“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”
WASHINGTON – Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity – when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
“The advantage with studying the Rhine is because it’s a very simple measurement,” said Frank Sirocko lead author of a paper on the study and professor of Sedimentology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Geosciences of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. “Freezing is special in that it’s like an on-off mode. Either there is ice or there is no ice.”
From the early 19th through mid-20th centuries, riverboat men used the Rhine for cargo transport. And so docks along the river have annual records of when ice clogged the waterway and stymied shipping. The scientists used these easily-accessible documents, as well as additional historical accounts, to determine the number of freezing episodes since 1780.
Sirocko and his colleagues found that between 1780 and 1963, the Rhine froze in multiple places 14 different times. The sheer size of the river means it takes extremely cold temperatures to freeze over making freezing episodes a good proxy for very cold winters in the region, Sirocko said.
Mapping the freezing episodes against the solar activity’s 11-year cycle – a cycle of the Sun’s varying magnetic strength and thus total radiation output – Sirocko and his colleagues determined that ten of the fourteen freezes occurred during years around when the Sun had minimal sunspots. Using statistical methods, the scientists calculated that there is a 99 percent chance that extremely cold Central European winters and low solar activity are inherently linked.
“We provide, for the first time, statistically robust evidence that the succession of cold winters during the last 230 years in Central Europe has a common cause,” Sirocko said.
With the new paper, Sirocko and his colleagues have added to the research linking solar variability with climate, said Thomas Crowley, Director of the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment, and Society, who was not involved with the study.
“There is some suspension of belief in this link,” Crowley said, “and this study tilts the argument more towards thinking there really is something to this link. If you have more statistical evidence to support this explanation, one is more likely to say it’s true.”
The study, conducted by researchers at Johannes Gutenberg and the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, is set to be published August 25 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
When sunspot numbers are down, the Sun emits less ultraviolet radiation. Less radiation means less heating of Earth’s atmosphere, which sparks a change in the circulation patterns of the two lowest atmospheric levels, the troposphere and stratosphere. Such changes lead to climatic phenomena such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, a pattern of atmospheric pressure variations that influences wind patterns in the North Atlantic and weather behavior in regions in and around Europe.
“Due to this indirect effect, the solar cycle does not impact hemispherically averaged temperatures, but only leads to regional temperature anomalies,” said Stephan Pfahl, a co-author of the study who is now at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich.
The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland. So, sunspots don’t necessarily cool the entire globe – their cooling effect is more localized, Sirocko said.
In fact, studies have suggested that the extremely cold European winters of 2010 and 2011 were the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which Sirocko and his team now link to the low solar activity during that time.
The 2010 and 2011 European winters were so cold that they resulted in record lows for the month of November in certain countries. Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world.
“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.
To establish a more complete record of past temperature dips, the researchers are looking to other proxies, such as the spread of disease and migratory habits.
“Disease can be transported by insects and rats, but during a strong freezing year that is not likely,” said Sirocko. “Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”
It wasn’t, however, the Rhine that first got Sirocko to thinking about the connection between freezing rivers and sunspot activity. In fact, it was a 125-mile ice-skating race he attended over 20 years ago in the Netherlands that sparked the scientist’s idea.
“Skaters can only do this race every 10 or 11 years because that’s when the rivers freeze up,” Sirocko said. “I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”
Title:
“Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe”
Abstract:
The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the
period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.
Authors:
Frank Sirocko and Heiko Brunck: Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz;
Stephan Pfahl: Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
==============================================================
I hope to have a copy of the paper soon – Anthony
UPDATE: Dr. Leif Svalgaard provides the paper, as did the AGU press agent Kate Ramsayer per my emailed request, along with a copyright admonishment. Thank you both. Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:
From the paper:
In agreement with the 20th Century Reanalysis central European temperature observations from the CRUTEM3 dataset [Brohan et al., 2006] from winters directly following a sunspot minimum are also significantly lower than the average temperature during the remaining winter seasons (Fig. 6a). The relation between cold winter conditions and sunspot activity is thus not specific to rivers alone (which could also be affected by a number of additional factors, for example warm water from the numerous powerplants constructed along the river). The strong variations of the time series in Fig. 6a, which are largely independent of the sunspot cycle, show the important role of internal, stochastic variability of the atmosphere for European winter temperatures. The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.
This suggests a regional circulation pattern effect, as the authors state connected to figure 5a and 5b:
To identify the atmospheric circulation anomalies in the North Atlantic and European region associated with cold winters during solar minima, Fig. 5a shows the difference in the geopotential height fields at 500 hPa (Z500) between the winters directly following a year with a sunspot minimum and the remainder of the period 1871 to 2008, obtained from the 20th Century Reanalysis dataset [Compo et al., 1996]. A strong, statistically significant positive anomaly occurs over the eastern North Atlantic in the region of Iceland, while negative anomalies are found over the Iberian peninsula and over north-eastern Europe (the latter being not significant). These Z500 anomalies are associated with an enhanced northerly flow and cold air advection from the Arctic and Scandinavia
towards central Europe, leading to significantly negative temperature anomalies over England, France and western Germany (Fig. 5b). The centre of the cooling is in the region of southern England, the Benelux countries and western Germany down to middle Rhine area. Eastern and southern Germany are not effected as much as the above region. Accordingly, it is only the Rhine and possible some Dutch rivers that provide the possibility to reconstruct this specific temperature anomaly pattern, which corresponds to an anomalously negative NAO and a preference for blockings over the eastern North Atlantic.
Ahhh. The mandatory throwaway line about AGW without any relevance to the core findings at all.
I particularly like the way that solar radiation is labled an indirect effect.
I wonder how much the Rhine’s temperature has risen because of all the waste heat that gets dumped into the river from industry and power stations .
Can’t possibly be.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
“Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth.”
A racist sun, whoda thunkit.
This is more good niche science released under the watchful censorship of the carbon priests. All the right words are correctly inserted to get published and skirt the enforcers of debate has ended group think. I wonder what the other major factors might be and how they can be juggled precisely so as to preserve the hockey stick and other short-term post-1970 warming explanation. The multidecadal ocean cycles will eventually wipe the bias away but it will just take decades to do it–rather like the long slow uncovering of the tobacco industry lock on public health science.
When one points out that a correlation between solar activity and weather/climate is poor, there is a persistent chorus of people crying “yeah, but you must take into account the lags in the system caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans”. Where is that lag here?
“Also, Romans used the Rhine to defend against the Germanics, but as soon as the river froze people could move across it. The freezing of the Rhine is very important on historical timescales.”
However, Roman sources do not mention a frozen Rhine on the day the Germanic hordes crossed it -31 December 406. It was a assumption of the historian Edward Gibbon, a reasonable one given the midwinter date. Winter was not a favoured campaigning season in ancient Europe. The barbarians must have had good reason for their timing. The Rhine freezing may have been an exceptional occurrence in Roman times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine
Well, that’s pretty much a summary of my hypothesis is it not ?
But there are two errors:
i) It is a global effect influencing both hemispheres. There is lots of data showing just such changes worldwide between MWP and LIA and LIA to date.
ii) One needs a warming stratosphere above the poles relative to the stratospheric temperatures above the equator if one is to see equatorward / meridional jets. A good example in the short term is sudden stratospheric warming events near the poles which drive cold outbreaks down across the mid latitudes. Hence the importance of the reverse sign ozone response to low solar activity observed from 2004 to 2007 when the quiet sun produced an increase in ozone at the higher levels contrary to expectations.
They additionally concede that the solar effect doesn’t alter system energy content much but does redistribute available energy across the surface which is what I contend.
In the background they assume a continuing CO2 warming effect but in my opinion the system response to any additional warming in the air from CO2 would be exactly the same as the system response to the solar effects i.e. little or no change in system energy content but instead a change in atmospheric circulation adjusting the rate of energy transfer from surface to space.
However, as compared to the solar effects from MWP to LIA and LIA to date the effect of our CO2 emissions would be infinitesimal.
They have to go a couple more logical steps yet.
Oh, this obviously comes from the weather not climate department! So, the Sun influences weather, NOT climate. I see, how convenient, despite the fact that climate is weather patterns over a prolonged period of time? Move along nothing to see here, folks!
Naturally the Rhine has had no heat added to its waters by the industry and power plants along its course in the last 100 yrs or so. I love how the climate is a complex system when it cools briefly but clearly understood when it warms?JRR Canada
“As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.” Hhmm, perhaps if they quantified the solar effect they might be able to learn a bit more, after all, had not the sun been unusually active during the second half of the 20 th. century? And might that account for the warming as others have suggested is the case?
Totally off topic, but here, I keep reading about harsh winters (the Rhine river, Antarctica) I have not seen in a long time anything about Arctic sea ice, and its melting.
It seems well known in germany that power plants are warming the Rhine. The attached article is a call for no more power plants on that river. I guess the real test will be in a few years with solary cycle 25minimums predicted to be very low
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,4446561,00.html
But I guess none of the other solar variations have any effect on climate whatsoever…
I would suspect in a warming world that eventually this every 10 – 11 year race wouldn’t happen at all. That would be quite measurable. And according to the article, it even happened recently. Better yet, with the demonstrated and expected low sun spot activity from the sun, this race stands a good chance of occurring pretty often over the next several decades.
Henrik Svensmark’s excellent book “The Chilling Stars” would have told you that and more.
“I thought to myself, ‘There must be a reason for this,’ and it turns out there is.”
No sh!t Sherlock.
Ummmm….and the temperature sensors found throught the world are not “regional”. What a laugh!
Peter C says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
after all, had not the sun been unusually active during the second half of the 20 th. century?
Very likely that is not the case: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
AGW is causing dramatic winters!
David Ross says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
In one the episodes on the various barbarians that ran amuck during the dark ages, it is stated that the Rhine was frozen when it was crossed December of 406.
The race was run in the winter of 85/6 and again in 86/7 and I was told these had been not been run in around a decade.
I moved to Utrecht in Feb 1986 to work and it was also a cold winter in the UK, which was easy to recall as the British rail trains heaters didn’t work (they usually only worked in summertime) and I recall standing on freezing cold platforms waiting for the train into London with frozen feet and cracked lips. Ironically moving to Utrecht meant I could drive to work in 15 minutes (instead of a 2 hr commute via four BR and Underground trains – I worked right next to London Bridge then) in the warmth and comfort of my Audi. However even then the Thames did not freeze over allowing ice-fairs as in the apparently non-existant LIA 😉
“you must take into account the lags in the system caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans”. Where is that lag here?”
Air circulation changes occur quickly but it takes many years for the effect to percolate through all the oceans.
For continental mid latitudes the change in air circulation has a rapid effect but not so much in areas of a more maritime nature.
The Rhine region, being balanced between the cold north Eurasion interior and the maritime western parts of Europe, may well be a particularly sensitive bellweather for short term variations such that even the effects of a single solar cycle can show up there even though it fails to show up in other regions over such short spells of time.
Over subsequent decades and indeed centuries the system energy content does change a little in response to cumulative changes in the amount of solar energy entering the oceans but it is a long slow erratic process such as that from MWP to LIA to date. However the system response always being negative the solar induced variations are well within the capability of the system to retain stability.
It requires the supplementary forcing of Milankovitch cycles to operate the glacial / interglacial switch.
I have previously explained all the interlinking mechanisms in some detail and this is yet another bit of evidence in support.
In itself this finding is not new. In 2001 even Michael Mann and his colleagues accepted it but then unwisely decided that the effect of CO2 was greater. A major slip up in my view.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
Where is that lag here?
Have you ruled out a ten to eleven year lag? Too coincidental?
But some mathematicians realize in chaos theory that things (variables) have a way of “lining up”, “negating”, or “absorbing the harmonic” so as to make the system appear non-chaotic, no?
There are two large navigable rivers in Central Europe Rhine and Danube. I have some years experience of the Danube’s freezing. When prevailing winter winds are westerly from the Atlantic, the river is navigable, when prevailing winds are sweeping from Siberia, river freezes.
Wind direction is controlled by polar jet-stream, since there is no sun-light in the winter Arctic, but geomagnetic storms are almost as intense, one has to speculate if the polar vortex is responding to variation in the geomagnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net//MF-PV.htm
NASA implies that it could be.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
Although man made structures continue to cause UHI which shows up as artificial warming…
“Peter C says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
after all, had not the sun been unusually active during the second half of the 20 th. century?
Very likely that is not the case: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf”
Leif’s paper refers to TSI and sunspot numbers and seeks to make an equivalence between 1900 and today notwithstanding that the effect of any given level of solar activity will be modulated by the events preceding it which are quite different for 1900 and today.
There is no discussion in Leif’s paper of changes in UV and other solar effects that might impact on the ozone creation / destruction balance at different levels in the atmosphere or at different latitudes.
This article from AGU makes me think that people are paying more than a little attention to Piers Corbyn and his research.
Oh, I get now this is a positioning article for when the solar minimum rolls around on top of weak predicted cycles of potential Dalton scale. If so, we can expect more simultaneous acknowledgement and discounting of the solar cycle as a climate factor to preserve the high priest carbon mantra and climate model minimizing assumptions in the models. Memo to the high priests, these researchers forgot to insert the EU unity pledge in his science work and also no mention of hemp benefits. Send them a reminder.
Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At first glance it looks like central europe temps are flat while northern hemisphere temps are rising. The I noticed that the central europe scale is from -4 to +2 while the northern hemisphere scale is from -1 to +0.5. This change in scale exagerates a rather minor difference, and there is absolutely no excuse for the paper presenting this information in this manner, it is completely misleading.
vukcevic says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:37 am
one has to speculate if the polar vortex is responding to variation in the geomagnetic field.
NASA implies that it could be.
No, NASA does not support any of your speculations.
Perhaps a “”real”” “scientist” would like to look into the history of ‘BONSPIEL’
Stephen Wilde says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:43 am
There is no discussion in Leif’s paper of changes in UV and other solar effects that might impact on the ozone creation / destruction balance at different levels in the atmosphere or at different latitudes.
Slides 25ff show that UV and solar wind wind were the same a hundred years ago as now and that the 2nd half of the 20th century was not a grand maximum.
What a load of WAGS. Since the river freezes up at several “locations” on a periodic basis, not only is the Sun fickle (chooses different spots), it isn’t very powerful (is overcome by weather), or else the lack of sun spots would cause the river to freeze at every minimum in the same spot. Furthermore, and the article speaks to this, a river freezes because of weather. So whatever the Sun is doing, it has to have the joules necessary to cause the weather conditions to change sufficiently and then to stick around long enough to cause the river to freeze long enough to skate on it. And it needs to be able to do this at every minimum. The tiny variations in the Sun don’t rise to that ability level.
Just consider the blocking high over Russia. Think of the joules it took to create that high and then leave it in place (keep it a stable high pressure system, set up weak on-coming weather systems that go around it, and put in place down-stream systems strong enough to block the high from moving along). The Sun doesn’t have it, and CO2 doesn’t have it.
About complex systems, their models and predictions therefrom, the mathematical economist philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb, collaborator with Benoit Mandelbrot – speculates that reality is fractally complex. For instance,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=77a9a0e8-b442-11da-bd61-0000779e2340.html
If the earth is indeed warming, then such freezings should have become more rare, if not disappeared altogether in the last 50 to 100 years.
And yet, they haven’t.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
——
Apples and oranges.
When talking about global climate, thermal lag matters.
This article is postulating about changes in circulation patterns. Thermal lag does not necessarily apply in that case.
MarkW says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thermal lag does not necessarily apply in that case.
I note the weasel word ‘necessarily’. Either it does or it doesn’t.
MarkW says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:22 am
If the earth is indeed warming, then such freezings should have become more rare, if not disappeared altogether in the last 50 to 100 years.
And yet, they haven’t.
There hasn’t been any since 1963…, so they have become more rare.
davidmhoffer says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:47 am
“At first glance it looks like central europe temps are flat while northern hemisphere temps are rising. The I noticed that the central europe scale is from -4 to +2 while the northern hemisphere scale is from -1 to +0.5. This change in scale exagerates a rather minor difference, and there is absolutely no excuse for the paper presenting this information in this manner, it is completely misleading.”
They used autoscaling. You get used to it when using any statistics/math package. You’re a little too harsh in your criticism IMHO. Yes, it would be even better had they used the same scale; maybe they just didn’t think of it.
davidmhoffer says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:47 am
Figure 6a and 6b are interesting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At first glance it looks like central europe temps are flat while northern hemisphere temps are rising. The I noticed that the central europe scale is from -4 to +2 while the northern hemisphere scale is from -1 to +0.5. This change in scale exaggerates a rather minor difference, and there is absolutely no excuse for the paper presenting this information in this manner, it is completely misleading.
===============
Nice catch !!
BTW, look at that decidedly non-warming Europe in Fig 6a…
Yes, that’s where the template for the Kyoto treaty was cooked up in the 90ies, in Bonn, near the river Rhine…
and where, to this day, the biggest and most plentyful green nutcases abound…
Myron Mesecke says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:37 am
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling – on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
Although man made structures continue to cause UHI which shows up as artificial warming…
UHI doesn’t affect the satellite record.
DirkH;
They used autoscaling. You get used to it when using any statistics/math package. You’re a little too harsh in your criticism IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s an acceptable excuse for an amateur who uses the tools infrequently and may not notice or even understand the effect. Professionals publishing data upon which the FOW (Fate Of World) rests have no such excuse. We’d crawl all over Mann for pulling such a stunt, and we mock Jones for needing to find someone to help him produce a graph in Excel, do we not? We need higher standards on simple things like this across the climate debate which is why I called it out.
While I’m on my rant about scaling and how it skews perception, I may as well throw in a rant on one of my pet peeves which is the use of anomalies. Itz like looking at an ant through a big magnifying glass. Looks awful scary until you take the magnifying glass away…. and itz just a tiny insignificant ant. That’s what anomalies do.
I don’t know what the “base temperature” is that these anomalies are derived from. Let’s say for sake of argument that it is 10 degrees C. Plot the anomalies from a base temperature of 10 C on a scale relevant to the human experience, say from 0 degrees C to 20 degrees C. The average human being would look at the resulting graph and probably respond along the lines of “that’s what’s going on? That’s nothing!”
davidmhoffer,
Here is a Pat Frank chart showing how anomalies skew perception.
And this very mild global temperature non-event is what all the alarmist arm-waving is about. As we see, the current stasis in global temperature is very unusual. CO2 is doing nothing, except following temperature. Therefore, the entire AGW foundation is built on shifting sands.
As a vivid skater when I was much younger and living in Holland, I am very much in interested in this paper, but I don’t see the connection yet, i.e between the solar cycles and freezing up of all the waters between the 11 cities in Friesland/ Holland (11 steden tocht = the 11 cities tour). Perhaps I am missing something.
However, if 1963 was the last time the Rhine froze up I can do some simple calculations with what I figured out already. 1963 is ca. 18 years of warming from the end of a cooling period. We are currently 17 years into cooling period from a warming period. Assuming complete symmetry I calculate that the rate of warming in 1963 will be the same as the rate of cooling in 2013. From that I would expect climatic conditions in Friesland in 2013 to be similar to those of 1963, at least in winter.
Brace yourselves. That would mean that in 2013 we can expect an elf steden tocht!
(It is not actual temps that is important for “weather”. Is the acceleration/deceleration of temps. that causes certain predictable weather patterns)
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:34 am
MarkW says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thermal lag does not necessarily apply in that case.
“I note the weasel word ‘necessarily’. Either it does or it doesn’t.”
Not necessarily. Not everyone thinks totally in black and white terms when complex systems are involved where other variables may have an effect. Open your mind.
Leif said:
“Slides 25ff show that UV and solar wind wind were the same a hundred years ago as now and that the 2nd half of the 20th century was not a grand maximum.”
The 5 cycles leading up to 1900 and those leading up to now are somewhat different and 1900 was not so far along the trend of increasing ocean heat content since the LIA as is 2000.
Despite the similarities between 1900 and now we cannot expect the same climate setup.
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Not necessarily. Not everyone thinks totally in black and white terms when complex systems are involved where other variables may have an effect. Open your mind.
Several weasel words: ‘not necessarily’, ‘not everyone’, ‘may have’. Provide numbers and data, please.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 23, 2012 at 12:41 pm
The 5 cycles leading up to 1900 and those leading up to now are somewhat different
As far as UV and solar wind were concerned, the cycles in the middle of the 19th century were similar to the last 5 cycles. That is the important piece. Now, if UV and solar wind have nothing to do with the climate, I agree that this is irrelevant.
HenryP said:
“1963 is ca. 18 years of warming from the end of a cooling period. We are currently 17 years into cooling period from a warming period. Assuming complete symmetry I calculate that the rate of warming in 1963 will be the same as the rate of cooling in 2013.”
Nothing in nature gives complete symmetry. Aren’t the past two European winters cold enough to have made your point ?
December in the UK had temperatures colder than 1963 and it was only fortuitous and due to the vagaries of short term variability that it didn’t last as long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Snowfall_of_Late_2010_in_the_United_Kingdom
There have been lots of southern hemisphere cold outbreaks too and not long ago China decalred a climate emergency during a fierce cold spell.
Those events are outside the range of what we had become used to over the previous 3 decades.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 23, 2012 at 10:53 am
No, NASA does not support any of your speculations.
Of course NASA doesn’t speculate, they do research, I do the speculation.
Of course NASA doesn’t support my speculations, that would be far too embarrassing.
But they do come ‘damn close’ to it:
Vukcevic 17 September 2009
“The author postulates the existence of a high correlation between North Atlantic Temperature
Anomaly and the variations of magnetic field …the underlying mantle uplift (as reflected in changes of the area’s magnetic intensity) are making significant contribution to the Atlantic basin climate change.”
NASA / JPL 09 March, 2011 (Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus)
“movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.”
What NASA do (from Huntsville to Pasadena, from New York and Hampton to Merritt Island) is regularly look at the selection of my graphs, and that is far more support of my speculations than I would ever expect.
Leif said:
“As far as UV and solar wind were concerned, the cycles in the middle of the 19th century were similar to the last 5 cycles. That is the important piece. Now, if UV and solar wind have nothing to do with the climate, I agree that this is irrelevant.”
Now you have shifted from comparing 1900 to 2012 to comparing the mid 19th century with the late 20th.
Well the late 20th was further along the solar induced recovery from the LIA and so for the same activity levels one would expect more warmth in the late 20th.
Anyway looking at your figs the five cycles in the late 20th still look more active than the five cycles in the mid 19th.
Furthermore there was warming at the time of those high 19th century activity levels followed by an easing off towards the turn of the century before the warming of the early 20th century.
So, adjusting for the later position along the post LIA warming trend line and for the differences between the two groups of five cycles I’d say the late 20th century warming was comparable to the warming of the mid 19th.
That doesn’t lead to 2012 being the same as 1900 though so I think you are raising a straw man in proposing that it should be.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Not necessarily. Not everyone thinks totally in black and white terms when complex systems are involved where other variables may have an effect. Open your mind.
“Several weasel words: ‘not necessarily’, ‘not everyone’, ‘may have’. Provide numbers and data, please.”
Here are some numbers. Out of 52 posts, so far, 8 are from Leif, 100% of those are closed minded. Though I would agree with a few of them, the tone is poor in all. Not a large enough sample size, yet, to quote statistical significance. Come on, Leif, have you no sense of humor?
The Weasel Worder
In re scaling, again I recommend Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. (2001, 2nd edition, ISBN 0-9613921-4-2).
I’d like to see some evidence of a sense of humour from Leif other than the put downs that are no doubt amusing to him.
I’d also like him to be as thick skinned as we need to be in dealing with him. The last time I matched his tone (usually I try not to react emotionally) he told me to tone down the rhetoric.
Note that these are just respectful suggestions rather than personal attacks.
Who moved the Rhine to Central Europe? Own up, now!
Leif-as far as the issue of lags go, lag is really not an appropriate word since it would imply that a simple shift would recover the full effect. This is generally incorrect. Because of the system’s properties it responds to “forcing” roughly as:
tau*dT/dt + T = lambda*F(t)
Where tau is the characteristic response time and lambda the “sensitivity” of the system.
Now, the thing to notice about this study is that it finds a very small impact of solar forcing over the eleven year cycle. In fact, over the whole Northern Hemisphere, any “minimum effect” is totally lost in the noise. Because of the nature of the response to forcing, this does not mean that there isn’t any effect: it just means we have to use physical theory, not merely correlating or composites to find the effects-the shorter the timescale, the less the response to any perturbation and the easier it is for the effect to be lost in the noise.
vukcevic says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Of course NASA doesn’t support my speculations, that would be far too embarrassing.
But they do come ‘damn close’ to it
I’m sure NASA doesn’t agree with that.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Now you have shifted from comparing 1900 to 2012 to comparing the mid 19th century with the late 20th.
Well the late 20th was further along the solar induced recovery from the LIA and so for the same activity levels one would expect more warmth in the late 20th.
No shift, the point is that there has been no progressive change in solar activity the last 300 years.
Anyway looking at your figs the five cycles in the late 20th still look more active than the five cycles in the mid 19th.
Now you have shifted from the late 20th to the mid 20th. The original comment was
“Peter C says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
after all, had not the sun been unusually active during the second half of the 20th. century?”
Perhaps look again:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1835-2010.png
That doesn’t lead to 2012 being the same as 1900 though so I think you are raising a straw man in proposing that it should be.
The data shows 2008-2009 being the same as 1901-1902 and cycle 24 shaping up very much like cycle 14, yet climate is very different, in spite of UV and solar wind being the same.
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Come on, Leif, have you no sense of humor?
Are you comments that laughable?
timetochooseagain says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
this does not mean that there isn’t any effect: it just means we have to use physical theory,
I don’t see such use in the paper under discussion.
Jim G:
re your post at August 23, 2012 at 1:11 pm.
I am writing to say I would regret any reduction in the posts from Leif Svalgaard.
I do not know Leif Svalgaard. I have never met him and I have had no contact with him except for his comments on WUWT. But his posts show he is very knowledgeable on solar matters.
Others have different views on solar matters than Lief but he and they defend their views strongly.
I know little (almost nothing) about solar matters so I learn from the debates between people who do know about them. Hence, I want as many contributions as possible from all those who do know about them. And I want to learn from their disagreements about them.
Richard
If you want my opinion, it’s a lot of hot wind from this Sirocko fellow…
(I know I thought someone would have done it before…)
Of course the sun influences winters: Lockwood found that in SE England and now it is documented for the Rhine river between Mayence and Coblenz. We are not entirely sure though HOW it can proceed so selectively on a meteorological basis… /sarc
If you show the Figures, could you please add the Captions? Thanks. It clarifies for the lazy ones what’s been shown.
Central Europe is climatically unusual and probably unique in the world, because winter isotherms run north-south. Temperatures are determined by what direction the wind is from, and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and central Eurasia.
It’s not clear to me why the low point of a solar cycle would cause a blocking high over Scandinavia resulting in easterly winds over Central Europe, but it does seem the likeliest explanation..
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Come on, Leif, have you no sense of humor?
“Are you (sic) comments that laughable?”
Well, I guess I have my answer. Lighten up, you’ll live longer. And there’s plenty of data & numbers on that. People might even take you more seriously.
You always have to love these papers about winter and cold air citing pressure data at 500hPa, that is well above the thickness of the variety of MPHs air masses that can create the surface winter conditions… This paper I bet must reference Cattiaux et al. 2010 that used the same trick to compare surface temperatures and the same high level pressure field between a recent cold winter and the 1962 winter.
The goal of these is to explain why CAGW is still going on despite ominous signs of cooling. Cattiaux et al. 2010 was blunt about this goal and the ubiquitous Jouzel was all too happy to use this everytime a cold winter was derailing the global warming predictions…
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:49 am
When one points out that a correlation between solar activity and weather/climate is poor, there is a persistent chorus of people crying “yeah, but you must take into account the lags in the system caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans”. Where is that lag here?
Thermal systems have indeed lag because of heat capacity. As already said this is about air circulation and redistributing cold and warm air; not heating of the air. Air circulation has very little lag time. From experience in flying a glider. Thermal uprising of air starts the moment the sun breaks trough the clouds on a concrete spot and stops the moment the sun leaves the spot. The lag is minimal and it only take a little difference in pressure or density to start an air flow.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:36 am
MarkW says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:22 am
If the earth is indeed warming, then such freezings should have become more rare, if not disappeared altogether in the last 50 to 100 years.
And yet, they haven’t.
There hasn’t been any since 1963…, so they have become more rare.
A lot of powerplants, heavy industry (steel, chamical industry,…) are dumping enormous amounts of energy in the river. It thus not surprize me that it didn’t freeze over since 1963. Here in Belgium they ask powerplants to dump more heat into the canals to keep them ice free or at least keep the thickness of the ice limited in strong winters so shipping can proceed. I can imagine that if the Rhine treatens to freeze the German government will ask the companies to dump more heat so shipping can go on.
And then a climate scientist comes along,… and blaims it on global warming.
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:11 pm
People might even take you more seriously.
I personally take people seriously when they present comments that are on topic, based on knowledge, physically plausible, and free from comments on other people’s character, but I guess we have different standards…
Pamela Gray says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:10 am
Just consider the blocking high over Russia. Think of the joules it took to create that high and then leave it in place (keep it a stable high pressure system, set up weak on-coming weather systems that go around it, and put in place down-stream systems strong enough to block the high from moving along).
——————————-
You assume that extra energy is necessary.Actually blocking highs indicate less energy in the system.
The jetstream is generated by the interaction between the SW winds from the Southern side of the Polar Front meeting the NW winds from the Arctic. When the temperature gradient across the Polar Front is large, the jetstream is energetic and tends to flow straight. Any perturbtions propogate rapidly along the stream and its position varies quickly in response.
When the temperature gradient is small, as it is at present, the jetstream is less energetic. It tends to vary more in latitude and respond less to perturbation.
By analogy to a river an energetic jetstream is like a mountain river. The large gradient gives it a lot of energy and it carves a straight bed. Once the river reaches the coastal plain it flows slowly down a gentle gradient and large meanders form.
This year the low energy jetstream has tended to trap areas of high or low pressure in place for long periods, hence the high temperatures due to the blocking high in the US and the cold, wet Summer in the UK.
As Dr. S. keeps pointing out, the TSI is not changing enough to explain extent of the climate oscillations amplitude, and it does not need to, any unstable system is vulnerable to oscillations if exposed to a steady periodic excitation. It could be as simple system as a pendulum or as complex as the ocean-atmospheric pressure coupling as shown here using North Atlantic data.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm
– NAO = North Atlantic Oscillation – atmospheric pressure
– AMO = Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – Sea surface temperature.
I favor capacitor (ocean) – inductor (atmosphere) analogy; mass-spring analogy is also transmutable into the ocean-atmosphere oscillation supposition.
As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.
Well it would have nothing to do with more river traffic with engines cooled by river water that is then returned hot to the river would it. Or with more buildings and other developments with UHI and warm drainage outfalls into the river.
No no nothing like that – the Rhine must be kept warm by carbon dioxide… using the Trenberth missing heat method. /sarc
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“comments that are on topic”. The topic was thermal lag. So iwill go back there in plainer language for you, why is it not possible for thermal lag to show in the data during one time period and not in another when there are potential exogenous variables intervening in one period and not in another? Do you know for a fact that no other variables were involved in each period? Weasel words are not necessary as all of the facts are not, as they cannot be, known, so such a comment is not necessary nor constructive to the dialog. Not everything is a straight line or even curvilinear correlation due to the chaotic, multivariate, intercorrelated nature of many climate variables.
Bert Lemmens says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Thermal systems have indeed lag because of heat capacity. As already said this is about air circulation and redistributing cold and warm air; not heating of the air.
Not really. Those very cold winters are caused by blocking of air masses [and high pressure over Russia]. Those are hard to change and are not just the sun disappearing behind a cloud..
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Weasel words are not necessary as all of the facts are not, as they cannot be, known, so such a comment is not necessary nor constructive to the dialog.
This is trivially true of any dialog, so constructive dialogs are impossible, to wit: your comments.
What’s interesting to me is if this invalidates “gridding” the land and ocean as a measure of temperature. Is it inhomogeneous enough that temperature readings need a regression analysis for each grid zone?
Livingstone and Penn have forecast a peak amplitude of 7 for Solar Cycle 25, which compared to what we are used to would be like permanent solar minimum. Don’t worry about the heat sources keeping the Rhine warmer – the river has a large surface area.
Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2012 at 11:34 am
MarkW says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:24 am
Thermal lag does not necessarily apply in that case.
“I note the weasel word ‘necessarily’. Either it does or it doesn’t”
I will ask the question again. The topic was thermal lag. Why is it not possible for thermal lag to show in the data during one time period and not in another when there are potential exogenous variables intervening in one period and not in another? Do you know for a fact that no other variables were involved in each period?
I believe the Rhine has been straightened over the recent past (canals built, floodbanks etc) so that it flows faster than it used to. That would have a serious effect on freezing.
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm
LOL
Last word eh?
Please keep it up you blokes… At least the discourse is civil and very often I learn something more while having a quiet chuckle at the same time.
I’m reminded of Prof Mike Lockwood’s comments a couple years ago: low solar activity correlates with increased jet stream blocking.
We’ve been having a lot of this lately. Slowed progression of Rossby waves gives hot and cold extremes. The trouble is the climate change(TM) meme is that CO2 causes this. No, its a natural effect of the Sun.
Perhaps we can expect even more of this if sunspots go away completely.
Stephen Wilde – I greatly respect your professional approach and keep up the good information. I can’t recall a single incident of you “overreacting”.
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I will ask the question again.
The question didn’t make sense the first time, nor the second, and still won’t the third.
When a scientist points out that a correlation between solar activity and weather/climate is good, there is a persistent droning of one person quick to smear that scientist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spot-the-science-error/
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/
“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one…”
Why do I think this comment has been made in order to please the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmists?
I think there is enough empirical evidence that has demonstrated carbon dioxide has not driven climate change or global warming in past millennia and, contrary to the IPCC’s claim, that the key underlying driver of climate change is indeed the sun.
To date, the most convincing empirical evidence of the key drivers of climate change that has been suggested, in my opinion, is that put forward by Henrik Svensmark. To this day, I have yet to see a serious critique of Svenson’s work. Even Dr Jasper Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment lends weight to the validity of Svensmark’s theory.
I love this old description of blocking highs. Reading it will leave one with the impression that powerful intrinsic forces are at play. Puny changes in various solar indices and teeny increases in anthropogenic CO2 cannot match the grand march of pressure systems, either to keep them going, or to stall them. Enjoy the complete absence of references to human induced change on extreme weather events.
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/11172/1/ELLjas49.pdf
DR says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:13 pm
“Where is that lag here?”
When a scientist points out that a correlation between solar activity and weather/climate is good
With a very misleading Figure and a implausible lag for the detailed correlation, some complaint seemed justified. Judge for yourself: http://ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/
Mervyn says:
August 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm
To date, the most convincing empirical evidence of the key drivers of climate change that has been suggested, in my opinion, is that put forward by Henrik Svensmark. To this day, I have yet to see a serious critique of Svenson’s work.
Then read this and weep:
http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/pdfs/Relationship%20of%20Lower-Troposphere%20Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays_%20An%20Updated%20Perspective.pdf
Another paper to add to the growing list that supports changes to atmospheric circulation as a direct result of solar UV changes. I will add it to my list of growing evidence that can be fount at:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/128
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
I keep a running record of the EUV values which shows the current levels to be not much higher than the SC22/23 minimum. This is how a solar grand minimum can have a longer term effect on circulation and pressure patterns across the globe, which we have witnessed for the last 3-4 years that will continue.
EUV is one form of UV measurement that can be used as a proxy for other UV wavelengths that all have a part to play in atmospheric change. The EUV graph and prediction for the next NH winter can be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/270
Geoff Sharp says:
August 23, 2012 at 8:19 pm
EUV values which shows the current levels to be not much higher than the SC22/23 minimum. This is how a solar grand minimum can have a longer term effect on circulation and pressure patterns across the globe, which we have witnessed for the last 3-4 years that will continue.
“Mg II emission is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).”
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
And does not show anything out of the ordinary. Its value now is consistent with the current sunspot number. My own analysis revealed a glitch on January 1st, 2002, but after correction, the index again shows nothing special going on, and a good match to F10.7 which is also a good proxy for EUV.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 23, 2012 at 8:19 pm
EUV values which shows the current levels to be not much higher than the SC22/23 minimum.
http://www.spacewx.com/About_MgII.html
“Mg II […] describes the solar EUV variability that directly affects the Earth’s thermospheric density”
And does not show anything out of the ordinary. Its value now is consistent with the current sunspot number, which is getting close to the predicted 70 for SC24. Hardly a Grand Minimum [yet].
Leif said:
“As far as UV and solar wind were concerned, the cycles in the middle of the 19th century were similar to the last 5 cycles. That is the important piece. Now, if UV and solar wind have nothing to do with the climate, I agree that this is irrelevant.”
____________________________
Stephen Wilde says: @ August 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Now you have shifted from comparing 1900 to 2012 to comparing the mid 19th century with the late 20th.
Well the late 20th was further along the solar induced recovery from the LIA and so for the same activity levels one would expect more warmth in the late 20th….
__________________________
This all reminds me of what Gerald Roe (and Henry P) stated about the Milancovitch cycles.
You are never going to get the same temperatures but you may get the same rate of change in the temperatures.
And I say “May” because the solar cycles are just one variable.The ocean oscillations/ENSO are going to be a big factor, Vukcevic/NASA point out another possible variable, the geomagnetic field + ozone, Svenmark points out another Cosmic Rays/clouds,
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv adds another twist to Svenmark’s theory
Why anyone would think there is “A Control Knob” for the climate completely escapes me. If there was it would already be darn obvious by now.
Gail Combs says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Why anyone would think there is “A Control Knob” for the climate completely escapes me. If there was it would already be darn obvious by now.
The problem is that all the pseudo experts peddling their various pet theories claim to have the whole truth and that their particular ‘mechanism’ is THE most important one, while in reality nobody has a clue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm
And does not show anything out of the ordinary….
Current EUV levels are around 1.4000E+10. The corresponding period of SC23 saw levels at least double this value.
The blinkers need to come off.
Stephen Wilde says
Nothing in nature gives complete symmetry
Henry says
Well, I think my graphs actually do show symmetry, that was my point,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and from this I can also conclude that my own data set is much more trustworthy than anything on the “market”. There are just too many “special interests” at stake.
They even put my pension fund money in that green energy that will never work. In the meantime, when they are all screaming “climate change” due to global warming, what is actually happening is a completely natural process where by temperatures on earth will drop by a bit until a certain time and then, only in 2045, it will start going up again…..
I would take a bet that that data in the past on the level of the nile coincides with the coldest periods in Europe being when the Nile was at its lowest level.
In fact, assuming my dataset is correct, we have already dropped by 0.2 degrees C globally since 2000 and it is now sliding further down, gathering up speed, as my plots show. Surely, by 2045 we will be back where we were in the winter of 1944. Some of us might be old enough to remember how cold it was then.
In fact, in certain places, like Kimberley (South Africa) and Anchorage (USA, Alaska) we have already dropped by about 1.5 degrees C on average since 2000. I did not check England due to climate gate (what can I trust?) but I did check Dublin for you. Dublin has fallen by o.5 degrees C on average since 2000.
Now, if it was me living in Anchorage, I would seriously start looking at my tables and move to a place where it is a bit warmer. Note that it is going to get colder still. More CO2 is not going to stop the “fall”.
Unfortunately. CO2 is just a red herring. It moves up with warming, due to warming, (since 1945, when CO2 recording began!) but it will soon start dropping.
A good scientist is recognised by his predictions coming true. But why not check my results? Anyone here is free to check my results, for example, on Anchorage. I could not believe my eyes when I saw it. I checked a 2nd station, just to be sure (because there were two weather stations in Anchorage with good records) . It was frightening, to me, as it does not at all follow the prediction of the warmists that the arctic is warming.
Or you can check Dublin, for that matter, if you live there.
Let me know if your results are different to mine.
@Henry P:
Trust the Garden as thermometer. The tomato never lies:
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/cold-alaska-summer-hurting-farmers-and-fresh-produce-lovers
Looks like the “facts in the ground” confirm your statement about Anchorage and colder…
TomRude says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm
If you want my opinion, it’s a lot of hot wind from this Sirocko fellow…
(I know I thought someone would have done it before…)
Of course the sun influences winters: Lockwood found that in SE England and now it is documented for the Rhine river between Mayence and Coblenz. We are not entirely sure though HOW it can proceed so selectively on a meteorological basis… /sarc
By shifting circulation patterns. Even Schmidt and Mann (2001) acknowledge that solar activity influences global weather patterrns. However, that doesn’t change earth’s energy balance so will not affect the overall ‘global’ temperature, That’s why UAH temperatures are still at the elevated levels of the previous decade despite the significant reduction in solar activity.
I have a bet going with my brother-in-law for a bottle of something that we will see another Elfstedentocht (11 cities skating race, the one refered to above) by 2015.
John Finn says:
August 24, 2012 at 1:03 am
By shifting circulation patterns. Even Schmidt and Mann (2001) acknowledge that solar activity influences global weather patterrns. However, that doesn’t change earth’s energy balance so will not affect the overall ‘global’ temperature, That’s why UAH temperatures are still at the elevated levels of the previous decade despite the significant reduction in solar activity.
You are falling into the same trap as your previous comments. It is important to realize more than one driver. Reduced UV will provide sudden atmospheric changes that batter some areas with severe cold and others with warmth, but the longer term effects from reduced ocean heat uptake (albedo changes) work over longer time periods.
Only 5 or 6 variables to influence climate????
This man knows nothing.
John Finn says
That’s why UAH temperatures
Henry says
apparently they are admitting now that UAH is reading too high.
we shal wait and see for the correction that is reportedly coming.
E.M Smith says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1064046
Henry says
The problem is that they still seem to think it will get better….somehow
but I say: the worst is still to come.
Leif in this instance is correct. There is nothing conclusive in this paper only nefarious.
Hmm, the Sun does affect the Rhine … but nowhere else of course.
With regularity, a large proportion of these winters occur at the lows in the Ap index, which is typically one and two years after the solar cycle minima, and on and just after the maxima.
E.M.Smith says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:59 am
@Henry P:
Trust the Garden as thermometer. The tomato never lies……
___________________________________
I would believe a tomato long before I would believe a tree ring.
The Rhine has not frozen over since 1963, which is true. But there are several factors that have made it more difficult for the river to freeze over in modern times:
– Ships have become much larger and produce more wave pertubations, making the formations of ice floats more difficult.
– The above-mentioned heating of the river by industry.
– A very important aspect was and still is the at times massive pollution of the river with waste salt from the Alsatian potash production industry at the upper Rhine, reducing the temperature at which the river freezes.
.
The 2011 winter was close to freeze the Rhine over again. One morning when I biked to work in the bitter cold I observed the formation of palm-size ice floats. But the next day thawing started.
Greetings from the Rhine, Germany
Gail Combs says: August 24, 2012 at 4:24 am
E.M.Smith says: August 24, 2012 at 12:59 am
@Henry P:
Trust the Garden as thermometer. The tomato never lies……
I would believe a tomato long before I would believe a tree ring.
…….
Tony B is the top UK’s outdoor tomato growing enthusiast, and he ain’t a happy man.
Oh and here in Drizzmal North Carolina it is a brisk 64F (17C) at 7:30am BRRrrrr
For what it is worth HenryP. The Sanford Jetport is a sleeply little more or less private airport with daily min/max records back to 1973. link to Wunderground.
It is in the middle of the state in the piedmont area about 150 miles from the coast and ~ 150 miles from the Appalachians. It is also where I found the “break” between northern weather and Willis’s Thermostat theory a few years ago. South of Sanford you get a lot of afternoon summer thunderstorms. North you do not get that many. This is as long as the Jets are zonal and the wind from the west. The Jets changed a couple of years ago.
The wind direction for June is rather interesting to look at too. Unfortunately the data base only goes back to 2001. (Cycle 22/23 min was 1996-1997) You can see an almost 45 degree angle straight line from the bottom of the chart to the top as the Rossby wave of the jet stream moves through the area.
2001 – 2 waves
2002 – 3 waves and a 1/2 wave at start and finish
2003 – 2+1/2 wave in first 10 days then + no Records
2004 -2
2005 -1
2006 – spotty mostly from the west
2007 very spotty very calm wind
2008 – 2
2009 – 2
2010 – spotty
2011 – 6 very fast waves
2012 – wind direction jumps all over the place.
(Note: the data base has a tendency to “jump” weather stations. So be careful using it.)
Another decent town to look at in North Carolina is Fayetteville about 50 miles south where Willis’s Thermostat is still working. It has data back to 1933. link and wind data back to 1973.
These two cities are worth looking at because they are in the “Rain Shadow” of the Appalachians and the mountains have a tendency to breakup any weather fronts coming in from the west. Hurricanes also normally do not really hit the area.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 23, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Current EUV levels are around 1.4000E+10. The corresponding period of SC23 saw levels at least double this value.
What is ‘corresponding’ period? If you just mean ‘maximum’, then SC24 is only half of SC23, as predicted, so nothing special.
As an Aussie visiting Amsterdam in Jan-Feb 1974 and 1975, I can attest to frozen canals. Some residents had a bad habit of throwing garbage into canals; next morning, after a freeze, it sat on top, Oh, the shame. A not-so-uncommon object was a bicycle that one could imagine saved a walk home at the expense of the owner.
Ed Zuiderwijk says:
August 24, 2012 at 1:21 am
I have a bet going with my brother-in-law for a bottle of something that we will see another Elfstedentocht (11 cities skating race, the one refered to above) by 2015.
Here are the Elfstedentochten and solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/Elfstedentochten.png
One climate factor that I agree on with the authors of the paper is the impact of El Ninos on our global climate , but mostly climate altering strong El Ninos . Prior to the 1970’s there was typically about one such strong El Nino per decade, but during the period 1970’s, 1980,s and 1990’s there were 2 per decade . Notice the rise in winter temperatures after 1970. Also ocean cycles are not always in sync with solar cycles as demonstrated by El Ninos happening during or near solar minimums 1878, 1889,1965,1972/73,1987/86 . El Nino winters also tend to have a negative AO which causes cold Arctic air to be pushed into parts of Europe.
There is some good science here, but the presentation is so corrupted by warmist nonsense that it’s actually quite sickening. It shows the extent of the dead grip that the AGW religion has on science.
.
Their belief that the sun’s influence is magically focused on certain parts of the world is almost comical. Obviously, to admit that solar activity can influence the global climate would be heresy.
Sigh….
Chris
****
Phillip Bratby says:
August 23, 2012 at 9:46 am
I wonder how much the Rhine’s temperature has risen because of all the waste heat that gets dumped into the river from industry and power stations.
****
I think it makes a big difference. When I was at a power-plant, it took lows near zero F for several days to make significant ice on the river. Jan 1994 was cold enough to freeze the river banks & produce extensive chunks & rafts of ice in the middle. However, the river at & downstream of the condenser water outlet remained conspicuously ice-free for at least half a mile downstream. And this was a meager 330 MW plant in a rural area w/no other heat inputs even close. Imagine an industrialized area w/far more heat input to a river (like the Rhine or the Thames).
A glance at the Central Europe graph above shows that the majority of coldest winters since 1900 happened when the ENSO signal was in NEUTRAL mode or in a few cases during or after an El Nino [ like 1940/1941]. Both of these cases allow colder Arctic air to seep down into Europe as the wind patterns and jet stream change . This seems to be a mostly local [European ]event and not always a Northern Hemisphere event. It does not seem to be caused by solar cycles directly.
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16177185,00.html
The Finnish tree rings also had something to tell about other climate events. The climate curves gave information about volcano eruptions, because in the wake of these events, temperatures generally drop by about 0.7 degrees Celsius. Warm and cold periods can also be identified this way. During Roman times, temperatures were very high. The same goes for the so-called Medieval Climate Optimum, a warm period in the Middle Ages. This was followed by a colder phase, the so-called small ice age. In the second decade, temperatures started rising again.
Leif Svalgaard says
Here are the Elfstedentochten and solar activity:
Gail says
You can see an almost 45 degree angle straight line from the bottom of the chart to the top as the Rossby wave of the jet stream moves through the area.
Henry @Gail, Leif
thanks for that. I note that the 3 Elfstedentochten after another were held at the end of the last cooling period .
it is the acceleration /deceleration of warming /cooling that appears to form certain weatherpatterns.
Plot that and you will figure it all out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Jim G says:
August 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I will ask the question again.
“The question didn’t make sense the first time, nor the second, and still won’t the third.”
The answer discredits your comment regarding “lag”, so no answer forthcoming.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 23, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Thermal systems have indeed lag because of heat capacity. As already said this is about air circulation and redistributing cold and warm air; not heating of the air.
Not really. Those very cold winters are caused by blocking of air masses [and high pressure over Russia]. Those are hard to change and are not just the sun disappearing behind a cloud..
———————————————-
Actually, Leif, the cold European winters are caused by the jetstreams traveling in different directions and lowering in terms of latitude. (They have recently been coming from the NW down the N Atlantic and through the Med, some 500 km further south than usual). It is the position of the jet streams that determines the position of the blocking highs, and not vice versa.
The question is, therefore, is what changes the positions of the jetstreams, and that has never been fully explained. Could this be a butterfly-wing effect, where a small solar change can produce a large change in jetstream trajectory? Who knows.
.
Leif Svalgaard says: “I don’t see such use in the paper under discussion.”
Definitely a fair point, the work would be substantially improved if they developed a solid theoretical model to attempt to explain their results.
However, I was offering the physics/mathematics rationale for the “lag” comments. The functional form in question explains why there are immediate effects even though the bulk of the response would be significantly delayed. This means that even with a method that doesn’t take into account any “lag” one should still be able to detect some of the immediate effects-which, because of the nature of the system, are significantly damped in magnitude. Of course, add to that the presence of significant noise and the immediate effects become difficult to detect.
“The question is, therefore, is what changes the positions of the jetstreams, and that has never been fully explained. Could this be a butterfly-wing effect, where a small solar change can produce a large change in jetstream trajectory? Who knows.”
Quite so.
Solar spectral and particle variations alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere so as to change the slope of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Jet stream tracks are then able to change as do cloud quantities and the amount of energy able to enter the oceans then changes for a net cooling or net warming effect.
Global albedo is significantly altered by small solar changes.
The latitudinal jet stream and climate zone shifting appears to be in the region of 500 to 1000 miles going by changes seen from MWP to LIA to date.
I would be surprised if human CO2 emissions change it by as much as 1 mile.
Trent Valley UK.
Another distinctive feature of the Trent Valley is its power stations, with cooling towers seeming to loom over every horizon.
In fact, power stations are the biggest users of water from the Trent, surpassing farmers and water companies.
BBC News Online was invited to West Burton power station for a look at how it uses water from the river.
The coal-powered station takes an average of 200 million litres a day from the Trent.
The coal-powered station takes an average of 200 million litres a day from the Trent.
The water is used for various processes, in particular cooling the steam which drives its huge turbines.
Much of the water is lost to evaporation, but about half is returned to the river, approximately 5C warmer than when it was abstracted.
Radcliff on soar, 2000MW
Staythorp C 1750 MW
High Marnham 1000 MW
Cottham powerstations (2) 2400 MW
WesrtBurton 2000 MW
Keadby Power Station 720 MW
There were more but some have been decommissioned.
Just wondered how much these would raise temperature in the valley, my old teacher said 2 degrees.
Any like these on the Rhine.
Robuk says:
August 24, 2012 at 11:41 am
Trent Valley UK.
Radcliff on soar, 2000MW
Staythorp C 1750 MW
High Marnham 1000 MW
Cottham powerstations (2) 2400 MW
WesrtBurton 2000 MW
Keadby Power Station 720 MW
Just wondered how much these would raise temperature in the valley, my old teacher said 2 degrees.
My back of the envelope calculation says that’s equivalent to about 6x6km of solar insolation at 300W/m^2 (worth double checking).
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 1:32 am
John Finn says:
August 24, 2012 at 1:03 am
You are falling into the same trap as your previous comments. It is important to realize more than one driver. Reduced UV will provide sudden atmospheric changes that batter some areas with severe cold and others with warmth, but the longer term effects from reduced ocean heat uptake (albedo changes) work over longer time periods.
I’m not falling into any trap. If you could perhaps show some evidence of the the link between reduced solar activity and reduced ocean heat uptake working over longer periods of time that might be helpful. What is the scale of these “longer periods of time”? When, for example, was cooling fully realised following the Dalton minimum? I think Leif may have touched on this issue earlier. It appears things work over longer periods of time when the data doesn’t fit. It doesn’t fit now.
Silver Ralph says: August 24, 2012 at 9:35 am
The question is, therefore, is what changes the positions of the jetstreams, and that has never been fully explained. Could this be a butterfly-wing effect, where a small solar change can produce a large change in jetstream trajectory? Who knows.
No it is not butterfly-wing effect.
It is position of Icelandic low, which depends on location of warm current down-welling, which depends of ice extent (summer or winter), which depends on the AMO (changes simultaneously across all of North Atlantic) which is driven by geo-solar cycle
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Dr.S is also correct, Icelandic low is accompanied by high across Russia (Arctic Oscillation) and near the Azores (North Atlantic Oscillation)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/new.ao.loading.gif
“What is the scale of these “longer periods of time”? When, for example, was cooling fully realised following the Dalton minimum? ”
I think that is an unrealistic demand given ocean cycling on the scale of 6 decades at a time plus internal system variability plus the paucity of global data from the time.
All we can do is watch and learn now that we have lots of varied modern sensors.
The most persuasive feature for me is that a lot of different climate parameters all changed trend around the same time as the sun came down from the peak of cycle 23 and there was a slight change in all those same parameters in the opposite direction at the time of the climate shift of the late 70s coincident with the renewed solar activity levels in cycle 21 after slightly quieter cycle 20.
The fact that so many things changed together in the late 90s and in the late 70s means that the data does indeed fit the solar signal but what we really do not yet know is the length of time before the full thermal effects work through the oceans.
I’d guess at ten years or so on the basis that the powerful El Nino of 1997/8 hit the Arctic ice in 2007 and the El Ninos of the early 2000s are just nwe getting Arctic ice back to or just a bit lower than the 2007 level.
After that, though La Ninas gained power relative to El Ninos and are still doing so.
On that basis the effects of past higher levels of solar activity should be almost out of the system by 2015 but we won’t see the effect of the recent very low minimum until around 2020.
CO2 will no doubt have a role but in my view infinitesimal.
Update on the Tesla museum story
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22212-securing-the-legacy-of-the-worlds-greatest-geek.html
“When one points out that a correlation between solar activity and weather/climate is poor, there is a persistent chorus of people crying “yeah, but you must take into account the lags in the system caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans”. Where is that lag here?” – Leif S.
Given that sunlight incident upon bodies of water is efficiently absorbed, it may be that shallow surface waters would be least effected by thermal inertia and would not have much lag.
John Finn says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I’m not falling into any trap. If you could perhaps show some evidence of the the link between reduced solar activity and reduced ocean heat uptake working over longer periods of time that might be helpful.
Seeing as the last time we saw this kind of event was over 200 years ago the data will not be strong. We have to rely mainly on proxy records which certainly show (in most cases) a cooling during the LIA. But the premise of your question clearly displays the trap you fall into by not allowing for other climate factors.
Some of the factors that need to be considered during interglacial periods:
1. ENSO modification due to ocean oscillations (60 year period)
2. Atmospheric changes from reduced UV (172 year period with a smaller hit mid period)
3. Grand Minimum albedo changes (172 year period but of varying strength)
4. Ocean heat content changes due to gradual long term TSI changes (80-100 year period of small influence).
The grand minimum that occur every 172 years is the most interesting and least understood. Everyone is expecting constant returns of Maunder type events but fail to realize these extra strong events are relatively rare over the Holocene. I have used solar markers that also coincide (timing & strength) with all movements in the solar proxy record over the Holocene to predict the current solar cycle and next will be sub 50 SSN (as measured without the Waldmeier factor). This will be a grand minimum but a weaker version than the Dalton, so don’t expect too much ocean cooling. We are 3-4 years into a 30 year trend that at least will see a flatline in the temperature records with some cooling down the track. But we can expect wild weather in both extremes as the norm for the next 30 years because of what will become commonplace in our atmospheric patterns.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm
The grand minimum that occur every 172 years is the most interesting and least understood.
Plus do not occur every 172 years. If the last one was in 1810, then the next one would have been in during the cycle around 1982 when as everyone knows in a period of high solar activity.
predict the current solar cycle and next will be sub 50 SSN (as measured without the Waldmeier factor).
Which is no more a grand minimum than cycle 14. In general it is better to include the Waldmeier factor and apply it to the data before 1945.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm
The grand minimum that occur every 172 years is the most interesting and least understood.
Plus do not occur every 172 years. If the last one was in 1810, then the next one would have been in during the cycle around 1982 when as everyone knows in a period of high solar activity.
predict the current solar cycle and next will be sub 50 SSN (as measured without the Waldmeier factor).
Which is no more a grand minimum than cycle 14. In general it is better to include the Waldmeier factor and apply it to the data before 1945.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Which is no more a grand minimum than cycle 14. In general it is better to include the Waldmeier factor and apply it to the data before 1945.
Rubbish, SC14 was not affected by the Waldmeier factor and measures around 65 SSN. SC5/6 are much better examples of the current SC24 trend.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
Plus do not occur every 172 years.
Agreed, but on average this is the case. I try to keep it simple as not even you understand the concepts, as shown in the previous challenge to you.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/216
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Which is no more a grand minimum than cycle 14. In general it is better to include the Waldmeier factor and apply it to the data before 1945.
Rubbish, SC14 was not affected by the Waldmeier factor and measures around 65 SSN. SC5/6 are much better examples of the current SC24 trend.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
Plus do not occur every 172 years.
Agreed, but on average this is the case. I try to keep it simple as not even you understand the concepts, as shown in the previous challenge to you.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/216
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“Which is no more a grand minimum than cycle 14. In general it is better to include the Waldmeier factor and apply it to the data before 1945.”
Rubbish, SC14 was not affected by the Waldmeier factor and measures around 65 SSN. SC5/6 are much better examples of the current SC24 trend.
As the scale of the sunspot number is arbitrary, you can deal with the Waldmeier factor by either increasing the old values before 1945 or by decreasing the new values after 1945. There is general agreement in the SSN community to leave the current values alone [as they are used in operational program] and increase the older values.
The data for SC5 and 6 are so uncertain that they can hardly be compared to anything. Here is what Wolf thought SC5 looked like: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SC5.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:21 pm
I am not interested in debating which way the Waldmeier factor should apply. My points stand.
The SC5 data is not 100%, but the SC6 data is strong. Your SC14 comparison is running out of legs the further we get into SC24.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2012 at 6:21 am.
Thanks for that. I’d made a similar plot some years ago and noticed that the later events are bang in the middle of a minimum whereas earlier events could apparently occur kind of at random. I wonder if we see a confounding factor at work: increasingly during the last century there was a conflict between economic interest and the sporting wishes: the canals had to be kept open for transport. So, if in the end the waters had frozen over (because efforts to keep open water had failed) and a contiguous stretch of ice existed along the whole of the route, you would probably expect extra cold winters for the more recent events. I wonder if there are any data around that could test this idea; the three events during WW2 look conspicuous to me in that respect: were no attempt made to keep the waters open then? Another confounding factor may be a number of power stations that now cause some stretches of water to freeze over much later than they otherwise would do.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm
I am not interested in debating which way the Waldmeier factor should apply.
There should be no debate. You should just do the right thing and follow the accepted procedure.
The SC5 data is not 100%, but the SC6 data is strong. Your SC14 comparison is running out of legs the further we get into SC24.
On the contrary: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm
but the SC6 data is strong.
Actually not: Wolf cites Bode saying that he saw the sun in 1815 covered with more spots and faculae “than he had ever seen before”. Fritsch reported that in 1817 he often saw days with more than 100 spots, some visible to the naked eye. Stark observed on 115 days in the year 1815 on which there were spots on 109 and no spots on 9 days. For 1816 the numbers were 109 days with spots and 6 without. Hardly Grand Minimum Stuff.
“The relation shown above holds true only for central European temperatures. When the CRUTEM3 winter temperature data are averaged over the whole Northern Hemisphere, no relation to the solar minima is found.”
The AO was more negative than the NAO was in 1963, 2010 and 2011 winters, and that is why these winters had impacts all round the Northern Hemisphere. I bet looking at monthly land temperatures only for latitudes 40 to 60 deg North would give a different result.
Many cold Northern Hemisphere winters happen on and just after solar cycle maxima, including several that froze the Rhine, in 1684, 1695, 1740, 1830, 1838, 1895, 1917 and 1929. So sunspots don’t seem to be the issue, while low points in the Ap index are a far better correlation.
Ed Zuiderwijk says
three events during WW2 look conspicuous to me in that respect: were no attempt made to keep the waters open then?
Henry says
yes, I suspect that there may have been some reasons for the resistance not to keep those waterways open, but, OTOH you also do need the cold as well to get it all frozen up. According to my own results
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
around 1945 was the end of a 50 year cooling cycle. So, the cold was there. And the cycle changed (at great speed). At that stage, automatic temperature recording did not exist and I suspect few thermometers even had calibration certificates. So I don’t know how they can say they know exactly how cold it was back then. In fact 1944 is remembered by many in Europe as the hunger winter. In Friesland were many rich farmers so they may have escaped the worst. As we know, back then in Holland many people lost their lives, simply because of hunger. What I do know for sure is that 1995 was the end of the warming period, i.e. maximum energy input. If 1997 was the last time we had an Elfstedentocht – which was when earth energy output was actually the greatest, i.e. the warmest – then that makes sense only if you look at the acceleration of cooling, or the deceleration of warming, or even vice versa, as well as ambient temperatures. The speed of cooling or warming itsself also causes certain predictable weather patterns. We also know that in 2012 we almost had an Elfstedentocht. At the moment acceleration of cooling is now more or less the same as it was in 1912 (it is a 100 year cycle). It appears there was an Elfstedentocht in 1910 and in 1913. I think your bet is right. 2013 is my bet. But if there is no race by 2015, we will probably have to wait a bit again…(after that, the acceleration/deceleration you also need will not be there for some time- if you can follow my thinking)
vukcevic says: August 24, 2012 at 12:55 pm
No it is not butterfly-wing effect.
It is position of Icelandic low, which depends on location of warm current down-welling, which depends of ice extent (summer or winter), which depends on the AMO (changes simultaneously across all of North Atlantic) which is driven by geo-solar cycle.
———————————————
You are falling into the same trap as everyone else, Vuk. The position of the Icelandic Low is determined by the track of the jetstreams, and not vice versa.
.
Silver Ralph says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:56 am
The position of the Icelandic Low is determined by the track of the jetstreams, and not vice versa.
From http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/NAO/body
“The Icelandic Low is a semi-permanent low pressure area sitting close to Iceland, while the Azores (Bermuda) High is a semi-permanent high near the Azores. The Icelandic Low and Azores High fluctuate in strength and position over a period of months and years, and their variations can have an effect on weather in the eastern United States by shifting the location of the jet stream which affects temperature and precipitation patterns over the southeastern United States”
The winds are determined by the pressure patterns, not the other way around.
Silver Ralph says: August 25, 2012 at 9:56 am
……
Irminger sea (winter) and Nordic Seas (summer) are regions of the intense ocean – atmosphere interaction. Here the sea surface and atmospheric temperature differential means ocean stored heat is release at rates of several hundred watts per square meter, resulting in deep water convection. Warm air raises and diverts jet-stream. Ice coverage prevents sea surface contact with the atmosphere above, hence movement of the Icelandic low back and forth.
Ulric Lyons says
Many cold Northern Hemisphere winters happen on and just after solar cycle maxima, including several that froze the Rhine, in 1684, 1695, 1740, 1830, 1838, 1895, 1917 and 1929.
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1064815
Sorry, I see now there also was an Elfstedentocht in 1917. There was also one in 1929. So, we have a chance for an Elfstedentocht every winter until 2018. After that we will have to wait another 11 or 12 years again. Believe it or not, this is science and not wishful thinking.
HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 10:22 am
Believe it or not, this is science and not wishful thinking.
like: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Death/Masakichi.html
I love this paper and its “kind of’s”, “could be’s”, “sort of’s” and other types of language used whenever correlations fall to the 70’s range. What was very interesting is the comment regarding the AO driving wind and pressure systems to different locations in the Arctic. Seems that the Arctic has cold and warm currents (which everyone here should know about) that fluctuate warmer or colder depending on factors related to incoming warm currents and open ocean warming up cold currents. The AO is fickle in that sometimes the winds and pressure systems drive ice to these warm areas, and sometimes the less warm areas in the basin and THAT has a lot (weasel word) to do with how much ice melts when and where during the melt season.
Were someone in the AGW crowd to say that it must be CO2, you would have to start with the overall state of the ice (it has a memory) at the beginning of the melt season, then look at location of wind and pressure systems AND the co-morbid state and location of Arctic currents, then take a step back to wind and pressure system direction and strength, then another step back to the AO. You would then have to find how and when, if at all, the anthropogenic portion of CO2 enters into that string of events with enough joules and the mechanism needed to change the events it tries to enter in order to say the trend is due to CO2.
Else we are still at the mercy of the null hypothesis.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110008253_2011008656.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1064858
Henry says
Either you are ignorant or you want to be. The 12 years difference has nothing to do with a solar cycle. It is because you are then in the middle of the cooling cycle, in the bottom of the curve, so acceleration is more or less zero and speed of cooling is constant.
Does similar data exist for the freezing over of the Great Lakes??
HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 10:22 am
” So, we have a chance for an Elfstedentocht every winter until 2018. After that we will have to wait another 11 or 12 years again.”
With the larger Ap index drop in solar cycles being typically just after the minima, the early 2020’s would be a very likely period to see some colder N. Hemisphere winters.
Henry@Ulric
No. Sorry. Made a slight calc error. Just as there was nothing
between 1964 – 1975 there will be no elfstedentocht
between 2015 – 2025
There has been an El Nino the year after every solar minimum . Since at least 1880, 10 of the last strongest and climate altering El Nino’s have been the year after a solar minimum. The extra warming during the warming period 0f 1970-2000 has come from 3 extra strong El Ninos that did not happen a year after the solar minimum namely 1991/1992, 1982/1983 and 1972/1973. A similar additional strong El nino took place during the previous warming cycle of 1910-1945, namley 1940/1941. If the solar cycle gets longer and less intensive , there could be fewer stronger and/or climate altering El Ninos, resulting in gradual cooling .
HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“..there will be no elfstedentocht between 2015 – 2025”
11th December 1657: Beginning of one of the longest periods of snow lying in England, lasting (reputedly) until 21st March 1658.
A notably severe winter over western Europe & much of Britain (Easton in CHMW/Lamb). In some parts of England, the frost lasted from 1st December (OSP) to 10th March (OSP). Ice was reported around coasts of SE England.
In Scotland, the winter was also ‘seasonably severe’, but the cold lingered through March into April, with frequent wind from the east or NE.
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
179.05yrs later we have Murphy’s winter from early January 1838. The next one of these should dig in from later in January 2017.
HenryP says:
August 25, 2012 at 11:34 am
Either you are ignorant or you want to be.
I don’t [pretend] not to be as so many here.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Sorry, 1658 is the wrong analogue that I posted above, 179yrs back from 1838 is 1659 which actually was not so cold, though I still anticipate early 2017 as being very cold.
MattV says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1064974
Henry @Matt & Ulric
you are both on the right path but you took a wrong turn somewhere.
Note that I say that extreme weather events – of cold spells or warm spells- not only depend on current ambient temperature (ie. whether we are in a cooling period or warming period) , but also on acceleration – whichever the sign – because this seems to bring about or cause the relevant airflows/ pressures that bring about the event. Start by looking at my results
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
and do the plot for the change in maxima in degrees C / annum against time for yourself. What you get is acceleration of cooling or deceleration of warming, whichever you prefer. What you will note from the plot is that this acceleration is greatest when there is an actual change of sign. My results show that in 1995 we changed sign. Acceleration into cooling was the highest there, hence we had an Elfstedentocht a few years later (earth is always a few years later – if you look at the means in degrees C /annum against time), even though in 1997 we were actually at the height of a warming period. My results also suggest that around 1944 or 1945 we changed from cooling to warming. So at that stage, just before and after we had maximum acceleration into warming. Hence the warm events you, MattV, have noted just before 1944. It was yesterday reported that we currently have a very warm spell in Germany which makes sense to me. Obviously, to keep the balance, in the SH we now get more cold spells. We had snow here in August for the first time in Johannesburg since 1981.
We almost had an Elfstedentocht in Friesland in 2012. But we are now approaching the bending point and between 2015 and 2025 acceleration will be close to zero and speed of cooling will be more or less constant. Obviously ambient temperatures may change somewhat towards more cooler and winters may become a bit longer, but in general, I predict that there will be no extreme weather events between 2017 and 2027 (if we add a few years of lag on earth’s output compared to energy input)
So what the report says is that low radiation gives cold weather but high temperatures are caused by global warming and they wonder why many engineers and other scientists despise climate studies and reject the notion of it as science.
Leif Svalgaard says
I don’t [pretend] not to be as so many here.
Henry@Leif
What was that you always said?
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see?Look, we all know for sure that you are the most knowledgeable and best scientist on this blog/block. I am sure everybody here will agree with me on that, even though some will not always admit it or even sometimes tease you a bit, just to get you off from your horse. So, really there is no need for you to have to make any ad homien remarks.
When you speak everybody listens so it is a bit of a disappointment if there is no science in your post.
Either way, did you ever consider my results and do you agree with me that there appears to be a 100 year cycle that began in 1895 and ended in 1995 consisting of 50 years of cooling (1895-1945) and 50 years of warming (1945-1995). My binominal plots are actually not correct there because it is an a-c wave – unfortunately for me Excell does not do the a-c waves plots; so it is somewhat difficult for me to calculate the actual fluctuations in ambient temperature that this 100 year cycle causes/
Do you have any idea on that for me?
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:40 am
do you agree with me that there appears to be a 100 year cycle that began in 1895 and ended in 1995 consisting of 50 years of cooling (1895-1945) and 50 years of warming (1945-1995).
It does not matter what people agree on. Mother Nature has the final say, and she says that there was warming the first half of that cycle, cooling from 1945 to 1980 [remember the ice age scare in the 1970s], and warming since. Not at all what you advocate.
I also have been troubled by HenryP’s suggestion that warming began in 1945 because I well remember the cooling scare of the 60s and 70s.
If we start around1895 that seems to have been quite a cool time (some say the LIA continued to the 1850s) with warming up to the 1930s then cooling to the 70s then warming to around 2000 and then possibly cooling but the new trend has not yet become fully established since it takes time to turn the system around.
We see a 60 year (PDO) pattern there superimposed on the general warming trend in the background since the LIA.
I think HenryP should look at the interplay between the background long term warming trend and the effects of the 60 year PDO cycling in his regions of interest and see if some of his timings need adjustment.
I cannot bring myself to be as negative and dismissive as Leif.
Henry @ Leif
I do not “advocate” a certain stance. I collected the relevant data, evaluated those data, according to logical statistical principles. Prove to me that any individual weather station’s results are incorrect?
Then I plot what I get. What I get is what I get. I cannot change what I get. It looks clearly like an a-c wave? Seeing that for maxima, means and minima I get similar a-c wave plots, don’t you think it is possible that those evaluating “Mother Nature” have made some serious mistakes?
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:14 am
don’t you think it is possible that those evaluating “Mother Nature” have made some serious mistakes?
Not really, one can quibble about the details, but the gross picture is largely correct.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
I cannot bring myself to be as negative and dismissive as Leif.
Mother Nature cannot be easily dismissed.
Hi Henry
Dr. S. and I discussed my ~ 52 / 105 cycles on many an occasion, and let me make it clear that he considers it ‘nonsense’.
However if that doesn’t deter you, it is all here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
my persistence knows no bounds, but I do not wish to engage Dr. S. since he is far too persuasive, not to mention more knowledgeable than I am, so I shall qualify my results as
‘speculations of an idle mind’, or to be honest I need a favor again.
Dr Svalgaard
I would be very obliged if you may be able to trace numerical data file for the graph
Figure 6. An illustration of the effect of the regression of the moon’s nodes on the water levels at Puget Sound, WA.
ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
all my previous attempts have failed.
Mother Nature speaks with forked tongue.
It is very difficult to ascertain what she is really telling us.
Does Leif Svalgaard claim to be her best interpreter ?
I think he will say he is 🙂
On solar issues I would agree (but best doesn’t imply all knowing).
As regards the interaction between the sun and Earth systems I am a little less confident.
Henry@Leif
Quible…??
To start off with, they never even considered looking at maxima by which they could have easily evaluated energy input, like I have done. Which sane scientists looking at global warming would “forget” to look at such an important variable?
vukcevic says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:43 am
Hi Henry
Dr. S. and I discussed my ~ 52 / 105 cycles on many an occasion, and let me make it clear that he considers it ‘nonsense’.
The ~100 yr cycle in solar activity is real enough.
all my previous attempts have failed.
The simplest is just to print out the figure and carefully measure the data points.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:43 am
Mother Nature speaks with forked tongue.
Usually not. And in any case, we have to go with what she says.
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 10:51 am
Which sane scientists looking at global warming would “forget” to look at such an important variable?
For the energy in the system, the average temperature would seem to be most appropriate. It would seem an overreach to declare all other people not ‘sane’.
Henry@Vukcevic
Thanks for your input there, that also proves there is a ca. 100 year cycle of which 50 is positive and 50 negative like an a-c wave. Like I also found in VI here:
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyclesresearchinstitute.org%2Fcycles-astronomy%2Farnold_theory_order.pdf&ei=FG46UIz-LdKyhAf9roCAAQ&usg=AFQjCNG0fLT-0fkPPYFamQGUguMy3oFmGQ&sig2=qUIhZuI9XjlplDXIOR4YtA
(note that Arnold’s times for the waves are 1860-1900-1950-1990 correspond closely with my estimates)
Anyways, I need to plot my results in degrees C/ annum against time for maxima and means and minima in that a-c wave but my maths on geo has always been bad. Do you perhaps know how I can do that plot and get the co-ordinates for my waves?
Leif says
For the energy in the system, the average temperature would seem to be most appropriate. It would seem an overreach to declare all other people not ‘sane’.
Henry says
No, if you say you want to study global warming it is not logical not to look at all variables that are relevant and available. But let us “quible” on. They came with the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global warming problem, causing the delay in cooling in which case you would expect strongly rising minima. Did you see anyone plotting minima and proving to me that it was rising minima that pushed up means? Do you actually know what the ratio is for the global increases in maxima-means-minima?
(Do not quote my results)
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Leif says
They came with the idea that it must be the CO2 that is causing the global warming problem
You – and many other people – have to get off the silly notion of framing everything in terms of CO2 [or opposition thereto]
Do you actually know what the ratio is for the global increases in maxima-means-minima?
(Do not quote my results)
Doesn’t matter where the increases are as long as the mean goes up, which it did in both your two 50-yr halves.
Leif says
which it did in both your two 50-yr halves.
Henry says
No! This is where the problem is. Automatic recorders only came after 1970. How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower then in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.
Henry
I am not certain what exactly you have in mind,
if column A is ‘year’ A1 1900, A2 1901 etc)
column B is temperature value
write in box C2
=B2-B1 gives you degrees/annum change
copy box C2 and paste in column C from C3 to the end e.g. C200 or whatever
which will be ac type curve
if it is something like last graph at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
plot normal graph, then ‘ad trend line’ and select option ‘display equation’ which looks something like this
y = 0.005x – 14.6
Now in box C1 write
=B1-(A1*0.005 – 14.6)
copy box C1 and paste in column C
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2012 at 4:37 am
Geoff Sharp says:
Your SC14 comparison is running out of legs the further we get into SC24.
——————————————
On the contrary: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
Your graph is pure slight of hand. Surely you don’t believe that people could be so naive?
Do it properly and SC14 is much higher (so far) than SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower than in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.
I don’t need to prove what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t believe it anyway. The cherry trees in Japan knows: http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Your graph is pure slight of hand.
The graph just shows the official sunspot number. That official SC24 is a bit higher than SC14 is probably due to the Waldmeier jump.
Surely you don’t believe that people could be so naive?
What people? Wolfer? Cortesi? or your sycophants and acolytes?
Do it properly and SC14 is much higher (so far) than SC24.
‘much’ is a big word’ like 50% higher or such.
Correcting for the Waldmeier jump, SC14 and SC24 are at the moment just at the same level:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png
If we take into account the L&P effect, the SC24 is probably too low already, but we don’t need to do this to refute your erroneous assertion.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The graph just shows the official sunspot number. That official SC24 is a bit higher than SC14 is probably due to the Waldmeier jump.
A real white wash job going on here. It is amazing to observe what lengths you will go to bolster your own ideas. Why don’t you simply show a graph of the SC24 SIDC values less the Waldmeier factor. If you want to further improve the accuracy so that the pre 1945 cycles can be compared you would also allow a deduction for the recent SIDC trend of more splitting of groups (as you have observed), along with an allowance for the increased speck ratio, and a small allowance for the difference in technology.
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24_less_wald.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“The cherry trees in Japan knows”
http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
=============
Knows what ?, warm is better than cold ?
It is as it ever was.
Leif says
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
How would you prove to me that the global temperature in 1895 was lower than in 1995? That the warming from 1945 to 1995 was already natural: that we know from my results.
Leif answers: I don’t need to prove what is generally accepted, and you wouldn’t believe it anyway. The cherry trees in Japan knows: http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdf
Henry says
I am open for any proof. We do need to prove this first because what is generally accepted could be wrong. Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle. That is a lifetime. That why we are here, to examine and measure what is really happening. That reverence you gave: if you look carefully at the graph you will note that the DOY of the last 100 year is really no different as it was between 1400 and 1600. It is just that the last 100 year there are records for every year which makes it look “black” (bad). If you give me the data I may be able to prove this conclusively by doing a statistical analysis.
So we have been there, before. There might still be another 500 year cycle that I will have to look at. And like I said before, I will still try to calculate by how much degrees K life on earth varies in the 100 year cycle if I can get my a-c wave right.
But let us “quible” on. Here is a reference on arctic ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
Assuming 1900 was the end of the warming period before the last warming period, that we know ended in 1995, note that by 1920 people were not so much concerned as surprised by the disappearing arctic ice. I remember reading a news paper article from back then on WUWT (but could not find again). Sounds familiar does it not? In fact the disappearing arctic ice was main news on some networks again yesterday. But now the disappearing ice is caused by “global warming”, or a GH effect, meaning us. But note in my reference I gave you above: it seems from the maps that when WWII started all the ice had mostly grown back again. So there you have it: I know it and now you know it. We are now cooling again and by ca. 2045 everything will be back to how it was, as it always was, more or less. I am sorry to have to bring this news. In fact: I hate cold. I wish I could report some other findings. But, in the end, we probably need to be happy, even about the big bad cold, because that is probably why we are alive today.
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
If you give me the data I may be able to prove this conclusively by doing a statistical analysis
———————–
You can get tabulated data through this page.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
I think downloadable digital data are also available from the same website.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Why don’t you simply show a graph of the SC24 SIDC values less the Waldmeier factor.
As it does not matter if you decrease the new or increase the old by the same factor, you can see from what I already showed: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png that the smoothed yearly values [blue and black curves] are at the same level now for both cycles.
If you want to further improve the accuracy so that the pre 1945 cycles can be compared you would also allow a deduction for the recent SIDC trend of more splitting of groups (as you have observed), along with an allowance for the increased speck ratio, and a small allowance for the difference in technology.
These are all included in the ~20% factor: 16% for the weighting, 4% for the group splitting, and there is no increased speck ratio [on the contrary, the specks are disappearing] and there is no allowance needed for technology as Thomas Friedly observing with Wolf’s original standard 8 cm telescope demonstrates.
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
Here is a comparison of Wolf’s numbers for SC5, Wolfer’s for SC14 [both corrected for the Waldmeier jump], and SIDC SC24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle.
Because there isn’t any. There may be a 60-yr PDO cycle
note that by 1920 people were not so much concerned as surprised by the disappearing arctic ice.
The Earth was warming in the 1st half of the 20th century [not cooling as you claim]
Geoff Sharp says:
August 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm
But even just allowing for Waldmeier anyone can see SC5 is so far a better match.
Considering the great uncertainty in SC5, the best that can be said is that there is no firm evidence for any difference between cycles 5, 14, 24, all ~100 years apart.
Here is a comparison of Wolf’s numbers for SC5, Wolfer’s for SC14 [both corrected for the Waldmeier jump], and SIDC SC24: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png
Leif says
Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle.
Because there isn’t any. There may be a 60-yr PDO cycle
The Earth was warming in the 1st half of the 20th century [not cooling as you claim]
Henry@Leif
You just admitted to V that there is a 100 year solar cycle and we know from observing the ozone concentration that this solar cycle appears to be affecting the ozone levels subsequently causing the relevant 100 year weather cycle, consisting of 50 years of cooling and 50 years of warming, like an a-c wave. Arnold may have gotten the mechanism wrong, – what did he know about ozone? – but his observations linking the solar cycle to the nile floods are very much correct.
In fact, it appears that you want to deny my results, here, i.e.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
which shows that the energy input into earth is falling from 1995. We discussed this earlier, how much colder it got since 2000 in places like Dublin, Anchorage and Kimberley. These poor tomatoes people in Anchorage still believe that they can still carry farming. Don’t you think it is criminal of you not to tell them it will get a lot worse?
Obviously if you admit that energy-in is falling, then why not accept that it will take a few decades for ice to come back after a warming period, as clearly, happened in 1920.
So my question to you is: do you accept or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:23 am
You just admitted to V that there is a 100 year solar cycle
Of course, but that does not mean that there is a 100-yr climate cycle. Observations show there is not, but rather a 60-yr cycle.
So my question to you is: do you accept or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
In 1995 total energy input was 1361.1 W/m2, in 2012 [so far] 1361.5 W/m2. Judge for yourself.
Henry@Leif
Clearly, there is some lag between the 50 + and 50 – of the ca. 100-105 year energy-in cycle causing (what looks like) the 60 year PDO,
The results you quote are for TSI above the atmosphere, not at sea level. So you ignored my argument that the solar cycle must be affecting ozone levels.
So my question to you is: do you accept (my results) or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Clearly, there is some lag between the 50 + and 50 – of the ca. 100-105 year energy-in cycle causing (what looks like) the 60 year PDO
A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
So you ignored my argument that the solar cycle must be affecting ozone levels.
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
So my question to you is: do you accept (my results) or do you deny that total energy input into earth has been falling since 1995?
Obviously, your claim does not hold up. What the final amount of energy input is depends much more on the albedo and cloud cover. People claim [see a recent WUWT post] that clouds have decreased, so based on that one would expect more input.
Henry says
:::
Remember PDO is like energy-out
Cycles of energy in (from above) are not exactly the same as energy out (from inside earth= ambient)
HenryP says:
August 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Remember PDO is like energy-out
what goes in comes out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 7:59 am
These are all included in the ~20% factor: 16% for the weighting, 4% for the group splitting, and there is no increased speck ratio [on the contrary, the specks are disappearing] and there is no allowance needed for technology as Thomas Friedly observing with Wolf’s original standard 8 cm telescope demonstrates.
You chop and change to suit your situation. I have seen you quote 25%, 22% 20% and now 16% for the Waldmeier factor. The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor. The speck ratio is increasing not decreasing, this is simply seen in my count. I very accurately filter out all groups that do not contain at least a spot size of 2, then I use the SIDC values for the remainder. The higher the speck ratio the further the LSC moves away from the SIDC count. The gap between the two counts is rising as the cycle progresses which is mainly attributed to the speck ratio.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
To get near SC14 the current cycle over the next year will need to see several monthly peaks above 90. Good luck on that one.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
You chop and change to suit your situation. I have seen you quote 25%, 22% 20%
The values 20% and up are various determinations of the combined effect, as you would know if you had followed the various methods. The spread of values is an indication of the robustness of the claim.
and now 16% for the Waldmeier factor.
I and Marco at Locarno have now carefully evaluated the effect [over almost a year] only from the weighting and that is 16+/-2%. The rest is from using Waldmeier’s group classification introduced in the 1940s.
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
No, the group influence goes all the way back to Waldmeier. Here are some drawings of Cortesi’s from 1981 where you can see the effect in action:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1981/loc-d19810412.JPG
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1981/loc-d19810930.JPG
also note the large number of ‘specks’
The speck ratio is increasing not decreasing, this is simply seen in my count.
Your count is not valid science [based on a false premise], so what you think you see is not relevant. The very careful analysis by SIDC shows that there is a widening deficit of small spots: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf
To get near SC14 the current cycle over the next year will need to see several monthly peaks above 90. Good luck on that one.
We are already at SC14 level, and have already had some peaks near and above 90: e.g. Oct, 2011 at 88 and Nov. 2011 at 96.7. Luck has nothing to do with facts.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
Figure 9 in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopecky-1980.pdf shows how the group number in the Zurich data jumped up over that of other observatories from 1945 on, showing the effect of Waldmeier’s new classification of groups.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm
The extra group splitting is a recent phenomenon and outside of the Waldmeier factor.
No, in fact, Kopecky et al [page 269, left column] in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopecky-1980.pdf specifically note that “according to Zelenka (1979a), the introduction of group classification with regard to their morphological evolution by Waldmeier and Brunner, has led to increased estimates of g [number of groups] in comparison with Wolfer’s estimates”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 8:34 pm
I am quite aware of the group classification introduced by Waldmeier. The recent trend is a higher incidence of hiving off specks that surround a group etc. Your many answers show your need to reinforce your weak rhetoric. The method of counting sunspots via the LSC is sound, down to the very pixel and is performed everyday since July 2009. The data that is building is solid and refutes your different universe claim.
When you need a higher deduction from the recent sunspot record so you can persuade us all the TSI values are eternally flat, you will quote a higher value for the Waldmeier factor. This is not science.
We are already at SC14 level, and have already had some peaks near and above 90: e.g. Oct, 2011 at 88 and Nov. 2011 at 96.7. Luck has nothing to do with facts.
Once again you try to confuse. You will need quite a few more months above 90 with the Waldmeier factor taken off too match SC14. Once again good luck.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:12 pm
I am quite aware of the group classification introduced by Waldmeier.
Your comments are then disingenuous if you already knew that Waldmeier classification leads to higher group counts.
Your many answers show your need to reinforce your weak rhetoric.
On the contrary, they are meant to educate you.
The method of counting sunspots via the LSC is sound, down to the very pixel and is performed everyday since July 2009.
Any counting method is what it is. The false premise is that LSC is how Wolf would have counted.
When you need a higher deduction from the recent sunspot record so you can persuade us all the TSI values are eternally flat, you will quote a higher value for the Waldmeier factor.
The Waldmeier factor is determined from the data and cannot be monkeyed with.
Once again you try to confuse. You will need quite a few more months above 90
there are still about 100 months left, so watch for them. And already now, SC14 and SC24 are at the same level, which was also Wolf’s level for SC5, as I showed here: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png which BTW is incompatible with your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles.”
with the Waldmeier factor taken off too match SC14.
You must realize that increasing the old or reducing the new by the same factor has the same result. If not, then what are you doing here?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:27 pm
You must realize that increasing the old or reducing the new by the same factor has the same result. If not, then what are you doing here?
I am trying to compare apples with apples. Something you seem incapable of and seem only capable of creating confusion. My facts stand.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 10:06 pm
My facts stand.
If new is 15 and old is 10 and the factor is 1.5, then increasing the old by that factor makes it also 15, so is comparable with new. Decreasing the new by 1.5 makes it 10, so is again comparable with old. In both cases it is apples and apples. Are you still confused?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 10:13 pm
If new is 15 and old is 10 and the factor is 1.5, then increasing the old by that factor makes it also 15, so is comparable with new. Decreasing the new by 1.5 makes it 10, so is again comparable with old. In both cases it is apples and apples. Are you still confused?
You are the one confused. If SC14 reached monthly peaks of above 90 without the Waldmeier factor included it means the SC14 values would have been higher if counted today. So therefore if comparing today’s actual published SIDC count the actual count will need to be higher than 90 to equal the SC14 value.
So reaching a SIDC value of 90 today is not as high as a 90 during SC14….Are you clear on this?
Geoff Sharp says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:00 pm
You are the one confused. If SC14 reached monthly peaks of above 90 without the Waldmeier factor included it means the SC14 values would have been higher if counted today.
You seem to be catching on: In order to compare SC14 with SC24 today, one must apply the Waldmeier factor to the older values [that is SC14]. Only then can SC14 be compared to SC24. This is what you can see here [as I have shown repeatedly]: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png from which you can see that SC24 is tracking SC14 quite nicely. I see no reason it should not continue to do so. It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.
Leif says
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
Henry says
I am stunned. Either you are confusing issues or you are completely ignorant / uninformed of the facts as to what the ozone really does. Assuming the latter, I will give another lesson on that today, also for the benefit of others:
If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy. It does this by absorption and subsequent re-radiation.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
Leif says:A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
Henry says: Remember PDO is like energy-out
Leif says: what goes in comes out.
Henry says
Yes, but the PDO does not see the 50 plus and 50 minus of incoming energy of the 100-105 year cycle. It only sees one phase.
And there is some lag. Like for instance, I said that the energy-in turned negative on us in 1995, but it seems most data sets, including my own, show that the mean average temps on earth peaked a couple of years later, around 1998 or 1999.
As I have told you before with the arctic ice, it took 2 decades from 1900 to only start melting, similar to today, and a further 2 decades of the cooling period to grow back the ice to “normal” levels.
Obviously earth has its own energy-out cycles…..try to separate your thinking into cycles of energy-in and energy-out. I am quite happy if they say the PDO is about 60. There must be some lag on both sides of the 50 year energy-in cycle.
I hope this helps those who are looking for some real perspective on the whole global warming issue.
It seems I lost some extra information during posting
here is my previous post again:
Leif says
Ozone absorbs radiation, so lower solar activity with lower ozone should absorb less radiation, meaning that more radiation will reach the surface.
Henry says
I am stunned. Either you are confusing issues or you are completely ignorant / uninformed of the facts as to what the ozone really does. Assuming the latter, I will give another lesson on that today, also for the benefit of others:
If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy. It does this by absorption and subsequent re-radiation.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
Leif says:A lag does not change a 100-year cycle into a 60-yr cycle…
Henry says: Remember PDO is like energy-out
Leif says: what goes in comes out.
Henry says
Yes, but the PDO does not see the 50 plus and 50 minus of incoming energy of the 100-105 year cycle. It only sees one phase.
And there is some lag. Like for instance, I said that the energy-in turned negative on us in 1995, but it seems most data sets, including my own, show that the mean average temps on earth peaked a couple of years later, around 1998 or 1999.
As I have told you before with the arctic ice, it took 2 decades from 1900 to only start melting, similar to today, and a further 2 decades of the cooling period to grow back the ice to “normal” levels.
Obviously earth has its own energy-out cycles…..try to separate your thinking into cycles of energy-in and energy-out. I am quite happy if they say the PDO is about 60. There must be some lag on both sides of the 50 year energy-in cycle.
I hope this helps those who are looking for some real perspective on the whole global warming issue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 27, 2012 at 11:17 pm
This is what you can see here [as I have shown repeatedly]: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png from which you can see that SC24 is tracking SC14 quite nicely.
So in your example the SIDC SC24 future figures will need to have several peaks of around 130 to match SC14, like I said good luck.
This month looks to be heading down from the poor result recorded last month.
It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.
This statement makes no sense. SC5 and SC14 are both pre Waldmeier and have different heights so they cannot be the same unless you are comparing initial ramp ups. If SC24 has already peaked like some are suggesting you will have to give up on SC14. Correct?
I am a bit puzzled about what is happening. For some reason this portion of my writing is blocked out when I post it:
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
And again it cuts out SAME portion. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME BEFORE.
I mention energy, because as we all know, heating water with a beam of visible light (like a torch) does not really work all that well. However, the UV light ( O3), will cause an enormous difference in the amount of incoming energy that is being slammed into our oceans. Increasing ozone means less energy into the oceans.
Whoops, but if you actually read it!
‘The authors show that this change in atmospheric circulation leads to cooling in parts of Central Europe but warming in other European countries, such as Iceland…Sirocko said’
‘despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is INCREASING and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from CLIMATE CHANGE’
So it actually supports climate change! Shot in the foot comes to mind!
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:12 am
So in your example the SIDC SC24 future figures will need to have several peaks of around 130 to match SC14
And several dips around 30 or 40 as well. What matters is that the average [the smoothed value] comes out the same, which it already has, so far.
“It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.”
This statement makes no sense. SC5 and SC14 are both pre Waldmeier and have different heights so they cannot be the same unless you are comparing initial ramp ups.
As you can see [if you care to look] http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png they have the same smoothed height [perhaps SC5 being a bit higher]. This has nothing to do with being pre-Waldmeier.
If SC24 has already peaked like some are suggesting you will have to give up on SC14. Correct?
SC24 will have a long drawn-out maximum [like SC14]. The smoothed value has reached SC14 already http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png so SC24 and SC14 and SC5 all seem to be comparable, which is not really surprising as they are near the minima in the 100-yr ‘cycle’ that we have had the past three centuries.
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 12:12 am
Notice the spectrum of oxygen /ozone on the left hand side and note (on the top, incoming solar) that the ozone part cuts a lot of the incoming radiation of below o.3 um. It is the white area between the red line and the red marked area. Eyeballing, it looks easily like perhaps 15-20% of all incoming solar energy.
The correct number is 1%
Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never. Maybe you mean outgoing from earth…that could be about right..
Anyways it seems I got a virus on my computer. I cannot comment further. This is from my phone.:H
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am
Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never.
Whatever you think, the correct value of incoming is 13.5 W/m2 or 1% of the total 1360 W/m2
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am
Henry@Leif One.percent on incoming solar? Never.
You may benefit from reading:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BjDs212OqFYJ:www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/symposium/061909presentations/Foukal-WigleySymposim09.pptm+&cd=44&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
HenryP says:
August 26, 2012 at 1:54 am
” Obviously ambient temperatures may change somewhat towards more cooler and winters may become a bit longer, but in general, I predict that there will be no extreme weather events between 2017 and 2027″
Cold episodes do show a strong tendency to occur at the two places in the solar cycle where the geomagnetic index is usually at low points. Warming or cooling periods do not dictate when they happen, that is suggesting that Earth’s climate affects solar activity. The only sure way of saying exactly when they will happen, is to explain how past ones came about.
Henry@Ulric
I did explain evrything in previous posts.
Without looking at the chart I was able to predict correctly that there was no elfstedentocht between 1964-1976.
Henry@Leif
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:58 am
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.
this is textbook stuff that has been known for decades. See Froehlich and London (1986): Revised Instruction Manual on Radiation Instruments and Measurements, World Climate Research Program Publication Series 7, World Meteorological Organization Technical Document No. 149, Geneva,
Henry@Leif
Do you not see the white area bewteen the red line and the red marked area and how much percent that is?
Which components in the atm cause this white area?
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 11:43 am
Do you not see the white area bewteen the red line and the red marked area and how much percent that is?
That is 1% because the scale is logarithmic.
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:58 am
It seems to me you and yours googled cannot read the solar spectrum.
this is textbook stuff that has been known for decades. See Froehlich and London (1986):
As it is unlikely you will take the trouble, I here show you the table that gives in column 3 the total amount of energy [in W/m2] from wave length 0 to the wave length given in the first column. E.g. between 0 and 250 nm [=0.25 um] there is 2.092 W/m2. From 0 to 295.5 nm there is 13.19 W/m2 out of a total of 1367 W/m2. Show me you can do the math:
http://www.leif.org/research/Integrated-Flux.pdf
Henry@Leif
0zone spectrum shows absorption from o.o max to 0.8 min.
If not so you would have been correct. It is curved. I think my estimate of 20 is fair but it could even be a bit more.
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm
0zone spectrum shows absorption from o.o max to 0.8 min.
You were correctly talking about from 0 to 0.3 um, which is where ozone absorbs UV.
I think my estimate of 20 is fair but it could even be a bit more.
No, ozone does not absorb 20% of incoming radiation, only 1%.
Henry@Leif
Ozone re-radiates ca 20 percent of incoming solar to space.
The fluctuation in ozone explains the warming and cooling periods.
HenryP says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Ozone re-radiates ca 20 percent of incoming solar to space.
No it doesn’t. Totally off your rocker here.
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Atmosphere-Energy-Budget.pdf which is 1% of the total 1361 W/m2
The fluctuation in ozone explains the warming and cooling periods.
not at all. During the first half of the 20th century the globe warmed even though solar radiation was a tad lower, and during the second half the globe also warmed even though solar radiation was a tad higher.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of …
See, you even got me to be sloppy. One should divide the total by 4 to account for the Earth being wrong, so Ozone absorbs not 1% by 4%.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm
See, you even got me to be sloppy. One should divide the total by 4 to account for the Earth being wrong, so Ozone absorbs not 1% by 4%.
sloppiness is contagious. How about:
“account for the Earth being round, so Ozone absorbs not 1% but 4%”
Ozone fluctuations influence the temperature of the stratosphere and is the reason there is a temperature inversion at the tropopause in the first place.
Even though the stratosphere is much less dense than the troposphere that inversion provides a physical obstacle to upward convection so Leifs density based points are not sound in my opinion.
If one changes the amount of ozone then one also changes the height of the tropopause which is what enables climate zone and jetstream shifting.
The problem is that the stratosphere cools when the sun is more active, or rather it did in the late 20th century. A more active sun creates more ozone at certain levels so the usual view is that there should be warming not cooling when the sun is more active.
It has been noted that ozone actually reacts differently above 45km so there lies ta possible answer.
I think that the observed stratospheric cooling was a natural solar induced effect but established climatology suggests it was caused by human emissions of CO2 and / or CFCs.
Anyway, you have to have that cooling stratosphere to get the jets to shift poleward (as witness the effect of sudden stratospheric warming events that push the jets equatorward) which is what they did in the late 20th century. They shifted poleward in the MWP too which suggests that back then the more active sun cooled the stratosphere without the aid of human CO2 output or CFCs.
So, I think Leif is wrong about the lack of potential for ozone to cause changes in the troposphere. All that is necessary is for there to be a change in the temperature of the stratosphere and the lower density there means that less energy variation is required to alter stratospheric temperatures as compared to tropospheric temperatures.
Henry may be wrong in going along with standard meteorology which says a more active sun warms the stratosphere. It may increase ozone at certain levels but the warming effect seems to be more than offset by decreasing ozone at other levels.
However I think Henry’s findings still hold with that reverse sign solar effect on the stratosphere even though his earlier timings may be upset by the interplay between sun and oceans.
He has nailed the mid 90s change in trend which is not long before I first noticed the beginning of a change in jet stream behaviour in 2000.
Much to think about and more data is needed to resolve these issues.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Anyway, you have to have that cooling stratosphere to get the jets to shift poleward (as witness the effect of sudden stratospheric warming events that push the jets equatorward)
As we have discussed so many times, you have this backwards. E.g. “In a usual northern-hemisphere winter, several minor warming events occur, with a major event occurring roughly every two years. One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, producing the warming by decelerating the mean flow. ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:04 am
And several dips around 30 or 40 as well. What matters is that the average [the smoothed value] comes out the same, which it already has, so far.
The bottom line here is that the average needs to increase and be sustained by a large margin before SC24 will look like SC14. SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
“It even tracks Wolf’s numbers for SC5 [with the same factor applied]. Apples to apples to apples, throughout.”
As you can see [if you care to look] http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-14-24.png they have the same smoothed height [perhaps SC5 being a bit higher]. This has nothing to do with being pre-Waldmeier.
No, this is where you introduce further confusion to bolster your claims. You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you. Our universe uses the official SIDC record for SC5 which is much lower than SC14.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
The bottom line here is that the average needs to increase and be sustained by a large margin before SC24 will look like SC14.
It already matches SC14.
SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
Since February, SC24 has increased from 32.9 to 66.5 in July.
No, this is where you introduce further confusion to bolster your claims. You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you.
I am using the reconstruction Wolf made and published in 1882. You complain that Wolf is under attack and that you are trying to go back to use his original method. I use what Wolf left us. Later, in 1902, Wolfer [using a method that you claim is wrong] compromised SC14, and those numbers are what SIDC reports today, so it seems you will disregard Wolf when it suits you and glorify him when that suits you.
In any event, the data for SC5 [and SC6] are so uncertain that not much can be said about what the activity actually was. It is the task of the 3rd SSN workshop in January in Tucson, AZ, to re-examine all available data [some newly digitized] to arrive at [hopefully] a better estimate for the period 1750-1825: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs%20-%20Croatia.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
You are using one of the reconstructions by Wolf for SC5 because it suits you.
Since you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” it makes sense to actually use Wolf’s reconstruction, don’t you think?
His table of observed sunspot numbers was published in Mitteilungen no. L (50) http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf in 1880 [and referred to in 1882, hence was labelled 1882].
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm
SC24 has been on a downward slope for the last 9-10 months.
———————————
Since February, SC24 has increased from 32.9 to 66.5 in July.
February is not 9-10 months ago, another attempt by you to confuse. In Nov 2011 the SIDC value was 96.7, a sustained rise from this value is required if SC24 is to match SC14. The reverse has occurred.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lay_monthly.png
I am using the reconstruction Wolf made and published in 1882. You complain that Wolf is under attack and that you are trying to go back to use his original method. I use what Wolf left us. Later, in 1902, Wolfer [using a method that you claim is wrong] compromised SC14, and those numbers are what SIDC reports today, so it seems you will disregard Wolf when it suits you and glorify him when that suits you.
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records. The end result settled on by the SIDC is backed up by the Group Sunspot Number and solar proxy records.
Wolfer did get it wrong by changing the Wolf method and did not test the conversion factor in times of grand minima. That conversion factor is not working today with the increased speck ratio that I have shown with solid data. If we had stayed with the Wolf method and his threshold (and also not allowed Waldmeier to create his own method) we would not be having theses discussions today.
In any event, the data for SC5 [and SC6] are so uncertain that not much can be said about what the activity actually was.
This is just rubbish as explained in part above. The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6. You are grabbing at straws again.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
sustained rise from this value is required if SC24 is to match SC14. The reverse has occurred.
No, SC24 has already matched SC14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png
And there is no reason to believe and no evidence for the notion that this will not continue to be the case.
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records.
One would have to accept that the one he left us with is the best that he could obtain with his methods that you so admire. And you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles”, so man up and use Wolf’s.
The end result settled on by the SIDC is backed up by the Group Sunspot Number and solar proxy records.
SIDC did not settle on anything, but simply swallowed Wolfer’s numbers raw [as you would like to do]. The Group Sunspot number is flawed and will shortly be abandoned. Now, experience shows that some people will still use flawed data if it somehow suits their pet theory. Are you one of them?
Wolfer did get it wrong by changing the Wolf method and did not test the conversion factor in times of grand minima.
Yet the values you want to use for SC5 was constructed by Wolfer using those wrong factors.
If we had stayed with the Wolf method and his threshold (and also not allowed Waldmeier to create his own method) we would not be having these discussions today.
Yet Wolfer strayed and now you advocate using his values. Having a threshold is simply a bad idea as you do not cover the full spectrum of solar variability.
The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6. You are grabbing at straws again.
The issue is not observers, but how to determine the k-values to use for them, and the Group Sunspot Number values are simply incorrect as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
Going back in time the error begins already at the transition between Wolfer and Wolf, where observations show that Wolfer observed 65% more groups than Wolf, yet Hoyt and Schatten use k-factors that are almost identical with only a 2% difference. So, right there they force the GSN to by off by ~50%
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
The GSN has ample records over the peak of SC5 and almost complete daily records with around 10 observers during SC6.
Again you are economical with the truth. Over the peak of SC5 there was only one observer, ans the average number of observers per year of SC6 was 2.9 and of course that is not enough for almost daily records.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm
No, SC24 has already matched SC14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24-overlap.png
And there is no reason to believe and no evidence for the notion that this will not continue to be the case.
You need to keep believing, the facts are not looking good for you, the current SC24 values are way under SC14.
The Group Sunspot number is flawed and will shortly be abandoned.
All data is flawed that does not suit your theories. You have a habit of this in other areas.
Yet the values you want to use for SC5 was constructed by Wolfer using those wrong factors.
Wolfer did not count during SC5. This is the difference. The GSN is in almost full agreement.
Yet Wolfer strayed and now you advocate using his values. Having a threshold is simply a bad idea as you do not cover the full spectrum of solar variability.
Answered above. What you fail to understand is that Wolf designed the 10 value per group to apply to groups above his threshold. It was not designed to work with single specks. Wolfer tested against Wolf for 15-17 years but did not test during a grand minimum type cycle, this flaw is now apparent. Trying to associate Wolfer’s method with SC5 is rather desperate.
The specks could have been recorded separately, with Wolf’s count maintained for the sunspot record. This would have been a better method.
The issue is not observers, but how to determine the k-values to use for them, and the Group Sunspot Number values are simply incorrect as I show here: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
Going back in time the error begins already at the transition between Wolfer and Wolf, where observations show that Wolfer observed 65% more groups than Wolf, yet Hoyt and Schatten use k-factors that are almost identical with only a 2% difference. So, right there they force the GSN to by off by ~50%
Your claims need to be published in an official rebuttal to Hoyt & Schatten before I would take them seriously. Wolf and Wolfer did not observe during SC5/6 so your example is not relevant. Your report is also cherry picking observers and needs to include all observers. At the end of the day the differences between counts during SC5/6 are small and any minor adjustments would make little difference. I think you need to accept SC5/6 were very low cycles of a weaker type grand minimum.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Again you are economical with the truth. Over the peak of SC5 there was only one observer, ans the average number of observers per year of SC6 was 2.9 and of course that is not enough for almost daily records.
Utter rubbish. You simply have no credible arguments. Your statements are completely wrong as shown by the official GSN record from 1798 on. Show me one table where your statement is correct.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/GROUP_SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/dailyrg.dat
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 28, 2012 at 9:30 pm
I see your confusion. You are quoting per day where I am stating the observers per month. That multiple observers over the month show no great deviation is a testament to the record. Your attempts to discredit the record because you wish to slam the TSI record flat are not convincing.
Leif said, quoting wikipaedia:
“ONE reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur ”
Such events can occur either because of warmth from below transferring to the stratosphere and introducing an imbalance or warming from above resulting from ozone quantity changes.
I mentioned sudden stratospheric warming events simply to illustrate that once the stratosphere does warm relative to the troposphere for whatever reason then there is an increase in jetstream meridionality with cold surface flows more equatorward.
One can change the relative temperature from above by altering ozone quantities hence the importance of the relative balance at any one time between net ozone creation and net ozone destruction processes all the way up from the bottom of the stratosphere to the top of the mesosphere.
Measurements appear tob e showing that the net effect of solar variation on ozone quantities through the entire column is the opposite of that previously assumed and that fits in with the sign of net response needed to achieve the observed changes in climate zone positioning.
Your attempts to discredit the record because you wish to slam the TSI record flat are not convincing.
Well said Geoff. Though in reality, there is no TSI record before the 1970’s. Beyond that we have a proxy derived from geomagnetic records, and sunspot numbers. Of these two, the sunspot numbers are a more direct assessment of the Sun’s activity. Since the solar proxy derived from the magnetic record depends also on changes in Earth’s magnetic field, we don’t have a precise enough record beyond about 1850 to be sure we can reconstruct solar activity to a accuracy with which Leif can then gainsay sunspot observers.
Which is why Leif has only reconstructed his geomag index back to around 1880 and then back projected the trend. At least, that was the state of play last I looked. Leif will no doubt let me know if he has done more since.
Leif says:
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Atmosphere-Energy-Budget.pdf which is 1% of the total 1361 W/m2
(Leif then corrects himself, realizing it is 14 out of 340 and the value increases to 4% )
Henry says
I notice that table 4 mentions only 67 W/m2 in total for all major absorbing gases on a cloudy day of which ozone makes up for 15.
So the percent contribution of ozone is 15/67 = 22.3
So I was not really far off with my estimate.
But we are not there yet. We know that albedo is running around 30%. 67/340 = 20 % . So what happened to the other 10% on a cloudy day?
(if no one can explain this difference the figure of 22 % for ozone needs to be adjusted up again)
Like I said, I think I have established a reasonable mechamism that explains my results: A decreasing amount of ozone due to solar activity can cause a swing toward warming and increasing amounts towards cooling.
Henry@Stephen
Thanks for that last contribution, I appreciate. But I still think the ozone does not much in the upper atmosphere. There is no mass there. It can only re-radiate. If there is more of it, it just re-radiates more energy to space, and then, in the end, you get less energy going in the oceans.
I think Leif is right when he argues: but there is little or no change in W/m2 coming from the sun. But, what if there is just a slight change in the distribution of the energy of the solar constant over the wavelengths? And then it looks like that this change affects the production of ozone from oxygen.
Henry@anyone
I am still looking to put my 4 results for the speed of warming on maxima in an a-c wave. I have them in a parabolic curve now but that is not right. Can anyone help me?
My results for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K / annum for maxima now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 9:32 pm
the current SC24 values are way under SC14.
The smmothed sunspot numbers are the values to compare. We are are now four years into SC24 and Rsmooth = 65.5. When SC14 was four years into the cycle, Rsmooth was 52.5. Applying the Waldmeier correction of 1.2, you get 1.2 * 52.5 = 63.0. Even you can see that 65.5 is not ‘way under’ 63.0.
Wolfer did not count during SC5. This is the difference.
Neither did Wolf. The difference is that Wolfer reconstructed based on his method.
Wolf designed the 10 value per group to apply to groups above his threshold. It was not designed to work with single specks.
On the contrary, Wolf expressly said that the appearence of a new small spot in an existing group was much less important than when it signaled the birth of a new group, hence the latter should have much larger weight, thus the facor 10.
Trying to associate Wolfer’s method with SC5 is rather desperate.
And yet you compare with Wolfer’s reconstruction of SC5
with Wolf’s count maintained for the sunspot record.
The sunspot record since 1849 has 27 years made with Wolf’s method and 135 years made with Wolfer’s, which every solar physicist agrees is the better as it covers a wider range of solar activity.
Your claims need to be published in an official rebuttal to Hoyt & Schatten before I would take them seriously.
Theu will, they will, but I doubt you accept them even so. The solar community is working hard to publish a new and agreed upon series. You might find Schatten’s view on this of interest: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Schatten.pdf
I think you need to accept SC5/6 were very low cycles of a weaker type grand minimum.
They were cycles just as low as SC14 and SC24. The very notion of a ‘weak’ grand minimum is nonsense.
Show me one table where your statement is correct.
The tables you show do not have a value ‘almost every day’. Oh, yes they have lots of -99s, meaning no data.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 29, 2012 at 12:03 am
I mentioned sudden stratospheric warming events simply to illustrate that once the stratosphere does warm relative to the troposphere for whatever reason then there is an increase in jetstream meridionality with cold surface flows more equatorward.
I have already given you links to papers showing that it shift of the jetstream that control the stratosphere, not the other way around.
tallbloke says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:16 am
Which is why Leif has only reconstructed his geomag index back to around 1880 and then back projected the trend. At least, that was the state of play last I looked. Leif will no doubt let me know if he has done more since.
Geomagnetic activity is now well constructed back to 1835 and the old records are good enough for that purpose. An example of that is slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
HenryP says:
August 29, 2012 at 6:33 am
Leif says:
Ozone absorbs 14 W/m2 of the incoming solar radiation, table 4 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Atmosphere-Energy-Budget.pdf which is 1% of the total 1361 W/m2
(Leif then corrects himself, realizing it is 14 out of 340 and the value increases to 4% )
Henry says
I notice that table 4 mentions only 67 W/m2 in total for all major absorbing gases on a cloudy day of which ozone makes up for 15.
So the percent contribution of ozone is 15/67 = 22.3
So I was not really far off with my estimate.
You were, as your claim was 20% of incoming solar radiation, not of what is absorbed.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records.
So, you now admit that your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” is wrong.
Leif says:
Geomagnetic activity is now well constructed back to 1835 and the old records are good enough for that purpose.
It;s a shame the Napoleonic wars interrupted the Dalton Minimum period readings. Any further finds from the far corners of Europe? What about Russia or China?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2012 at 7:45 am
Most of your answers are not worthy of a reply, but the following stood out.
I think you need to accept SC5/6 were very low cycles of a weaker type grand minimum.
——————————–
They were cycles just as low as SC14 and SC24. The very notion of a ‘weak’ grand minimum is nonsense.
You have no understanding of grand minima and have much to learn as is evident in this statement. The Babcock crew and yourself only seem to recognize grand minimum events when they are at the extreme end as in the Maunder and Sporer minima. But the solar proxy record very clearly shows the Sun goes into a regular mode of downturn every 172 years average, but the severity differs. I have taken you through every such occurrence for the last 2000 years and matched the severity with the amount of angular momentum disturbance each time which you were unable to dismiss. The current downturn has only one disturbance and that disturbance is weaker than the Maunder event so the current grand minimum (if it eventuates) will be a weaker and shorter type event than a Maunder type example. This you will agree on when we all see the results of the phase catastrophe at the coming solar max.
The smmothed sunspot numbers are the values to compare. We are are now four years into SC24 and Rsmooth = 65.5. When SC14 was four years into the cycle, Rsmooth was 52.5. Applying the Waldmeier correction of 1.2, you get 1.2 * 52.5 = 63.0. Even you can see that 65.5 is not ‘way under’ 63.0.
Smoothing means the last 6 months values cannot be used, another attempt at confusion with smoke and mirrors.
The tables you show do not have a value ‘almost every day’. Oh, yes they have lots of -99s, meaning no data.
Rubbish. “almost every day” is a ridiculous statement. Total the amount of -99’s over the middle half of SC5 and the answer will be no where near every day. During SC6 almost every day was recorded in the middle half of the cycle by almost 3 observers each day, this is very solid data.
And it is time you recognized that this cycle needs more than just the Waldmeier factor applied if wanting to compare with SC5/6. The LSC is a very accurate gauge using solid procedures of how the speck ratio has increased, in fact the difference between the LSC and SIDC is the speck ratio. If the maximum size of a spot in a group is under the threshold that group is not counted and removed from the SIDC total, the larger the difference the greater the speck ratio. When I describe “speck ratio” it is the amount of groups that are counted that Wolf would not have counted and is at the core of Wolfer’s 0.6 reduction ratio.
The speck ratio has continued to climb throughout SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
Geoff Sharp says:
August 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Wolf did many reconstructions of SC5, he wasn’t around of course so had to use other observers and proxy records.
So, you now admit that your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” is wrong.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm
But the solar proxy record very clearly shows the Sun goes into a regular mode of downturn every 172 years average
Every 80-110 years.
I have taken you through every such occurrence for the last 2000 years and matched the severity with the amount of angular momentum disturbance each time which you were unable to dismiss.
As i recall, I dismissed it roundly.
This you will agree on when we all see the results of the phase catastrophe at the coming solar max.
There is no such thing as a phase ‘catastrophe’, but you might mean that the polar fields fail to reverse in ~2013 or that the next cycle will have the same Hale polarities as this cycle. If so, then your theory will be falsified if the polarities change.
Smoothing means the last 6 months values cannot be used
Smoothing means that the last six months are used and contribute half to the value. That applies to both SC14 and SC24, so they are very comparable [with SC14 falling slightly below]
Total the amount of -99′s over the middle half of SC5 and the answer will be no where near every day.
The answer is that because there are so many -99 there is not data ‘almost every day’ as you claimed.
When I describe “speck ratio” it is the amount of groups that are counted that Wolf would not have counted and is at the core of Wolfer’s 0.6 reduction ratio.
You have completely misunderstood their procedure. I’ll describe the two [actually three] methods in a separate comment.
The speck ratio has continued to climb throughout SC24
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
It seems to vary randomly around 0.65 with no trend at all.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
So, you now admit that your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” is wrong.
I am talking about the Wolf version as finalized by the SIDC. Not your cherry picked version.
But the solar proxy record very clearly shows the Sun goes into a regular mode of downturn every 172 years average
———————————
Every 80-110 years.
Once again showing your ignorance. The “bottom of the wave” smallish cycles are not grand minimum cycles. The Damon Minimum around 1900 is a wrong example of a grand minimum. This is a time of low angular momentum not disturbed angular momentum. There are two 80-90 year reductions in activity. The first is the always the same and is just low angular momentum but the next that follows roughly 80-90 years later is varying grand minima. The grand minimum type of reduction is generally larger than the low AM version with the MWP being an exception.
I have taken you through every such occurrence for the last 2000 years and matched the severity with the amount of angular momentum disturbance each time which you were unable to dismiss.
————————-
As i recall, I dismissed it roundly.
Your recollection is poor as usual.
There is no such thing as a phase ‘catastrophe’, but you might mean that the polar fields fail to reverse in ~2013 or that the next cycle will have the same Hale polarities as this cycle. If so, then your theory will be falsified if the polarities change.
Not necessarily, if the poles stay around neutral, SC25 will be affected.
Smoothing means the last 6 months values cannot be used
Smoothing means that the last six months are used and contribute half to the value. That applies to both SC14 and SC24, so they are very comparable [with SC14 falling slightly below]
The unsmoothed graph does not lie.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24_less_wald.png
The answer is that because there are so many -99 there is not data ‘almost every day’ as you claimed.
SC6 has an almost complete record. Show me where I am wrong.
The speck ratio has continued to climb throughout SC24
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
—————————–
It seems to vary randomly around 0.65 with no trend at all.
The trend is moving towards 0.5. This month is looking like another rise in the speck ratio.
The Sunspot Counting Methods:
1) Wolf learned that Schwabe did not count ‘small spots and grey pores’. In order to be compatible with Schwabe [so Wolf could use Schwabe’s counts on days when Wolf did not make an observation], Wolf decided also not to count small spots and grey pores. This was before Wolf realized that a k-factor on the formula R = k (10G+S) was needed, and was the way to ensure compatibility.
2) Wolf did not ‘design’ a threshold in his method. He knew quite well that it was silly to throw away spots just because they were small, especially if they defined a group. But he became victim of the desire to be compatible, and when he realized a threshold was dumb it was too late.
3) Around 1875 Wolf found [from the geomagnetic data supplied by Sciaparelli] that Schwabe after all [even after that Wolf had unfortunately adopted Schwabe’s method] was counting about 25% too, and summarily increased all 1849 values [which he had published in 1861] by those 25%.
4) From the mid 1860s Wolf was traveling so much [he was by then director of the Swiss Geodetic Survey] that he stopped using the 80mm X64 telescope altogether and switched to a much smaller 37mm X20 hand-held telescope that he could take with him on travel. With this small telescope there was no longer any need to omit small spots and grey pores, because they could simply not be seen anyway, so the question of a threshold is now moot. Wolf decided by comparison with his larger [standard] telescope that he got a compatible yearly average relative number by multiplying the one derived from the small telescope by a factor of 1.5. This did not carry over to daily of monthly means, because zero times 1.5 is still zero.
5) Wolfer correctly surmised that valuable information was thrown away by omitting spots, so decided to count everything he could see. Every serious observer since then has accepted the wisdom in this. This, of course, means that a k-factor less than 1 must be applied to be compatible with Wolf’s values [after 1976]. Over a 17-yr period of both low and high solar activity Wolfer [or rather Wolf] adopted a k-factor of 0.6.
6) Later observers have simply adopted that same k-factor [as it can never be measured again].
7) Waldmeier introduced a new classification of groups, using letters A, B, …, J, which was an evolutionary sequence from A, an emerging group of small spots without penumbra and without the typical bi-polar structure, e.g. a single small spot, through B, small spots still without penumbra but with a clear bi-polar structure, to C, etc where the spots grow larger and have penumbra. A and B groups make up almost half of all groups and could not be seen with Wolf’s 37mm telescope [as we can verify today as the telescope still exists] and were presumable the ones he did not count with the 80mm [although we don’t really know what he counted]
8) Wolfer’s k-factor of 0.6 was not made by comparison with Wolf’s count on the 80mm [as it should have been], but by comparing in this way: if Wolf had a sunspot number [using the 37mm] of 100, then that was first multiplied by 1.5, yielding 150 which was then divided by Wolfer’s count of 250 to result in 150/250 = 0.6. If we break it down into groups and spots, then Wolf’s R=100 comes from typically G=8 and S=20, while Wolfer’s R=250 comes from G=15 and S=100. The difference, 7, between 8 and 15 reflects nicely that A and B groups almost half of all groups [seen by Wolfer]. The real difference between Wolf and Wolfer is that Wolfer sees 5 times as many spots as Wolf, commensurate with the fact that the modern sunspot number is made up mostly of small spots.
9) The Waldmeier weighting increases on average the number of spots, S, by 44%.
10) The Waldmeier classification increases on average the number of groups, G, by perhaps 10% [this requires a full and careful – but difficult – analysis].
correcting a few typos:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm
The Sunspot Counting Methods:
“was counting about 25% too low, and summarily increased”
“k-factor less than 1 must be applied to be compatible with Wolf’s values [after 1876].”
“nicely that A and B groups make up almost half of all groups”
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm
”So, you now admit that your claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” is wrong.”
I am talking about the Wolf version as finalized by the SIDC. Not your cherry picked version.
SIDC took the Wolfer version from 1902, nothing to do with Wolf, yet you cherry-picked Wolfer’s version. My version is from Wolf’s own publication as I linked to http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf
This is a time of low angular momentum not disturbed angular momentum.
The angular momentum ‘theory’ is physically unsound as pointed out long ago by Shirley http://www.leif.org/EOS/Shirley-MNRAS.pdf
”As i recall, I dismissed it roundly.”
Your recollection is poor as usual
Good enough for me.
”If so, then your theory will be falsified if the polarities change.”
Not necessarily, if the poles stay around neutral, SC25 will be affected.
If the poles have zero field, there won’t be a SC25 [the ultimate Maunder Minimum], but if the poles reverse as usual [as they are in the process of doing http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png ] your theory is falsified, which is not a surprise
The unsmoothed graph does not lie.
But perhaps you do. The unsmoothed data is sometimes lower, sometimes higher. The meaningful measure that every reasonably person agrees on is the smoothed SSN.
SC6 has an almost complete record. Show me where I am wrong.
H&S interpolated over missing data. And the issue is not really coverage, but the wrong H&S calibration. Even Schatten acknowledges that their calibration of GSN is wrong, and fully endorses my research [he is a co-author of our coming paper on this]
“It seems to vary randomly around 0.65 with no trend at all.”
The trend is moving towards 0.5.
The last 5 months according to your graph it has moved from 0.5 to 0.71
Geoff Sharp says:
August 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm
“It seems to vary randomly around 0.65 with no trend at all.”
The trend is moving towards 0.5.
The last 5 months according to your graph it has moved from 0.5 to 0.71
The usual way to substantiate a trend is to calculate the R-squared value for it. Excel can easily do this. Add the Excel trend line with R-squared and try again. Excel can easily give you the error bar on the trend as well.
Rhys Jaggar says:
August 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Does similar data exist for the freezing over of the Great Lakes??
___________________________________
They do not freeze except along the shore link but the finger lakes in New York state sure do. My boy friend used to “ice dive” and I spend may an hour freezing waiting for him and his dive buddies in the late ’70’s. (I watched the gear top side)
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Over a 17-yr period of both low and high solar activity Wolfer [or rather Wolf] adopted a k-factor of 0.6.
And herein lies the problem. Wolfer never tested his 0.6 factor during times of solar grand minimum.
I look forward to seeing the results of the actual and full effect of the Waldmeier fiasco.
I dont disagree that all solar sunspot data should be recorded, but the original method should have been maintained for the sake of a homogenous sunspot record that is beyond question, there is no point adding the group value of 10 to a speck.
All the information points to a minimum Wolf threshold of around 333 pixels measured on the SDO 5Mb image. This is also verified on my replica 37mm & 80mm Wolf telescopes.
Schwabe was more interested in finding Vulcan than keeping a thorough sunspot record perhaps.
Henry says
I am open for any proof. We do need to prove this first because what is generally accepted could be wrong. Nobody informed me or anybody about a 100 year weather cycle. That is a lifetime…..
_____________________
Actually there is a known 88 year Gleissberg solar cycle.
The CAGW get out of jail (peer-review) free card is bolded.
A study that found evidence of a weather- Gleissberg cycle connection.
Paper: Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River? by Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L Yung
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:07 am
And herein lies the problem. Wolfer never tested his 0.6 factor during times of solar grand minimum.
But that is irrelevant, because Wolf did not observe during a grand minimum. The issue is how to convert Wolf’s 27 years of data to the 135-yr sunspot record since.
I dont disagree that all solar sunspot data should be recorded, but the original method should have been maintained for the sake of a homogenous sunspot record that is beyond question
The original method should have been abandoned and corrected long ago.
there is no point adding the group value of 10 to a speck.
This is fundamental and must be done. A new group is marked with emergence of magnetic flux, often before any spot is visible. This is the important event. Wolf did not know about magnetic fields, but fully realized that the birth of a new group, no matter how small was the significant event. He says in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-VI.pdf : “when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot”. The group-weight of 10 for any group, no matter how small or large, is the true stroke of genius that has made the sunspot number so useful in solar and solar-terrestrial research.
All the information points to a minimum Wolf threshold of around 333 pixels measured on the SDO 5Mb image. This is also verified on my replica 37mm & 80mm Wolf telescopes.
As a threshold is a dumb idea to begin with, it doesn’t matter what you set it to. Nobody in his right mind would try to duplicate Wolf’s mistake, as Wolfer [and every other solar scientist since] saw so clearly. The goal is to correct it.
Schwabe was more interested in finding Vulcan than keeping a thorough sunspot record perhaps
The sunspot record very quickly became the main thing for him. We are in the process of digitizing all of his drawings: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Arlt3.pdf
Gail Combs says
_____________________
Actually there is a known 88 year Gleissberg solar cycle.
The CAGW get out of jail (peer-review) free card is bolded.
Henry says
Although my (binominal) plot for deceleration of warming is good enough to calculate exactly when we changed sign from warming to cooling, to calculate the other root (i.e. when warming started) is a bit of a problem. I have it now as 67, meaning warming started somewhere in 2012- 67= 1945. That would make one cycle of 50 year years warming and 50 years cooling. But I know I could have the plot wrong. It could easily be 45 years plus and 45 years minus = 90 which would be closer to the Gleissberg cycle .
I am still looking to put my 4 results for the speed of warming on maxima versus time in an a-c wave plot. That would be something with sinus or co-sinus co-ordinates. Can anyone help me?
My results for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K / annum for maxima versus time now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
If I have the plot right I can use the co-ordinates to find out exactly when we started warming.
Leif says
You were, as your claim was 20% of incoming solar radiation, not of what is absorbed.
Henry says
Yes, sorry about that. I was under the impression that that representation graph I used was correct, seeing that it so widely used. I have learned a lesson there, thanks. But I had seen the paper that you quoted before and from there I remembered that I had calculated the total deflection caused by ozone as being 20-25% of the total. I also remembered that I was surpised that such a small quantity of gas could cause so much deflection. Also, that there is still 10% missing on albedo and I doubt that that could all be due to raleigh scattering.
Otherwise, you and Trenberth keep using the word “absorbing” and absorption , which rather is confusing. I have clarified the use of that term here.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
(remember that a gas has little mass and therefore even if there is absorption, it can only absorb until saturation, after which it starts re-radiating. So most of what is measured as being “absorbed”, is actually being back-radiated, = lost to space)
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2012 at 11:24 pm
The last 5 months according to your graph it has moved from 0.5 to 0.71
Cherry picking again. Last month was out of the box and unusual. There has been many months around 0.5. This month looking to reverse the trend from last month.
The group-weight of 10 for any group, no matter how small or large, is the true stroke of genius that has made the sunspot number so useful in solar and solar-terrestrial research.
Yes and he specifically designed it to work with decent sized eruptions, not pointless specks.
H&S interpolated over missing data. And the issue is not really coverage, but the wrong H&S calibration
So I am right about the data for SC6, almost full coverage by multiple observers, the record is strong disproving your statements. The calibration for SC5/6 if applied would make little difference.
SIDC took the Wolfer version from 1902, nothing to do with Wolf,
Nothing to do with Wolf? Some documentation please?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2012 at 12:44 am
And herein lies the problem. Wolfer never tested his 0.6 factor during times of solar grand minimum.
—————————————–
But that is irrelevant, because Wolf did not observe during a grand minimum. The issue is how to convert Wolf’s 27 years of data to the 135-yr sunspot record since.
The issue is that Wolfer tested his new method against Wolf over a very short time frame in terms of solar activity. As someone who professes to be an expert in this field, you should be questioning if 17 years is enough?
Neither Wolf or Wolfer observed or tested during a grand minimum and their reconstructions need to be tested against those that did. The GSN and proxy records are all we have and the finished result via SIDC is so far unchallenged. You have not provided any evidence that can refute the SIDC values for SC5/6.
customzcar says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
“The last 5 months according to your graph it has moved from 0.5 to 0.71”
Cherry picking again. Last month was out of the box and unusual. There has been many months around 0.5. This month looking to reverse the trend from last month.
Of the ~20 months shown on the graph, only 3 were around 0.5 or lower.
Yes and he specifically designed it to work with decent sized eruptions, not pointless specks.
No, as he said: “when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot” so his formula was specifically designed to take that into account, hence the factor 10.
Today we know that even a small single-speck group is just the tip of the iceberg of magnetic fields which we can directly observe. Wolf did the right thing by specifically designing his formula to take into account the importance of emerging activity. His desire to emulate Schwabe was a mistake which Wolfer successfully corrected. The crucial issue is how to extend that insight back in time [and to undo Waldmeier’s ‘improvement’].
The calibration for SC5/6 if applied would make little difference.
Calibration makes all the difference and the SSN workshop is attempting to get things right. So far, with good results.
“SIDC took the Wolfer version from 1902, nothing to do with Wolf”
Nothing to do with Wolf? Some documentation please?
When Wolf died, the sunspot numbers before 1876 was as he left them http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf . In 1902 Wolfer changed the series for SC5: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-XCIII.pdf and those are the values SIDC uses today.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:09 am
Neither Wolf or Wolfer observed or tested during a grand minimum and their reconstructions need to be tested against those that did.
Since Wolfer [and all serious modern observers] count everything visible, that is what the sunspot number is. The Wolfer to Wolf ratio is used only to convert Wolf’s observations to Wolfer’s scale [or the other way around – it doesn’t matter if you convert from Centigrade to Fahrenheit or the other way around, the temperature stays the same] and applies to Wolf’s observations only which since they were not taken during a grand minimum can be safely converted.
The real issue is if the sunspot number as observed during a grand minimum is the correct measure of solar magnetic activity. The Livingston and Penn observations and Tappings finding that the sunspot number is no longer a good proxy for the F10.7 flux are indications that, indeed, this may not be the case. This will also explain why with no visible sunspots, the sun manages still to modulate cosmic rays during Grand Minima.
The GSN and proxy records are all we have
And these are being seriously evaluated by the SSN and ISSI workshops and we’ll produce the final results in due cause. It is already clear which way the wind is blowing.
and the finished result via SIDC is so far unchallenged.
One the contrary, the SSN workshops are doing just that.
You have not provided any evidence that can refute the SIDC values for SC5/6.
What I’m showing is that SIDC just carries over Wolfer’s reconstruction and has dumped Wolf’s. So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. This can be fixed, of course, by you simply changing the statement on your website to say ‘Wolfer’ instead of ‘Wolf’, which is what the honest person would do, right?
customzcar says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
“SIDC took the Wolfer version from 1902, nothing to do with Wolf”
Nothing to do with Wolf? Some documentation please?
SIDC: http://www.sidc.be/DATA/yearssn.dat
Wolfer/Wolf: http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-Wolf-Wolfer.png
Leif Svalgaard says: August 25, 2012 at 10:10 am
The winds are determined by the pressure patterns, not the other way around.
—————————————————–
Jetstreams transport huge amounts of air around the globe. Where they take the air from, tends to create low pressures; where they dump that air creates high pressures. My met tutor was convinced that jetstreams dictate the position of weather patterns, and I am firmly in that same camp.
Now you might say that jetstreams are influenced by where the hot surfaces are and where the cold surfaces are, but once those temperature differentials create a jetstream, it can forge its own track and go where it wants (determined by many factors, but the most influential is the position of the N.H landmasses). And where it goes to determines the site of the next high pressure system.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2012 at 8:18 am
Of the ~20 months shown on the graph, only 3 were around 0.5 or lower.
Incorrect. This year the figures are:
0.6
0.55
0.49
0.52
0.6
0.55
0.7
when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot
You are extrapolating too far. He does not mention specks and is rightly using his threshold to weed out non important new speck activity that has little impact on magnetic or F10.7 flux reading etc. Next you will be suggesting plage areas need a group count of 10 which of course is ridiculous but the same logic. The main reason for the group count of 10 is to bring into line the different observers and equipment etc outside of the k factor.
Calibration makes all the difference and the SSN workshop is attempting to get things right. So far, with good results
A general and meaningless statement. You know very well if the calibration is performed the end result is little different, SC5/6 will still be around the 50 SSN mark.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Wolf-L.pdf . In 1902 Wolfer changed the series for SC5:
Papers written in German are of little use. What we need is:
1. Where did Wolfer get his SC5 data from and what processing if any was involved.
2. All versions of Wolf’s reconstructions of SC5 and what methods were used in each.
3. What proxy records did Wolf and Wolfer use for the SC5 reconstruction.
And while your at it maybe you could explain the “red Wolf line” for SC5 on your graph at your website. The red line looks like the SIDC values.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. This can be fixed, of course, by you simply changing the statement on your website to say ‘Wolfer’ instead of ‘Wolf’, which is what the honest person would do, right?
Your own graphs and statements in the past are contradictory, so I will wait until you have provided all the evidence. You have a tendency of being white one day and black the next.
You have not answered this question:
“The issue is that Wolfer tested his new method against Wolf over a very short time frame in terms of solar activity. As someone who professes to be an expert in this field, you should be questioning if 17 years is enough?”
This is fundamental to any conversion or adjustment factor applied between two data series. To ignore this issue places you in the “win at all cost” category instead of the pursuit of knowledge. The temperature analogy is not applicable to records that do not have a fixed scale, solar activity during a grand minimum is different to normal low activity, your own statements on L&P support this, but I still think their research is flawed.
Silver Ralph says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Jetstreams transport huge amounts of air around the globe. Where they take the air from, tends to create low pressures; where they dump that air creates high pressures. My met tutor was convinced that jetstreams dictate the position of weather patterns, and I am firmly in that same camp.
Two different things: 1) they don’t ‘take’ air, they are flowing according to the pressure, and 2) they certainly dictate the weather patterns, but that they still can do that while following the pressure.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
“Of the ~20 months shown on the graph, only 3 were around 0.5 or lower.”
Incorrect. This year the figures are: 0.6 0.55 0.49 0.52 0.6 0.55 0.7
I stand corrected, only two were around 0.5 or lower
“when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot”
You are extrapolating too far.
I was quoting what Wolf said.
The main reason for the group count of 10 is to bring into line the different observers and equipment etc outside of the k factor.
No, as Wolf explains, the reason is that a new group is ten times as important as a new spot in an existing group.
“Calibration makes all the difference and the SSN workshop is attempting to get things right. So far, with good results”
You know very well if the calibration is performed the end result is little different, SC5/6 will still be around the 50 SSN mark.
Due to wrong calibration the GSN back then is off by a factor of at least two, and the Wolfer numbers [to the extent they as you claim support the GSN] as well.
Papers written in German are of little use.
Even people with a minimum of general education can read numbers. Get some of the people on your blog to translate for you. Or type in the text and let Google [or other translate services] do the translation for you.
What we need is…
It is all in the papers and in the explanations I have given. As an example Wolfer explains: “There were days on which the Sun was in fact observed, but the observer did not say anything about the occurrence of spots, presumably bcause he didn’t see any large spot groups, so that the sun shouldn’t then be considered to be free of spots”
The red line looks like the SIDC values
It is, in fact, and I should have been more careful. However the graph at the time I made it was intended to show the difference between the GSN and what is often loosely called the ‘Wolf’ number, meaning just the ordinary published number. The distinction between Wolf and Wolfer was not the main issue in this plot.
“So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s.”
Your own graphs and statements in the past are contradictory
Whatever you think of my statements, we are concerned here with your statement. and if you still maintain it is correct.
You have not answered this question:
“The issue is that Wolfer tested his new method against Wolf over a very short time frame in terms of solar activity. As someone who professes to be an expert in this field, you should be questioning if 17 years is enough?”
That was not a question to me, but a snide remark by you, but to be specific: yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.
This is fundamental to any conversion or adjustment factor applied between two data series.
Since we are interested in converting Wolf to Wolfer during a time when there was no grand minimum [1849-1876] it doesn’t matter that the sunspot number [not solar activity] during a grand minimum may be different to normal low activity.
your own statements on L&P support this
obviously not as I’m talking about converting during non-grand-minimum activity.
What L&P are in fact saying is that during a real grand minimum, solar activity [measured in terms of magnetic field and cosmic ray modulation, and TSI] was not much different from what it was recently [and in the near future], but the process [whatever it is – and that is where research should go] by which that magnetic field gets concentrated into visible sunspots did not operate efficiently enough to register in the sunspot record.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2012 at 7:54 pm
I stand corrected, only two were around 0.5 or lower
You are quibbling on the margins again, the two values of 0.55 are significant.
Due to wrong calibration the GSN back then is off by a factor of at least two, and the Wolfer numbers [to the extent they as you claim support the GSN] as well.
Even if your calibration factor was employed SC5/6 would be inline with the SIDC values (except for a peak at 1801) so your arguments are moot. I think to apply one factor over 180 years is fraught with danger. You are implying that all observers before 1882 used a threshold the same as Wolf’s. There would be a telescope factor in the early period but whether that matched Wolf’s threshold is debatable. I think you have a long way to go.
Even people with a minimum of general education can read numbers.
If you are not going to provide the information I requested I can only assume the Wolfer values at 1902 are derived from one of Wolf’s reconstructions.
yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.
This has never been tested (until today) and you are making assumptions. This is hardly scientific.
The current values for SC24 are showing a movement away from the Wolfer 0.6 factor, as more data is collected the picture will become clearer.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 30, 2012 at 11:41 pm
You are implying that all observers before 1882 used a threshold the same as Wolf’s.
Observers usually do not employ a threshold, as this is simply dumb. In any event, the calibration does not involve assumptions or thresholds, but simply take observations at face value.
The goal set for the 3rd workshop http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/3rd_SSN_Workshop is “to extend the reconciled SSN time series back from Schwabe (1826) through Staudach (1750)”, so we are making progress.
If you are not going to provide the information I requested I can only assume the Wolfer values at 1902 are derived from one of Wolf’s reconstructions.
Wolfer used observations from Kremsmunster, mostly made by Derfflinger, not one of Wolf’s published reconstructions. The data was received at Zurich a few months before Wolf’s death and had to wait until 1902 before Wolfer got around to revise SC5 and 6. So, when you claim that “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolf’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles” you are off the rail, since the SC5 you compare with is Wolfer’s and not Wolf’s. Time to change that statement to “LSC should compare more favorably to Wolfer’s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum cycles”.
“yes experience, shows that 17 years [even a few years] is enough. In fact, once the initial learnig period is over, the k-factors tend to stay stable.”
This has never been tested (until today) and you are making assumptions.
The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers almost since the beginning and simple inspection bears out what the values are and how stable they are. For example, the k-factor for Cortesi since 1957 is 0.593 with a standard deviation of 0.027, thus varying very little from year to year.
The current values for SC24 are showing a movement away from the Wolfer 0.6 factor, as more data is collected the picture will become clearer.
Comparison with SIDC and NOAA http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-k.png does show a change from 0.59 to 0.73 since 2008. One of the goals of the SSN workshop is to have the observers remove the 0.6 factor and simply report what they see, like NOAA is doing today [btw, their sunspot number is reported as 150 this morning]
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:12 am
Observers usually do not employ a threshold, as this is simply dumb. In any event, the calibration does not involve assumptions or thresholds, but simply take observations at face value.
Exactly, perhaps only Wolf applied a threshold. So a standard calibration factor over 180 years is wrong.
Wolfer used observations from Kremsmunster, mostly made by Derfflinger, not one of Wolf’s published reconstructions. The data was received at Zurich a few months before Wolf’s death and had to wait until 1902 before Wolfer got around to revise SC5 and 6.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data , although one stations data will have to be of a very high standard. What have you got to show?
The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers almost since the beginning and simple inspection bears out what the values are and how stable they are. For example, the k-factor for Cortesi since 1957 is 0.593 with a standard deviation of 0.027, thus varying very little from year to year.
Talking about off the rails. Its not about the k factor, but more about different phases of the dynamo.
like NOAA is doing today [btw, their sunspot number is reported as 150 this morning]
The speck ratio has been high in the last few days. The 150 value is non discounted but I would expect the LSC value to be much lower.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
Exactly, perhaps only Wolf applied a threshold. So a standard calibration factor over 180 years is wrong.
Nobody employs a standard calibration. We assume that Wolf and Wolfer knew what they were doing in keeping their own observations aligned. Perhaps you disagree.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data , although one stations data will have to be of a very high standard. What have you got to show?
The data are in the papers linked to as well as remarks to the effect that the quality is low. SSN-Aurorae-SC4-andSC5.png
Comparison of Wolfer 1902 and Wolf 1876 http://www.leif.org/research/SC5-Wolf-Wolfer.png show th difference between the two. The size of the typeface is an indication of the ‘quality’ as perceived by the authors, although the overall quality was low.
Wolf writes: “Wolf-LXXXIII
684) Prof. Fr. Schwab, Adjunct to the Observatory in Kremsmuenster write to me [10 Aug. 1893]: “In our old observer journals there are scattered notes about sunspots, in particular for the years 1802-1830. The determination of local time was done at that time mostly by observing the altitude of the Sun, and at those occasions the sunspots present were shown on a small sketch, – more rarely [especially in the earlier years] accompagnied by a written remark; For the years 1825-1828 this was done with greater accuracy and completeness.
There are drawings, that clearly only contain the most obvious and large spots, for the years: [days per year]
1802 21 ; 1803 63; 1804 54; 1805 37; 1806 12; 1807 8; 1809 0; 1810 0; 1811 0; 1812 6;
1813 15; 1814 5; 1815 0; 1816 25; 1817 66; 1818 56; 1819 37; 1820 35; 1821 13; 1822 13;
1823 0; 1824 3; 1825 52; 1827 69; 1828 54; 1829 85.
During the last years of the series (1825-29) the distances of the spots from the limb were also measured to derive the elements of solar rotation, which however was never done as far as I know. – Should you find use for such notes, then I’m ready to collect the data arranged in a practical format, I just ask you to indicate the best way of doing this for your purpose”. – It is hardly necessary to remark that this letter from Prof. Schwab was of greatest interest to me, that I immediately returned an answer with the requested instructions and thanks for his offer. As result, Prof. Schwab sent me the following two data series, with the necessary annotations:
I. Observations from the Years 1802-1824.
The instrument, which until 1824 was regularly used, was s [already used by Fixlmillner) Brander Azimuthal-Quadrant with a telescope of 5 1/2 foot length. – As only in a few years there were remarks in addition to the sketches I thought that in terms of clear arrangement and simplicity, the usual tabular formatshould be chosen, in which spots were notes on only a small number of days [for this publication I elected to use exclusively the notation I have used for years with extra notes in a few cases]. For each day, on which the sun was observed without any mention of spots, I filled in a zero [which should not be construed to mean that the sun was without spots], but just refers to that the observer didn’t find anything of special note on the solar disk; the sketch was often omitted on account of lack of time.
On account of dying, Wolf didn’t get to use the data, and their use had to await Wolfer’s attempt to determine k-factors and calibration to his own standard in 1902, which is what SIDC simply took over ‘as is’.
Wolf also collected auroral reports. Here is his data for SC4 and 5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-Aurorae-SC4-and-SC5.png
“The yearly reports from Zurich contain k-values for all observers …”
Talking about off the rails. Its not about the k factor, but more about different phases of the dynamo.
We were talking about k-factors. And what do you know about the dynamo, anyway.
The speck ratio has been high in the last few days. The 150 value is non discounted but I would expect the LSC value to be much lower.
Sure, as you throw away real indicators of solar activity in a desperate attempt to create a Grand Minimum where there is none [so far]. Here is what the sun looks like in white light [some ‘specks’ are circled] and what real activity is [right panel]: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
Wolf and Wolfer knew that even the smallest spots in barely visible groups are important indicators of solar activity and should not be thrown away. Wolf endorsed Wolfer’s method [by incorporating Wolfer’s observations in the official list] but continued [luckily] using Wolf’s old method himself precisely in order that the two series could be intercompared and calibrated to a common standard. That standard [now maintained for 135 years] is that of Wolfer. Because of Wolf’s foresight we are now able to extend that back to Wolf’s old observations and those of his predecessors.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data
In his determination of k-factors for Kremsmunster, Wolfer notes that the drawings from 1802-1808 [i.e. SC5] only show the largest spots. Since the sunspot number is mostly determined by the smallest spots, it was clear to him [as it should be to us] that using the drawings would underestimate the sunspot number, but it is hard to know by how much [making up data is hard to do]. At any rate, at the next SSN workshop we are going to take a hard look at all the available observations and proxies to sort out the mess and hopefully converge on a list we can all agree on and stand by. Stay tuned.
customzcar says: [or is that Geoff, hiding here?]
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
Yes and he specifically designed it to work with decent sized eruptions, not pointless specks.
No, as he said: “when a new area on the Sun is attacked by the spot-creating activity, then that is much more important than if an already existing group is changed by the appearance of a new spot” so his formula was specifically designed to take that into account, hence the factor 10.
Today we know that even a small single-speck group is just the tip of the iceberg of magnetic fields which we can directly observe. Wolf did the right thing by specifically designing his formula to take into account the importance of emerging activity.
There is a small speck near the SE limb that has been growing. Yesterday it [and other specks] looked like this: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
The magnetic field from the speck injects energy into a filament nearby and note what that resulted in today: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity-pow.png
Specks are important in the schema of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Specks are important in the scheme of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
If you are still current, this will nicely show how the growing specks disrupts the filament:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/SDO_Self_Updating_6.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:31 am
Nobody employs a standard calibration. We assume that Wolf and Wolfer knew what they were doing in keeping their own observations aligned. Perhaps you disagree.
You have employed a standard calibration for the pre Wolfer GSN values. I do not agree this can be done and probably needs a massive amount of research to resolve how to cover the many variables. One area you will run foul is that even if Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken. If so you might find that some of SIDC values pre Wolf’s actual observations (1700-1800) are too high, Wolfer is certainly suggesting this for SC5 etc.
Lets look at the Kremsmunster data ,
Interesting, overall a small sample of low quality data seems to have been merged with Wolf’s original data. What we dont know is how it was merged and what procedures Wolfer used. Wolfer is directly attacking Wolf’s reconstruction factors that Wolf derived from solar proxy records.
We were talking about k-factors. And what do you know about the dynamo, anyway.
What I know is that a k factor may not be constant given different phases of the dynamo. You are assuming k factors dont move during times of grand minimum. This is especially relevant when comparing with Wolf’s threshold.
customzcar says: [or is that Geoff, hiding here?]
Nothing sinister going on, just wordpress failing to register the correct account. In regard to the importance of specks I think you are trying to build a mountain out of a molehill. In general terms a region is not important until it has reached a certain threshold. A small speck that emerges and fades after a couple of days is of little importance.
August LSC figures are in. A monthly mean of 37.1 showing a drop in activity over last month.
The SC14 line is getting further away from SC24.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
You have employed a standard calibration for the pre Wolfer GSN values.
The data seem consistent with a constant factor, but the calibration is done by carefully evaluating each observer: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
One area you will run foul is that even if Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken.
The whole threshold issue is completely moot. Wolf discovered a marvelous correlation between sunspots and the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. This was his greatest discovery. Today we understand the physics of that relationship in quantitative detail and ultimately the relationship will form the basis for the SSN workshops final reconstruction. This is described in detail here http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
If so you might find that some of SIDC values pre Wolf’s actual observations (1700-1800) are too high, Wolfer is certainly suggesting this for SC5 etc.
Considering that SC5 is mostly outside of 1700-1800, what Wolfer suggested does not apply to 1700-1800. In any event, we shall in due course resolve that question. Cosmic ray data for the 18th century suggests activity as high as in the 20th.
overall a small sample of low quality data seems to have been merged with Wolf’s original data.
Wolf’s original data was very scant. Wolf reports that the observers say that ‘they have never seen to many spots before as during SC5.
Wolfer is directly attacking Wolf’s reconstruction factors that Wolf derived from solar proxy records.
Actually not as there are no proxy records known to Wolf for SC5, except the poor auroral record.
What I know is that a k factor may not be constant given different phases of the dynamo.
‘Know’ and ‘may’ don’t go together. You may ‘assume’ or wishfully think that the k-factor ‘may’ be different, but it is meaningless to say that you ‘know’ that it ‘may’ be.
relevant when comparing with Wolf’s threshold
Wolf’s threshold was his greatest mistake. Luckily, Wolfer got rid of it [with Wolf’s agreement]
In general terms a region is not important until it has reached a certain threshold. A small speck that emerges and fades after a couple of days is of little importance.
Any small region is important. I showed a fine example here:
There is a small speck near the SE limb that has been growing. Yesterday it [and other specks] looked like this: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity.png
The magnetic field from the speck injects energy into a filament nearby and note what that resulted in today: http://www.leif.org/research/specks-and-activity-pow.png
Specks are important in the scheme of things as they show to the eye where magnetic flux [which cannot seen in an ordinary telescope] is emerging and help control the eruptions that propagate out into space and may influence the Earth, if in the right direction.
If you are still current, this will nicely show how the growing specks disrupt the filament:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/SDO_Self_Updating_6.htm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Wolf’s threshold is close to the limited power of the preceding telescopes he also added a reconstruction value to align with solar proxy records if I am not mistaken.
The whole threshold issue is completely moot, most of the preceding telescopes were much larger than Wolf’s, e.g. http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/tools/pic-first-telescopes-hevelius.htm . Wolf discovered a marvelous correlation between sunspots and the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. This was his greatest discovery. Today we understand the physics of that relationship in quantitative detail and ultimately that relationship will form the basis for the SSN workshop’s final reconstruction. This is described in detail here http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:29 pm
August LSC figures are in.
LSC is ill-conceived and poorly executed and has no value. SIDC values for August is 61.7 [although they may alter that a bit after final quality control], compared to 66.45 for July. When SIDC gives us the smoothed values we can compare with SC14.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:29 pm
August LSC figures are in.
Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png
Your graph looks dodgy, cant you make it clearer so we can see some detail. It says it has been corrected for the Waldmeier jump but the SIDC values look untouched?
Done properly it looks like this:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24_less_wald.png
SC14 is towering above the SC24 record which ever way you look it.
I will come back to your other points tomorrow.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
“Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-SC24-overlap.png”
It says it has been corrected for the Waldmeier jump but the SIDC values look untouched?
You correct for the Waldmeier jump by increasing SC14 by 20%.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:48 pm
SIDC values for August is 61.7 [although they may alter that a bit after final quality control], compared to 66.45 for July. When SIDC gives us the smoothed values we can compare with SC14.
The quality-controlled value for August from SIDC is 63.1, and the latest smoothed value is 66.9 up from 65.5. For SC14 the corresponding smoothed value was 53.5, or corrected for Waldmeier 1.2*53.5 = 64.2.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
“Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14”
cant you make it clearer so we can see some detail.
Here is the version for people with poor eyesight:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj.png
Note that the minima to start on clearly are 1902 and 2009. If you wish to deceive, you can choose another minimum year, e.g. 2008, but that is clearly not supported by the data.
The interchange between Leif and Geoff has been very informative but I prefer to watch current developments rather than seek ultimate wisdom from a wide range of historical parameters that need large numbers of adjustments and subjective interpretations to make them meaningful.
A few years of watching solar activity, the behaviour of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, ocean heat content, cloudiness, jetstream behaviour, surface temperature trends and a plethora of other phenomena will soon resolve all the currently hotly debated issues.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:02 am
A few years of watching solar activity .. and a plethora of other phenomena will soon resolve all the currently hotly debated issues
No, not at all, these are complicated systems and a few years will not resolve anything. The relevant time scale is centuries.
“a few years will not resolve anything. The relevant time scale is centuries.”
A shorter period of observation near an inflection point such as the change between cycle 23 and 24 will be quite sufficient.
We can already see that a wide range of climate linked parameters changed their trends at the same time as the sun moved from active cycle 23 to quiet cycle 24.
If the sun stays quiet and the changes of trend are maintained then there will be the answer.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:02 am
historical parameters that need large numbers of adjustments
Not so, reconciliation of the Group Sunspot Number and the Official SIDC sunspot number requires just TWO adjustments: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs.pdf
Stephen Wilde says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:24 am
We can already see that a wide range of climate linked parameters changed their trends at the same time as the sun moved from active cycle 23 to quiet cycle 24.
One swallow does not make a summer.
And the Sun has gone from active to quit many times. You think that the parameters changed every time?
Perhaps you are correct that only a few years is enough to falsify your ideas, but they are not enough to resolve the climate conundrum.
Studying the right variable to judge incoming energy would be a good starting point: maxima
I am sure that once I get the amplitiude of the ac curve – I will be able to determine the length of the cycle.
I think we will fiind the time of the cycle. Right now I can already estimate it is between ca ninety and one hundred years.
Of which half is warming and half is cooling time. Three times in that everything is as it always was if we ignore any other longer cycles that might also be relevant. H
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2012 at 9:30 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
“Already the smoothed values for SC24 has reached [and passed] those for SC14″
cant you make it clearer so we can see some detail.
———————————————
Here is the version for people with poor eyesight:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj.png
Note that the minima to start on clearly are 1902 and 2009. If you wish to deceive, you can choose another minimum year, e.g. 2008, but that is clearly not supported by the data.
Like I said the data you are using does not properly display reality. The last smoothed number is Feb 2012 and the values are temporary and will come down unless the next few months go mad. Interesting that you would use an obtuse form of measurement when you have been advocating all detailed data should be recorded. The unsmoothed data shows the real picture which at present shows SC24 closely matching the form of the GSN SC5. Joe D’Aleo also agrees.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/unscientific_american_on_line_chat_on_heat_wave_to_cultists_blames_90s_this/
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:10 pm
You have employed a standard calibration for the pre Wolfer GSN values.
————————
The data seem consistent with a constant factor, but the calibration is done by carefully evaluating each observer: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
You will need to calibrate all observers using their telescope and drawings to determine their min spot size.
Considering that SC5 is mostly outside of 1700-1800, what Wolfer suggested does not apply to 1700-1800. In any event, we shall in due course resolve that question. Cosmic ray data for the 18th century suggests activity as high as in the 20th.
Obviously I was not referring to SC5 but criticizing your use of one factor to calibrate the GSN.
You correct for the Waldmeier jump by increasing SC14 by 20%
This is what You do. I think most of us would prefer to leave the pre 1945 figures alone and then remove the bogus Waldmeier factor after.
Wolf discovered a marvelous correlation between sunspots and the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field. This was his greatest discovery.
Indeed a great discovery. But whether he applied it correctly in his reconstructions is under scrutiny and is challenged by Wolfer. I am not sure the Diurnal records go back far enough to calibrate 1700-1800?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:48 pm
LSC is ill-conceived and poorly executed and has no value.
Over 400,000 views tends to suggest otherwise.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Here is the version for people with poor eyesight:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj.png
One could argue that lining up on a whole year is inferior to lining up on a minimum defined by a fit to the whole minimum periods, like in http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj-3.png
Like I said the data you are using does not properly display reality. The last smoothed number is Feb 2012 and the values are temporary and will come down unless the next few months go mad.
The smoothed sunspot number shows the reality that is the solar cycle without the day-to-day random fluctuations. If the next few months follow the present level, the smoothed number will stay where it is, just like SC14 did with just minor fluctuations over the rest of the maximum.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
You will need to calibrate all observers using their telescope and drawings to determine their min spot size.
Nobody except Schabe and Wolf used a threshold so the minimum spot size is not relevant, and in any event the group counts stand on their own. But, we are actually digitizing Staudach’s drawings 1749-1806 and Schwabe’s drawings 1826-1867 to make sure. And ALL observers have their own independent calibration.
criticizing your use of one factor to calibrate the GSN
You are not paying attention. We found that the data shows that to first order there is a break in the calibration around 1885 [you cannot critisize the data for that]. The detailed calibration has a different factor for each observer.
I think most of us would prefer to leave the pre 1945 figures alone and then remove the bogus Waldmeier factor after.
The consensus in the SSN community is to correct the old data. The reason is simply that the current figures are used in operational programs [e.g. by the US Air Force – one of the sponsors of the workshops – to calculate atmospheric drag on satellites] so cannot be touched without causing unneeded problems. Since it doesn’t matter which way it is done, we oblige the users.
Indeed a great discovery. But whether he applied it correctly in his reconstructions is under scrutiny
No, it is not ‘under scruteny’ by anybody knowledgeable. On the contrary, the method is beeing accepted as the best hope for a successful re-assessment. We are aquiring 19th century data for that purpose. I just got the raw data from Prague 1839-1917.
and is challenged by Wolfer.
It was given up on by Wolfer, because he did know that the East component rather than the Declination was the controlling factor. This does not matter for periods of decades, but becomes evident on century time scales.
I am not sure the Diurnal records go back far enough to calibrate 1700-1800?
Then learn that the continous recording started in 1781 and we have scattered years of data from the 1740s and the 1760s.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“LSC is ill-conceived and poorly executed and has no value.”
Over 400,000 views tends to suggest otherwise
That is like suggesting that smoking is healthy because millions do it.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:23 pm
You will need to calibrate all observers using their telescope and drawings to determine their min spot size.
Not at all. Here is how Wolf is calibrated to Wolfer: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-Wolfer-Group-Calibration.png
Wolf and Wolfer used different telescopes and different techniques and did not use drawings, yet it is obvious by comparing their group counts for each year of their overlap [1876-1893] that with very high accuracy Wolfer recorded 65% more groups than Wolf. In the bottom left panel, Wolf’s count [with his small telescope – shown] is shown with blue symbols, Wolfer’s with pink. And Wolf’s multiplied by 1.653 with yellow. The pink and the yellow track each other closely. In a similar way all observers can be calibrated to other observers at the time and all calibrations combined to a solid composite [which matches the Zurich count closely]. The consensus is that the Group Sunspot number is flawed and will be abandoned. An example of the bad calibration used by H&S is that their factors for Wolf and Wolfer are identical to within 2%, which anybody by simple inspection of the data points in the lower left can see is wrong.
The SIDC value for August is once again higher than the NOAA discount value for the 17th straight month. The trend is rising since about 2009. Is the SIDC counting more or NOAA less?
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/noaa_sidc_factor.png
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm
The SIDC value for August is once again higher than the NOAA discount value for the 17th straight month. The trend is rising since about 2009. Is the SIDC counting more or NOAA less?
NOAA is intended for real-time use and they do not try to maintain long-term stability, so as I pointed out in a earlier comment, yes there is trend [ http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-k-png . But it is wrong to think that NOAA should have the same 0.6 k-factor as Wolfer other than by accident. So to compare a NOAA ‘discount value’ with SIDC as to which is higher does not make sense. what you can do is calculate the k-value for NOAA. For 1991-2001 the k-value was 0.662.
But, it is well-known in SSN-circles that SIDC undercounted [relative to NOAA and Sonne] in the years 2002-2009, this has now apparently been corrected.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Nobody except Schabe and Wolf used a threshold so the minimum spot size is not relevant, and in any event the group counts stand on their own.
We have just seen that the Kremsmunters data employs a threshold. I find it hard to believe with the hundreds of observers involved along with the time frames and technology changes that all can be adjusted by one factor.
No, it is not ‘under scruteny’ by anybody knowledgeable. On the contrary, the method is beeing accepted as the best hope for a successful re-assessment. We are aquiring 19th century data for that purpose. I just got the raw data from Prague 1839-1917.
If its not under scrutiny the group is not performing their task adequately, is the team interested only in raising the early GSN values and not looking at the possibility of lowering the early SIDC values?
The raw data wont help with SC5. The Wolfer SC5 values and his methodology need to be fully explored.
Then learn that the continous recording started in 1781 and we have scattered years of data from the 1740s and the 1760s.
Like I said, not good enough to calibrate the 100 year period stated.
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-k.png
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm
We have just seen that the Kremsmunters data employs a threshold. I find it hard to believe with the hundreds of observers involved along with the time frames and technology changes that all can be adjusted by one factor.
No, there is no specific threshold ’employed’, simply an undercount because of only the larger spots being counted if they stood out, but not in any systematic way. And with the one factor, you are simply not paying attention. H&S has for each [well, most] of those hundreds of observers determined their individual k-factors. The problem comes in when they determined the k-factor for Wolf incorrectly. Since the Wolf data has a large weight in calculation, that skews the whole data set around 1885 and offsets the series, by about the difference between the correct Wolf factor and their incorrect one, hence leading to the discontinuity ~1885. So, in this way it really does come down to only one factor, because H&S have already taken all the differences into account.
If its not under scrutiny the group is not performing their task adequately, is the team interested only in raising the early GSN values and not looking at the possibility of lowering the early SIDC values?
The group has accepted my analysis as compelling [even Ken Schatten] so the scrutiny phase is past. The comparison with the geomagnetic data shows that it is GSN that is too low, so there is no possibility of lowering SIDC.
The raw data wont help with SC5. The Wolfer SC5 values and his methodology need to be fully explored.
As you could see that is the task for the 3rd SSN workshop to re-examine data 1750-1825.
Like I said, not good enough to calibrate the 100 year period stated.
But good enough to verify the calibration for the times when there is data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2012 at 7:58 pm
H&S has for each [well, most] of those hundreds of observers determined their individual k-factors. The problem comes in when they determined the k-factor for Wolf incorrectly. Since the Wolf data has a large weight in calculation, that skews the whole data set around 1885 and offsets the series, by about the difference between the correct Wolf factor and their incorrect one, hence leading to the discontinuity ~1885. So, in this way it really does come down to only one factor, because H&S have already taken all the differences into account.
So you are saying all observers before Wolf were calibrated via their k factor (GSN k factor) to match Wolf but Wolfer did not have the same matching test against Wolf? I would wonder how good the H&S GSN k factors are, considering the possible errors made so far??
The group has accepted my analysis as compelling [even Ken Schatten] so the scrutiny phase is past. The comparison with the geomagnetic data shows that it is GSN that is too low, so there is no possibility of lowering SIDC.
Sounds like a one sided agenda. There is obviously doubt raised on the Wolf recalibration before his count which the team is ignoring? SC3/4 are standing out as cycles that are possibly too high (Rz) when compared with the recalibrated GSN.
But good enough to verify the calibration for the times when there is data.
Wolfer has thrown doubt on this. If SC5 was adjusted from Wolf’s values, the previous values may also require more investigation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-NOAA-k.png
Your graph is showing the same trend. No comment on this?
Geoff Sharp says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm
So you are saying all observers before Wolf were calibrated via their k factor (GSN k factor) to match Wolf but Wolfer did not have the same matching test against Wolf? I would wonder how good the H&S GSN k factors are, considering the possible errors made so far??
Observers were calibrated to the group count derived from the Greenwich Catalog 1875-1976, but before that they were calibrated largely to Wolf because he was the only one with a long series overlapping with Greenwich. However [and it is not known why – Ken can’t remember anymore] the calibration is wrong as I showed, so all older values become too low. This is the main error that H&S made. The SSN workshop is inclined to simply abandon the GSN number, like you do an old cars, when too many repairs are needed.
Sounds like a one sided agenda.
Truth only has one side. And science consists of presenting convincing and compelling arguments. Once that is done, agreement is quickly reached among reputable scientists.
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf summarizes the discussion and
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Schatten.pdf is Ken Schatten’s take on it.
There is obviously doubt raised on the Wolf recalibration before his count which the team is ignoring?
What doubt? Wolfer abandoned Wolf’s method because he did not understand [actually could not know] that the parametr to use is the East component and not the Declination. The team understands completely the physics of the relationship and is not ignoring anything.
SC3/4 are standing out as cycles that are possibly too high (Rz) when compared with the recalibrated GSN.
Even though we can largely reconsile GSN and Rz, GSN is still on shaky ground because it is likely that some of H&S early calibrations are dubious. This will be addressed as the 3rd workshop, or rather: the GSN will be abandoned and the new data that H&S dug up will be incorporated in the new index we are building.
Wolfer has thrown doubt on this.
Wolfer did not throw doubt on anything, he simply did not understand what was going on.
If SC5 was adjusted from Wolf’s values
There were not, the values came from Kremsmunster. Wolf’s SC5 was as he left it when he died.
Your graph is showing the same trend. No comment on this?
I already commented: NOAA’s SSN is meant as a real-time, quick-and-dirty index for immediate use and does not pretend to maintain long-term stability. So any trend you might find has no special meaning and should not be overinterpreted.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 2, 2012 at 10:17 pm
However [and it is not known why – Ken can’t remember anymore] the calibration is wrong as I showed, so all older values become too low. This is the main error that H&S made. The SSN workshop is inclined to simply abandon the GSN number, like you do an old cars, when too many repairs are needed.
If this is the case one wonders about the peer review process. If it was so wrong why was it not picked up, even with the questions raised the GSN is still a valuable piece of work ( The SC6 data in particular). I hope the rebuilding process is fully documented so we can all see the results and processes.
What doubt? Wolfer abandoned Wolf’s method because he did not understand [actually could not know] that the parametr to use is the East component and not the Declination. The team understands completely the physics of the relationship and is not ignoring anything.
The fact that Wolfer over rode some of Wolf’s figures for SC5 shows there was doubt in his mind, have you investigated his data and logic?
Wolfer did not throw doubt on anything, he simply did not understand what was going on.
I am talking about Wolfer using the Kremsmunster records, these are over riding some of the Wolf values which have the proxy record adjustment built in.
There were not, the values came from Kremsmunster. Wolf’s SC5 was as he left it when he died.
The 1902 Wolfer record looks to incorporate the adjusted values amongst the original Wolf values. Why try to confuse?
I already commented: NOAA’s SSN is meant as a real-time, quick-and-dirty index for immediate use and does not pretend to maintain long-term stability. So any trend you might find has no special meaning and should not be overinterpreted.
Another example of the data being no good because it is of no use to you. Do you have proper analysis that backs up your claim. You are claiming that the NOAA SSN is drifting towards an under counting position relative to their history? During the same interval I have noticed increased group splitting by Locarno which could also be a factor.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 3, 2012 at 12:21 am
If this is the case one wonders about the peer review process. If it was so wrong why was it not picked up,
The review process is not foolproof.
even with the questions raised the GSN is still a valuable piece of work
What is valuable is the additional data that H&S dug up.
I hope the rebuilding process is fully documented so we can all see the results and processes.
Everything we do is always fully documented.
The fact that Wolfer over rode some of Wolf’s figures for SC5 shows there was doubt in his mind, have you investigated his data and logic?>/i>
Wolfer did not override Wolf, as there was precious little to begin with. He added [the undercounted] Kremsmuenster to the data. The ‘logic’ was simple enough: Try to evaluate a k-factor using the better data from the 1820s and apply it backwards, but one can’t really overcome the undercounting [which as he states was especially problematic in the first decade of the data].
I am talking about Wolfer using the Kremsmunster records, these are over riding some of the Wolf values which have the proxy record adjustment built in.
see above
The 1902 Wolfer record looks to incorporate the adjusted values amongst the original Wolf values. Why try to confuse?
I don’t think he was trying to confuse. He did the best he could with crappy data.
Do you have proper analysis that backs up your claim.
I know how NOAA does their counting and what their data is meant for.
You are claiming that the NOAA SSN is drifting towards an under counting position relative to their history?
Rather returning to what it was earlier. And, as I said, it is likely that it is SIDC that have a problem during 2002-2009.
During the same interval I have noticed increased group splitting by Locarno which could also be a factor.
As Locarno is still mainly based on Sergio Cortesi’s observations there is no indication that they have changed. And ‘noticed’ is not good enough. How about doing a proper analysis?
The LSC/SIDC variance figures are in for August showing a 0.58 deviation. Some may say that is within tolerance of the 0.6 Wolfer factor, but in fact this deviation is much higher than it would seem. The variance factor mentioned only tracks groups that don’t make the grade (Wolf threshold) but Wolf not only didn’t count groups under a certain threshold where the biggest spot did not comply, he also did not count specks around groups that had a spot that did comply. Wolfer applied his conversion factor to all specks, so the 0.58 diversion is actually a long way from Wolfer’s overall 0.6 factor as the LSC counts specks around complying spots. This is more evidence that the Wolfer factor of 0.6 is not matching it during SC24.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:53 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 3, 2012 at 12:21 am
If this is the case one wonders about the peer review process. If it was so wrong why was it not picked up,
——————————
The review process is not foolproof.
Far from it perhaps. But digging deeper I see H&S clearly acknowledge that Wolf’s actual count is very short when looking at group counts, and yet they do not apply an appropriate k factor. They show two k factor columns per observer, not easy to fathom their logic.
even with the questions raised the GSN is still a valuable piece of work
————————————
What is valuable is the additional data that H&S dug up.
Yes, something that cannot be discarded.
I hope the rebuilding process is fully documented so we can all see the results and processes.
Everything we do is always fully documented.
The fact that Wolfer over rode some of Wolf’s figures for SC5 shows there was doubt in his mind, have you investigated his data and logic?
——————————-
Wolfer did not override Wolf, as there was precious little to begin with. He added [the undercounted] Kremsmuenster to the data. The ‘logic’ was simple enough: Try to evaluate a k-factor using the better data from the 1820s and apply it backwards, but one can’t really overcome the undercounting [which as he states was especially problematic in the first decade of the data].
Not so, there is plenty of Wolf values in the SC5 data that Wolfer finished with. You say under counted but looking at the data it is apparent only days with spots of Wolf type threshold were recorded by Derfflinger, the rest is entered as a zero and not referenced (meaning the coverage is much greater). I don’t have the full data but the Kremsmunster data could be meaningful. I will take it you have not looked into it with precision.
You give a lot of credence to the Diurnal record, but I have never seen a full record. Can you provide a record from 1780 to today that is compiled from the east component?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:53 am
The 1902 Wolfer record looks to incorporate the adjusted values amongst the original Wolf values. Why try to confuse?
——————————–
I don’t think he was trying to confuse. He did the best he could with crappy data.
Well done, was meaning you are confusing and now you take it to a new level. I am not so sure the data is crappy but am sure its in your interest to persuade otherwise.
Do you have proper analysis that backs up your claim.
——————————–
I know how NOAA does their counting and what their data is meant for.
No evidence provided.
You are claiming that the NOAA SSN is drifting towards an under counting position relative to their history?
—————————
Rather returning to what it was earlier. And, as I said, it is likely that it is SIDC that have a problem during 2002-2009.
The Zurich/SIDC hierarchy has the runs on the board for regime change. Even today individual counters cant agree on the Waldmeier grouping rules. I see no evidence of this within NOAA?
During the same interval I have noticed increased group splitting by Locarno which could also be a factor.
——————————————–
As Locarno is still mainly based on Sergio Cortesi’s observations there is no indication that they have changed. And ‘noticed’ is not good enough. How about doing a proper analysis?
Yes but Sergio does not count everyday as you are aware. You have not done an analysis to show there is no deviation.
Never in my life have I seen two scientists argue about the wrong parameter for such a long time.
– have to laugh at you at all ur spots.
What is important is the energy coming thru.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 3, 2012 at 7:34 am
the LSC counts specks around complying spots.
And that is what is wrong with its execution. Wolf would rotate in his grave.
This is more evidence that the Wolfer factor of 0.6 is not matching it during SC24.
Wolfer’s 0.6 factor applies to HIM Alone using HIS method and HIS telescope with the seeing at HIS location and not to anybody else.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 3, 2012 at 8:00 am
Yes, something that cannot be discarded.
And it will not be. What is discarded is their faulty calibration
the rest is entered as a zero and not referenced (meaning the coverage is much greater).
No it means that there was no observation of the sun on that day. The primary purpose of the observations was the weather, not the sun.
I will take it you have not looked into it with precision.
I have looked at every day, but have not tried to calibrate yet.
You give a lot of credence to the Diurnal record, but I have never seen a full record.
Can you provide a record from 1780 to today that is compiled from the east component?
Actually could, because Wolf gives the values from 1781 to 1881 and I have my own list from 1882 to today. But it would be premature [and a waste] of time to do so, as we are collecting much more data than Wolf had and will do a proper job with all available data from the 18th and 19th centuries. From 1882 on, we have enough data to do a good job. Slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction%20of%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf shows such a reconstruction, which as you can see is even good enough the reveal the Waldmeier jump.
I am not so sure the data is crappy but am sure its in your interest to persuade otherwise.</i.
I'll tell it to your face: "you are full of shit". I am a careful scientist and working with several dozens other experts on sunspots to do the best job we can.
“I know how NOAA does their counting and what their data is meant for.”
No evidence provided.
My word is evidence.
Even today individual counters cant agree on the Waldmeier grouping rules.
They don’t need to as the k-factors take care of that nicely. The only thing needed is that each observer sticks to his own method [whatever it is].
I see no evidence of this within NOAA?
How many people do you know at NOAA? How many have you talked with about this? How many times have you visited them and discussed their procedures face to face?
Yes but Sergio does not count everyday as you are aware
So what? His k-factor for 2012 is 0.59, for the rest of the observers 0.61, and overall 0.61. For trained observers the k-factor is very stable from year to year. For Locarno it has been
2003 0.60
2004 0.60
2005 0.61
2006 0.61
2007 0.60
2008 0.62
2009 0.60
2010 0.59
2011 0.61
2012 0.61
The NOAA observers change often, typically every two years and NOAA’s k-factor never gets stable.
You have not done an analysis to show there is no deviation.
I never say anything without analysis.
HenryP says:
September 3, 2012 at 10:23 am
What is important is the energy coming thru.
What energy comes to the earth is well described by the spots. What comes through is mainly determined by the cloud cover [i.e. the Earth’s albedo], which varies a lot more than the energy from the sun. So, yes, the sun has little to do with it.
Leif Svalgaard says
What energy comes to the earth is well described by the spots. What comes through is mainly determined by the cloud cover [i.e. the Earth’s albedo],
Henry says
Naahh. Don’t think so. The amount of energy that comes thru, specifically that kind of energy that can heat the water of the big oceans (<0.5 um), is what determines your albedo; and yes, if less of that type of high energy comes thru, the atmosphere will get quicker saturated of water (g), due to the general cooling, meaning @ lower humidity levels there will be some more clouds due to partial condensation. So it is a bit of a train/chain coming from the top down. I am pretty sure it starts with the change in ozone level on the top, which in turn was initiated by some minute change in the distribution curve of the TSI. I can see this from the deceleration curve of the warming (maxima) of the past 4 decades.
Did somebody already actually study the distribution curves of the solar constant at various times in the past – if this was ever done regularly?
HenryP says:
September 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm
I am pretty sure it starts with the change in ozone level on the top,
That you are pretty sure, does not make it so.
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/#comment-1070982
Henry says
well,
my results show that energy input changed from warming (positive) to cooling (negative) in 1995,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
do you agree with that?
Various other sources report increasing ozone from 1996. Do you agree with that?
Together, it is a bit too much of a co-incidence? (also considering ozone is responsible for a large portion of all back radiation in the 0.0 to 0.5 um range)
BTW
Henry@Leif
Do you know which is the latest distribution used for the solar constant?
HenryP says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:21 am
Do you know which is the latest distribution used for the solar constant?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
HenryP says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:18 am
Together, it is a bit too much of a co-incidence? (also considering ozone is responsible for a large portion of all back radiation in the 0.0 to 0.5 um range)
So, you didn’t learn anything from our previous discussion of this.
Henry@Leif
You want to “quible” again?
Seems to me you lost that match a bit, if I remember correctly.
Ice is coming back
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#more-70432
as I said, it will all be back by 2030 or 2040. Sorry for all those who don’t like the cold.
Anyway, I am looking for the table giving me the % of the solarconstant allocated for each wavelength.
I could not find that there in your reference – maybe I am stupid? – or maybe the the website does not have it.
Henry@ Gail, Stephen Wilde
I have some news. I was able to get my results into a sine wave and it seems the best fit is for a “wavelength” of…you guessed it …. 88 years.
Interesting. Seeing that cooling started in 1995, this would suggest that warming started somewhere 1995-44= 1951.
If I remember correctly, if you look at the ozone results 1940- 1960 or 1970 you will find a bending point at around 1950, going down in concentration. ( Don’t look beyond the time when equipment and methods to measure ozone changed; I will check that myself again when I get some time)
BTW don’t forget that energy-in cycles may differ from energy-out cycles, due to earth’s capability of storing energy , causing a considerable lag.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 3, 2012 at 5:34 pm
“What energy comes to the earth is well described by the spots”
Not so at all well for the solar wind speed.
” What comes through is mainly determined by the cloud cover [i.e. the Earth’s albedo], which varies a lot more than the energy from the sun.”
Often severe cold winter outbreaks last only a month, that can’t be down to just changes in cloud cover.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 5, 2012 at 10:35 am
“What energy comes to the earth is well described by the spots”
Not so at all well for the solar wind speed.
That part of the energy is less than one millionth of the total, so is totally negligible.
HenryP says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Seems to me you lost that match a bit
Educating you is not a ‘match’.
Anyway, I am looking for the table giving me the % of the solarconstant allocated for each wavelength. I could not find that there in your reference – maybe I am stupid? – or maybe the website does not have it.
Awareness of one’s own limitations is always a first step.
It seems you do not care to take the trouble to even look at the links i provide. I already gave you a table of what you ask for. Here it is again: http://www.leif.org/research/Integrated-Flux.pdf