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
Dear David Hoffer,
Re: “I failed in my efforts to educate him. This is troubling for me.”
FWIW, you have often succeeded in educating this non-scientist (as has Dr. Svalgaard).
Now, go look in the mirror and repeat 3 times (with a smile and with gusto):
I am a GREAT teacher!
That’s right!
#(:))
Your grateful student,
Janice
****************************************
Janice: Hey, Geran, how’s it going? You seem a little upset. Are we still WUWT pals? Ah, ah,… now, don’t — do — it… DON’T — EVEN! — you put that rotten banana down this instant….. . Geran?! GERAN! {snaps fingers before his (gotta be) eyes…}
Geran: {blinks mildly, looking a bit disoriented, lets rotten banana fall from his hand} Where am I? What are YOU doing here, Janice? Grrr. Don’t you have some Barbie dolls to go play with or something? I dreamed I was in Flatland and a sphere tried to convince us all that it was round but we would not believe it because all we could see was a point… . IT WAS HORRIBLE!!!! {shudder} and I got so mad I was jumping up and down and….. somebody called….. me….. a …………..
wait — a — minute…. that was you! Oooo, I am so mad at you!
J: But, Geran, dear, that was weeks ago. And I asked you to forgive me (twice) and I thought you told me you did forgive me for saying you were “acting like a screaming chimpanzee?” Remember?
G: {looks at watch — grins} Well, would you look at the time. Gotta go.
J: Sigh.
Geran got a bottle and fresh nappies. Why waste time with that big baby? Leif, I don’t always agree with you, but so what? For example, I suspect there is a variable galactic cosmic ray flux we don’t understand well at all. At least there is more to the big picture than just our solar system. On the other hand, we start with what we know best and can test. Thanks for sharing your expertise. It is greatly appreciated.
I have enough trouble attempting to predict the weather in my own back yard.
I have even more trouble trying to predict the chaotic system called, “My own life.”
These people who take it upon themselves to predict a chaotic system as gigantic as our sun utterly amaze me.
I’d hate to sound like a Sun-worshiping New-Ager, but to these brothers have any idea of the enormity of the sun they are trying to predict?
The sun. Just a little, three-letter-word. Just a thing in the sky, about the size of a dime. Easy to predict such a little thing, right? Just line up your numbers and you know exactly what it will do, right?
Sorry to tell you guys this, but our entire planet is like a mote of dust, compared to our star. Our planet is like a gnat whizzing about it’s head. And on the back of that gnat is a micro-flea, called an “expert,” who thinks he is an “authority.”
Likely there are fleas on the backs of polar bears who think they know about bears, but cannot predict exactly when that bear will chose to scratch them off.
In like manner, we cannot predict when our sun will scratch, or hiccup, or yawn, or do whatever a chaotic system chooses to do.
Dear Anthony,
You were right to toss Geran into the bin.
I’m writing to ask if he could have a second chance after 2 weeks (or whatever time you think best). Then, if he flies off the handle again, that will be it. I think Geran is a very lonely man who never succeeded at being what he hoped to be and sees WUWT as a safe place to express his frustrations at those who have excelled in their field, such as Dr. Svalgaard.
Geran is wrong. If, however, he is not warped beyond reform, perhaps, given a “second chance,” he can become a healthy part of the WUWT “gang” and seek attention in positive ways, instead of by insults and outrageous behavior.
Well, no need to respond to me. I hope you’ll let old Geran back in before Christmas, however, it is your site. I respect your judgment.
Thanks for reading this.
Your devoted fan,
Janice
Nice to see, anna v.
I also see the PDO and the temperature record in Leif’s reconstruction from 1910 on. See 1940, 1970, and 2000.
=============
I for one find 97% of the comments here just bickering and not that interesting or helpful.
Whatever are the merits or the faults of Dr. Svalgaards non-admirers, judging from almost every thread in which Dr. Svalgaard participates, he is the first and the foremost troll that deserves to be in the bin.
But of course, if I don’t like something here, I am welcome to leave. Only those who always like everything, however wrong, are welcome to stay.
I for one found geran’s comments not only tedious and repetitive, but largely incomprehensible.
I suspect this is a sad, lonely individual, who is desperately seeking some kind of attention.
Anyhow, that said, this article highlights something which many have long suspected – it is not carbon dioxide gas which is ‘evil’, but it could be the sun. Someone needs to tell the good folks in the EPA, so they can ban it, or restrict its shining, or do something else equally as daft.
Fluctuations in energy emissions from our variable (all stars are variable) star the Sun? Perish the thought, that’s climate heresy. That’s a fine of 10,000 carbon credits and a 300 feet high wind turbine in your back garden.
/Sarc off
Doc S.
Your graph of AP magnetic index actually scares me, it looks like it could fall lower than it has ever been, by the next cycle
A Dalton or even a Maunder minima would reduce the energy the Earth recieves by a small amount. The energy change from the rising CO2 is arounf five times greater.
If posters here think the small change in solar output will alter the climate then the logical deduction is that the rising CO2 will have an effect 500% larger.
No Izen, you are not making sense. The one does not flow from the other. Virtually all energy the planet has/retains comes from the sun. Period. Fluctuations in solar output does have a pronounced impact on the temperature of the planet. But the energy reaching the planet has nothing to do with the amount of energy retained.
Yeah, Stuart, sunspots haven’t disappeared since 1844, either.
==========
Dalton type minimum is likely, but it may occur earlier than predicted by this article.
In a way, their prediction may be partially right but for a wrong reason.
Ap averaging from number of geomagnetic stations may or may not be an accurate geomagnetic response to the solar activity. The energy contained in the solar wind is miniscule and it is unlikely to result in any significant climate change.
However, there are number of ‘terra-genic’ parameters that are synchronised with solar activity, but of number of orders of magnitude greater than the solar wind impact could account for. Here as an example is a comparison between the Ap index (since 1935) and the volcanic activity (N. hemisphere’s higher latitudes)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
This shows that science is far from settled for two reasons:
– possible link between solar and volcanic activity
– climate change and the NH’s volcanic activity have direct (positive) rather than generally assumed inversed (negative) correlation.
In many cases a hypothesis is advanced and then data is researched for confirmation.
In the above example I’ve researched data presenting results without positing a hypothesis; it is noted that this may not be good enough for some of the comentators.
Likely one of the first of a lot of similar studies. Obviously, we simply just don’t know yet. How quiet? How long? Interesting times!
Bob Diaz says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“If correct, it would be funny to see the AGW believers try to explain the Global Cooling.
Also, weren’t there other studies suggesting we’d be entering a cycle similar to the Dalton-like minimum?”
The AGW alarmists started their first alarmist claims 26 years ago when they predicted a pending disaster caused by the rise of sea level due to human CO2 emissions.
They already have a lot to explain for as it is.
lsvalgaard post on Ap 1844 onwards
There really is no point calculating a correlation against time for data like this. Least of all, then declaring no trend on the basis of no linear fit (perfectly obvious). Presumably, the issue is whether there is any (linear) trend in the residuals obtained after first fitting cycle(s) to the time series.
Now man’s carbon dioxide emissions are effecting the sun!
Well, they obviously haven’t been keeping up to date with their IPCCool Aid, otherwise they would know that the temperatures will continue to rise in response to CO2, whatever the sun does. (Do I need to add off?)
SAMURAI says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Samurai,
I didn’t know about the 1/3 of all manmade CO2 made in the last 17 years fact.
CAGW will survive, don’t you worry one bit. It’s what a lot of people want to believe. I ran into a engineer years ago who thought slavery was a good idea. His family prospered in the antebellum period somewhere down South. His lack of talent wouldn’t have had the negative consequences on his family’s fortunes as the current economic setup is today. I’m sure there are lots of people feeding at the CAGW trough who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves otherwise. There is a good chance lots of government funding will still go on, no matter what. Collectively, isn’t the world spending something like $1 billion per day on this nonsense? People sharing in that money will be hard to convince it is being wasted.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
All these dire predictions. Let’s enjoy the wonderful mild, balmy ice and snow free NH winter conditions that were promised by our world class climate scientists 27 years ago.
Thank you, Anthony. I was shocked at the level of rudeness on display. Argue ’til the end of the wee small hours by all means, but maintain respect & courtesy at all times!
Janice Moore says:
December 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Janice, I’m with you. Thanks Anthony. Thank you lsvalgaard for sharing your knowledge with me.
izen says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:41 am
izen,
Would you be so kind as to point to the evidence supporting your claims?
@- Jack Simmons
” I’m sure there are lots of people feeding at the CAGW trough who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves otherwise. ”
The same goes for the fossil fuel trough, the biggest money making business in the world.
@- “Collectively, isn’t the world spending something like $1 billion per day on this nonsense? ”
No, but that is rather closer to the daily profits of the fossil fuel industry. Defending that cash-cow from accusations it may change the climate seems to be well funded, Congress alone gets around a million dollars a day just from the fossil fuel lobby.
@- “People sharing in that money will be hard to convince it is wasted”
Quite.
Satellite and ground measurements confirm that the change in solar energy is a fifth of the measured change in raised CO2 generated downwelling energy. Simple physics determines that the rising CO2 must have 5x the effect of solar changes.
@- Jack Simmons
“Would you be so kind as to point to the evidence supporting your claims?”
Of course, no problem. As so often the ‘science of doom’ site has the full details, but the shorter version, the rise in CO2 causes a change of around 4 W/m2 at the tropopause. The maximum difference between the solar cycle minima and peak is less than 1W/m2 at the same location.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/09/02/radiative-forcing-and-the-surface-energy-balance/
Jack Simmons–
Perhaps what’s even more incredible is that 25% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been made over just the last 10 years, attributable to the exponential economic growth of China and India, which both have populations exceeding 1 billion souls.
I do think CAGW’s days are numbered given the total lack of warming over the last 17 years and the fortunate combination of: the lowest solar cycles in 100 years, the fastest falling solar activity over the last 20 years in about 10,000 years, the PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle in 2008, the AMO will enter its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020 and perhaps the start of a Grand Solar Minimum from 2020.
In the not too distant future, CAGW won’t be able pass the giggle test with 20+ years of no warming and falling tempertures since 2001. There will eventually be a point of singularity where the empirical evidence disconfirming CAGW will be so overwhelming, ever increasing numbers of real scientists will be compelled to speak out against it or lose both their integrity and, more importantly, their funding….