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
To william:
Re; “CO2 standing on its own”–the direct influence of a doubling of
CO2 should be a warming of approx. 1.1 degrees C. Most of
this warming has already occurred. This is due to the logarithmic
dependence of average temperature on concentrations of GHGs.
Most of the IPCC’s frequently quoted “3 degrees C. warming” is from an
assumed positive feedback from water vapor, the strongest of the
greenhouse gases. A weaker feedback from water vapor, or a
negative feedback that’s unaccounted for (such as the clouds you
speak of) gives less than the 3 degree figure. That figure itself
is arrived at as an average from all the different computer models.
Direct measurement of the actual value of water vapor feedback
from satellites was not even attempted, to my knowledge, prior
to 2004! Radiosonde data analyzed by Paltridge seems to show
that average water vapor content is not staying stable, but dropping,
which would imply a weaker feedback.
Most of the posters here accept some role for CO2 in the recent
increase in averaged global temperatures. A few do not, based
on assorted arguments. Many posters here defend the thesis that
some form of negative feedback, perhaps based on water vapor,
clouds, etc., must exist, or the Earth would long since have
shown much hotter temperatures.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm
” 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…”
So that’s when a trend is not a trend.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:52 pm
They observed every day for a time period over many cycles….
And they did a great job of it too, but, did they work out that there was an extra solar maximum over that time period?
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm
And they did a great job of it too, but, did they work out that there was an extra solar maximum over that time period?
No, they observed that there were no ‘extra’ maximum. They recorded all the maxima there were.
In response to DL Klipstein,
Perhaps all of the observed rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
But all of anthropogenic CO2 production is only about 4% of all CO2 production; the rest of the 96% is mostly non-human biologic. A small variation in the 96% could swamp an increase in the 4% due to us humans. Even a tiny variation in the 96% non-human CO2 production could be significant. Biologic activity is highly seasonal (as are CO2 measurements) and temperature sensitive. I know that some isotope studies indicate probable dominance of anthropogenic sources, but healthy skepticism of these somewhat crude and indirect measurements is reasonable.
No doubt solubility of gasses in liquids is driven by partial pressures. Temperature is also relevant to some extent. Hence my phrasing above using word “partly”.
Face it. CO2-driven global warming with catastrophic results due to water-vapor related positive feedbacks is not happening. That fact is threatening the academic careers and grant-seeking, not to mention the pride, of many who have betrayed science and gone whole hog into apocalyptic warmism. Too bad the real world is not being convenient to their agenda, personal and political.
Trying to salvage the many broken climate models with one ad hoc excuse after another is becoming humorous, if not pathetic, to those of us observing from the outside. Temperatures flat, well the ocean is hiding the heat. Antarctic sea ice at record highs, well things are different down under, don’t you know, just keep your attention on the Arctic and ignore the southern hemisphere. Recovering ice in the Arctic recently, well that’s just weather. Glaciers no longer disappearing, well just wait, soon they’ll be gone and we’ll all be sorry. Polar Bear populations up over last century, yea but…… No Atlantic Hurricanes, wait till next year. ACE down again and again, well who knows why.
lsvalgaard,
Unfortunately, even your own colleagues are abandoning you now Leif.
Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848
Raisa Leussu, Ilya G. Usoskin, Rainer Arlt, and Kalevi Mursula
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8443.pdf
This requires the corresponding reduction of the
WSN values by 20% for the period 1826–1848 when Schwabe
was the primary observer for WSN. Moreover, since the “calibration”
of the WSN series is consecutive in time using overlaps
between observers, this leads to the 20% reduction of the entire
WSN series before 1848
Epicycles…
“Radiosonde data analyzed by Paltridge seems to show that average water vapor content is not staying stable, but dropping, which would imply a weaker feedback.”
Chris – From the paper you quote:
“It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data.
And from here: http://milo-scientific.com/prof/Nov10fig.php
“The very large dry bias exhibited by the RS80-A radiosondes, the most widely used operational radiosonde in the world at the time, is clearly not consistent with the presence of a cloud, and is far from accurate enough for cloud physics, climate, or water vapor remote sensing research, unlike the much more accurate frostpoint hygrometer. However, analysis of a dataset of hygrometer and RS80-A dual soundings showed that the bias is calibration-related and is a function of temperature and RH, therefore an empirical correction could be developed.”
In other words, any detailed study of humidity measured via radiosonde is fraught with difficulty. And furthermore a considered view of the hydrological cycle makes anything other than a steady state RH whilst AH increases with temp unlikely.
But..
There are many studies that point the opposite way. Eg: http://www.eol.ucar.edu/homes/junhong/paper/WV-TWP-2001.pdf
“The increasing trend of RH (3%-5%/decade) in the upper troposphere is stronger than that in the lower troposphere (1%-2% / decade). Such vertical structure would amplify positive water vapor feedback in comparison to the common assumption of constant RH changes vertically.”
Ian WilsonThe TSI paper you linked would fit nicely I think with the TSI reconstruction at
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
Shows the MM and modern max very nicely. It also agrees with my prejudices so it is obviously right.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
depends on what base youre using….
BTW: you post way too much considering the paucity of insight you bring to the discussion. why not try reading and learning?
Ian Wilson says:
December 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Unfortunately, even your own colleagues are abandoning you now Leif.
You are being a [willing] victim of their propaganda. They are only dealing with the period 1835-1848 which has no influence on the rest of the series. What they really suggest is that the points in the red square on http://www.leif.org/research/Schwabe-Correction.png be moved to the blue square. Since the main discrepancy was around 1885 [the oval] their suggestion does not change the overall result.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm
It also agrees with my prejudices so it is obviously right.
and here is why it may not be so right:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
To TB:
Paltridge sounds like an honest scientist to me, admitting where there
are uncertainties in the data. Admittedly, radiosonde data are less
than perfect. However, Paltridge also argues in his conclusion that
since balloon data are the only alternative source of long-term measurements,
they should not just be “written off”.
The NCAR paper you provide a cite for is limited to the tropical
Pacific, not worldwide. It’s at least conceivable that the tropical Pacific
might show different behaviors than the entire globe. Also, that paper
states that the VIZ-derived data have a moist bias below 20%
RH. In other words, their data and conclusions, may also be suspect.
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.
. . .
“the carbon taxes are working. send more money.”
Leif the LASP data were constructed as follows.
This historical TSI reconstruction is based on Wang, Lean, and Sheeley ( “Modeling the Sun’s Magnetic Field and Irradiance Since 1713”, ApJ 625:522-538, 2005 May 20), which was used for solar forcings in the 2007 IPCC estimates.
These data are updated through 2007 by Judith Lean (NRL) and then modified by:
1.offsetting to the SORCE/TIM TSI absolute values using years 2003-2007 of overlap;
2.replacing years 2003-2007 and extending to more recent times using annual averages of SORCE/TIM data.
Any comments? Regards Norman Page
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Leif the LASP data were constructed as follows.
I know perfectly well how the data was constructed. I work closely with the LASP group.
You did not take the trouble to read why I think the reconstruction is no good. I giveyou a second chance: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
see also slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
old construction worker says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Year 2050
A little of this, a little of that, throw in something else and wham we’re in another LIA. Everyone will be looking for the “Missing Heat” just to stay warm.. All the while CO2 kept rising (so much for that amplification and sensitivity numbers).
Then again we may get hit with a large meteorite by 2050
Jack Simmons says:
“I didn’t know about the 1/3 of all manmade CO2 made in the last 17 years fact.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/06/a-problem-nearly-one-third-of-co2-emissions-occured-since-1998-and-it-hasnt-warmed/
Study predicts the sun is headed for a Dalton-like solar minimum around 2050
By 2050? What are we calling the current solar cycle, a trial run?
Thanks Anthony..
Leif Thanks for the Links they really lay it all out I note you say
Sun is perhaps entering a new very low activity Regime
•Fewer sunspots for given F10.7 flux
•Fewer sunspots for given Magnetic Plage Index
•Fewer spots per group
•Fewer small spots
•Less magnetic field per spot
•These changes have been progressive and accelerating since ~1990
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum
The operative word is *if*. We don’t really know, but one can always speculate which is what I did. This means that should we get a Maunder minimum, I [or other people who say so] cannot really take credit for a ‘successful’ prediction. You see: if we don’t know why, extrapolating cycles is no good. The argument that we can predict that day follows night and summer follows winter is specious, as what we have are billions of examples where the prediction worked. If we have data from billions of solar cycles and they follow strict cycles, then we can extrapolate, but from only a few cycles we cannot. We can ‘guess’ and it might be a reasoned guess with good odds, but it is still not a valid prediction.
[snip – taunting with off-topic material is not cool -mod]
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Combined, the 7000 layers are so strong that electrons passing thru reach 99% the speed of light….Weren’t you just saying to me that double layers don’t exist in space because any charge imbalance is immediately shorted by the conductivity of space?
Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations. As you quote ‘electrons are accelerated to 99% of light speed’ so they pass through the DL real quick to neutralize whatever positive charge might be on the other side.
The point is that you have to generate separations of charges before you can get a double layer. Nature’s way of doing that is by using a stationary magnetic field. You can see the process in Figures 1 and 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
mainstream astronomy ignored and shunned them out of the astronomy community
is simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma) “The first indication for the existence of electric field aligned along the magnetic field (or double layers) in the magnetosphere was by a rocket experiment by McIlwain (1960). Later, in 1977, Forrest Mozer reported that satellites had detected the signature of double layers (which he called electrostatic shocks) in the magnetosphere.[50]. The most definite proof of these structures was obtained by the Viking satellite,[51] which measures the differential potential structures in the magnetosphere with probes mounted on 40m long booms”. DLs have been part of mainstream space physics for more than 50 years.
Leif I think a reasoned guess with good odds is about as good as we can do right now and for some decades yet to come.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Leif I think a reasoned guess with good odds is about as good as we can do right now and for some decades yet to come.
That is fine, as long as you recognize the difference between a guess and knowledge. Now, in the case of my own prediction of solar cycle 24, I do not consider that to be a ‘guess’, because I think I know how the Sun works, at least well enough to predict solar cycles from observations of what makes a cycle [the polar field].
is simply not true.
You’d sound more convincing if a certain solar analyst had some papers on the sun’s electric double layer to go with his 50+ papers specifically ( and explicitly ) on is magnetic field and magnetic dynamics. You don’t have a single one.
Leif’s research page word search
50+ for ‘magnet’
0 for electric
0 for double
0 for layer
same for pretty much all mainstream astronomers + astrophysicists
When electric fields are found in space, seems you write to acknowledge them, but never to do any science on them.
Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.
That’s the exact opposite of what I was taught in my module on semiconductors. During current flow, DLs build up at region boundaries resulting in prevention of further electric current. All plasma \ electrical \ electronic engineering students are taught this in their 1st or 2nd year modules.
In engineering we set the regions of different plasma with different semiconductors. Whereas looks like space plasma creates onion layers of gradually incrementally different plasmas.