We covered this story about solar magnetic field strength and sunspot contrast months ago on WUWT, and for a couple of years now I have been pointing out that the Ap Interplantary magnetic index took a dive, and has stayed at low levels. For example, this month, it remains stalled:
Late last year I ran this story:
In June 2008, WUWT published a wake up call, which had at that time, been mostly ignored by mainstream science:
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science just ran with a significant story that is getting lots of press: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
Meanwhile, both the sunspot count and the 10.7 cm solar radio flux continue to lag well behind the prediction curves:
These three indicators, taken together, suggest the solar magnetic dynamo is having trouble getting restarted for solar cycle 24, which so far is not only late, but groggy.
But back to the Livingston and Penn article from Science. The most telling graph is one that Dr. Leif Svalgaard keeps updated:
Here’s the issue, which WUWT summed up when we printed excepts of Livingston and Penn in EOS. As WUWT readers may recall, we had a preview of that EOS article here.
L&P write in the EOS article:
For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1), and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.
In a nutshell, once the magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots won’t have enough contrast to be visible.
Now maybe with the Science magazine article, the powers that be at the National Solar Observatory will give them more telescope time.They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time because the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea. That may be about to change. With something this important, one would hope.
If this continues it will play merry hell with food and survival for millions, I’m more worried by this than fictitiousl warming and carbon being a problem.
So much agri is geared to warm weather survival if it tips to cooler, there will be a messy catch up to come.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
I suggest a later date about 2020-2022
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
Days without sunspots are counted as having them.
Kinda like 600 degree days & nights in Egg Harbor, Wisconcin.
“They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time becuase the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea.”
Why should they embrace the idea of solar activity driving climate change?
The “consensus” of solar science have been cooking the sunspot books right along with the tempurature record.
Another Maunder Minimum on the way?
Good job we’re pumping out all these Greenhouse Gases to mitigate its’ effects (:-
Perhaps the sun is experiencing “climate change disruption”.
I expect soon to see a rebuttal about proper adjustments being required before the desired outcome is achieved.
Has the jury come back in, concerning the idea that fewer sunspots allow more cosmic rays to create more cloud cover which causes more cooling? It seems the idea ought be verified, or debunked, by now.
Thanks for the followup, Anthony! This is exciting and interesting research, certain to raise many hackles in the CAGW crowd.
Dr. Jasper Kirkby of CERN gave a very interesting presentation that tied past climate change to sunspot activity in this colloquium presentation, “Cosmic Rays and Climate”
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
I highly recommend it, it is quite accessible and skillfully presented. He brings up the L&P theory and ties it into effects on climate change.
They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time because the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea.
The solar science consensus seems to have taken a severe beating in the last few years… reality has clearly demonstrated that the solar science consensus theories are deeply flawed… even the best gatekeeping in the galaxy cannot gloss over the failed predictive power of the solar science consensus… thankfully there are scientist like Livingston and Penn who are still willing to consider the implications of their observations… thankfully there are other non-consensus solar theories that are now gaining momentum and electrifying the non-consensus scientific community.
In the immortal words of Chuck Berry Roll Over Beethoven
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ykCYwhfdMs&fs=1&hl=en_US]
“In a nutshell, once the magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots won’t have enough contrast to be visible.”
And part of that nutshell has already hidden some of the spots. Project the upper line of the scatter on the L&P Umbral Data.
This line says that 1/4 of scatter of spots has already found itself at unity (same brightness of quiet sun background) and therefore invisible. A portion of those falling close to unity (.85 ? to 1.0) are dimmed.
Now, for something you might not have noticed:
Compare these spots
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/BigSunAIA4500.jpg
with the position and brightness of the Active Region they occur in here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/BigSunAIAoverlay.jpg
Are the spots/MF’s weakened or obscured? Are the increased speed of flows responsible for weakening/dispersing the magnetic lines or are they dredging/churning up obscuring material? How would you know?
The darker spots are all at the edges of the AR, and the big spot has it’s penumbra ‘crowded’ by the AR.
The latest L&P paper says Solar Max is likely to be 66 smoothed SSN.
This: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF says that the SSUCA (sunspot umbral corrected area) is flatlined so far. 1903 breakpoint is coming up quickly. The Sun is going to have to step up to the plate and turn it’s corner to make/exceed the SC14 SSN smoothed Max of 65, or it’s not. There isn’t a whole lot of time to wait for the answer.
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
To blazes with the govt’s sloppy SSN work.
Look at the 10.7 cm flux and the Sunspot Measured Area.
Why do you think L&P are measuring gauss and intensities?
There are many options happening right now. Jumping on the L&P bandwagon may be popular but when you look at the science involved questions must be asked. Sure we are entering a solar cycle that has not been experienced in the modern age, L&P are recording this, but the method is flawed and without mechanism.
Their new paper acknowledges their critics, but they need more access to telescope time, but it might not help their cause. The magnetic record follows the 11 year solar cycle, the next 2 cycles will be very low, boosting their claims but without knowledge of why. If they had complete records we would still see a slight rise in gauss over this cycle.
A debunking of L&P here: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/65
Ok. I give in. I believe in global cooling.
solarcycle24 keeps track of these charts but also has David Hathaway’s prediction for cycle 24 here.
Awhile back you had an animation of earlier predictions of cycle 24. It would be interesting to see how they compare now.
The paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1 notes a recent uptick in umbral magnetic field strength. It includes a graph with three different linear projections, one is from their earlier work, the others cover more data and have an intercept 14 years later, 2021-2022:
I extracted the figure, see http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/penn_2010.gif
One thing I see in the figure is that we may be missing sunspots – the high-gauss spots have a different trend than the low-gauss spots. I think this means that sunspots are not being seen and are not being used in the computation for the annual average, and this may result in too flat a slope of the all-data projection and maybe even the SC23 projection.
Note also that when the average strength reaches 1500 (where average implies including sunspots invisible in visible light), the sun won’t be bare, there will still be many spots with a strong enough field to be visible, though they’ll look rather anemic. From the paper:
rbateman says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:13 am
The 66 SSN is based on the 2017 crossing, which assumes a decline of 50 gauss/yer. With the newer, slower, declines (50 gauss per year) they come up with 87 for SC24 and 20 for SC25. At the 65 gauss/year rate, the projection is for a SC25 peak of only 7!
As I mention in another comment, I think 50 gauss/year is too conservative, but no matter how you look at it, things are going to look interesting for decades. I’m sure you appreciate your ring-side seat.
Ric Werme says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:54 am
One thing I see in the figure is that we may be missing sunspots – the high-gauss spots have a different trend than the low-gauss spots. I think this means that sunspots are not being seen and are not being used in the computation for the annual average, and this may result in too flat a slope of the all-data projection and maybe even the SC23 projection.
And how would we know? One way is that the SC progression of ramp would appear stalled out, especially is the slope of ramp matches the downslope of the upper bounds of scatter on the graph you extracted from the paper.
This would be during ramp. Darned if the cycle doesn’t appear stalled/nearly stalled/lethargic as regards progression of activity.
What happens when ramp is over and the cycle de-ramps?
Poof. Bad doggie.
In reply to Caleb’s question:
“Caleb,
Has the jury come back in, concerning the idea that fewer sunspots allow more cosmic rays to create more cloud cover which causes more cooling? It seems the idea ought be verified, or debunked, by now.”
Planetary cloud cover does appear to be increasing. (See the graph in Roy Spencer’s blog.)
It should be noted in terms of mechanism that planetary cloud cover appears to be modulated by two mechanisms. GCR levels and solar wind bursts which remove cloud forming ions via the process electroscavenging. (The solar wind bursts create a charge differential in the ionosphere which removes the ions.) Planetary cloud cover closely tracked GCR levels up until around 1994 at which time planetary cloud cover was reduced, it is alleged due to solar wind bursts. (See Tinsley’s summary of the mechanisms and the observational data below.)
The solar wind bursts make it appear that higher levels of GCR do not modulate planetary cloud cover as the solar wind bursts removes the cloud forming ions.
“Anomalously High Oceanic Cloud Cover
The following plot shows an AMSR-E estimate of anomalies in reflected shortwave (SW, sunlight) corresponding to the blue (Global) SST curve in the previous figure. I have estimated the reflected SW anomaly from AMSR-E vertically integrated cloud water contents, based upon regressions against Aqua CERES data. The high values in recent months (shown by the circle) suggests either (1) the ocean cooling is being driven by decreased sunlight, or (2) negative feedback in response to anomalously warm conditions, or (3) some combination of (1) and (2). Note that negative low-cloud feedback would conflict with all of the IPCC climate models, which exhibit various levels of positive cloud feedback.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/still-cooling-sea-surface-temperatures-thru-august-18-2010/
Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
Expanded version of a paper by Tinsley and Yu, “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate”
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
It is no surprise that if a researcher spends years on a pet project, he would whish to present it in the most favourable light. I think that the trend line on the L&P contrast chart are somewhat misleading. I decided to take another look using a moving average, and than look at its trend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pcon.htm
It is obvious that the L&P effect peaked some time in the mid 2006, but since then the trend was flat. I think it is a useful scientific exercise, but by no means conclusive.
It would be useful if Dr. L.S. can link latest numerical data.
I have always believed in replicated measurements. Does anyone know if other scientists, using a different telescope, contemplate replicating the L&P findings? Surely, if the issue is important, this ought to be the next step.
Vuk,
I believe Leifs L&P numerical data are here.
Jim Cripwell says:
September 18, 2010 at 11:05 am
It would be an important step.
Therein lies the catch 22: Telescope time at big observatories is by no means in abundant oversupply, but is more of a precious commodity, being scheduled a year or more in advance. If your allotment (should you get some) timeslot is clouded out, you are SOL.
vukcevic says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
It is no surprise that if a researcher spends years on a pet project, he would whish to present it in the most favourable light. I think that the trend line on the L&P contrast chart are somewhat misleading. I decided to take another look using a moving average, and than look at its trend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pcon.htm
It is obvious that the L&P effect peaked some time in the mid 2006, but since then the trend was flat. I think it is a useful scientific exercise, but by no means conclusive.
It would be useful if Dr. L.S. can link latest numerical data.
Use the gauss data instead and see what turns up. The paper is mainly about magnetic fields. Also keep in mind that some sunspots have already disappeared due to L&P. This will naturally skew the later readings upward slightly. A truly linear decline will appear to be slowing down, continuously approaching an asymptote of 1500 Gauss due to the fact that the smallest values are being removed (i.e., not observed due to invisibility). In the meantime, the number of spots will decrease. The only way to disprove L&P is to show that the Gauss data is rising for a significant period of time. Proving that the decline is slowing down is not enough. So far all readings are within the error for an asymptotic slowdown. Add the invisible spots in and you likely get a true linear slowdown with the average crossing 1500 Gauss at the original predicted point of 2015. The real average will never cross 1500 Gauss until such time as every spot is eradicated from the sun.
Here is the text data:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
The big question of course, is whether or not a Solar Minimum, Grand or Lesser, will cool the earth. There is no known mechanism, and isotope studies suggest minimums don’t, though history suggests they do.
I’d like to know if the recent discovery of processes on the sun that can modify radioactive decay rates on earth have any role in elucidating any of these mysteries?
===========
Theodor Landscheidt decades ago predicted a prolonged period of colder climate to be initiated by a secular minimum past 1990, which would reach its deepest point around the supersecular minimum in 2030 and come to an end in 2070 .
In 2010, Duhau and de Jager, published The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity . This says: the next Little Ice Age is beginning as the Sun reorganizes itself between 2009 and 2012.
Then came the stake driven into the heart of the nonsense of CO2 global warming:
Miskolczi, Ferenc M. 2010. “THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS”, Energy and Environment, 21, 243-262. This says: There has NOT been any greenhouse gas warming within the last 61 years, because CO2 and H2O vapor are ALWAYS in equilibrium.
If that wsn’t enough, along came Scafetta’s paper on the celestial origin of climate oscillations .
Global Warming Alarmists: It is time to close the doors on your church of unsupportable beliefs and be enlightened by the provable truths of astrophysics.
okie333 writes ” Also keep in mind that some sunspots have already disappeared due to L&P”
I am no expert, but I am not sure this is correct. What my very limited understanding is, and I am quite prepared to be told I am wrong, that when the field falls below 1500 gauss, the sunspots do not disappear. The contrast goes the other way. That is, sunspots looker whiter that the rest of the sun’s surface, rather than darker. At the time of the Maunder minimum, the telescopes would not be capable of detecting such spots. Or the observers might not have noticed them, even if they were there.
I wish volcanic activity would completely cease for just one complete solar minimum cycle so we could watch GCR cloud formation theory fall totally apart.
vukcevic says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:58 am
rbateman and I agree the trend line is misleading. Except you’re not taking our concern into account.
Can we identify magnetically active regions on the sun that would be visible sunspots if the magnetic field were strong enough prevent convection in the plasma? I had sort of assumed people would start doing that since that’s the only way I see to track the effect into the “missing sunspot era.” There’s also the dichotomy between the 10.7 cm radio signal and sunspot number, but I see that as an adjunct to tracking the effect, not as a good substitute.
Leif (when you show up here) is there data from SDO that reports field strength at sunspots and not-going-to-be sunspots? I had been hoping SDO’s resolution would reduce the time needed at Kitt Peak.
And this morning we had 7 Florida White Tail deer in the back yard, resplendent in their winter coats. So being the curious person I am, I went out and struck up a conversation and ask, “What’s with the winter coats already?” To which one of the bucks (there were 3) replied, “What? You haven’t noticed the sun spots are dang near gone? It’s going get real cold, real soon and stay cold. You frail humans better stock-up and buy some long-johns.” Then they ran off. Ha! Deer. They think they know everything.
Carsten and okie333
Thanks, I shall update chart, and rename it, I just realised abbreviation for the contrast chart was not appropriate.
Peter Sturrock is the Stanford physicist who has noted changed radioactive decay rates on earth when the neutrino ‘face’ of the sun’s core rotates toward the earth.
================
BarryW says: September 18, 2010 at 9:44 am
Awhile back you had an animation of earlier predictions of cycle 24. It would be interesting to see how they compare now.
I didn’t make an animated gif, just a multicolored chart of 3/06, 10/08 and 1/09 overlaid on the latest above.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2mw6t11.jpg
Here is an update of the L&P with the trend lines with the moving averages.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&Pma.htm
Indeed! Who knew even a few years ago that we might witness the Sun conduct an Earth Climate Disruption Experiment (an ECDE, if I may call it that). Some commenters are absolutely sure this will “play merry hell with food and survival for millions” (comment #1) but I am a 100% fence sitter on this. I have no idea. I think it exciting that we may witness such an experiment but if the worst does happen there is nothing much to do but watch. In contrast to CAGW, about which some think there is something to be done, that is not the case with the Sun. From a scientific standpoint it will be like stirring a beehive with a stick.
Ric Werme says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
My suggestion to the concern is to watch the faculae around the AR’s. The recent new spot group that just cleared the limb looks to be located in N/S faculae runs (jigsaw pattern).
Unanswered (though sometimes considered) is what happens to the spots when the gauss drops below 1500.
Once this L&P advances far enough, will we see faculae turn to weak spots then back into faculae?
The SDO AIA 4500 and AIA 1600 at full res. might be the way to follow this.
I’d meant to start my previous comment with this:
Ric Werme says: at 10:25 am
“I’m sure you appreciate your ring-side seat.”
Milwaukee Bob says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:24 pm
..resplendent in their winter coats..
~
Are you serious?
Hmm maybe one should hang out at a deer registration facility to find out about fat layers this year. Not me.
Magnetic funk in the solar system.
Has anyone ever heard the phrase “magnetically controlled astrosphere sizes?”
The situation refers to Interstellar Magnetic Field, taking down an astrosphere (heliosphere syn).
John F. Hultquist says: September 18, 2010 at 1:39 pm
…………………
It looks it may get colder, but not caused by the lack of sunspots, and so on this one I am in agreement with my great adversary (Dr. L.S).
I think there is a prolonged and significant change of the North Atlantic’s temperatures trend, having identified a natural trigger for those changes. The CET response is cumulative and variable in intensity and delay, but always there.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Latest data implies a down-trend at least comparable to one in the 1950-60s
John F. Hultquist says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Indeed! Who knew even a few years ago that we might witness the Sun conduct an Earth Climate Disruption Experiment (an ECDE, if I may call it that). Some commenters are absolutely sure this will “play merry hell with food and survival for millions” (comment #1) but I am a 100% fence sitter on this. I have no idea. I think it exciting that we may witness such an experiment but if the worst does happen there is nothing much to do but watch. In contrast to CAGW, about which some think there is something to be done, that is not the case with the Sun. From a scientific standpoint it will be like stirring a beehive with a stick.
Has any government considered planning for catastrophic cooling scenarios? It might be time that they did.
Geo-engineering?
I’m a non-scientist, so someone out there correct me if I’m wrong. The reason for a lack of sunspots is because of all the CO2 we’ve emmited in the last 50 years, right? If we don’t reduce our CO2 output, we’re all gonna freeze!
Jim Cripwell says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm
If there’s any effect like that, it would be related to concentration of energy at the spot. Some of the area around a spot is brighter/hotter than average. It may be that if you have a spot and the field falled below 1500 gauss so convection can resume, then hotter than normal plasma might manage to well up to the surface and be brigher than average until it cools.
However, the key attribute of the L&P effect is that a strong magnetic field limits the convection at a sunspot, the plasma cools, and gets dimmer than the hot plasma nearby. So when a spot tries to form but the field is too weak, convection is maintained and there isn’t enough of a temperature differential to make the area stand out, and nothing to make it appear brighter than the local environment.
Have a read at this:
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf
Or not… anyway…
The dust is flying and bin busting record harvests are underway!
http://www.google.com/m/news?ncl=doNh_fnho9ZlSVM2Uk9MkGGmZ08YM&hl=en
kim says: “…I’d like to know if the recent discovery of processes on the sun that can modify radioactive decay rates on earth have any role in elucidating any of these mysteries?”
The first WUWT post on that subject was here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/teleconnected-solar-flares-to-earthly-radioactive-decay/
The comment thread was pretty negative; many reasons to disbelieve in such a connection. There may have been a subsequent WUWT thread, as well, with more debunking.
Has any government considered planning for catastrophic cooling scenarios? It might be time that they did.
Geo-engineering?
Cave dwelling.
Let’s be careful how we quote L&P. Yes, the magnetic storms on the photosphere that we call sunspots are ‘disappearing’, according to L&P, but only in the sense of being ‘not visible’. At 1500 Gauss there won’t be enough contrast to make them stand out from the rest of the photosphere, so they will be invisible to the eye. But they will still exist as active magnetic processes.
Another way of looking at this is that the sunspots are getting hotter, so they won’t be darker than their surroundings. But 1500 Gauss is still a lot of magnetism. About 30 times more powerful than the average field around the sun (the solar magnetic field is about 50 Gauss, about the same as a refrigerator magnet).
So the sunspots will still be active, we just won’t see them in visible light. The effects of their magnetic activity might diminish somewhat, but will still be observed.
Here is a link to Penn & Livingston’s paper “Temporal Changes in Sunspot Umbral Magnetic Fields and Temperatures” published in 2006 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters Volume 649, Number 1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/649/1/L45
c. j. acworth says: September 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm
“I’m a non-scientist, so someone out there correct me if I’m wrong. The reason for a lack of sunspots is because of all the CO2 we’ve emitted in the last 50 years, right?”
Neither and I but I can explain it completely.
You see the sunspots are there, if you check any CAGW site they clearly indicate that the minimum ended months ago and everything is fine, so not to worry. What is actually happening is that the CO2 has built up to such a high concentration that it is now not only reflecting 610% of the radiated heat from the earth back to the earth but is now actually reflecting non-heat (magnetism, radio-waves, the ice cold energy from black sun-spots, etc.) directly back at the sun.
So we are just not able to see the sun sport. Imagine that you were lying on you back on the beach on a sunny day and someone was dropping sand on your face, eventually there would be so much sand that you would not be able to see the sun. CO2 works the same as the sand and the person dropping the sand is all of humanity and, in this scientific explanation your face is the sun.
Eventually you will get upset with the person dropping sand on your face and you will leave the beach, this is what CO2 is doing to the sun. If humanity does not stop dropping sand on the sun then the sun will leave the beach (which in this scientific explanation is the solar system) and go to another solar system where CO2 does not exist.
If that happens, if we pass the tipping point of the suns tolerance to sand, then we are in fact all doomed. Based on the latest consensus this tipping point could occur as soon as Wednesday as 15<553,213 GMT or not for another 1.24 duo-septillion-quadrillion nanoseconds, and you realize that a nanosecond is thinner that a human hair.
So we are less that a hair width from burning up in 610% degrees ice and sand while the sun move away a the speed of light. The sun as you know is made up of 100% light; that is why it is so bright and why it floats in the sky, it is light.
I hope I was able to clear all that up for you.
PS. Some de[snip]ers think the sun floats because it is full of hydrogen, but if you have seen the Hindenburg footage you realize that if that were true then the sun would have come crashing down to earth long ago and destroyed all the humanity.
Caleb @ 8:45 am:
Here is the 2009 progress report by CERN of the ongoing CLOUD experiment, looking at the possible “seeding” of clouds by cosmic rays.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf
Papers about CLOUD were presented at the Helsinki International Aerosol Conference earlier this month, so the scientific community is being informed.
jorgekafkazar @ 3:35 PM.
Thanks for the link to that thread, which I’d missed. My question is partly answered by Leif Svalgaard’s last comment on that earlier thread.
===================
kim says: September 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm
> Peter Sturrock is the Stanford physicist who has noted changed
> radioactive decay rates on earth when the neutrino ‘face’ of the
> sun’s core rotates toward the earth.
================
At the solarcycle24.com forum someone came up with an interesting idea. It’s one of those connect-the-dots things that looks so obvious once somebody else tells you. Here’s my expansion of it…
* critcs of the sunspot-temperature linkage theory claim that volcanic activity (e.g. Tambora etc.) was the real cause of cooling during the Dalton minimum, and probably during the little ice age. And this is all just a great big co-incidence. Surely, nobody’s trying to link sunspot inactivity with volcanic activity, are they?
* earth’s interior is heated by radioactive decay, no argument there.
* Peter Sturrock has found evidence that solar activity, presumably the neutrino emissions therefrom, slow down radioactive decay slightly
* over time earth comes to some sort equilibrium between internal heating and volcanic activity.
* then, for some reason, solar activity drops for a while.
* this reduces the damping effect of neutrino bombardment, causing radioactive decay to more closely approach its maximum.
* earth’s interior heats up more than usual, and volcanos all over the planet start going “kaboom”.
The idea is that sunspots and volcanic activity are co-dependant variables, both influenced by internal solar activity.
John Day says:
September 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
So the sunspots will still be active, we just won’t see them in visible light.
And neither were they seen during the Maunder Minimum.
Let’s also be careful what we associate this painting of harmless change in solar phenomenon with.
Warming was not observed during the Maunder. Something else was.
“In a nutshell, once the magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots won’t have enough contrast to be visible.”
By then they’ll have new and improved telescopes that’ll be ‘more’ sensitive and the numbers will magically appear normal. They’ve actually been doing something wrong for the last few years and will have to homogenize the data to reflect their reality.
rbateman says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:41 pm
John Day says:
September 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
So the sunspots will still be active, we just won’t see them in visible light.
And neither were they seen during the Maunder Minimum.
Let’s also be careful what we associate this painting of harmless change in solar phenomenon with.
Warming was not observed during the Maunder. Something else was.
~
I agree Rob.
Let us be careful.. already in the last few years the precipitation in tropical regions has homeless and displaced numbers up up up. I recall something about an extra month of monsoons in our little time frame of solar magnetic funk. That’s just one example. The precip stats globally keep breaking records.
Anthony, the AZ Star article has moved, so the link in your May 21, 2008 post is dead. The new link is http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_79e59587-f320-54b2-8aff-a811ebb4bb7c.html
That’s http colon slash slash azstarnet.com/news/local/article_79e59587-f320-54b2-8aff-a811ebb4bb7c.html
So, will I be shot if I point out that Landsch…. said it would happen and the SSB folks have predicted this and…. Oh Nooo… the SSB Shiny THING!!!! Run Away!!! 😉
Philip Thomas says: Has any government considered planning for catastrophic cooling scenarios? It might be time that they did.
Russia has / is. The Swiss are generally prepared as a side effect of being prepared for just about anything. Both have significant undergrounding of cities with whole hospitals and stored food underground. The US Congress is similarly prepared, but don’t think you need to be. Some of this the left overs from the cold war…
I’m ‘a little prepared’ since I grew up in a Mormon town (where everyone of the Mormon faith is expected to be prepared…). About 4 months food and emergency supplies along with seeds and gardening experience. Largely for the expected Great Quake here (worked nicely during Loma Prieta), but also partly as left overs from the Cold War as well.
My advice would be to follow their lead. It doesn’t cost much (done right, it’s a negative cost as you buy in bulk and that reduces costs). You need to put away about 1 pound of dry food per person per day (beans, rice, wheat, dehydrated vegetables or jerkey, whatever) and that costs about $400 per person per year. (Maybe $500 as commodity inflation has picked up) along with a water filter. The whole thing fits in a closet ( or shelf in the garage) or can be made into a ‘workbench’ by putting a chunk of wood on top of the cases 😉
Mine has helped me through one major earthquake, several unexpected income outages, and dozens of “I really don’t want to run to the store at 2 am for sugar / flour / salt / mac & cheese / coffee / tea / …”
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/food-storage-systems/
During an earlier life phase, while living more in the country and needing to be able to live as a single guy on the road in an emergency; I made “stuff” kits for all the stuff you would like to have if caught out away from home (or at home with home a rubble pile after the quake). While most of these kits for me have been ignored for a decade or two and probably need to be ‘refreshed’, it’s still a decent list of what you would like to have if an “aw shit” happens (be it solar, climate, quakes, snow, wind, or whatever). I was very happy to have the tent and cooking supplies set up during the quake and happy to live on the generator for 3 days with satellite TV as we had a wine and cheese party for friends less prepared…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/crisis-kits-and-preparedness-packs/
If you expect your government to save you, well, take a look at New Orleans…
Walter Dnes says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:38
The idea is that sunspots and volcanic activity are co-dependant variables, both influenced by internal solar activity.
In a few hundred years we may have the data to establish a correlation of this sort. At present it easily is just a coincidence.
BTW, it is impossible that neutrinos influence any radioactive decay measurements/happening on earth. They are so weakly interacting that the earth is transparent to them, let alone individual nuclei candidates for random decay .
If the effect, a delay in nuclear decay times, is real, and not a matter of bad measurements, any real correlation with sun activity has to be mediated with forces/particles not yet studied/observed.
E.M.Smith says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm
So, will I be shot if I point out that Landsch…. said it would happen and the SSB folks have predicted this and…. Oh Nooo… the SSB Shiny THING!!!! Run Away!!! 😉
Well, the Mayan calender did too, and I am sure I could find a quatrain or two in Nostradamus predicting this; as far as Revelations go, once it happens it will be obvious what the prophecy was. ( impressive about the sun).
In my other hat, I enjoy exploring metaphysics. Prophecies are metaphysics. They may come true, but they are working with unknown physics. One has to be quite clear on this.
Ed Murphy says:
September 18, 2010 at 3:31 pm
The dust is flying and bin busting record harvests are underway!
http://www.google.com/m/news?ncl=doNh_fnho9ZlSVM2Uk9MkGGmZ08YM&hl=en
… All these headlines say Harvests are LOW.
… now _I_ predicted this, based on Sulfur reductions (plants grow better with scattered l;ight which is how Pinatubo Sulfur Cooled the World — and so drove up Plant Growth, the CO2 rise was 1/5th the previous years’).
… Everyone else thought the high Food Price WORLDWIDE was from Ethanol, but I feel Decreased Crop Yields are more of a factor.
Note the Record Exports. How can a shortage of Corn in the USA be causing higher PRICES Overseas, on all foodstuffs … when Exports are a Record HIGH ?? !!.
.
The steam is flying too! Oh plonkers!
Mount Etna’s increased gas emission.
http://m.flickr.com/photos/etnaboris/4999405210/
http://m.flickr.com/photos/etnawalk/4994784903/
http://m.flickr.com/photos/etnawalk/4995330954/
“What makes Etna’s activity quite violently explosive is the fact that there is a very high water vapor content in the magma – the volcano degasses about 200,000 tons of that stuff per day !!!”
Steve Keohane says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm
That is a useful graphic and I can make second order prediction from it, and that is that NASA will finally make a correct prediction about Solar Cycle 24 in two years time. So keep that graph handy because you will have the opportunity to update it.
There is a tendency when one has been proved correct to go for over-reach. Based on Ed Fix’s work, which in turn is based on the force that dare not speak its name, solar activity will be back to normal from about 2035.
I regard Dr Svalgaard’s daily updated graph of F 10.7 flux as one of the most useful things on the net. That remains as flat as a biscuit.
If and I mean if the sun spot predictions mean a serious global cooling, can’t we all give a high five to the forces that:
A) made the Goracle decide it was time to spend millions on a warm sea side hacienda is Southern California without Tipper
B) made Tipper acknowladge it was time to throw the BOZO FRAUD onto the freezing beach
Kericini, Anak Krakatau, Slamet, and Rokatendra….
All have been moved up alert level. But this is insider info that I don’t know how reliable it is, Jakarta news service. Looking for confirmation
Maunder or Dalton approximation: Which will it be ??
Even with something on the scale of the Dalton, me thinks the CAGW acolytes would find it REAL hard to ”hide the decline”. . . . We live in interesting times. . . .
anna v says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Try Johannes Friede (1204-1257.
When the great time will come, in which mankind will face its last, hard trial, it will be foreshadowed by striking changes in nature. The alteration between cold and heat will become more intensive, storms will have more catastrophic effects, earthquakes will destroy great regions, and the seas will overflow many lowlands. Not all of it will be the result of natural causes, but mankind will penetrate into the bowels of the earth and will reach into the clouds, gambling with its own existence. Before the powers of destruction will succeed in their design, the universe will be thrown into disorder, and the age of iron will plunge into nothingness.
When nights will be filled with more intensive cold and days with heat, a new life will begin in nature. The heat means radiation from the earth, the cold the waning light of the sun. Only a few years more and you will become aware that sunlight has grown perceptibly weaker. When even your artificial light will cease to give service, the great event in the heavens will be near.
———————————-
The secret of the atomic bomb is that it works, not how it is done.
The secret of climate change is not that it is possible, but that the alteration is uncontrollable, for climate cannot be controlled.
There are those who contemplate and make ready to change climate.
They are wrong. The climate cannot be changed, but it can be altered in it’s course. It will snap back furiously to restore it’s equilibrium.
The universe itself has set in motion all that affects our Solar System, and in turn the Earth. The pinnacle of stupidity and arrogance is to try and defy the cosmos.
As for Nostradamus, he was very elusive in his writings. Some have already tried to use passages to underwrite AGW.
He does appear to talk of the Sun in both physical and metaphyical, and one interpretation has 2011 and 2013 earmarked as incidents.
You are correct in not trying to make hay of such writings before they reveal themselves.
David Archibald says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
There is a tendency when one has been proved correct to go for over-reach. Based on Ed Fix’s work, which in turn is based on the force that dare not speak its name, solar activity will be back to normal from about 2035.
David,
The Late Carl Smith (another Australian) produced the Rosetta Stone graph in 2007 that enabled a prediction of the present grand minimum which will recover at SC26. He should be given credit for this when discussing “the force that dare not speak its name”
rbateman says:
September 18, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Try Johannes Friede (1204-1257.
Interesting. Another way of power over: “I can foresee the end, unless you repent your ways”. The modern form is AGW.
Anthony:
for a couple of years now I have been pointing out that the Ap Interplantary magnetic index took a dive
For a couple of years now I have pointed out that the Ap Geomagnetic index did not behave in any way remarkable. The ‘step’ was caused by a ‘sporadic’ [i.e. random] large geomagnetic storm in September, whose effect was enhanced by the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity. This has little if anything to do with the Sun.
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
This is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world that agree with the ‘government’s’ count. If anything, the official sunspot number from SIDC is too low.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:21 am
L&P are recording this, but the method is flawed and without mechanism.
Unfounded claim based on ignorance of the facts. There are several possible mechanisms, e.g. a variation of Schatten’s percolation theory. We need more data to be able to discriminate between them.
Jim Cripwell says:
September 18, 2010 at 11:05 am
I have always believed in replicated measurements.
I this particular case, replication is not needed as there is no doubt about the competence of the observers or their data [the errors are very small]. What is needed are more measurements in time which we’ll get automatically as time passes.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
September 18, 2010 at 11:22 am
Here is the text data:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
Just updated now through Sept. 6th. So, armchair scientists out there: update your graphs too 🙂
Jim Cripwell says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm
”Also keep in mind that some sunspots have already disappeared due to L&P”
I am no expert, but I am not sure this is correct.
I think it is correct, at least some dark sunspots [which is what is counted] have already disappeared.
Ric Werme says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
is there data from SDO that reports field strength at sunspots and not-going-to-be sunspots? I had been hoping SDO’s resolution would reduce the time needed at Kitt Peak.
There are other magnetographs that might also show the effect. The problem is complex and subtle, though. Other instruments [than Livingston’s] measure the magnetic flux not the magnetic field strength. To see the difference, imagine that half of the Sun [or the piece of the Sun you are looking at] were not magnetic, then the average field [the flux] would be only half of the real field of the regions that are magnetic. Livingston measures in the infrared where the Zeeman splitting is so large [increases with the square of the wavelength] that real field can be measured.
John Day says:
September 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Let’s be careful how we quote L&P. Yes, the magnetic storms on the photosphere that we call sunspots are ‘disappearing’, according to L&P, but only in the sense of being ‘not visible’. At 1500 Gauss there won’t be enough contrast to make them stand out from the rest of the photosphere, so they will be invisible to the eye. But they will still exist as active magnetic processes.
Very good comment. Solar activity is not going to be much less because of L&P. The solar wind is not going away, cosmic ray modulation will still be there [it was during the Maunder Minimum], and aurorae and magnetic storms will still occur.
Norm in Calgary says:
September 18, 2010 at 7:17 pm
“In a nutshell, once the magnetic field gets below 1500 gauss, sunspots won’t have enough contrast to be visible.” By then they’ll have new and improved telescopes that’ll be ‘more’ sensitive and the numbers will magically appear normal.
No, that is not how things work. If the contrast is not there, no telescope with however much ‘sensitivity’ can see the spots.
David Archibald says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I regard Dr Svalgaard’s daily updated graph of F 10.7 flux as one of the most useful things on the net.
Here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and a higher resolution version here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
Here is another look at L&P contrast and its (‘inverse’) relationship to the sunspot number.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
It is possible that this is an effect which may disappoint.
It would be interesting to here (currently absent) Dr. Svalgaard’s view as the L&P effect the most enthusiastic promoter.
Very nice! This presentation is better than the animations IMHO. Very instructive. One question that comes to mind: Will there be yet another, even lower “prediction”?
Very interesting.
Leif Svalgaard.
As you did not answer this question on another thread lets have another go here.
A simple question for Dr. Svalgaard.
Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Lorarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?
Steve Keohane says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I didn’t make an animated gif, just a multicolored chart of 3/06, 10/08 and 1/09 overlaid on the latest above.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2mw6t11.jpg
A rather curious artifact comes up if only the 1st prediction is present: It would indicate that SC24 has peaked and is on the way down.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:20 am
As you did not answer this question on another thread lets have another go here.
From that other thread:
Geoff Sharp says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:23 am
How do you answer that…other than we have a mad scientist in our mist.
oops dropped the d in midst.
Your ‘mist’ sounds eminently more plausible.
Here is the whole story:
Before 1861 Wolf used the superb Fraunhofer x64 refractor to set the standard. For several years after 1860 Wolf was engaged in the Geodetic Survey of all Switzerland and was often away. In order not to disrupt the sunspot series by prolonged absences, Wolf took to use a smaller, portable x40 ‘pocket’ telescope which he eventually used exclusively, letting this assistant Wolfer from ~1877 observe with the x64. Wolf was well aware that the x40 did not show all the spots that he would count [plus the many even smaller ones that he wouldn’t count anyway] with the x64, so Wolf increased all x40 counts by 50% [In particular this means that the x40 did not set the ‘threshold’ for what should be counted with the standard x64]. Also in 1861 Wolf summarily doubled all values before ~1800 that he had derived using Staudacher’s drawings because that would bring the count into better agreement with the magnetic needle]. Using the same argument, Wolf in 1874 increased all values before his own observations started in 1849 by 25% based on new magnetic data from Milan since 1835.
Wolfer realized that Wolf’s criterion for what to count was too subjective and proposed to [and did for his own measurements] count everything that could be seen with a given scope. Based on 17 years of simultaneous measurements, Wolfer [after Wolf’s death in 1893] found that multiplying his all-inclusive counts by 0.6 would bring them into agreement [on a statistical basis – not on a day-by-day basis] with Wolf’s values. This was a mistake. Rather than lowing the numbers, they should have been increased by a factor of 1/0.6=1.67, just as Wolf increased the numbers in 1861 and 1874. Had he done that, we might not now have all the discussion about the 0.6, because that factor would have been quietly forgotten, just like nobody today worries [and most don’t even know] about the factors 2.0 and 1.25 that Wolf applied to the early data. But perhaps there was by 1893 a ‘user base’ that might object to such correction.
Wolfer’s successor Brunner carried on Wolfer’s count faithfully using the x64, so no discontinuity was introduced. Waldmeier who took over in 1945 was inexperienced with the x64 and wrongly [as far as I can discover from reading all the thousands of pages of the Astronomische Mitteilungen from Zurich] believed that Wolfer [since 1882] had used a weighting scheme counting the smallest specks once, pores twice, ordinary spots thrice, and larger spots 5 times. The weighting schema that was applied to x64 counts [which was always used for the sunspot number, even as Waldmeier used larger telescopes in his studies of filaments and faculae].
The weighting schema introduces an [artificial] upward jump of some 20% of the sunspot number. It would be best to compensate for that by increasing the earlier numbers by that factor [following Wolf’s procedure of adjusting earlier data] to maintain the current calibration of the sunspot number [which is used by operational programs – military, avionics, satellites, etc].
At the end of 1978 Waldmeier retired and the custody of the sunspot series was transferred to SIDC in Brussels. Waldmeier’s assistant, Hans-Uwe Keller continued observing [to the present] with the original x64 using Waldmeier’s weighting scheme [as far as I know – the sources just say that he ‘continued the series the same way’]. SIDC used various methods [including Keller’s overlapping data] and observations from Locarno to harmonize their calibration with Waldmeier’s. They were partly successful in achieving this, although comparison with F10.7 may indicate a small [5%] change. Later, about 2001, there has been a downward jump of 12-15% in the SIDC calibration, which are now undercounting the spots compared to NOAA and all the other dozen organizations counting spots [including Keller]. The reason for this is under investigation, but there is no doubt that the SIDC count is now too low [even SIDC as per my recent visit, does not dispute that].
Now to your question:
“Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Locarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?”
According to Waldmeier, Locarno shows the same number of spots and pores as the x64. To get from those counts to a Sunspot Number, they both have to be treated the same way, weighted and scaled by 0.6, or not if you just want the raw numbers. One must assume that Waldmeier did this. But the question doesn’t matter as Locarno was [and in isolation is] not used to derive the SSN.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:49 am
It would be interesting to here (currently absent) Dr. Svalgaard’s view
Perhaps you should update your graph with the latest data [uploaded a few minutes ago] at http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston.txt
The flaw in your ‘analysis’ can best be seen with a little thought experiment: assume that L&P were correct, then the contrast point would progressively fall off the graph at the top and the trend line would asymptotically approach a flat line as it seems to begin to do. Your running average is not of particular interest. The strongest evidence in support of L&P [and this is why I support L&P] is the growing discrepancy between the SSN and F10.7 [which finds a natural explanation in L&P]: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
Solar science is cool. Don’t abuse it for more climate alarmism in either way.
All very interesting. Now which one of you is going to tell the MSM. I acknowledge that the MSM thrives on bad news. That’s why AGW/CC was so embraced by them. But a cooling earth that will possibly lead to severe food shortages with riots and other calamities must surely rate as equally alarming.
Weather is weather I know but Australia has had a cooler winter than the past few years. SE Aus has had widespread and very useful rain. The drought is over for the time being. NH has had a cold winter and, if the deer are correct, will have another this year. South America has had record cold in several locations. I do think COLD is the new WARM. La Nina has played a part but then we have had several La Ninas in the past decade none of which led to so much cooling or so much rain.
David Archibald wrote recently of possibly two weak SC. Unfortunately David is not on our PMs list of experts to advise (co-erse) the chosen 150 about climate change.
Is this possible cooling the reason for Holdren to change the name to Climate Disruption? Will he have the gall to blame cooling on excess CO2 in the atmosphere? Will Mann redraw his hockey stick to show unprecedented cooling relying on tree rings that were not available last time? Will the team spin this as much as they are spinning CC? Will the public be fooled AGAIN? Just asking.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:31 am
“Would the original Wolf 64x telescope record the same sunspot numbers as Locarno if the Waldmeier “weighting factor” was not applied to the Wolf 64x telescope?”
According to Waldmeier, Locarno shows the same number of spots and pores as the x64. To get from those counts to a Sunspot Number, they both have to be treated the same way, weighted and scaled by 0.6, or not if you just want the raw numbers. One must assume that Waldmeier did this. But the question doesn’t matter as Locarno was [and in isolation is] not used to derive the SSN.
Instead of “War & Peace” why don’t you just man up and answer the question properly?
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno. There is an obvious difference between the two telescopes. It’s not the end of the world to be wrong.
Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 2:44 am
Perhaps you should update your graph with the latest data
I shall indeed do that with. Data I used is up to 28 or August, I notice your new file has 3 more days of sampling 4,5&6 of September.
Regardless of method used or displayed, 3 days on 10 years ain’t going to make great deal of difference; do you think otherwise?
Further more the new added dates are not ideal for sampling, either for the intensity or magnetic field, since SS are tiny and far away from the disk’s centre (not to mention a main spot disappearing from the view). Here is the SS view in mid range of the extra 3 days not included: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
L&P deserve better viewing dates!
Surprising you should comment without actually taking time to take a look at the graph, so here it is again, for you or anyone else interested:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
In my view the graph says far more than words.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:24 am
Regardless of method used or displayed, 3 days on 10 years ain’t going to make great deal of difference; do you think otherwise?
We don’t need a ‘great deal’. There is some difference. Suppose we come to a point a few years down the road where the last spot disappears.
Further more the new added dates are not ideal for sampling, either for the intensity or magnetic field, since SS are tiny and far away from the disk’s centre
Livingston’s data do not depend on the distance from the center.
Surprising you should comment without actually taking time to take a look at the graph,
Surprising that you should say so without even checking. [I looked twice].
From the landscheidt site
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sept_18_5.00.png
Wolfcam 64x
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Surprising that you should say so without even checking. [I looked twice].
Link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
shows no hits from Petaluma, one from Hollister, couple of individual ones from SF itself, and couple from Oakland.
If you are any of those I withdraw my comment, if not I recommend a good look at above graph’s link.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?
A simple check of the daily Locarno drawings show they count as per Wolfer.
http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included. Man up Dr. Svalgaard.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Livingston’s data do not depend on the distance from the center.
Perhaps you could explain one point:
During 3 days (4,5,& 6) of September, your data file shows 41 new measurements performed. On 4th there were ~18 visible spots dropping down ~12, so the same spots were measured on each consecutive day, I also notice with the time lapse (as spots get closer to the disk’s edge) there is a rapid deterioration in contrast. Averages:
4th – 20 samples = 0.84545
5th – 12 samples = 0.89158
6th – 12 samples = 0.89733
Now lets remember these are the same spots moving towards the disk’s edge.
Conclusion is that either spots are rapidly losing contrast through 3 days (Saturday, Sunday to Monday), or this is effect of changing angle of the observation.
I would categorise this as not entirely full-proof scientific method, and would go as far as to say these are highly questionable results.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
p.s link to SS view in the above post
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
Let me get this straight – since sunspot activity has consistently correlated with total solar irradiance, and since we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling. In the most recent solar minimum (ca. 1911-1913), Niagra Falls froze over.
Has TSI in fact bottomed out? Why are global temps then so high??
(paraphrasing Gen. Douglas MacArthur)
“Sunspots don’t disappear, they just fade away”
:-]
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:27 am
You are seeing the same questionable results as I have been seeing Vuk. The “L&P effect” is built on very poor data and is more like a movie plot than good science. I have measured the darkness ratio of every SC24 spot (unlike L&P) and the trend is certainly on the up.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunspot_darkness.png
The darkness ratio is a very good proxy for gauss strength.
Laurie Ayres @ 3:02 AM
The politicians would be happy to blame man for ‘climate disruption’. The human race has a vast capacity for guilt and will happily go along with them. It’s up to the scientists to preserve sanity, and recently, they have failed us bigtime.
In the ice core record, a rise in CO2 is always followed by a drop in temperature. Sure, the drop in temperature doesn’t follow at any predictable time, but mavens of ice cores had no difficulty reversing the Arrow of Time in order to imply causation to the lagged correlation of CO2 and temperature. These ‘scientists’ will have little trouble explaining that changed ‘albedo’, and man’s role in that is the cause of ‘climate disruption’.
Our problem is the evil in man, and the guilt that is associated with the phenomenon.
=============================
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 4:42 am
shows no hits from Petaluma, one from Hollister, couple of individual ones from SF itself, and couple from Oakland.
Because I’m in Belgium right now…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included.
Completely irrelevant. What counts is what Waldmeier would have seen and counted. And you cannot conclude anything from a couple of days. You need a year of data to have a reasonable basis. And with SIDC being 12-15% too low, you would be quibbling about 10%. And in addition, since Waldmeier only used the x64 original telescope, what’s the point. Your antics looks like wishful thinking to me.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:27 am
Now lets remember these are the same spots moving towards the disk’s edge.
Small spots live only a few days, so they tend to deteriorate rapidly.
would go as far as to say these are highly questionable results.
Indeed, your conclusions are highly questionable. What is important is that L&P keep the same method and access pattern. You may assume that one of the most experienced solar observers in the world knows what he is doing.
Owen says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Why are global temps then so high??
Perhaps because they have little to do with solar activity. That would be the obvious conclusion.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:23 am
Anthony:
for a couple of years now I have been pointing out that the Ap Interplantary magnetic index took a dive
For a couple of years now I have pointed out that the Ap Geomagnetic index did not behave in any way remarkable. The ‘step’ was caused by a ‘sporadic’ [i.e. random] large geomagnetic storm in September, whose effect was enhanced by the semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity. This has little if anything to do with the Sun.
______________________________________________
The whole of 2003 was very high, the big spike in September was caused by the heliocentric planetary configuration at the time. http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
This is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world that agree with the ‘government’s’ count. If anything, the official sunspot number from SIDC is too low.
——————————————————————————
You can listen to Leif Svalgaard or you can listen to Joe Bastardi and go to the Layman’s Sunspot Count.
The sunspot count is being systematically inflated Leif. The spots counted today were not counted during the Maunder Minimum. Because the ‘government’s’ count systematically inflates the sunspot record, it counts sunspots today that were counted as spotless days during the Maunder Minimum. This defeats any comparisons to past minimum’s impossible.
The sunspot count is the longest scientific solar record we have.
What is complete nonsense is that the longest scientific solar record is being inflated by technology.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots. One sunspot count of “11” was laughable even with today’s finest telescopes.
But what the hey, everybody here can go see for themselves.
Don’t take my word for it, don’t take Leif’s word for it. Check it out for yourself.
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Owen says: September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
…….we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Maunder minimum time. Only reliable record (actual data) for the period are the CETs.
Solar output fell drastically in 1640 and reappeared about 1710.
The CET (red line) experienced drop some 20 years later ~1660, and rapidly rose at ~1695 about 15 years prior to the sunspot cycles reappearing.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
Of course there is strong possibility that neither the sunspot record or the CETs are accurate for the period, but it is the best we have.
In the above graph alsohas data for ‘N. Atlantic precursor’, which in my view is far better mach to the CETs than various correlation from the SS records and its derivatives.
A natural trigger produces the CETs changes with a response which is cumulative and variable in intensity and delay, but always there. Latest data implies a down-trend at least comparable to one in the 1950-60s. I will be providing far more detail on my website soon.
Owen says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Let me get this straight – since sunspot activity has consistently correlated with total solar irradiance, and since we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling. In the most recent solar minimum (ca. 1911-1913), Niagra Falls froze over.
Has TSI in fact bottomed out? Why are global temps then so high??
I think you’ll find it’s got something to do with the chaotic nature of climate, the fact that we don’t understand the solar mechanisms which drive climate and …. oh yeah – there are a few lags of unknown length thrown into the mix.
Apart from that, though, imminent cooling is a nailed on certainty.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:22 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
The final SIDC count is not 22% above the Locarno daily numbers, the Waldmeier factor is not included.
————————————-
Completely irrelevant. What counts is what Waldmeier would have seen and counted. And you cannot conclude anything from a couple of days. You need a year of data to have a reasonable basis. And with SIDC being 12-15% too low, you would be quibbling about 10%. And in addition, since Waldmeier only used the x64 original telescope, what’s the point. Your antics looks like wishful thinking to me.
You have lost all credibility….
Are you saying the government got it wrong with ‘climate change disruption’, and it really should be “Sun Change Disruption”?
Maybe getting back to real science, putting real science back in it’s proper place, would be a good idea afterall.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 6:22 am
Small spots live only a few days, so they tend to deteriorate rapidly.
As my analysis shows:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/suns-magnetics-remain-in-a-funk-sunspots-may-be-on-their-way-out/#comment-486583
the same 12 spots were measured on 3 consecutive days near the disc’s edge, with rapid deterioration as they get closer to the edge.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100905/20100905_1600_mdiigr_1024.jpg
Some of these hardly qualify for the spots.
Either is the case:
Spots loosing intensity – short life time
Spots loosing intensity – obliquity of the viewing angle.
L&P effect is drop in Gauss over period of years, so it cannot apply in the above, for the following reason:
If spot starts with a good contrast, MF is there for that level of contrast, so dropping down next day IS NOT L&P, L&P is drop from year to year leading to 2015, not from a day to a day, from Saturday 4th/09 leading to Monday 6th/09.
That is not the L&P effect as portrayed in their paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.0784v1.pdf
A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017. Furthermore, analysis of the umbral continuum brightness showed another linear trend, and extrapolation showed
the umbral brightness would be equal to the quiet Sun brightness at about the same year. Finally, the molecular line depths showed a decreasing strength with time, and again the trend suggested that molecular absorption lines would disappear from the average sunspot umbra near 2017.
No surprise that the L&P it is not widely supported by the solar fraternity.
Vuk said:
>> the same 12 spots were measured on 3 consecutive days near the disc’s edge,
>> with rapid deterioration as they get closer to the edge.
But wouldn’t a “reverse deterioation” happen for spots emerging from the eastern edge, assuming the oblique viewing has something to do this? Then the contrast of those spots would increase over a short period.
If L&P’s sampling is truly unbiased (which Leif claims it is) then these two effects should eventually cancel each other out. That might explain why the plots are so bushy. They’re full of these ‘noisy’ short-lived events. Also underscores the importance of not changing the collection methodology in mid-stream.
So, in spite of the noise, a long-term L&P effect can be discerned. And the recent divergence of 10 cm radio flux and SSN indices further bolsters the L&P theory.
Leif @ 6:22 AM
In response to Owen’s question ‘Why are global temps then so high?’ you say ‘Perhaps because they have little to do with solar activity’.
Or perhaps we don’t know enough about how the sun impacts climate.
===============
John Day says: September 19, 2010 at 8:13 am
Yes, I do agree with your point, if the obliquity is a factor. Perhaps I was not entirely clear (as usual), my point was that 3 extra days in September ‘ain’t going to make great deal of difference;’ as I said in my earlier post.
You are also correct about the ‘long-term L&P effect can be discerned’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
and I would think that the average (bottom graph) whith the SS record is the more appropriate one, than the strait line with few orange markers (top graph).
Dark dotted blue line denotes periods where measurements were sparse, while pale blue line looks like real trend, and at first sight appear to be inverse of the sunspot number.
As mater of fact, if L&P proves to be real, than it would indirectly support my other hypothesis as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
i.e. that the sun magnetic field is loosing its intensity and for a decade or more cantered on 2022 polar magnetic field will be only fraction of its normal values (during a normal cycle).
My argument with L&P is that far more detailed approach is needed, the trend line just is not good enough!
For those who believe that the Maunder and solar output are tied to the LIA and climate (Svallgard does not believe this), the lag between the low and earth’s temps should be about ten years:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
Here is Leif Svaalgard’s view (no tie between LIA and Maunder):
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Well the Indonesia volcano alert levels haven’t been raised here yet.
http://portal.vsi.esdm.go.id/joomla/
Being that it is the weekend that’s not a surprise. Maybe some news will come forth early next week.
There have been a few recent plumes close to stratosphere level, one did make it… Kliuchevskoi in Central Kamchatka (Russia) On 13 September shot an ash plume to an altitude of 9.8 km (32,000 ft)
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
I asked Sally Kuhn Sennert why the March 15, 2009 eruption of Redoubt had been adjusted downward from a VEI-4 to a VEI-3. She was not aware that it had been done.
Here’s an interesting article about water and earthquakes…
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/23_Parkfieldtremors.shtml
http://i53.tinypic.com/21o7j1x.png
But the land was really dry prior to the 5 VEI-4 eruptions of 2008 & 2009.
Expanding and contracting crust or the molten metal we ride on? No way to prove it, but something sure seems to be going on. Eruptions increase during solar cycle ramp down, then it gets quiet as the cycle bottoms out. Eruptions start happening again as the next solar cycle ramps up. Its plain as day right here.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
Those increases in volcanic aerosols perturb climate. Stratosphere blasts cool things down and low altitude blasts warm if the sun is shining through a clear stratosphere.
Brad says: September 19, 2010 at 9:18 am
…………..
I happen to agree with Dr. S. there (mind you, he never agrees with me, for which I am thankful, since it has made me look into many alternatives).
The lag is OK, but how to explain that the CET from 1690-1725 achieved sharpest ever rise in the recorded temperatures history, including the latest rise.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
How to explain that in the depth of the Maunder minimum 1695-1705 (10 years) the CET rose by the similar amount as it did from 1970-2000 (30 years), period that AGW’s clowns are quoting as ‘unprecedented’.
Anyone pretending to know reasons for the Sun-Earth-CO2-etc-temperature link, has to have an answer for the above, if to be on the right track.
It is that, thanks to Dr. S’s challenges, I think I may have stumbled onto a possible answer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETnd.htm
@Owen says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
Let me get this straight – since sunspot activity has consistently correlated with total solar irradiance, and since we have apparently entered a prolonged period of solar inactivity (reminiscent of the Maunder Minumum), the Earth’s temperature should show appreciable cooling. In the most recent solar minimum (ca. 1911-1913), Niagra Falls froze over.
Has TSI in fact bottomed out? Why are global temps then so high??
_______________________________________________________
So high when? last winter or this summer??
Short term anomalies follow the solar wind speed, TSI has little to do with it.
When did the Niagra Falls really freeze ? not 1911, it was too warm.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_niagara_falls_frozen2.htm
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/frozen-niagara-photos.shtml
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
The sunspot count is being systematically inflated Leif.
Can you give one good reason why the government, the IPCC or any other AGW supporting organisation would want to inflate the sunspot count. Surely they’d want to do the exact opposite.
Hi Anthony,
You said: “Interplantary magnetic index took a dive, and has stayed at low levels.”
Not this time, Anthony. Compared with the value from last year, the Ap index ramps up and reaches its value from late of 2005 again. The sun is waking up.
I wonder who the greens will blame for this lack of spots. Stupidity knows no border lines. As history shows, to stop it, it has always involved a lot of suffering.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:31 am
Wolf was right (you said so yourself, and you are correct) in not counting the little spots. Through time, it has turned into a free-for-all modification to suit personal preferences/proxy correlation, etc. The Flux measurements and the Sunspot Area are examples of measurements that matter, not how many spots, specks and pores there are. It is a question of value. Purchasing power is determined by the sum of units of measure, not how many pieces your purse happens to be formed from.
The Sunspot Count is trashed. One might as well return to Sunspot Group counting, for that would have more relevance than what goes on these days.
Sunspot Count realignment to agree with differing magnetic drifts are signs of forcing varying relationships into ridgid ones, not allowing the dynamics to demonstrate themselves.
Today’s dissasociation of SSN from Flux and Area (and even Flux from Area) are important milestones. They should be taken as seriously today as they should have been a long time ago.
As for Livingston & Penn, the good news is that they are using the same optical prescription and recording equipment consistently. Which brings me to a critical point: optical prescriptions. Take note of diopters, surfaces, glass types, coatings, filter substrates, etc. Such things set upper bounds.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:25 am
The whole of 2003 was very high, the big spike in September was caused by the heliocentric planetary configuration at the time.
Pure coincidence, there will always be SOME planetary configuration matching any events whatsoever.
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
I think that is obvious.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:52 am
You have lost all credibility….
This ad-hom seems to be the best you can do. Reflects on you I think. Anyway, I have explained and described the history of the sunspot numbers as far as it is known at this time.
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 7:24 am
No surprise that the L&P it is not widely supported by the solar fraternity.
About as much as your ideas, perhaps 🙂
Anyway, proper analysis requires that all is plotted, without arguing whether the last few days makes any difference. BTW, there is a beginning tentative realization that there might be something to the L&P. Scientists are by nature extremely conservative and do not on the first new bandwagon that comes along. You’ll see. As well as it is premature to accept L&P it is also premature to discount it. I myself did not place much credence in it until I [and others] found that L&P is a natural explanation of the growing discrepancy between the SSN and F10.7.
John Day says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:13 am
Also underscores the importance of not changing the collection methodology in mid-stream.
This is an important point.
kim says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:46 am
Or perhaps we don’t know enough about how the sun impacts climate.
Of what we don’t know, we should be quiet.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:44 am
Can you give one good reason why the government, the IPCC or any other AGW supporting organisation would want to inflate the sunspot count. Surely they’d want to do the exact opposite.
The sunspot number is observed by hundreds of amateurs all over the world and show no ‘inflation’, so get off that silly government inflation theory and stop polluting this blog with such nonsense.
I guess the sunblock is working.
Science magazines say they are worthless and don’t do anything for the Sun’s complexion on the boardwalk.
I am so thankful for Man-made global warming climate disruption cows (MMGWCDCs). If the Aussie Greenies only knew what they were missing.
This is a funk:
Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.
Updated 2010 Sep 18 2201 UTC
Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 261 Issued at 2200Z on 18 Sep 2010
IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 17/2100Z
to 18/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. Both Region 1106 (S20W21)
and Region 1108 (S28E49) indicated slight growth in areal coverage
during the period, but still retained bi-polar magnetic
configurations.
IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be at
predominately very low levels. A chance of C-class activity, with a
slight chance of M-class activity, is possible for the next three
days (19 – 21 September).
IIA. Geophysical Activity Summary 17/2100Z to 18/2100Z:
The geomagnetic field was mostly quiet. An isolated unsettled period
was observed at high latitudes at 18/0300Z.
IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is
expected to be mostly quiet for days one and two (19 – 20
September). Quiet to unsettled levels, with isolated active periods,
are expected on day three (21 September) due to a large, recurrent
coronal hole high speed stream.
kim says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:46 am
Leif @ 6:22 AM
In response to Owen’s question ‘Why are global temps then so high?’
you say ‘Perhaps because they have little to do with solar activity’.
Or perhaps we don’t know enough about how the sun impacts climate.
Or perhaps Mann et al have been hiding the decline in global temps!
rbateman says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:45 am
Wolf was right (you said so yourself, and you are correct) in not counting the little spots.
That is not what I said or meant. The little spots must be counted. Where Wolf was right was is using the magnetic needle as the ultimate, objective standard.
the Sunspot Area are examples of measurements that matter, not how many spots, specks and pores there are.
The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.
As for Livingston & Penn, the good news is that they are using the same optical prescription and recording equipment consistently. Which brings me to a critical point: optical prescriptions. Take note of diopters, surfaces, glass types, coatings, filter substrates, etc. Such things set upper bounds.
As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The sunspot number is observed by hundreds of amateurs all over the world and show no ‘inflation’, so get off that silly government inflation theory and stop polluting this blog with such nonsense.
I’m actually agreeing with you. I don’t believe here is any inflation of the sunspot count. I’ m also questioning what the motive would be for inflating the sunspot numbers. There is no logical reason for it.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I’m actually agreeing with you.
I know, and I’m sorry I by accident deleted the reference you were quoting. So, my comment was not meant for you but for Tom Rowan
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm
That is not what I said or meant. The little spots must be counted.
Even if you didn’t, you should have. The little spots are subject to way too much variance, seeing and equipment differences.
The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.
And Wolfer was not Wolf or Waldemeir. Adjustments abound, details are eroded.
As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.
Yes. But this was not always so, and is the source of much uncertainty which gives rise to yet more adjustments.
Details long lost in observation documents no longer in existence.
Very important detail overlooked: Wolf’s work cannot be duplicated.
The SSN is getting tossed about by every puff of technological wind and has lost it’s luster.
This isn’t worth your time & effort, Leif. As others have noted here, we look to you & respect you for your rich experience & knowledge of the Sun’s known physics.
So has anyone discovered the reason why the snow and ice in the Dalton and Maunder type winters could survive the sunshine without melting . I have been very impressed with the suns ability to heat the north pole web cam and keep it well above freezing for months despite being surrounded by millions of miles of ice and snow . Would this heating just not happen in the very cold periods – and why not ?
Vukevic-
Are you sure the rise was only tied to the sun? Lots of volcanoes in the northern hemisphere erupted in the mid to late 1600’s, meaning that the rise may have been caused by aeroasols leaving the atmosphere.
Owen says: September 19, 2010 at 5:42 am
“Why are global temps then so high??”
As expected, not one susbstantive response to Owen’s question. Meanwhile nighttime temps are climbing faster than day, winter faster than summar, polar faster than equatorial – all markers of increasing CO2 concentration. Add “it is the sun what did it” to the “recovery in Arctic summer ice” meme.
rbateman says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Even if you didn’t, you should have. The little spots are subject to way too much variance, seeing and equipment differences.
That is taken care of by having many observers, so is not a problem. There is no consistent way of counting only large spots because the determination of which spots to omit is subject the the same factors.
“The sunspot areas correlate with the Wolfer sunspot count, i.e. including pores and specks.” And Wolfer was not Wolf or Waldemeir. Adjustments abound, details are eroded.
Again, it is hard not to be misunderstood. Ever since Wolfer the correlation holds [with the exception of Waldmeier’s jump]. Adjustments do NOT abound. The only adjustments ever made were by Wolf in 1861 and 1874.
“As long as L&P use the same optics, this doesn’t matter. Furthermore, their measurements are not constrained by optics but solely by seeing.”
Yes. But this was not always so, and is the source of much uncertainty which gives rise to yet more adjustments.
I believe it is so and therefore no source of uncertainty. L&P themselves state:
“All data were acquired by Livingston with the National Solar Observatory 1.5 m McMath-Pierce (McM/P) telescope on Kitt Peak and its 13.5 m spectrometer.”
Very important detail overlooked: Wolf’s work cannot be duplicated.
Nobody cares about duplicating Wolf’s work. We have a good record since ~1880 and can use the magnetic needle to make Wolf’s estimates [and earlier references] a reasonable proxy for solar activity. Combined with our growing understanding of the cosmic ray modulation.
The SSN is getting tossed about by every puff of technological wind and has lost it’s luster.
The SSN is not affected by changing technology, only by changing observer’s and that we have under control.
This isn’t worth your time & effort, Leif.
It is worth my time to respond to you. And to set the record straight. The best possible reconstruction of past solar activity is well worth the effort. The SSN is part of that, but must be combined with historical accuracy and agenda-less research as well as understanding of the possible physics involved.
As others have noted here, we look to you & respect you for your rich experience & knowledge of the Sun’s known physics.
Others seem to vilify me with abandon. Happens in every solar-related article [usually the suspects]. But we all know them and should be able to ignore their ramblings, although I habitually try [in vain] to educate them and lead them onto the right path [including the uncertainties and gaps in of understanding].
Leif Svalgaard says: September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
You totally missed the point.
– L&P effect is about the maximum extent of contrast attained by a sunspot during its lifetime, not about sunspot magnetic field gain or loss during 24 or 48 hours; it is a long term (measured in years) phenomenon.
– If this effect is so important a bit more ‘probing’ is required than just drawing a strait trend line, and that is exactly what I am doing.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L&P1.htm
You may or may not like its appearance, but it is what data calculates to.
FredFriendly says: September 19, 2010 at 1:55 pm
…………..
I was making the opposite point; ‘global warming is not tied to the sun’. As far as volcanoes are concerned, I am under impression that the eruptions cause global cooling, Dalton minimum being quoted as a prime example.
See mid graph in:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-D.htm
vukcevic says:
September 19, 2010 at 2:27 pm
– If this effect is so important a bit more ‘probing’ is required than just drawing a strait trend line, and that is exactly what I am doing.
The running mean is not valid ‘probing’ [data not independent], and my trend line is not straight, but curved as the data dictates. Have you noted that there are many more data points above your running mean than below at the right-hand side of the graph? When you have such a large variation, it is often better to plot the ‘median’ value [the one that has as many points above as below it]. Anyway, your running mean fails during the recent minimum [as you acknowledge by the dashed lines I presume]. The main reason I believe in L&P is that it provides an explanation for the F10.7 discrepancy. I could predict an L&P effect from that discrepancy [too few visible spots for same amount of F10.7], so L&P is just a confirmation of that.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:49 am
I think you’ll find it’s got something to do with the chaotic nature of climate, the fact that we don’t understand the solar mechanisms which drive climate and …. oh yeah – there are a few lags of unknown length thrown into the mix.
Apart from that, though, imminent cooling is a nailed on certainty.
John, Good thing you’re not a climate scientist spouting babble like that – you’d be roasted by your peers here at WUWT.
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate. Yet they might be in close relation to the changes to our climate; to an extent that might very well be huge. Instead of making rushed decisions “to save the planet” they should spend more time researching and less time writing doomsday-scenarios.
Feyt says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“Pure coincidence, there will always be SOME planetary configuration matching any events whatsoever.”
Absolute rubbish. The big Ap spike in late 2003 is on an inner planet config` that only occurs once every 6.4 years, and is in a very positive relationship to the 1st three outer planets. Not that would mean anything to you, as you have no idea what any given configuration does, so why even bother making out you know what you are talking about.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
__________________________________________________
You mean you don`t want to know. For anyone else with an interest in forwarding the science, just watch land surface anomalies respond in the short term, to the solar wind velocity.
RE to: William says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:46 am
Thanks for all the information. I should have known the answer wouldn’t be a simple “yes” or “no.” The more you wonder, the more you find to wonder about.
The fact solar wind bursts remove the ions, and make it look like cosmic rays do not increase cloud cover, must really screw things up. (I love that word, “electroscavanging.”) It also explains some rather sneering and belittling responces I’ve heard to the very idea that cosmic rays can increase cloud cover at all. They began with the same “either/or ” assumption I began with, but never got beyond it.
RE to : Don B says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for that link. I can see what my homework is going to be after work this week. Looks like loads of interesting stuff, as I briefly skim the site. The reserch equipment sure looks expencive, though. I wonder if any grant money is left over for the reserchers. I doubt they are attending meetings in Bali.
[I haven’t waded into a Leif flame war in a while. Change your tone or go elsewhere. I don’t care who started it. I don’t care about the points you may have made in that comment. Change your disrespectful tone or leave. ~ ctm]
Okay….
let us recap shall we?
===================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
Days without sunspots are counted as having them.
Kinda like 600 degree days & nights in Egg Harbor, Wisconcin.
“They’ve had a lot of trouble getting time becuase the “consensus” of solar science didn’t embrace their idea.”
Why should they embrace the idea of solar activity driving climate change?
The “consensus” of solar science have been cooking the sunspot books right along with the tempurature record.
====================================
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:23 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
This is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world that agree with the ‘government’s’ count. If anything, the official sunspot number from SIDC is too low.
==========================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tom Rowan says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.
This is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world that agree with the ‘government’s’ count. If anything, the official sunspot number from SIDC is too low.
——————————————————————————
You can listen to Leif Svalgaard or you can listen to Joe Bastardi and go to the Layman’s Sunspot Count.
The sunspot count is being systematically inflated Leif. The spots counted today were not counted during the Maunder Minimum. Because the ‘government’s’ count systematically inflates the sunspot record, it counts sunspots today that were counted as spotless days during the Maunder Minimum. This defeats any comparisons to past minimum’s impossible.
The sunspot count is the longest scientific solar record we have.
What is complete nonsense is that the longest scientific solar record is being inflated by technology.
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots. One sunspot count of “11″ was laughable even with today’s finest telescopes.
But what the hey, everybody here can go see for themselves.
Don’t take my word for it, don’t take Leif’s word for it. Check it out for yourself.
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
===============================
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
See who is full of nonsense for yourselves.
Leif Svalgaard says: I think that is obvious.
==============================
Tom Rowan’s opinion remains:
Don’t take Leif’s word for it. Do not take my word for it. Don’t take Joe Bastardi’s word for it.
But then again, all I am asking WUWT readers to do is look for yourselves.
I think it is obvious who is full of nonsense, Leif. Since you brought it up, why not let others decide?
So many people ask why haven’t the temps fallen with the current minimum. When ever I hear this, I always go back to that “Hot Water Bottle theory”.
It would be rediculous to believe that the earths temps would react to solar fluctuations in real time. I do a fair bit of cooking, and I’ve never seen a pot of water just instantly cool when I turn the heat off. AND … more relevant, it can continue to boil even when I turn the flame down.
IMO, turning the flame down to a simmer is more synonymous with our earths climate and the sun ….. the sun doesn’t go out, it just turns down a bit. This raises the question I’ve always had …. .is there a threshold of solar activity, above which the temp rises or stays high, and below which, the temp drops? Even though solar activity has decreased, has it decreased to levels seen in the Maunder?? .. I don’t think so. Cycle 23, while lower than cycle 19, was still way hotter than the early cycles of the Dalton.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:18 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:42 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:16 am
The “weighting factor” (22%) is not applied to Locarno.
Care to prove your claim?
A simple check of the daily Locarno drawings show they count as per Wolfer.
http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting scheme to arrive at their daily sunspot number. The plot thickens.
On my Blog on the 16th of Sept I received an answer to a question posed to Dr. Svalgaard who had just returned from a SIDC presentation.
“Can you give an example of how this rating system of Waldmeier’s was applied to the standard count, and how and when it was used within the SIDC for continuance.”
His answer:
“It is in my talk on slide 3. Perhaps I was assuming too much and should have provided a translation: “a speck is counted once, A larger one but still without penumbra {a pore} is given the statistical weight 2 [i.e. counted twice], a small ordinary spot 3, and a large one 5 [i.e. counted 5 times]”.
This method is used by Waldmeier and by Keller, but not by SIDC [as far as they knew (!) as they get SSN from some 50 observers some of which may have used the weighting. After ~2000 they think none of the observers used Waldmeier’s double, triple, etc counting any more. This is all being checked at the moment. They know that they are undercounting.”
On proper inspection of the Locarno record it appears they are using a version of the the Waldmeier weighting factor. I had missed it because they are only applying it to the larger spots. It amazes me that the SIDC and Dr.Svalgaard were not aware of this at the time. The Catania records from my checks this morning do not use the Walmeier weighting factor. I need to do a more thorough analysis but when comparing the drawings of Locarno and Catania, the latter does look to be recording more specks. The 8th Feb is a good day to compare, Catania showing far greater detail.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above. One could assume the trimmed down weighting factor is to allow for the technical differences in the the original Wolf 64x and the 1957 design Locarno Zeiss telescope. The SIDC have gone to great pains to keep the record continuous.
Locarno produce a yearly report and repeat the body of text each year. They give a clue to the cut down version of Waldmeier’s system in the text.
“The very simple definition of the Relative Sunspot Number R, given by Rudolf Wolf
(1851 and 1858) :
R = k(10g + f)
were g is the number of observed sunspot-groups, f the total number of observed
sunspots and k the reduction coefficient, contrasts with the relative complexity of
their determination. The contrast is due to the precaution needed to preserve the
calibration defined by Rudolf Wolf. Several criteria for the control of this calibration
have been enounced by Max Waldmeier (1968, 1971).
At the level of the basic visual observation, a thorough experience is required to
determine correctly the number of groups (g), wich is not necessarily concordant with
the physical grouping based on magnetic field polarities, and in wich, moreover, the
limits set between A1 groups and pores may depend upon seeing quality and
instrumental parameters. As to f , the weighting of large umbrae (e.g. M.Waldmeier,
1961), must be applied self consistently, even after minimum periods, in order to keep
the link to the sunspot areas unchanged.
From January1,1981, the relative numbers are being calculated at the Royal Belgian
Observatory and edited by the Sunspot Index Data Center, (now Solar Influences Data
analysis Center, SIDC), according to a metod wich hardly differs from that used in
Zürich, in order to preserve the omogeneity of the series. ”
As all stations are factored against Locarno, this means the Waldmeier factor is having a large impact on the finished daily sunspot.
So what seems to be fleshing out is that Waldmeier introduced for whatever reason a big step in the sunspot record (22%) in 1945 when he introduced his sunspot weighting factors. When Locarno was the main telescope when the SIDC took over in 1981 they used and continue to use a cut down version of the Waldmeier system and today with even better equipment the Catania telescope requires no Waldmeier factor to keep aligned with the past.
I maintain that modern technology and differences between telescopes occurs even though the base 64x magnification remains the same. With every new piece of evidence that is being uncovered more weight is put on the importance of maintaining the Layman’s Sunspot Count for comparing to the pre 1945 sunspot records.
Are the real scientists finally getting the upper hand again over the alchemists such as Al Gore?? We may not be out of danger yet as the Global Warming bizzaro’s seem to keep coming back as though they havent been constantly contradicted for the last 20 years.
If science succumbs to alchemy, humanity will enter a long dark age with the likes of Al Gore ruling the World; a very brutal World on par with the former medaevil era of old.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2010 at 4:37 pm
The big Ap spike in late 2003 is on an inner planet config` that only occurs once every 6.4 years, and is in a very positive relationship to the 1st three outer planets.
Quite amusing, actually, like reading the horoscope page in the local rag.
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots.
Just means that the Layman’s count is rubbish. The ‘government’ is not the only one counting spots. So even if they wanted to inflate the count, they couldn’t.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting
Not a modified version. The exact same.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above.
You have just described the full Waldmeier weighting.
“As to f , the weighting of large umbrae (e.g. M.Waldmeier, 1961), must be applied self consistently, even after minimum periods, in order to keep the link to the sunspot areas unchanged.”
They even say so themselves.
As all stations are factored against Locarno, this means the Waldmeier factor is having a large impact on the finished daily sunspot.
As I have said so many times, the Waldmeier jump has been carried into the modern count. We just need to increase all sunspot numbers before 1945 by 22% and all is well.
continue to use a cut down version of the Waldmeier system
No, they use the one and only version.
I maintain that modern technology and differences between telescopes occurs even though the base 64x magnification remains the same. With every new piece of evidence that is being uncovered more weight is put on the importance of maintaining the Layman’s Sunspot Count for comparing to the pre 1945 sunspot records.
It is clear from F10.7 and the geomagnetic record that the only upwards jump was Waldmeier’s. ‘Maintaining’ a viewpoint is not science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I was wrong. Locarno does use a modified version of the Waldmeier weighting
Not a modified version. The exact same.
From what I can gather the larger spots are getting multiplied by 3 or 5 and there appears to be a sunspot threshold size where it can also be multiplied by 2. They are not appearing to use the full Waldmeier weighting method as described by Dr. Svalgaard above.
—————————-
You have just described the full Waldmeier weighting.
No you are wrong Dr. Svalgaard.
Check out the Locarno drawings from 15- 18 Sept. You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Feyt says:
September 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm
We know only so little about the influence of the sun on our climate.
Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
Some things are black and white (just like night and day)… and others are hot and cold (just like summer and winter)… some things are in technicolor (just like the northern lights)… some things change in geologic time (just like the precession of the equinoxes)… some things can be difficult to accept (like Piers Corbyn’s solar influenced forecasts)… some things can be difficult to see (like the solar variations in UV light)… some things are impossible to feel (like the solar wind in your faces)… but everything is impossible to perceive if you live in a world where the sun don’t shine… and that even applies to Galactic Gatekeepers.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
They have not trimmed anything. The seeing changes and a spot may fluctuate in and out of its ‘class’ and the observes may differ. More specks and pores are a natural consequence of L&P.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
With the same size of telescope [15 cm, x64]… showing that the telescope size is not the important factor, in spite of what you ‘maintain’. Rather the observer’s judgement and seeing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
the observes may differ.
In fact, observer Cagnoti does not use the Waldmeier scheme at all, the others [Manna and Cortesi, the principal observer with 50+ experience] do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:55 pm
In fact, observer Cagnoti does not use the Waldmeier scheme at all, the others [Manna and Cortesi, the principal observer with 50+ experience] do.
I should correct this. Cagnoti sometimes do and sometimes do not apply the scheme. Perhaps he just has a different perception of where the boundaries between the sizes are. This is, of course, why we have the personal K-factor.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You will notice the main spot in 1106 getting weighting on some days and not others. You will also notice some of the larger pores not receiving weighting. They have trimmed the bottom off the Waldmeier system. This is most likely a result of seeing more specks/pores.
They have not trimmed anything. The seeing changes and a spot may fluctuate in and out of its ‘class’ and the observes may differ. More specks and pores are a natural consequence of L&P.
While your at it compare the same days on Catania…notice how many more specks are drawn?
With the same size of telescope [15 cm, x64]… showing that the telescope size is not the important factor, in spite of what you ‘maintain’. Rather the observer’s judgement and seeing.
Disagree, the Waldmeier factor is coming in at a higher level. I will do a full report on this.
So you did notice the Catania drawings have a lot more detail. Yes both the aperture and focal length is the same in this case, but as we have discussed many times the design of the telescope and optics also plays a big part. I will include a comparison of Locarno/Catania in my report.
I am surprised at how little your knowledge is on this subject.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:02 am
Disagree, the Waldmeier factor is coming in at a higher level. I will do a full report on this.
Very vague and not applicable as Catania does not use the Waldmeier weighting.
design of the telescope and optics also plays a big part.
No, not at all as long as certain minimum requirements are met.
About Cagnotti, Locarno reports:
Marco Cagnotti, a young observer, should be the successor of Sergio Cortesi. He is now in a “training” period, where they are comparing his raw counts with those from Sergio.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2010 at 10:38 pm
“Quite amusing, actually, like reading the horoscope page in the local rag.”
I have not read such material for several decades, so I had no idea they are now doing deterministic forecasts for solar activity, and terrestrial temperature anomalies.
Tom Rowan: You wrote early in the thread, “Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.” And you have persisted with this in follow-up discussions with Leif.
There’s something I and others are curious about. John Finn asked above, but I haven’t found your reply to his question. It remains (paraphrased), why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count? That is, what benefit is there of an inflated count?
@ Malaga View says:
September 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I have been working alongside Piers for the last 3yrs and have added improvements to weather event forecasts, and have myself pioneered the understanding of what is driving all short term deviations in temperature.
I can assure you that when we both release our findings, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the Sun is driving it all.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:47 am
I can assure you that when we both release our findings, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the Sun is driving it all.
I am really looking forward to the release of your findings… for me it has always seemed Elementary, my dear Watson that the Sun is driving it all… this seems entirely logical based upon first principles… however, Elementary, my dear Watson is not a valid scientific argument… so I hope you findings are published soon. Good luck and Thank you.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:22 am
why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count?
1) To retain some credibility in their flawed theories and predictions.
2) To maintain (or grow) their annual budget allocations.
3) To keep the solar flare scare in the public eye.
Wow! I feel like I’m jumping into the middle of a dog fight here, something you should never do, especially as I can not even stand in your shadow Lief. (or yours Vukcevic)
But Lief, you said above to Frets comment: “We know little about the influence of the sun on our climate.” Indeed, we don’t even know if it has any influence at all.
We don’t know what if any? influence/effect the sun has on our weather? Are you saying we don’t if there would be any change if we somehow totally block out the sun – – for a few months??? I think what you meant is, as you stated in a previous post you (we) do not know what minor/subtle influences the sun has on the energy flows of the Earth as we have not identified any mechanism of the sun that would make subtle changes, to-date. And as to your point we should be quiet about what we don’t know while I agree you all should not be arguing about things not in fact, it is always about what we don’t know that we study and discuss to develop new ideas and theory.
If you stand only on what you know, you will never know more and wisdom will pass you by. (Old American Indian proverb.)
BarryW says: September 18, 2010 at 9:44 am
David Archibald says: September 18, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says: September 19, 2010 at 1:52 am
rbateman says: September 19, 2010 at 2:20 am
I noticed an error in my hastily prepared graph, Oct2008 was off almost a year on the x-axis. It is corrected here:
http://i55.tinypic.com/2dj2fc9.jpg
Livingston & Penn 2010
http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf
I will attend a lecture by Mike Lockwood later this week at which I expect he will make the case that the sun does not have a significant effect on climate. A quick glance at the Central England Temperature record which he will be using does not show a particularly strong correlation with Maunder or Dalton minima. Can anyone comment on his work.
Well spake, Milwaukee Bob @ 5:40 AM.
Leif has endured much speculation from me but despite his best efforts, I can’t help myself.
==================
Leif Svalgaard:
Tom Rowan says:
September 19, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots.
Leif Svalgaard: Just means that the Layman’s count is rubbish. The ‘government’ is not the only one counting spots. So even if they wanted to inflate the count, they couldn’t.
===============================================
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
There are dozens of photographs taken this year that tout “sunspots” where none exist. You can see spotless and speckless days “counted” as having sunspots.
Again, WUWT readers can simply click on this: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Look for yourselves….pretty simple, easy to compare, and all that “rubbish.”
==================================================
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:22 am
Tom Rowan: You wrote early in the thread, “Remember too, the government’s count of sunspot activity is being inflated.” And you have persisted with this in follow-up discussions with Leif.
There’s something I and others are curious about. John Finn asked above, but I haven’t found your reply to his question. It remains (paraphrased), why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count? That is, what benefit is there of an inflated count?
===========================================
John Kerry, (who served in Viet Nam,) is sitting on legislation to tax us all for nice weather and a steady climate.
John Kerry has boldly proclaimed that the “Sunspot Theory” has been fully debunked.
Algore, Kerry, the EPA, and NOAA believe that the earth is warming, it is happening at an unprecedented rate, and that man made carbon emissions, (pollution in their words,) are causing catastrophic and irreversable global warming.
Why do we have 600 degree days & nights in Egg Harbor, Wisconcin?
Why has NOAA, NASA, & GISS been caught red handed time after time “adjusting” tempuratures to fit their phony models.
I don’t know that there is even a stated “sunspot theory.” We all know that during times of low solar activity, the earth cools down. We know that there appears to be a correlation between solar activity and climate change.
I think we are learning about the sun at an exponential rate. We might be witnessing a grand solar minimum at this very moment.
The earth has been cooling for over a decade. It snowed in the Amazon this year.
Perhaps because of lower solar activity now, (what was once measured solely by sunspots,) we will have some answers.
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” tempuratures up?
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Who knows?
But the result is that both these long term historic records are being tampered and actual records have been “lost.” If the sunspot solar record is not being “counted” the same as it was in the past, then studies using corralative measurements will be made usesless.
If cooling can be traced back to low solar activity, boneheads like John Kerry will tell you with a straight face that solar activity could not have been the cause….after all, NOAA tells us we have sunspots……
Of course, you can go and peek with your own eyes at the laughable examples of “spots” being counted by your government.
See for yourselves….
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
The Layman’s Sunspot Count has many examples of spotless days the ‘government’ has counted as having spots.
I have studied this for years [every day] and have never found this to be the case. ‘Many’ is more than ‘ few’, perhaps about 10, so show me ten such cases. And I don’t want to go search. Be explicit.
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Show me even one such case. The sunspot number has only been adjusted twice: in 1861 and in 1874.
I think many of us jump to the wrong conclusion when we see statements that assert “we don’t really know if the sun has an effect on climate”, namely “duh — of course the Sun warms the Earth!”
But that’s not the issue. The crux of this issue is this: there have been three solar grand minima (Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton), which also coincided with a significant cooling of the climate. Was this merely a “coincidence”, or is there some underlying physical mechanism which explains how the sun causes this climate cooling? And (most important) exactly what is this mechanism?
The answer (according to Leif and many others who, unlike me, work in this field): nobody knows. There are many theories floating around, but nobody knows for sure.
From a statistical viewpoint, we’re looking for a _likelihood function_ that predicts the “probability of climate cooling” given a “solar grand minimum”. Does this function always return zero? No, because we’ve already seen three positive instances. Does this function always return one? Many of us would (love|detest) that outcome, but there is not enough evidence to support such a grand assertion.
So, purely for the sake of argument, let’s assume the best ‘uninformed’ likelihood of 0.5. This makes the problem equivalent to the biased-coin problem: “What is the minimal run of heads (or tails) that proves a coin is biased.
For example, if a flip a coin 20 times and get all heads, then I’m very confident the coin is rigged. But what is the minimal run length, i.e. how many “heads in row” would it take, as a minimum, to assert with confidence “this coin is rigged”.
The threshold of such confidence usually starts at 5%, or 1 out of 20. So getting 3 heads in a row, 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 => 12.5% is “not significant”. Another run or two in the sequence would give us 6.25% and 3.125% and would start making us “confident” that bias exists.
So, “three grand minima in a row” is not statistically significant, _unless_ we can find a likelihood function that can do better than flipping a coin.
Hope that helps,
:-]
Tom Rowan: In response to my questions, “why would anyone want to inflate sunspot count? That is, what benefit is there of an inflated count?”, you paraphrased them, “Why do global warming advocates ‘adjust’ the sunspost number?”, and replied, “Who knows?”
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
Malaga View says: “1) To retain some credibility in their flawed theories and predictions.”
What flawed theories?
You continued, “3) To keep the solar flare scare in the public eye.”
What solar flare scare? How many in the general public even know there are solar cycles? Few.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:20 am
to Tom Rowan:
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
The only people that tamper with the sunspot count are the people running the Layman’s sunspot count, in order to support their agenda. Hundreds of observers all over the world do not conspire to fudge their sunspot counts, so isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?
>> … does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
Not unless they could also tamper with the 10.7cm radio flux proxy, which historically has closely followed the sunspot counts (at least up to the L&P fadeout). That would require falsifying the output of every Dicke radiometer in the world, not a trivial task.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicke_radiometer
@John Day says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:16 am
“…is there some underlying physical mechanism which explains how the sun causes this climate cooling? And (most important) exactly what is this mechanism?
There are many theories floating around, but nobody knows for sure.”
Observations show that surface temperatures drop when the solar wind velocity is lower, for sure.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
Observations show that surface temperatures drop when the solar wind velocity is lower, for sure.
There are, for sure, no such observations. Claims galore, but no facts, or even hints.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
You used to say “This is what passes for a sunspot these days”.
They were counting pores. Remember? This is when we were figuring out how to measure instead of count.
One abuse of the counting system lies in the padding of UT from both sides.
Here is something that is occuring right now on the Sun:
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/18/l_HMImag.jpg
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/19/l_HMImag.jpg
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/09/20/l_HMImag.jpg
From whence does the locus of this shell polarity configuration emanate?
It rotates with the Sun, so that is at least one clue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:13 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
There is no over-counting. Wolfer started including pores back in the late 1870s. This is the correct way of quantifying solar activity, as pores also harbor magnetic fields.
This is when we were figuring out how to measure instead of count.
The sunspot area is very well correlated with the sunspot count including the pores.
One abuse of the counting system lies in the padding of UT from both sides.
There is no abuse of the counting system, only lack of understanding on your and Geoff’s part.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:25 am
From whence does the locus of this shell polarity configuration emanate?
What configuration? If you mean a ring of opposite polarity or of any polarity, then that occurs quite often. As the magnetic field from a sunspot decays, it is caught up in the supergranular flow and often migrates to the edge of the supergranule, so you end up with a ‘network’ of cells.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:21 am
We have explained and demonstrated the overcounting paradox many times to you.
There is no recent over-counting. I have explained and demonstrated to both of you [and even to jinki] many times that the current count is an undercount, i.e. too low, so it is time to get off the ‘inflated’ over-count meme, as it is dead wrong. It is amazing that you could fall for this in the first place.
Going back in time, Wolf bumped up his counts in 1861 and in 1874. Perhaps you are suggesting that we also get rid of those [necessary] corrections. Waldmeier screwed up the count in 1945 [and this persists to this day], but that is long ago and easily corrected for: just increase everything pre-1945 by 22%.
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
Why do global warming advocates “adjust” the sunspost number?
Who knows?
Most global warming advocates are perfectly happy to acknowledge the current low sunspot count. They have been at great pains to point out that the sunspot count peaked in the late 1950s. This, they argue, shows that the recent warming trend has nothing to do with sunspot numbers (solar activity). If the sunspot count stays low while global temperatures remain high the AGW case will be considerably strengthened – or that is how it will be perceived.
The earth has been cooling for over a decade.
Has it? Do you have any evidence for this apart from one or two weather reports?
Leif Svalgaard says: “…isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?”
I asked why he believed someone was tampering with them, and no motive was provided, so my follow-up question was intended to reinforce that lack of motive. That’s all.
Regards.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“…isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?”
I asked why he believed someone was tampering with them, and no motive was provided, so my follow-up question was intended to reinforce that lack of motive. That’s all.
I was not clear. It was meant for Tom Rowan, not for you.
Ergo the problems of short posts,= not understood
Long detailed post with many supporting links= TLDR “too long didn’t read” response by most.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:32 am
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:20 am
to Tom Rowan:
If you can’t perceive a benefit, does it seem likely that anyone would be tampering with sunspot counts?
The only people that tamper with the sunspot count are the people running the Layman’s sunspot count, in order to support their agenda. Hundreds of observers all over the world do not conspire to fudge their sunspot counts, so isn’t it time to stop this tampering nonsense?
~
Sorry guys had to giggle..
Vuks, howz the north magnetic pole excursion back towards the east doing? Any bumps looking like it might hang out in the western hemi for a few hundred more? Or is still headed east for Siberia? Whilst it was over in the eastern hemi it hung out looped around, hung out looped around and then hung out some more before heading west. Have to wonder what did trip the lights fandango for it to start heading into the western hemi to “begin” with?..
Vuks are you saying that the suns polar magnetic fields may decline even more in the next coming years? And this means our heliosphere gets to shrink even more? All that pressure..my oh my..
[snip. try again ~ ctm]
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Again, I do not know the reason for the inflated sunspot count. I have a pretty good idea of why the tempurature record is being inflated.
What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Again, do not take my word for it. Look for yourselves.
NOAA adds to its “sunspot count” plaques and other invisible “spots.”
Back during the Maunder Minimum, no one had an agenda. Today we know that scientists have agendas.
You asked me what would motivate someone to count spots that clearly are not there.
You got me. We have so-called experts telling us the Artic ice is melting when it is not.
Would it serve the purposes of the Global Warming industry to absolve the sun in any role in climate change? I think it would.
Again, I am merely observing inflated “sunspot” counts that actually count non-existent spots.
You ask me for an explaination of why someone would do this and I direct your attention to a website that shows examples of what I am speaking to.
I don’t count sunspots for a living. I do not have any idea why someone would tamper with the count. But the fact is that they have inflated today’s numbers.
So when we compare charts of sunspot cycles, remember that today’s sunspots are being inflated. As to why is a great topic. For whatever reason, the sunspot record is being distorted upwards.
Again, you can take a look at it for yourself. You can decide whether the count is being inflated for yourself. I think it is. Joe Bastardi thinks it is. I think the Layman’s Sunspot Count demonstrates this conclusively.
Of course, check it out for yourselves. Once you have seen spots counted on spotless days, you can then wonder what would motivate someone to tamper with the sunspot record.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Go ahead…the website won’t bite you, despite Leif’s missives. 🙂
Bob Tisdale says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:27 am
What flawed theories?
What solar flare scare?
How about these examples of flawed predictions based upon flawed theories… they all can’t be right… and maybe none of them will be correct.
See page two of State of the Art: Predicting Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.ppt
How about these examples of the solar flare scare
Meltdown! A solar superstorm could send us back into the dark ages – and one is due in just THREE years Last updated at 11:24 PM on 19th April 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1171951/Meltdown-A-solar-superstorm-send-dark-ages–just-THREE-years.html
Severe Space Weather–Social and Economic Impacts
January 21, 2009: Did you know a solar flare can make your toilet stop working?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/
Just the tip of the growing iceberg… as every Satellite Soothsayer and Galactic Gatekeeper knows… now I understand why this is a Titanic struggle for the doomed captains of the dark consensus… Women, Children and Scientists first!
Here are two perfect examples in my opinion:
On September 8th of this year, Spaceweather.com published a blank sun with “sunspot” 1105 circled. Yet when you magnify the area, only a slight discolored plaque area is photographed:
September 8th, 2010
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=08&month=09&year=2010
On that same date, the Layman’s Sunspot Count shows the exact same sun, just as spotless as it was on Spaceweather.
Another example appears on the 9th of September:
Again, Spaceweather.com shows a blank sun with a circle around a supposed “sunspot”
Click for yourself and see:
http://spaceweather.com/images2010/09sep10/hmi1024_blank.jpg?PHPSESSID=vq30v5tc787hm6okiv32gh2ec5
During 3 consecutive spotless days, our goverment counted 1 spotless day.
Again, sunspots measured at “11” and “13” are non-existent.
The entire sunspot record for this solar cycle has been inflated in this way.
But again, you can believe whoever or whatever you want.
Or you can believe your own lying eyes.
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Not too exciting, as the magnetic pole sort of goes around in a circle every ~700-900 years, so has been there before…
http://www.accuweather.com/video/96827541001/run-hide-the-sun-is-coming-to-get-you-%28if-you-trust-nasa%29.asp?channel=vbbastaj
Joe Bastardi explains this in 4 minutes…
Jus sayin…
Galactic Gatekeeper ALL HANDS ON DECK!
Satellite Soothsayer PREPARE TO REPEL BOARDERS
Galactic Gatekeeper TAKE AIM… STEADY NOW…
Satellite Soothsayer WAIT FOR HIS WORD.
Galactic Gatekeeper FIRE!
Satellite Soothsayer ARGGGGGHHHHHHHH
Galactic Gatekeeper Are you hit trusted knave?
Satellite Soothsayer Holed below the water line Sirrrrrrrrrrrrrre
Galactic Gatekeeper White Coat DOWN! White Coat DOWN!
Satellite Soothsayer Kiss My Hadley Data Centre… ufffffffffffffffffffffff
Consensus Chaplain Now where is my white coat?
Galactic Gatekeeper Women, Children and Scientists first!
Consensus Chaplain Rememeber the 1st shall be last and the last shall be 1st.
Galactic Gatekeeper LADIES! MAKE WAY for the SCIENTISTS.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:18 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
Observations show that surface temperatures drop when the solar wind velocity is lower, for sure.
“There are, for sure, no such observations. Claims galore, but no facts, or even hints.”
____________________________________________________
The first 2 weeks of January, the coldest part of last winter;
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100106_1924/index.html
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100113_1033/index.html
Consistently very low velocity as I have demonstated many times on this blog.
Looking at the warmer winters since 2002/3, it is clearly apparent that the solar wind velocity was significantly higher, as I have pointed out many times on this blog. http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
Denial will not make the facts go away.
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Hi Carla
Strange thing happen at that time. The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
During 3 consecutive spotless days, our government counted 1 spotless day.
Because these were not all spotless, here is Locarno in Switzerland [not your government]: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100910.JPG
The entire sunspot record for this solar cycle has been inflated in this way.
The Layman’s count is a tampered with record that is supposed to support an agenda.
Or you can believe your own lying eyes.
You seem to believe somebody else’s lying eyes. I guess that some people are easier to fool than other. You have been had…
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm
The first 2 weeks of January, the coldest part of last winter
It was summer in Australia, or does the solar wind only know about where you live?
Denial will not make the cherry picked coincidences go away.
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Or you can believe your own lying eyes.
Galactic Gatekeeper BUT…. BUT…. BUT… My trusted knave has the answer.
Satellite Soothsayer URMMMM… If you closed both your eyes
Galactic Gatekeeper YES?
Satellite Soothsayer And URMMMM… Poke your fingers in both eyes.
Galactic Gatekeeper YES?
Satellite Soothsayer Then what do you see?
Galactic Gatekeeper SPOTS!
Satellite Soothsayer Exactly. Spots! QED
Galactic Gatekeeper You just have to admire his lateral thinking!
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm
What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Clearly one does not count spots on spotless days. Now, somebody may not want to count the spots that are there, so declares the day to be spotless. There is also the fact that some spots only live a few hours, so there can be spots in the morning and gone by evening, so ‘spotless’ may depend on when you count.
Today we know that scientists have agendas.
There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world counting sunspots showing that there is no inflation of the count.
I think the Layman’s Sunspot Count demonstrates this conclusively.
The Layman’s count deliberately omit the smallest spots in order to get a sunspot number that is as low as possible. Go check out their website and my comments over there.
Vuk etc. says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm
The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
Complete nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Complete nonsense.
The Institute of Geophysics at the ETH Zurich would not be amused.
About 12 months ago you said of their database ‘the best there is’.
Rapid change of mind?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“It was summer in Australia, or does the solar wind only know about where you live?”
So you think last winter was only cold where I live. The intelligent question would be to ask how much cooler did locations in the S. Hemisphere get in the first 2 weeks of January, and how much did that increase precipitation there.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:56 pm
[Snip. Strike two. ~dbs.]
Tom Rowan said:
>> What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Are you perhaps conflating the “SSN” count with “actual” count of sunspots? SSN stands for _Smoothed_ Sunspot Number and is often used to denote the output of Wolf’s well-known k(10g+s) formula. It tends to produce a value that is roughly 15 times the number of actual spots.
I’m not a solar scientist, but my statistical intuition that tells me the Wolf created this rubric to provide a “standardized” (i.e. generalized and consistent) way to measure and manipulate estimates of spot activity that would be somewhat immune to the vagaries of telescope resolution and human eyesight.
So, for example, if I came up with a way to “smooth” the count of typographical errors per page, I would use a running average and might end up with some value like “2.5 typos per page”. Of, there’s no such thing as a ‘half-typo’, and there will be numerous pages with an ‘actual’ typo count of 0, but the ‘smoothed’ count will still be 2.5. But I think you’ll agree that such a ‘smoothed’ count serves a very useful purpose.
Same argument goes for SSN.
But why x15 factor? Why not try to estimate the “actual” sunspot count? Well, again I’m guessing, but it’s probably to minimize the occurrence of “zeros”.
Philosophically, zeros are a wonderful way to describe ‘nothing’. But mathematically, they’re nasty little buggers.
You can’t divide by them or take their logarithm. And any perfectly good number multiplied by zero, subsequently fails to have a legitimate algebraic inverse.
So, it’s best to avoid them whenever possible, when computing any kind of “positive measure”, and we can think of SSN as being a kind of positive “solar activity” signal that the sun sends us. Scaling numbers upwards by some fixed factor tends to reduce the occurrence of these zero counts. So, days without any observed spots can still have a non-zero SSN. That’s good. Take my word for it.
Think of positive measures as probability or likelihood. Zero probabilities don’t exist. The world may end tonight, not likely, but still a non-zero probability. We might not see a sunspot, but perhaps it was tiny or quick to observe.
Now, in my reading, I’ve learned that the term “SSN” is, unfortunately, a rather ambiguous term. Sometimes it means the Wolf number, but some use it do denote the actual count and other stuff. This is where I suspect your problem lies.
This web page does a good job of sorting out all the different definitions of “SSN”
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/qsl-ssn-history-voacap.htm
Hope that helps,
:-]
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm
“Denial will not make the cherry picked coincidences go away.”
Comparing the solar wind velocity with surface temp`s in every winter since 2002/3 is not cherry picking. Exactly the same correlation can be found in summer months too, take your pick. Higher solar wind speed = higher surface temp`s, consistently.
A new coronal hole stream reaches Earth around the 22nd September, see how that affects land surface temperatures when the solar wind velocity increases.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Leif is the only person so far I have seen argue against the Layman’s Sunspot Count. I wonder who has the agenda? Are you afraid the Layman’s Count is going to make your SC24 prediction look worse than it already may? Or is it just for the sake of arguing against someone who opposes your solar science?
There are some points that cannot be ignored.
We count sunspots differently to how it was done during Wolf’s day. The 22% Waldmeier factor alone is sufficient reason for discounting today’s count, to that we can add that Wolf didn’t count small spots and pores, as a result the Layman’s Count has more spotless days. We have very valid reasons for trying to formulate a modern count that closely matches how Wolf would have counted. At this stage the driving factor is to allow us to compare the current cycles with the past….accurately.
The subject of whether modern telescope seeing difference is affecting the record is currently under review.
Leif will come back with a stack of incorrect statements in an attempt to bluff and confuse those who do not have time to check the detail. He is learning a lot himself through this project and may not be as knowledgeable in this area as some might think.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:42 am
From whence does the locus of this shell polarity configuration emanate?
What configuration? If you mean a ring of opposite polarity or of any polarity, then that occurs quite often. As the magnetic field from a sunspot decays, it is caught up in the supergranular flow and often migrates to the edge of the supergranule, so you end up with a ‘network’ of cells.
No, I do not mean opposite polarities. I mean all polarities of the 3 major regions.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I know what you are saying, but it’s not going to light a bulb where there is no attention being paid.
It really shows up when you go from one Hem. winter to the opposing Hem. winter in succession.
It also shows up well in the summer temps in the S. Hem., and that is where the Sea Ice is also growing and where the La Nina is upwelling.
Caleb,
(I love that word, “electroscavanging.”) It also explains some rather sneering and belittling responces I’ve heard to the very idea that cosmic rays can increase cloud cover at all. They began with the same “either/or ” assumption I began with, but never got beyond it.
I’ve traveled the North American continent for decades observing the clouds, at times a complete lack of clouds for many months on end. Something that sitting behind a screen in a room cannot begin to replicate.
Long, long periods of time where you couldn’t buy a cloud and even the Weather Channel people were blown away by it. Then a big volcano plume from Columbia and a bit later clouds begin to stream into the southern USA.
I’ve watched these cloudless periods go well into solar cycle ramp-down (’06-’07 for example) when increasing GCR’s should have already been forming clouds. Then what changes is a round of big volcano eruptions and behold, clouds and rain everywhere.!!! Take those away and I do believe the psedo-science will be very, very weak.
Its a possibility, I acknowledge, but I officially withdraw my ‘or’ and I find psedo-science peddlers rather sneering and belittling. 🙂
On the subject of weather and climate and higher/lower temperatures one should keep in mind constantly: Correlation is not causation .
Here is another correlation with temperatures:
http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2010/08/special-post-life-on-this-earth-just.html
If the winter is severe will it be blamed on gulf oil? I think in the article the dispersant is wrongly inculpated using simple logic.
It is amazing that in the age of nanotechnology and quantum computing even trained people will succumb to the temptation of interpreting omens.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Exactly the same correlation can be found in summer months too, take your pick. Higher solar wind speed = higher surface temp`s, consistently.
For this to be true, the surface temperature everywhere must vary the same way, and it doesn’t. To substantiate your claim, plot solar wind speed against temperature and show that there is a strong correlation.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm
We have very valid reasons for trying to formulate a modern count that closely matches how Wolf would have counted. At this stage the driving factor is to allow us to compare the current cycles with the past….accurately.
Except that the cycles you want to compare with were not counted by Wolf at all.
My prediction so far is doing well: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm
No, I do not mean opposite polarities. I mean all polarities of the 3 major regions.
The supergranular network, then.
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“For this to be true, the surface temperature everywhere must vary the same way, and it doesn’t. To substantiate your claim, plot solar wind speed against temperature and show that there is a strong correlation.”
At the solstices, one hemisphere has summer and other has winter, they is no way they would have the same temperature change. Even in one hemisphere, the changes are different in extent, from tropics to sub-tropics to mid/higher latitudes etc.
Circulation issues such as incursions of polar air, will mean some regions will have temp`s going the opposite direction to the solar signal at certain times of the year.
rbateman says:
September 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm
I know what you are saying, but it’s not going to light a bulb where there is no attention being paid.
It really shows up when you go from one Hem. winter to the opposing Hem. winter in succession.
It also shows up well in the summer temps in the S. Hem., and that is where the Sea Ice is also growing and where the La Nina is upwelling.
___________________________________________________
I am only discussing in this example, the short term effects on land temperature in the first 2 weeks of January 2010, ie when the solar wind was very low, and in many places in the N. Hem was the coldest weeks of last winter.
There was a general fall in S. Hem temperatures in this 2 weeks, but much smaller than the drop in the N. Hem, as it was summer time, land temperature range in winter is far larger than ever happens in summer.
ENSO moves opposite to the solar signal and land temp` at certain times of the year, so is not relevant to what I am saying.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
~
Not too exciting, as the magnetic pole sort of goes around in a circle every ~700-900 years, so has been there before…
~
Is kinda exciting Leif, I mean, I mean, hangs out over a thousand years in the eastern hemi doing its looping, then for “unexplained or a reason yet not understood,” heads into the western hemisphere around Maunder time. Now whilst in the western hemi it has already done a 180 and appears to be heading back to the eastern hemi again. If you are right shouldn’t it hang out in the western hemi for over a thousand years and loop around a while before heading east again?
Vuk etc. says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Carla says:
September 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
One more thing, it was around 1600-1700 maunder time, when the North Magnetic pole starts its journey to the Western Hemi.
Hi Carla
Strange thing happen at that time. The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
~
A magnetic shock wave.. sounds bout right. Perhaps the boundary of an interstellar cloudlett. Making that cloudlett or mini instellar cloud only 400 or so years long for our solar system to pass through. We are just learning that within larger interstellar clouds, like the one the heliosphere had been in for thousands of years, also contain smaller mini clouds which vary and range in size as well
In the terrestrial system we see this often and know where warmer and cooler clouds come together lots of energy is manifested in the form of lightning. If you take that to a larger scale such as the interstellar scale a magnetic shock wave is possible.
Wannabe galactic gatekeeper
lol
continued..
Now why would we think that there is no turblence in the interstellar realm around us? When the whole galaxy if filled with chaos and turbulence.
Last ramble on comment.
It disappoints me that the planetary theorists, don’t take into account that which affects the whole system including the Jovian planets.
Can’t help myself this morning. lol
Question for the planetary theorists.
If we entered a small cloudlett around or just prior to Maunder, where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit? 1957-2003 hmm big flux tube
Leif can obviously speak for himself, but the only thing you achieve with this kind of smear is to weaken your own case. You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided), it isn’t pretty.
Stick to the science please….
Carla says: September 21, 2010 at 5:45 am
……….where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit?
Not in our lifetime, 50 year shut-down 2180-2230.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm
What I do know is that “spots” are counted on spotless days.
Clearly one does not count spots on spotless days. Now, somebody may not want to count the spots that are there, so declares the day to be spotless. There is also the fact that some spots only live a few hours, so there can be spots in the morning and gone by evening, so ‘spotless’ may depend on when you count.
Today we know that scientists have agendas.
There are hundreds of amateurs all over the world counting sunspots showing that there is no inflation of the count.
I think the Layman’s Sunspot Count demonstrates this conclusively.
The Layman’s count deliberately omit the smallest spots in order to get a sunspot number that is as low as possible. Go check out their website and my comments over there.
==========================
==========================
I never read posts at Layman’s Sunspot Count Leif.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The pictures at the Layman’s Sunspot Count speak in volumes.
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
I am just an accountant.
Can you give me your expert mathmatical count of “11” spots? Any “11” spot day will do.
“You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided)”
Spare us your PC puritanism. I get why my ancestors left.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:27 am
Carla says: September 21, 2010 at 5:45 am
……….where on your sunspot graphs would you put the exit?
Not in our lifetime, 50 year shut-down 2180-2230.
~
You’re speaking of even a larger scale structure.
I’m speaking of smaller scale, (mini in galactic size) structure which we have only recently begun to “see.” Smaller cloudletts and surrounding electro magnetic filamentary structures.
Group W Angus, still wondering what the IBEX discovered ribbon is evolving into this year. It moves, it breathes, it changes.. because what it enounters at the boundary changes.
And that not in our life time statement applies to what? Cause more recent statements indicate “today tommorrow or maybe a hundred..” That not in our lifetime is no longer true.
Vuk etc. says:
September 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm
The Institute of Geophysics at the ETH Zurich would not be amused.
Potsdam, perhaps…
Rapid change of mind?
No, their data is good, it is your claim that is nonsense.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 1:00 am
the changes are different in extent, from tropics to sub-tropics to mid/higher latitudes etc.
So, the changes are different from place to place. This means that you can always find some changes that matches anything. This is what is meant by ‘cherry picking’.
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:36 am
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
Yes, I have studied this for 40 years.
Can you give me your expert mathmatical count of “11″ spots? Any “11″ spot day will do.
A day with a single tiny spot gets a sunspot number of 11, or on SIDC’s scale a 7.
This is how sunspot accounting works. If there are 80 spots distributed in 8 groups, the SSN will be SSN=10*8+80=160. SIDC in Brussels would report this as 96=0.6*160.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
During 3 consecutive spotless days, our government counted 1 spotless day.
===============================================
Because these were not all spotless, here is Locarno in Switzerland [not your government]: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100910.JPG
=========================================
With that impeccable logic, our next total solar eclipse will occur in September of 2081, Zurich time.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:06 am
========================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:36 am
Evidently, you must be some sort of expert sunspot counter Leif.
=============================
Leif: Yes, I have studied this for 40 years.
==============================
Can you give me your expert mathematical count of “11″ spots? Any “11″ spot day will do.
======================
Leif: A day with a single tiny spot gets a sunspot number of 11, or on SIDC’s scale a 7.
This is how sunspot accounting works. If there are 80 spots distributed in 8 groups, the SSN will be SSN=10*8+80=160. SIDC in Brussels would report this as 96=0.6*160.
===================
Now that you have established your credentials as an expert mathematical expert in counting sunspots, will you please give us the mathatical expression of “11” spots?
Pretty please with sugar on it?
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11)
What is X Leif?
Anything interesting in here?
Possible Solar volcanic correlation
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
September 21, 2010 at 6:02 am
Leif can obviously speak for himself, but the only thing you achieve with this kind of smear is to weaken your own case. You have a history of spreading false claims and RC-style “moderation” when your case is challenged (links can be provided), it isn’t pretty.
Stick to the science please….
Your right, he can speak for himself.
And we don’t you to remind us. Your past record is nothing to stand on.
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
Carla says:
September 21, 2010 at 5:09 am
Wannabe galactic gatekeeper
Would you settle for Celestial Cloud Chaser? ☺
Leif Svalgaard says: September 21, 2010 at 7:06 am
No, their data is good, it is your claim that is nonsense.
If data is good, which bit than you qualify as nonsense?
The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11” no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
Correction:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1+1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:50 am
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
If they count 10*1+1=11 it is because the observed 1.
You can undoubtedly find days [2009/11/13, 2009/11/14 perhaps] where NOAA reported 0, but other observers [e.g. Brussels] report a spot. This is a natural consequence of the short life time of small spots.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
We can make a sunspot number every five seconds, but that is meaningless as we use the sunspot number as a measure of long-term variability.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:37 am
If data is good, which bit that you qualify as nonsense?
The Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic in particular, experienced huge magnetic shock, which is still, to this day, resonating through the globe.
Both the clauses in the statement ‘The North.. globe.’. Quantify ‘huge’ and prove ‘to this day’. Or rather, forget it, it is not worth considering. ‘Resonating through the globe’ is so bad it is not even wrong.
Tom Rowan
Sunspot count method should be blamed on Rudolf Wolf. He was deliberating for months about the problem. One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. To his amazement shop girl explained that the 10 rappens slice did not have any holes but the 11 r slice had one hole (more holes in Swiss cheese more expensive it is). Hurrah (in German) he shouted, the rest is as they say history.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:30 am
One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. etc…
Complete nonsense
Leif Svalgaard says: September 21, 2010 at 10:24 am
———
Now doc, if you looked at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
(no hits from Belgium or Petaluma, unless you gone across to Germany), ‘huge’ and ‘resonance’ etc are explained on the graph.
Just do a simple and very educational experiment: have two eggs, one fresh one hard boiled, spin them together next to each other.
I consider the Earth as a fresh egg, you appear to think of it as a hard boiled one.
Vuk etc. says:
One day he went to buy some cheese, two apparent identical slices were marked 10 and 11 rappens. etc…
Leif Svalgaard says:
Complete nonsense
It’s true! ( Some )Scandinavians have no sense of humour.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:58 am
‘huge’ and ‘resonance’ etc are explained on the graph.
Not huge and not resonance, and not ‘hit’ by anything. The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by convection and dynamo action in the core and have nothing to do with eggs. The nonsense remains.
ps.
That’s better. I think you are in Brugge, West-vlaanderen, Belgium
And, do you have some hits from Belgium now?
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:03 am
It’s true!
I don’t think your little story is true
( Some) Scandinavians have no sense of humour.
You mean that your other claim was also an attempt of humor?
Hard to tell them apart, I tell you.
Leif Svalgaard says:
The Earth’s magnetic field is generated by convection and dynamo action in the core and have nothing to do with eggs.
To paraphrase your own words: Report back when you done the egg experiment.
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:11 am
I think you are in Brugge, West-vlaanderen, Belgium
Complete nonsense
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:19 am
To paraphrase your own words: Report back when you done the egg experiment.
Complete nonsense
I used to think it was odd that Leif always had a smiley face on his postings over at SolarCycle24.com. I’ve come to interpret that as the “spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down”.
Leif Svalgaard
—————–
When my kids were little, I use to make up all sort of stories for them, now they are grown up, so I have turned my ‘talents’ to the solar activity, magnetic fields, world climate etc. equally entertaining subjects. Not much difference really.
‘Its true’ refers to: (some) Scandinavians…..
L.S.
Complete nonsense.. Complete nonsense… Complete nonsense
Quote: Subconsciously you block your mind by verbal repetition.
JCarels says: September 21, 2010 at 11:13 am
And, do you have some hits from Belgium now?
Number of hits from:
Host Name d51A4E53B.access.telenet.be , IP Address 81.164.229.59
Country Belgium, Region West-vlaanderen , City Brugge
Browser Firefox 3.6 , Operating System WinVista , Javascript Enabled
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm
“Complete nonsense.. Complete nonsense… Complete nonsense”
Subconsciously you block your mind by verbal repetition.
It seems you all the sudden you lost your sense of humor, ah well, humor only goes so far…
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:19 am
========================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:50 am
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
If they count 10*1+1=11 it is because the observed 1.
You can undoubtedly find days [2009/11/13, 2009/11/14 perhaps] where NOAA reported 0, but other observers [e.g. Brussels] report a spot. This is a natural consequence of the short life time of small spots.
=========================
Okay, what are the spotless moments in time for this historic period?
You are the expert around here. (So tell us, pretty please with sugar on it,)
===================================================
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We can make a sunspot number every five seconds, but that is meaningless as we use the sunspot number as a measure of long-term variability.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see, so moments in time where the sun goes spotless, these times are not worth “counting.”
Open Letter to Leif:
Tell that to Yankee fans compaining about the umpirer.
This is the moment you admit checkmate or are deemed a fool:
Choose wisely.
Go to Layman’s Sunspot Count and see for yourselves. Compare it with Spaceweather, (if they keep history online.)
0(10*1) + 1 does not = “11.” At best it equals “1” spot nobody ever saw, even with today’s best telescopes.
Accounting, like Chess, like counting sunspots, have certain rules.
In accounting we may never inflate numbers. The law penalizes those who do.
In chess we may never say “checkmate” until the opponent can acknowledge it for himself. I am asking you to acknowledge that you have no idea how many times our sun has been spotless, even for a moment, during this solar cycle.
So far, you have not.
Prove me wrong sunspot beancounter.
Again. You can believe me, believe Joe, or believe Leif.
Who do you want to be stuck in a coal mine with?
(Remember, NASA cut off cigarettes to trapped coal miners.)
http://store.math.com/ConsoleGames-11846801-B0007ZNN48-Lego_Star_Wars.html
Tom Rowans says: Is there anyone on this site worth arguement’s sake?
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm
When my kids were little, I use to make up all sort of stories for them […] I have turned my ‘talents’ to the solar activity, magnetic fields, world climate etc. equally entertaining subjects. Not much difference really.
Perhaps this forum would be better off with your made-up stories… Some modicum of science might better be required.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Perhaps this forum would be better off without your made-up stories…
some slip there 🙂
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm
you have no idea how many times our sun has been spotless, even for a moment, during this solar cycle.
37[NOAA]-40[SIDC] days.
You can’t count moments. How many moments in an hour? 3? 123967565? tell me?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
During 3 consecutive spotless days, our government counted 1 spotless day.
===============================================
Because these were not all spotless, here is Locarno in Switzerland [not your government]: http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100910.JPG
=========================================
With that impeccable logic, our next total solar eclipse will occur in September of 2081, Zurich time.
=+=+=+=+=+=+
Notice how logic must be taken to the memory hole and disgarded.
Meanwhile, expert sunspot counters cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out for days, hours, or minutes.
This is called “check” Leif.
You tell us, (as an expert,) how many times our dormant sun has gone spotless during solar cycle 24.
This is called “checkmate” Leif.
Do you confess?
L.S.
Perhaps this forum would be better off with your made-up stories… Some modicum of science might better be required.
I got an invitation from From National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado for a PhD research.
Carl Drews starts with:
“CU is a great place to do research, professors never said no to any crazy research ideas.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:58 pm
===========================
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Perhaps this forum would be better off without your made-up stories…
some slip there 🙂
==========================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm
you have no idea how many times our sun has been spotless, even for a moment, during this solar cycle.
========================
“Leif says:”
37[NOAA]-40[SIDC] days.
You can’t count moments. How many moments in an hour? 3? 123967565? tell me?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes or no sir? My clients demand to know when their bank accounts are at zero.
So does the IRS.
So tell us Leif: How many times has the sun been spotless during solar cycle 24?
This s/b an easy question for “professional” sunspot counters as yourself.
This ought to be pertinent. We have the technology to photograph spotless moments in time.
Leif swears we do.
So Leif, (professional sunspot bean counter,) pretty please with sugar on it; How many spotless moments in time during solar cycle 24?
(For those you who do not play chess, this is known as “checkmate.”)
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:07 pm
So tell us Leif: How many times has the sun been spotless during solar cycle 24?
~40 days. Do you have a reading disability?
Vuk etc. says:
September 21, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“CU is a great place to do research, professors never said no to any crazy research ideas.”
Big difference between crazy ideas and plain old nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:06 am
“So, the changes are different from place to place. This means that you can always find some changes that matches anything. This is what is meant by ‘cherry picking’.”
No you have the wrong end of the stick. The changes will be largely in unison, but of different range or extent, as would be expected.
There were 2 examples I gave in my previous post; 1) early Jan 2010, which alone could constitute cherry picking, but I also pointed out that 2) solar wind speed and N.H. winter temp`s in ALL winters since 2002/3 were higher until the last two. Our latest discussion is about how the drop in the solar wind velocity in early Jan 2010 would play out in different regions of the globe, it has nothing to do with cherry picking at all. In fact you decided to cherry pick Australia, assuming that as it was summer there, it would not be colder. The decisive proof for an Australian temp` dropping in early Jan, would be a positive rainfall anomaly for that fortnight, as a drop in summer temp`s always drives up rainfall volume, ask Erl Happ, he clued me in on it.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
solar wind speed and N.H. winter temp`s in ALL winters since 2002/3 were higher until the last two.
So of 8 times it failed twice in a row. To have any validity your statement should have been: ‘in ALL [or a statistically significant number] winters since 1963-4 they were higher’. And is N.H. the average Northern Hemisphere? And does this hold for the S.H. too? and why not?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:07 pm
So tell us Leif: How many times has the sun been spotless during solar cycle 24?
Leif ~40 days. Do you have a reading disability?
Tom Rowan asks;
Do we all see how Leif, (expert sunspot counter at WUWT AND SolarCycle24 AND Layman’s Sunspot Count,) avoids ansering actual scientific questions?
During what could be the start of a grand minimum, Leif will not give us the spotless moments.
For those of us who declare “checkmate;” we are asking why?
Leif seems ill prepared to answer how many times our sun has flickered out.
Leif still insists that he is an “expert” sunspot counter.
So, again Leif, pretty please with sugar on it;
Tell us the number of times our sun went blank during the current solar cycle.
An anxious world awaits……………
(do we have a “crickets chirping” avatar at WUWT?)
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Tell us the number of times our sun went blank during the current solar cycle.
Ah, getting away from moments now. Counting each stretch of blank days as ‘one time’ the answer is 11 times [NOAA] or 14 times [SIDC].
Chirp
Chirp
Chirp
> Tell us the number of times our sun went blank during the current solar cycle.
There’s a jillion websites that can answer that question, for any arbitrary period. Just Google ‘spotless days’. For example,
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
During the last minimum between 23-24 I believe the record for the consectutive days was around 800.
Since the sun has become more active again, it’s more interesting to analyze the runs of ‘spotfull days’. Currently we’re at 55 (http://www.solarcycle24.com)
😐
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
solar wind speed and N.H. winter temp`s in ALL winters since 2002/3 were higher until the last two.
The correct way of deciding this is to do the math. Here are two plots:
http://www.leif.org/research/NH-Temps-Solar-Wind-Speed.png
The top one shows for every winter [Dec-Jan-Feb] where we have spacecraft data, the NH land anomalies [blue], and their detrended values [red]. The green dots show the solar wind speed during these winters. You can see there is no correlation of the kind you claim. In the bottom plot you can see a scatter plot of the winter temp anomalies versys the solar wind speed. The R^2 values is ~0.1 which means no correlation for this number of data points. If anything there is a [insignificant] ‘correlation going the other way [faster wind = lower temp]. This should end your claim for good, don’t you think?
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Chirp Chirp Chirp
Tom has decended to cricket level, it seems. Watch out for the birds now.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 2:27 pm
solar wind speed and N.H. winter temp`s in ALL winters since 2002/3 were higher until the last two.
Leif;
“So of 8 times it failed twice in a row. ”
No, the first 6 were higher wind speed and higher temp`s, the last two were lower wind speed and lower temp`s, no failures.
“And is N.H. the average Northern Hemisphere?
N.H. winter is what it says, some warmer, some cooler, for the reasons already explained.
” And does this hold for the S.H. too? and why not?”
Well why would it not, does the solar wind only affect the N.H.?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
=======================================
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Chirp Chirp Chirp
Tom has decended to cricket level, it seems. Watch out for the birds now.
======================
I have more proof I invented “twitter” than Algore has invented “the internet.”
Step into the ring Leif, you [SNIP]
(lol…I put in the [SNIP] myself Leif. Now you are to prove your thesis that you are, in fact, an expert sunspot beancounter, with your own words….
Tell us Leif; How many times has our sun gone missing sunspots?
This s/b a simple question for experts like you. If no one else wants to know the number…..at least give the number to canaries in a coal mine.
Leif: The total number of spotless moments in Solar Cycle 24 is:
(Will “Final Jeopardy music” help, Leif?)
Chirp
Chirp
Chirp
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
There actually is a very good correlation between your solar wind plot and say European winter surface station records, but not every year, as you really need to look at this at a finer scale to make proper sense of it. For example, a given winter may have a very warm December, a very cold January, followed by a February with a very cold first half, and a very mild second half. Now average this all out like you have over 3 months, and you would not know from the result, that there was a cold winter. If you want to claim faster solar wind = lower temps, that is your folly.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Can you re-do your plots, with surface station data between 30 and 60 degrees north, with separate plots for temperatures and solar wind speed in each winter months please.
Today is only day one….
So far, WUWT readers have been given solar drool for our grist.
Behold:
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 10:14 am
Correction:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom Rowan says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:48 am
Please put this in mathematical terms, so we mere bean counters can understand.
(X = 11) What is X Leif?
Bean counters also have accounting rules that must be followed. The sunspot counting rule takes into account that sunspots occurs in ‘groups’, and then the rule [established around 1850] is that the sunspot number is 10*[number of groups]+[number of spots]. So if there is but a single, tiny, teeny, minuscule spot, it obviously makes up a group [contaning just one spot], so the rule says that SSN = 10*1 + 1 = 11. For various reasons that number [which NOAA would report] is reduced by SIDC by multiplying by 0.6, so SSN(SIDC) would be [for our example], SSN(SIDC) = 0.6*11 = 7 [rounded to whole number].
========================================
Therein lies your fallacy.
NOAA is counting no spots as 10*1+1=11
0(10*1+1) = 0. It does not equal “11.”
====================================
Say we were “counting” candle watts deep in a coal mine, instead of sunpots:
For the sake of canaries, in a 24 hour period we would count the times the candle flickered out.
If the candle flickered out 11 times during that 24 hour period, would Leif tell us the candle never flickered out?
Seems to me that everytime the sun flickers out and has zero sunspots it should be at least mentioned.
But according to Leif, counting the times the sun flickers out ought never be counted in a 24 hour period.
Looking back over solar cycle 24, Leif cannot tell you how many times the sun flickered out in a 24 hour period for the entire cycle.
Seems to me we have the technology to count such spotless moments in time. According to expert sunpot counters, these times must be inflated to “11″ no matter if the sun is blank.
Seems to me that canaries would be interested in how many times a candle flickered out in a coal mine. Counting the times the sun went blank during what could be the beginning of another grand minimum might be just as important.
Alas, we must rely on “experts” telling us to ignore a blank sun, lack of sunspots altogether, and spotless days. And they do this behind a curtain of so-called “math” that counts zero as “11.”
========================================
========================================
Tom Rowan & the Crickets ask:
Leif, we have a great idea for a number “1” post! Leif can make millions if he tells the Nobel Peace Prize membership: Spotless moments in time.
Tell the Nobel Peace Prize Committee Leif: Tell them how many spotless moments in time during solar cycle 24.
It is easier to admit “checkmate” than it is to admit you have no idea how many times our sun has gone spotless over solar cycle 24.
Your own words defeat yourself Leif, logically speaking.
I would call you a [SNIP] if that would cajole you into telling us, (as an expert sunspot bean counter;) how many spotless moments during this potential grand minimum.
We are only asking the “experts” Leif. If you cannot or will not tell us how many spotless moments, then who the [SNIP] will? Sheesh!
HOW many spotless moments, minutes, hours, and days were counted Leif?
Me? Just a guy.
You? An expert sunspot “counter.”
Me? Asking one simple question: “How many spotless moments?”
You: “Chirp, chirp, chirp…..”
(Insert: “Final Jeopardy Music”…………….)
Chirp………………….
chirp………………….
chirp………………….
It is called birdshot Leif.
If you do not like it, never go hunting with Dick Cheney.
Simple question from a simple guy, Leif:
How many times has our sun gone spotless during solar cycle 24, (you are a 4o year old solar genious, are you not?)
So tell us solar expert….How many times has our sun gone blank?
How many solar eclipses in Zurich?
An anxious world of lazy accountants awaits, ( and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee,) with baited breath. What’s up with that Leif? Didja “swallow” something?
Cat got ur tongue Leif?
I’m on a sunspot number diet.
I prefer the Sunspot Area menu, it tells me what I need to know.
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
The definition of a spotless day is interesting. I want to know how many Wolf would have counted if he was around today. Not only by his counting method but also by what he could see. There is now no doubt that his equipment was inferior compared with what we use today and we also know he didn’t count small spots and specks.
According to Wolf’s method ( as close as we can get today) there have been 385 spotless days since the beginning of 2009. Last month we had 8 spotless days, showing that we are still getting them (71 this year).
MODERATOR! says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
Hiya Mods!
Nice to meet you online. My name is Tom. I like football, politics, and the truth.
Being the MODERATOR and all that, mods, moderate betwixt us, will you?
MODERATOR: The number of spotless moments during solar cycle 24 is:
Leif: The number of spotless moments during solar cycle 24 is:
Tom Rowan: I love Wattsupwiththat! You never get kicked off for asking “experts” to account for themselves.
Just the facts, mamn.
I have received two emails today that reveal some of the mystery of the sunspot count and answers some long argued questions.
The first one was from Sergio Cortesi who is one of the actual counters from Locarno and has witnessed the changeover from Zurich to SIDC. He counted the very first SIDC day in 1981 (daily raw number of 245). He maybe the observer that has been at Locarno for over 50 years. He states:
The telescope originally used by Wolf did not have the same resolution as the instruments used now. The reduction factor k {R = k(10g+f)} was introduced to take care of this problem.
The reduction factor k is decided by SIDC, before by Zurich.
Sergio Cortesi
I was honored to receive a reply and in his answer is another hidden gem. I also received an email from Frédéric Clette who is an expert in this area from the SIDC that made it all clear. It seems that Wolfer when constructing his .6 K factor to align with Wolf was also including a telescope factor
From Frederic:
Scaling modern observations versus the early ones
———————————————————————————–
Now regarding the difference between the small original telescope used by Wolf and larger modern telescopes, it turns out that the transition occurred long ago at Zürich, when Wolfer took over from Wolf around 1882. By that time, the instruments had already improved and Wolfer used a 15cm telescope with a 25cm projected image that is rather equivalent in performance to present telescopes used by contributing observers. In order to account for the change (increase) in sunspot count associated BOTH to the larger instrument AND to a different counting rule (including the smallest spots without penumbra that were excluded by Wolf), Wolfer observed during 15 years in parallel with Wolf, which led to the 0.6 scaling factor that simply brings the modern Zürich observation to the scale of the original Wolf values.
So today’s observatories are modeled on Wolfer’s telescope rather than Wolf’s, although there is obviously a connection. Frédéric explained that once the 100mm aperture barrier was broken by Wolfer all spots/specks could be seen (when viewing conditions allow). So Wolfer had a good reason to count everything and it was not just based on changing the method.
Frédéric hinted that there are still small differences between today’s telescopes which are taken up in their individual K factors. I am especially keen to find out more about the Catania telescope, it is within the Wolfer standard but some of the design features are amazing.
The SIDC is currently reviewing their sunspot series and have taken on board Dr. Svalgaards comments from his recent presentation. They were also very grateful for my supplementary comments.
I will expand the “history”section on the Layman’s page so all of this can be referenced.
This Tom Rowan heckling of Leif is getting tiring.
Listen, Tom Rowan. I think, inches and feet and yards are a stupid way of counting up the earth. Particularly when the first yard was defined from the distance of the nose of a king to the end of his hand. ( or some such). Or drams and okas. There are 400 drams in the oka. (If you knew that you might come up with” why are there not 366 drams in the oka?). And lets not get into pounds and ounces and stones.
A convention has been devised by the scientists gathering the data. The number of spots and the sunspot number are two different concepts that you seem unable to understand.
Could you please stop belaboring the obvious to people who know about relative definitions in science and compromises in order to have some continuity with old measures. Was the foot in king James time the same size as the foot now?
The objective of having a sunspot number is to have a proxy for the sun’s activity that is connected with the record from the time sunspots were seen as important and recorded. That is all. It is not one upmanship on what a sunspot less day is and the meaning thereof. If people who are doing the calculations of sun activity can use the sunspot number as they have defined it, that should be fine with scientists in other disciplines. Inconsistencies within a system are important, but you are not pointing out inconsistencies, just insisting on your preferences. Please play quietly in the corner from now on.
Seems to me some very fine brain cells are being drivelled on this thread.
@ Geoff: Did you asked them about the Waldmeier factor? Do they used it sometimes or don’t they draw the pores in their sketches?
JCarels says:
September 21, 2010 at 11:46 pm
@ Geoff: Did you asked them about the Waldmeier factor? Do they used it sometimes or don’t they draw the pores in their sketches?
I did ask Sergio if they use the Waldmeier scaling factor in full at Locarno. He did not answer that directly but I have looked back over many of his drawings and he does look consistent with the original Waldmeier method though perhaps not doubling every pore value. Other observers show quite some variance from the Waldmeier method. Locarno is the reference station but I have noticed that sometimes their high count on certain days is heavily discounted in the final SIDC daily value.
Catania does look to record more specks than Locarno, if this is due to the better viewing or a better telescope I am still unsure. Catania do not use the Waldmeier system, and actually employ a different counting method. A large spot with 6 umbrae can receive a value of 15 raw by Locarno, compared to 16 raw by Catania. Catania keeping pace with Locarno to some degree by counting separate umbrae and perhaps extra specks.
MODERATOR! says:
September 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
[Tom Rowan’s trollish behavior is becoming annoying]
True – but I did think we would eventually find out what his point is. He seems to be of the opinion that world governments are conspiring to inflate the sunspot count. Not the easiest thing to do, one would think, since the sun is not easy to hide and it is apparent that independent counts are taken by thousands of interested amateurs all over the world.
However, the biggest mystery to me is why Tom imagines our leaders would want to increase the sunspot count. If they wanted to persuade the people about the perils of global warming, I can just about see the logic of artificially DECREASING the count. Even then it’s a bit of stretch to believe that they think they could get away with it.
Is there a point to your posts, Tom? If so please share it with us.
[Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch. When in doubt, free speech rules, obnoxious or not. As long as it’s not too obnoxious. ~dbs, mod.]
Perhaps there should be some sort of limit on repetition.
John Finn says:
September 22, 2010 at 3:02 am
“However, the biggest mystery to me is why Tom imagines our leaders would want to increase the sunspot count. If they wanted to persuade the people about the perils of global warming, I can just about see the logic of artificially DECREASING the count.”
True, but these are master politicians who, like options traders, want to profit no matter what the sun does. If we have a normal cycle 24 with surface cooling, the story is “See, no correlation, warming will resume shortly.” The worst scenario for them is a Grand Minimum with marked cooling.
John Finn says:
September 22, 2010 at 3:02 am
NOAA by design inflate the sunspot count by not adopting the Wolfer .6 K factor. There has been references to why an inflated count might benefit some.
I think what angers many is that modern equipment is recording results inconsistent with the old record.
Leif,
Are you still in Belgium? Hope you are often refueling yourself with some Aqua Vit there while taking on this tag-team of commenters. : )
John
Ulric Lyons says:
September 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Can you re-do your plots, with surface station data between 30 and 60 degrees north, with separate plots for temperatures and solar wind speed in each winter months please.
I think it is up to the one making claims to do this… What will you do if I do it and find again that there is no correlation? If you know that, then we just as well do that right away and save a step.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm
I have received two emails today that reveal some of the mystery of the sunspot count and answers some long argued questions.
Unfortunately they are both incorrect. It is easiest to start with Frederic’s, which is more specific.
“1882. By that time, the instruments had already improved and Wolfer used a 15cm telescope with a 25cm projected image that is rather equivalent in performance to present telescopes used by contributing observers.”
Zurich did have a 15 cm telescope with a projected image. This telescope was used for a detailed study of positions and movements of sunspots and filaments. It was NOT used for the sunspot counts. The best is to let Wolfer speak for himself. Here is his report from 1893 when Wolf died: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-LXXXIV.pdf Wolfer says “p 109: Meine eigenen Beobactungen sind wie immer am vierfuessigen Fraunhoferschen Fernrohr.. [My own observations were, as always, made with the 4-foot Fraunhofer telescope..]. In http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-CXVI.pdf his successor Brunner [in 1927] is very explicit: “Die Fleckenzaehlungen wurden am alten Fraunhoferschen Fernrohr von 8 cm Qeffnung bei 64 facher Vergroesserung unter verwendung eines Merzshne Polarisationsheliokopes in der bisherigen Weise durch Zaehlung der Gruppen und der Einzelflecken in denselben ausgefuehrt” [The sunspot counts were made with the old Fraunhofer Telescope with 8 cm diameter at 64 times magnification using a Merzsh polarizing filter in the old way by counting the groups and the spots within group singly]. Waldmeier also states that the old 8 cm x64 telescope was used for the sunspot counting.
So today’s observatories are modeled on Wolfer’s telescope rather than Wolf’s
So you can see that this is not the case, which makes the rest moot.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
NOAA by design inflate the sunspot count by not adopting the Wolfer .6 K factor. There has been references to why an inflated count might benefit some.
This is nonsense. It would be like saying that Mexico inflates distance by measuring in kilometers instead of in miles.
I think what angers many is that modern equipment is recording results inconsistent with the old record.
There is no inconsistency with the old record.
John Whitman says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:55 am
Are you still in Belgium?
Better [on the aquavit front], I’m in Denmark now.
pochas says:
September 22, 2010 at 6:19 am
The worst scenario for them is a Grand Minimum with marked cooling.
Wrong. The worst scenario for “them” is NO Grand Minimum and marked cooling. They would have to admit couldnt expalin the cooling. At the moment that have the supposed onset of a Grand Minimum with record high tropospheric temperatures on daily basis. Perfect (for them)!
Re:
John Finn says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 22, 2010 at 10:57 am
“They would have to admit couldnt expalin the cooling. At the moment that have”
should read
“They would have to admit they couldn’t explain the cooling. At the moment they have”
Thanks
Seems like some post have been edited since this morning…
Locarno counts they way they should (it’s even on their website) and so does Catania.
Every SIDC observing station has to follow the rules:
R=k (10g+s)
A large or small spot are both counted as 1
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 22, 2010 at 8:17 am
” What will you do if I do it and find again that there is no correlation?”
Probably ask you to do it again weekly, as quite often, months are split between -ve and +ve anomalies that “get lost” in the averaging.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 22, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Probably ask you to do it again weekly, as quite often, months are split between -ve and +ve anomalies that “get lost” in the averaging.
And you have N.H. weekly temperature data that you used to establish the connection with?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 22, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“And you have N.H. weekly temperature data that you used to establish the connection with?”
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007, potentially negating the need for any form of Weather Derivatives, and greatly reducing the need for speculation on energy and agricultural uses and outputs.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:43 am
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007
Do you have a reference to that? computation of skill-scores? predicting conditions where? All over the N.H.? in 100 small regions throughout the N.H.?
From Frederic Clette:
On 09/23/2010 10:23 AM, Leif Svalgaard wrote:
1) Yes, the 0.6 change is solely due yo the counting rule. Wolfer is
very clear on this.
This is probably right, also for the reason below (secondary role of the telescope, once above a ~50 mm aperture).
2) Waldmeier measured the k-factor for Locarno for each year and
always reported it to be close to 0.6, i.e. just the same as for the
old 8 cm Wolf telescope. Waldmeier and Sergio used the same weighting
system, so no wonder that they get the same result. This shows that
the telescope is not really the limiting factor, but the counting
method and the observer are.
I am happy to hear that you reach about the same conclusion as the one I reached in my earlier answer to Goeff Sharp. It makes all the debate about the use of small Wolf-like refractors rather unimportant for what concerns the long-term calibration issue.
Now, if indeed Wolf’s 8cm telescope was still used completely independently of their 15cm telescope up to the “end” of Zürich in 1980, as I pointed out in my previous answer, it raises the issue of the subtle and progressive inclusion of the Locarno values that were obtained in a way that was more different than any change that occurred over the previous 130 years. If indeed the Zürich/SIDC transition in 1980 was the actual time when simultaneously the index computation method, the pilot station and observer changed, and now also when for the first time the reference Wolf telescope was not anymore used, it is even more remarkable that the transition was seamless (to the point that the suspicious Waldmeier change in the counting method seems to have simply propagated to today). It again indicates that for the Ri index, the exact choice of instrument at Zürich does not play a key role.
Similarly, as I mentioned in my earlier message to Goeff, I also conclude that a key element is the stability of the Locarno observer, Sergio Cortesi, who I met personally two years ago to celebrate his 50 years of sunspot service. I previously pointed out that quite luckily, both Sergio and also André Koeckelenbergh, the SIDC founder, are still alive and well and can confirm a lot of (unwritten?) information and that I am precisely about to contact them with specific questions about the changes in counting rules and in the instruments that we discussed over the past few days.
In this respect, may I point out that this will require some time, both to get the answers and to study the pieces of information (crossing the facts and combining different sources including the Mitteilungen of the Zürich Observatory). Reconstructing daily practices and methodological choices made over such a long period cannot be done overnight. I am sure that you will agree with this. Another important dimension that we would like you to develop when you plot ratios and trends is the inclusion of error bars (intervals of confidence). Indeed, in our current investigations, a lot of the undulations and jumps prove to be different for each couple of data series and often prove to be not significant statistically or only partly significant (over a narrow time interval) changing the possible interpretation. So, more analysis and more data sets awaits us before your (definitely interesting!) interrogations lead to a solid conclusion. I urged you already to be a bit patient! We are a small team with tiny budget and a lot of obligations (operational production of the index, management of the observing network, development of new software, development of new CCD imaging technique, etc.!). So, we cannot solve everything in one day!
Therefore, I think that this fast-paced real-time exchange on a blog is not at all timely and appropriate. It prevents any deepening and verification of the arguments, thus leading to clashes of superficial opinions. This is quite incompatible with a scientific approach. Exposing incomplete and unfinished analyses is premature and uselessly spread confusion, especially to the non-specialists in public forums like a blog. Thus also a catastrophe in terms of public information. This is the reason why we refrain from using this channel to communicate with our users, amateur astronomers and the public at large.
Consequently, from now on, I earnestly ask you both, Leif and Goeff, to stop this thread of discussion on the blog involving our mail exchanges.
Anyway, I will stop answering any mail if the answer is grabbed by either of you to feed a debate of opinion. Cutting our exchanges would be a sad outcome as the subject is interesting and Leif brings valuable knowledge and provocative science issues on which we really want to work (and are currently working!) . Simply, you will have ample time for discussions and reflections, on blogs or any other medium, later on once the issues are clarified and confirmed (So, not only suspicions of past biases, a non-information, but the explanation of the cause of the bias once confirmed, i.e. something much more demanding but then really informative). Here, as long-term phenomena are involved, quite naturally, issues can only be solved after some time has elapsed and sufficient relevant data have accumulated or have been recovered. There is no shortcut! I trust that you will understand these constraints and that you will take some distance with the current obsession of “everything immediately”.
Secondly, Leif, as you specially requested that I produce a corrective answer for publication on that blog, I invite you and/or Goeff to publish this message in full.
This should be my last input to your personal blog discussions, explaining to the blog readers why we don’t feel like playing the role of the ball in this ping-pong game that will have no end, as the discussion is premature and confined to a superficial level.
Leif, let us go on instead in the good spirit that I appreciated when you visited us recently for an open an insightful discussion. It is really a blessing that experienced people devote time and work to such far-reaching, but quite neglected long-term solar studies, like you do. But let us keep the manner how it is done on the right track!
And my reply to him:
“Thanks for your reply. I wholly agree that the reason for SIDC drifting is not clear and must await your detailed analysis. On the other hand, analysis of Waldmeier, Wolfer, Wolf, ect is fair game and is important for the very-long-term picture of solar activity.
Thanks again, and I appreciate our discussions during my seminar.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:53 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 2:43 am
More importantly, I have a very good track record of predicting weekly deviations from normals since late 2007
Do you have a reference to that? computation of skill-scores? predicting conditions where? All over the N.H.? in 100 small regions throughout the N.H.?
_________________________________________________
To be fair Leif, I would be much happier discussing this with someone who is impartial and without bias, and asks intelligent and pertinent questions, rather than someone who habitually and deliberately distributes pejorative aspersions with gay abandon. And just for a laugh today, I am going to do a tally of the number of times since 2007 that you have insisted that I:- MUST ABANDON MY THEORIES IMMEDIATELY !
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:57 am
I am going to do a tally of the number of times since 2007 that you have insisted that I:- MUST ABANDON MY THEORIES IMMEDIATELY !
Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 6:05 am
“Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.”
Then I should be discussing the cause rather than the means. Such as demonstrating the astronomical cause of larger monthly deviations from normals through 351yrs of CET, and older written records from a variety of locations. Your previous comments on this subject are of the likes of “cyclomania” and “revving up your Orrery”, anything changed ?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:36 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 6:05 am
“Not necessarily abandon, just demonstrate by analysis [rather than just claim] that they have any substance.”
Then I should be discussing the cause rather than the means.
No sense in discussing cause until the effect has been demonstrated to exist.
Malaga View: Sorry it took so long to reply.
You wrote, “How about these examples of flawed predictions based upon flawed theories… they all can’t be right… and maybe none of them will be correct,” and continued,“See page two of State of the Art: Predicting Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.ppt”
So why would a flawed prediction provide a reason for inflating the data? The predictions are all over the place. If you inflate it satisfy some of the higher predictions, then you overshoot the lower ones.
You continued, “How about these examples of the solar flare scare…”
Google news provides a whopping 66 results for “solar flares” in quotes. Not much of a scare there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:44 am
“No sense in discussing cause until the effect has been demonstrated to exist.”
So that is your opinion. I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means, so I do not share your view.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:17 am
I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means
If you have no observables to compare with how to you assess the effectiveness?
The counts of sunspots does not tell the full story.
At the beginning of a “normal” sunspot cycle, the spots begin to appear at high latitudes, >30 deg solar latitude, North and South. But now, spots seem to be appearing at random latitudes, mostly much closer to the solar equator than is usually the case. This is hard to pinpoint, because of the unusually low number of spots that have appeared since ’08.
The one thing that is becoming more and more clear as time goes on: there is something going on with the Sun’s magnetic field that has not been seen before.
N. G. Purves
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
Univ. Hawai’i, Hilo
@ Leif Svalgaard says:
September 23, 2010 at 9:04 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 23, 2010 at 8:17 am
I was hindcasting and forecasting to the same effectiveness before having a clear idea of observable means
If you have no observables to compare with how to you assess the effectiveness?
________________________________________
You have a short memory. The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/suns-magnetics-coming-alive-again/#comment-386726
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 2:25 am
The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
I do not consider any of that valid in any way.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2010 at 6:00 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 2:25 am
The cause observables have been discussed in terms of analogues on this thread.
I do not consider any of that valid in any way.
_________________________________________
I do not consider your opinions as valid.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 29, 2010 at 6:36 am
I do not consider your opinions as valid.
I can live with that.