the herd is headed.
A man has to know his limitations….there is nothing wrong with admitting we don’t know something.
The request was made:
Russ in TX says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Somebody please help the liberal arts major who’s got no statistics training. What’s different about their method, and is it legit?
This answer is from a physicist who does not specialize in the subject:
They are using a “new” mathematical method connected with the geomagnetic index. to find trends in the sunspot number data . The Dalton minimum was characterized by few sunspots.
1) I have not seen on the web a similar analysis
2) the statistical analysis that has been done is interesting, (but could just be numerology)
3) They are showing using their method a difference in the trends that would point to a Dalton minimum
As with all scientific publications there will be a criticism by people in the field, of the method, its validity, the data used etc, which will also be published, so it is too soon for the non specialists to decide about the legitimacy. It has been peer reviewed I suppose so that means that some of the experts find no error. On the other hand dr L.Svalgaard says that the plot/data used for the AP index does not agree with the data he knows, so already there is a criticism by a peer to the author.
In conclusion, as for all scientific statements, the legitimacy is something that time will tell, people repeating the analysis and agreeing or dismissing the method for some scientific or mathematical reason.
David comes to moderate, and I should accept that? I have never witnessed David lying. He is sometimes confused, but aren’t we all. But, let’s get started.
Dr. S is a master of spin. He says whatever he wants, the sycophants agree, and no one is allowed to challenge.
Is this the world you hope for David?
If I say 2+2 =4 and Dr S says I’m am wrong, do you agree me or Dr S?
Poor Richard’s Almanack comes to mind. Ben Franklin making a full years worth of weather predictions..July to be very hot and we might get surprised with a early frost…
dalyplanet says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:48 pm
geran, your presentation on Oct 19 was clearly flawed and open to ambiguous interpretation as you never specified a flat non rotating disk as representative rather than an an alternative ideal black body earth with a stated albedo of 0,3.
>>>>>>>
What a jokester! Yeah, I never specified 4000 playboy bunnies either.
Try to understand I was making it simple, but obviously not simple enough….
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
no one is allowed to challenge.
A challenge must be reasoned, to the point, and relevant. Yours was not.
Geran says at 8:45 pm . . .
. . i read your Oct 19 post, about an ‘ideal absorber’. That has nothing to do with the surface area of a disc vs. surface area of a sphere with the same diameter as the disc.
If you project 1367 watts/m^2 on a disc, vs. a sphere of same diameter, the ‘average’ watts / m^2 on the surface area of the sphere is different than the disc (as pointed out by Lief). Thus, the temp using the Stefan-Boltzman equation will be different for the disc than the sphere. You didn’t BUST Lief at all , you used the wrong watts/m^2, so you got the wrong value. That is what I see Lief was trying to point out.
As far as this thread, and the idea of a ‘minimum’, I think it is interesting. I see LIef’s plot of Ap index, (ref link to 7:15 post) and FWIW, it seems to me ( . .just ‘eyeballing’ it . ), that we may be entering a ‘low period’. Just an observation, not a prediction. BUT if it were continue . . . OK, I’ll leave it at that. Let’s see what the next 5-10 years bring . . .
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
David comes to moderate, and I should accept that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, well, I wasn’t moderating. It was a subtle but clear insult, which you clearly missed. Which serves to substantiate my assertion.
Martin C;
If you project 1367 watts/m^2 on a disc, vs. a sphere of same diameter, the ‘average’ watts / m^2 on the surface area of the sphere is different than the disc (as pointed out by Lief). Thus, the temp using the Stefan-Boltzman equation will be different for the disc than the sphere. You didn’t BUST Lief at all , you used the wrong watts/m^2, so you got the wrong value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I had the same argument with him in another thread. Tried to explain it using grade 10 geometry. I failed in my efforts to educate him. This is troubling for me. Either my ability to educate others in the basics of physics is sorely lacking, or … well, ’nuff said.
Bedtime here ladies.
Dr. S, Martin C, and David catch you later. Much to discuss
@geran actually, no, you won’t be catching those people later. I’ve put you in the troll bin – you’ve overstepped decent manners here and you have become a disrupting influence. – Anthony
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:59 pm
I was making it simple, but obviously not simple enough….
Rather too simplistic. The standard ideal absorber is an enclosure with [not necessarily perfectly] absorbing interior walls and with a small hole to the outside world. Any radiation shined into the hole from the outside will bounce around inside the chamber and never get back out of the hole, which them can be said to completely absorb all radiation falling on it, thus being an ‘ideal absorber’.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:35 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
>>>>>>>>
Oh Dr S, the tangled web you weave for yourself.
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Your choice.
Your are a liar, or you are confused. Your choice.
####################
Mods, seriously. that is way out of line