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
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
If you don’t mind I’m going to quote that line on my plasma\electric engineering community forum. It’s a blinder. Don’t worry its anonymous.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm
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.
Because they are not important in my work. They are important for people who study acceleration of particles. For example: field aligned current carry energetic electrons into the ionosphere. The electrons are accelerated by potential drops [double layers] further out in the magnetosphere, but in my work I don’t need to care about that, only in the fact that field-aligned current exists.
same for pretty much all mainstream astronomers + astrophysicists
Double layers are accepted, but are not that important as you make them, so you rarely find references to them, but check out publications by my friend Forest Mozer.
When electric fields are found in space, seems you write to acknowledge them, but never to do any science on them.
You do not take the trouble to actually read what I write. Check out the Appendix of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf and tell me what you see.
“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.
There are two kinds of double layers: 1) current-carrying DLs as occur in space, e.g. in Birkeland currents, and 2) current-free DLs as occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma ensuring that further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
Perhaps this mainstream paper on DLs can be a help: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1994ApJ-Double-Layers.pdf or just the observations that electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a double layer helping the discharge along.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
In 1967, Alfven and Carlquist suggested that a double layer might be formed in a solar flare loop. They invoked an analogy with a low-pressure discharge tube. The flare energy is released by interruption of the current. Voltage drops up to 10^10 Volt could be generated in large flares which will accelerate the charges across the DLs. Some discussion of this can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1978Ap-Alfven-Theory-Flares.pdf
Because they are not important in my work.
I thought your work was to understand and predict the behaviour of the sun.
but in my work I don’t need to care about that
If you have spent your whole working life not caring about electric fields in space why go on a mission to denounce any electrical engineers who are interested in astronomy and see all the reports of magnetic fields and who rightfully predict and want to study the corresponding electric fields? ( magnetic fields nearly always correspond to an electric field )
Double layers are accepted, but are not that important as you make them,
Important wrt what?
200+ years of studying the magnetic behaviour of the Sun while largely ignoring its electric behaviour hasn’t given u much predictive power. Solar analysts can’t well predict half a cycle ahead.
Plasma lab scientists put massive effort into to modelling the electric and magnetic dynamics of plasma. They seem to think both are important. The sun is a ball of plasma after all.
They are important for people who study acceleration of particles.
And since magnetic fields are intrinsic to charged particles and are additionally caused by motion of charge particles, and don’t exist without charged particles, they should be important to anyone who studies magnetic fields.
or just the observations that electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a double layer helping the discharge along.
Discharge. How is it everything in your model is always discharging but never charging? You know monopole magnetics don’t exist right? Well its pretty much the same thing, for every discharge there has to be a charge. Where are the charges in your model? CCDLs can charge as well as discharge regions.
There are two kinds of double layers: 1) current-carrying DLs as occur in space, e.g. in Birkeland currents, and 2) current-free DLs as occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma ensuring that further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented.
CCDL devices can be manufactured too.
oh man.
How many times have I read articles like this from a certain group of shunned , ridiculed unmentionable people, and now its on the front of the APS
“One of the most intriguing problems of astrophysics is the existence in a variety of environments of anomalously high-energy particles, for example, extragalactic cosmic rays up to 10E20 electron volts (eV)….
….Mozer et al. also present more direct evidence that double layers provide the seed electrons for acceleration by whistler modes [1]. Large-amplitude whistler waves were observed on October 8 and 9, 2012, but only on the latter day did the 2.5-MeV relativistic electron fluxes increase by nearly three orders of magnitude….
…a detailed understanding of the acceleration mechanisms in the Earth’s magnetosphere can be exported to other astrophysical systems, like the solar corona
-Published December 2, 2013 American Physics Society
These snippets are from a pretty 1st good go at exploring the explanatory power of DLs in space.
He stops short of saying 2 things…
a) If the Earth can produce 2.5Mev electron with this 7000 stable DL array, then the DL array of a star will produce electrons of with gamma ray magnitude energies
b) DLs can collapse suddenly releasing a lot of power, charges in the vicinity of a collapsing DL array can be accelerated much faster than the with the stable array.
Another point with the same quote
One of the most intriguing problems of astrophysics is the existence in a variety of environments of anomalously high-energy particles, for example, extragalactic cosmic rays up to 1020 electron volts (eV). … In spite of a wealth of observations and many proposed models, clarifying the various acceleration mechanisms represents a long-standing challenge.
He doesn’t explicitly say what many proposed models have been to explain cosmic rays. So I’ll say here : Supernova and and super dense objects dynamics e.g. blackholes and neutron stars.
He also doesn’t say such objects were evidenced entirely on the postulate that since gravity is the only significant force at the astro-scale, no other object could create cosmic rays, therefore blackholes + neutron stars must exist.
For decades and today, if an X-ray source was found in space, it was labelled a super dense object of some sort.
That postulate is now on shaky grounds.
I
btw
The new papers say the electron in the Earth van Allen belt have been measure at 2.5MeV
2.5MeV? Is that a lot? How powerful is that? Does that figure mean anything to anybody at WUWT?
Let me tell you.
It’s extraordinary super duper ultra high power.
Converting electron volts to thermal temperature units
1eV = 11,000 Kelvin
so
2.5Mev = 27,500,000,000K
thats only about 1800 times hotter than the sun’s assumed core temperature.
Maybe Leif could speculate some particle collision interactions at that energy and then the particle interactions in the much denser solar corona with its far more powerful DL array.
lol, another beautiful result from the Van allen probes
” Recently, using the Van Allen probes launched in August 2012, researchers showed that electrons with energies over 2.5 MeV had been accelerated within the radiation belts [4],[b] rather than being transported from elsewhere. [/b]….. These results join other observations and models of near-Earth phenomena that have broader astrophysical relevance.[b] For example, terrestrial gamma rays in the upper atmosphere may give insight into the origin of gamma-ray bursts from the most distant objects in the Universe,[/b] – December 2, 2013 American Physics Society
In other words, if we have direct evidence that planet vanAllen belts produce gamma & X-rays energies ( 2.5MeV is gamma ray energy ) with electromagnetism, why should we invoke hypothetical and extreme gravity mechanisms? The most distant objects in the universe might simply be other planets with Van Allen belts. Or more likely stars, since they are more powerful.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“Because they are not important in my work. ”
I thought your work was to understand and predict the behaviour of the sun.
It is, but DLs are not important for this.
If you have spent your whole working life not caring about electric fields in space why go on a mission to denounce any electrical engineers
No such mission. The engineers just need some education so that they don’t overextend. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I have said many times, electric currents are where the action is. The issue is how those currents are produced. In the real world, they are generated by conductors [neutral plasma] moving across magnetic field lines.
200+ years of studying the magnetic behaviour of the Sun while largely ignoring its electric behaviour hasn’t given u much predictive power. Solar analysts can’t well predict half a cycle ahead.
Apart from the fact that we can predict half a cycle ahead [but no more], neither can EU.
If the Earth can produce 2.5Mev electron with this 7000 stable DL array…
DLs are not stable, they are destroyed in milliseconds, then reformed in a different place, destroyed again, reformed, etc, generally moving along the magnetic field lines.
philjourdan says: December 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Given the sun was the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century, and that “coincided” with the rapid warming that seems to have abated, how does the theory work (I heard Gavin Schmidt voice it) that the warming of the latter half of the 20th century could NOT be due to the sun?
I am curious how that was ruled out given the studies that show the sun activity was very active.
________
It’s like this – the warming on Earth actually causes increased activity of the Sun!
Same principle as “CO2 drives temperature” – when we know that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
Do I need to say sarc off?
(Not directed at you Phil – rather my observation on the obviously false and foolish global warming “crisis”, the ECS debate, etc.)
P.S. I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.
@Allan MacRae – Well, I was actually looking for a serious answer, but then I did not really expect one. Your satire was still well worth the read. Thanks.
Hi Leif,
I hope and trust you are well, my friend.
I wish you and yours a wonderful Holiday season.
Merry Christmas to all, Allan
philjourdan says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:55 am
@Allan MacRae – Well, I was actually looking for a serious answer, but then I did not really expect one. Your satire was still well worth the read. Thanks.
Well, it is not a GIVEN that the sun has been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century. It is very likely not true, so there is really no ‘coincidence’ to speak of.
@Isvalgaard – nor has it been proven that it is NOT the most active. However, it has been posed that it has been. So you missed my question.
How can the sun be completely ruled out as a prime factor for the climate over the last 20 years of the 20th century?
Leif the conclusion to your latest paper reads
“There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
164 activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten millennia”
I assume that includes TSI. Since there is no consensus wouldn’t the simplest and most useful working hypothesis be that it is more likely than not that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.
In other words why not accept the warming itself as prima facie evidence of increased solar activity.?
The quote above should read
“There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten millennia”
Leif
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
The solar cycle modulation appears to be equally strong at all times, except (and this is the crucial point) for the cycles near 1700, 1810, 1885 where large cosmic ray fluxes were record.
What? How much larger must the trend be in Fig.10 for it not to be “equally strong”? I mean, since when is the ~110 of the mid 1400 equal to the ~90 of the mid 1900?
Dr Norman Page says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:34 am
t is more likely than not that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century. In other words why not accept the warming itself as prima facie evidence of increased solar activity.?
Because the evidence is strongly against the Grand Modern Maximum. The latter assumption is to put the cart before the horse.
lgl says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:38 am
What? How much larger must the trend be in Fig.10 for it not to be “equally strong”? I mean, since when is the ~110 of the mid 1400 equal to the ~90 of the mid 1900?
The point is that we don’t know how much of that difference is solar.
@Isvalgaard:
Which is a solid answer, regardless of whether you think it is a maxima or not. But at least one Alarmist (Gavin Schmidt) has unequivocally stated that it is NOT the sun. I was merely asking how he could make such a declarative and definitive statement.
It is, but DLs are not important for this.
DLs immediately explain many things about the nature of the sun that magnetic fields cannot. e.g. the sudden acceleration of the solar wind near the sun. e.g. why does the sun suddenly violently explode off energy? Why do sunspots create regions of x-ray emission in the corona? No need for elaborate speculative magnetohydrodynamics models to explain these phenomena anymore, they are immediate and simple consequences of DLs. With some investigation many more phenomena will find simpler answers with DLs than with exclusive magnetic theory.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You mean like making a point of only considering 1 half of electro-magnetism and dismissing the other half as inconsequential? Yeah totally agree there.
Apart from the fact that we can predict half a cycle ahead [but no more], neither can EU.
Gravity+magnetic models got 70 years of mainstream funding and are no better than the said group.
DLs are not stable, they are destroyed in milliseconds, then reformed in a different place, destroyed again, reformed, etc, generally moving along the magnetic field lines.
The probe satellite unexpectedly went thru the DL region on its way somewhere else then was reprogrammed to return 8 months later. When it got there The DL array was still there. The DL array variability is the electrical equivalent of the variability of the the magnetic field and isn’t a indicator that DLs are inconsequential\unimportant as you want it to be.
Your point was a decoy.
Now go back and reconsider the implications of 2.5MeV energies in plasma. There’s been an massive ongoing effort by science and engineering for over 50 years to create such energies to plasma to achieve a special certain result, can you tell me what it is?
Leif
No, the point is you are writing things not supported by the data presented. When you write “equally strong at all times” you have to show a graph backing your claim and not one showing something totally different.
Leif Doesn’t Fig 10 also show that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 600 years during the latter half of the 20th century ?
Why do you think the data is not reflecting solar activity?
Also it would correlate extremely well with the temperature data – see
Fig 3 at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available.Thanks.
I said ” The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available. Thanks.” On further thought why don’t you recast the conclusions of your paper to make just that point.( modest suggestion since the paper is in the submission stage)
are we going to freeze or burn up?
Dr Norman Page says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:52 am
” The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available. Thanks.”
As Yogi Berra said: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”
meemoe_uk says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
they are immediate and simple consequences of DLs.
People have looked at this [see e.g. one of the papers I linked too] and the DLs are not important and explain nothing.
only considering 1 half of electro-magnetism and dismissing the other half as inconsequential?
You are barking up the wrong tree. As I said so often, all interesting things are due to electric currents. The issue is how those currents are generated, namely by neutral plasma moving across magnetic field lines.
The probe satellite unexpectedly went thru the DL region on its way somewhere else then was reprogrammed to return 8 months later. When it got there The DL array was still there.
No, what it found was that DLs are still generated there. Each DL lives only milliseconds, then another one is formed nearby.
There’s been an massive ongoing effort by science and engineering for over 50 years to create such energies to plasma to achieve a special certain result, can you tell me what it is?
If you don’t know, use Google to get a clue.
lgl says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:17 am
you have to show a graph backing your claim and not one showing something totally different.
The solar cycle modulation is given by the width of the wiggly band and that is roughly constany over time as the graph shows.
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
After dealing with so many people who seem unable (hopefully not unwilling!) to comprehend what you are saying… a bit of Christmas cheer!
(from the Josh 2014 Calendar thread this morning)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/the-josh-wuwt-2014-climate-skeptics-calendar-is-now-available/#more-98380
Your grateful student,
Janice