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
Opps, Mods
Missed the ejection of a poster and his name in my post which may have hit the spam??
Samurai said in part: “It’s now been 17 years and 1 month with a -0.000C/decade global tropospheric temperature trend …”
That is RSS. The other major lower troposphere index, UAH, has a trend of about +.009 C/decade over that same period. I would say the hiatus started in 2001.
The Dalton Minimum reduction in temp in North America came after the pre-Dalton Minimum reduction in temperature in North America: all buffs of the American War of Independence know that the very late 18th century was exceptionally cold. So the impact of the Dalton was made, really, by causing a bad thing to get worse.
Coming out of the 20th Century “warm” spell, a Dalton would drop our temperatures to that of the 1960s or 1920s. Not so bad.
Of course, that depends on the assumption that the background warmth of the 20th century was not just related to what makes sunspots. If what we are seeing is a temperature drop with or without sunspots, i.e. either CO2 OR cloud cover changes OR general coupled Sun-Earth dynamics, then we can be back to the 1820s.
All these caveats only point out that we really don’t know what controls temperature changes or specific temperatures …. which is the skeptical point, I think.
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans which smooths out short term noise the SST data is the best climate metric. See Fig 7 at the last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
to see the slight cooling trend since 2003
.Another data set showing a similar trend is seen in the NOAA data at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
For the occasional comment on these matters check @norpag
Steven Mosher says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:31 am
Dr. S, has gone back to the “raw” data. The observations of many different men over hundreds of years
And remarkable women, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Scott_Dill_Maunder and http://sc.chat-shuffle.net/paper/uid:110004312185
Izen said in part: “2001 was the tenth hottest year on record
Every year in the decade since 2001 has been hotter except 2008.
2010 was the hottest year on record.”
The major indices of global temperature don’t all say this. GISS has 2010 being the warmest. HadCRUT4 has 1998, 2005 and 2010 very nearly tied with each other. UAH and RSS both have 1998 being #1, despite UAH showing the general warming trend continuing for years afterwards. I have more faith in HadCRUT3 than in HadCRUT4 due to better resemblance to both UAH and RSS than the other surface indices, and it has 1998 being the warmest.
1998 had a century-class El Nino spike. Accordingly, I like looking at what trends look like starting after that item settled down. Overall, it looks to me that global temperature had a rising trend until the globe warmed from the 1999-2000 La Nina, whether or not the 1997-1998 spike is fully included or discounted. And that global temperature largely stagnated once it warmed after the 1999-2000 La Nina.
The problem for Izen and his co-believers is that science requires theories, and models derived from them to be tested against the real world using accurate measurements.
So far, we all can accept that atmospheric CO2 has been rising, perhaps due to man’s activities, but maybe only partly. CO2 may be rising at least partly as a consequence of rising temperature (eg outgassing from warming oceans, rising biologic activity in a warming world causing more respiration causing carbon in soil to be released as CO2).
But if rising CO2 is causing a net warming of the Earth, but measured temps for the last 17 years are roughly flat, then there must be an equal and opposite cooling process going on. It is a stretch to say, ad hoc, that the heat must be going into the oceans. That at this point is only a speculative theory, with no demonstrated mechanism for it to occur, and no measurement of the heat content of the ocean to confirm it.
Only in the world of religious belief could one say that we know what is going on and should therefore alter the course of humanity at massive cost.
Mosher likes people to do data analysis. Svalgaard is trying to rewrite the history books on sunspots, which then gives no 20th century Grand Maximum. But whereas sunspots numbers are open to disputes on how they are counted, sunspot cycle lengths, from minimum to minimum, are much less prone to error. So here are some data. The second column gives the mean length of 3 consecutive cycles, and the first column gives the approximate year of maximum sunspots in the 2nd of those 3 cycles.
1770 9.83
1779 10.60
1788 11.70
1802 12.87
1814 11.87
1827 10.97
1838 10.90
1849 11.10
1860 11.80
1870 11.20
1883 11.50
1894 11.57
1907 11.33
1917 10.70
1928 10.20
1937 10.20
1947 10.37
1957 10.77
1968 10.87
1979 10.53
1989 10.83
What we see is that from 1788 to 1907 all the values are at least 10.9, whereas from 1917 to 1989 all the values are less than 10.9. That is quite an amazing dichotomy. This “debt” against the mean cycle length of 11.07 years is known as the Gleissberg Cycle, and it is almost certainly now in the process of correcting itself, starting with Cycle 23’s 12.5 years (which is part of the 10.83 centred on 1989).
Since short cycles tend to correlate with higher overall sunspot numbers, in this sense if no other the 20th century was certainly a maximum, whether Grand or not.
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
December 3, 2013 at 10:09 am
sunspot cycle lengths, from minimum to minimum, are much less prone to error. So here are some data. The second column gives the mean length of 3 consecutive cycles
You can torture the data until it confesses. Your averaging covers up the fact that one of the largest cycles also had the longest period of all cycles: http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php The relation between cycle length and cycle size is not absolute.
We are not ‘trying to rewrite the history on sunspots’, but simply to correct known errors and mal-adjustments.
Kwinterkorn said in part: “So far, we all can accept that atmospheric CO2 has been rising, perhaps due to man’s activities, but maybe only partly. CO2 may be rising at least partly as a consequence of rising temperature (eg outgassing from warming oceans, rising biologic activity in a warming world causing more respiration causing carbon in soil to be released as CO2).”
Over the past several decades, nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 increased by an amount smaller than contributions from human activities. Most manmade CO2 that does not accumulate in the atmosphere goes into the oceans. Despite warming, the oceans are not outgassing because solubility of a gas in a liquid varies directly with the pressure or partial pressure (concentration in this case) of gas above the liquid’s surface.
For carbon budget data: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
Simply analysis indeed shows negative but negligible SCL-Rmax correlation with R^2=0.12
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSCsl.htm
Thanks for saying so, Jack Simmons!
Thanks for the fun video, OssQss (5:42am 12/3). True, true, “… the only winning move is {indeed} not to play.”
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard (9:45am today re: Annie Scott Dill Maunder) for that inspiring link. I normally just ignore the fact and do not like to make an issue of it, for it is NOT the norm, but even this site has a few sexists (few though their numbers be), thus, your citing her work was so encouraging to me. Your granddaughters are blessed.
I once ran a Fourier Transform of the raw sunspot data and came up with an 11.5 year period and a 100 year period, both statistically significant.
The latter is noticeable in the variations of heights of the solar cycle peaks, with diminshed peak heights around 1710, 1810, and 1910 (all +/- about 15 years). The result was a short-range extrapolation to another pair of very weak solar cycles (C24 and C25), to finish about 2040.
The lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm
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.
To be fair, I can see the same TCQP-pattern from the 1930’s in your graph of the AP reconstruction, the second graph down is of Annual Mean Sunspot Numbers and not AP, but I don’t see an overall trend in your AP reconstruction from 1844 to the present, what is the reason for there being no overall trend in the AP reconstruction?
Thanks davidmhoffer
We are used to seeing the unarmed come to a duel of wits. It is not as common to see another legless, armless Knight Who Says “Nnih!”
I credit the authors for attempting to demonstrate a novel approach to forecasting. Ninety-eight percent of novel things pass without effect. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying new things ‘because the odds are bad’. During our wait of the next 4 or 5 years there is time to refine and strengthen the method. I am sure they will try.
The lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm
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.
……………
If you believe in it you can see it
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-3.gif
but in science one needs to be a total agnostic.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:56 am
what is the reason for there being no overall trend in the AP reconstruction?
Mainly that there is no overall significant trend in the sun’s magnetic field carried to the Earth by the solar wind.
In a recent reconstruction of solar maximums and minimums from the 1100’s to the present I’ve been working on, I noticed that there was an extra solar maximum somewhere during the period between 1825-1900 when I divided the sunspot number record into equal time periods, and there is and extra minimum during the maunder minimum.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm
there was an extra solar maximum somewhere during the period between 1825-1900
It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…
Oh the arrogance of humanity. Each generation thinks it is living in a unique special time. The earth was the centre of the solar system. That humans were created specially and not the result of the process of evolution. Now it is ” never known weather like it” , Doomed from global warming or an oncoming ice age ( delete as applicable). Meanwhile nature reverts to the mean.There is a high probablility that nothing major will happen in our lifetimes, but hey speculation is fun. The fun stops when the majority are made poorer to fund a rich cabal and people really die from cold and hunger from an uncaring mindset. Their day will pass.
Dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Mainly that there is no overall significant trend in the sun’s magnetic field carried to the Earth by the solar wind.
But there is a trend with individual Solar Cycles and with the Solar Cycles immediately before and after. Correct?
So, three-cycle quasi-periodicity would have a trend.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm
“It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…”
Ha ha funny… The time period was over many cycles, I’ll have it finished in a couple of days.
Dr. S, still fighting the good fight I see. Your comments and those of others in this thread are greatly appreciated.
@Mosh, I don’t entirely disagree. The point you are making is salient and taken. But, that a reconstruction has been done and no better one exists, does not in itself lend support for the reconstruction. Laymen, like myself, tend to be quick to jump on whatever the latest paper is and proclaim it gospel. While the more professional bunch around here politely follow behind us pointing out our folly (thank you all for this, Mosh included). When reading your comment I felt as though you were almost defending our folly while trying to correct another! All my best, JM
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm
But there is a trend with individual Solar Cycles
I wouldn’t call it a ‘trend’. There is a statistical tendency for a few low cycles clustering together and a few high cycles also to cluster together. As for cycles growing, I once invented the Grow-n-Crash solar cycle model and prediction scheme: http://www.leif.org/research/Grow-N-Crash%20Prediction%20Model.pdf
This was during the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel meetings and served to show how a high correlation may not mean much.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:48 pm
“It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…”
Ha ha funny… The time period was over many cycles
They observed every day for a time period over many cycles….