Sunspeck counts after all, debate rages…Sun DOES NOT have first spotless calendar month since June 1913

UPADATED AT 8:30AM PST Sept 2nd-

More on SIDC’s decision to count a sunspeck (technically a “pore”) days after the fact. NOAA has now followed SIDC in adding a 0.5 sunspot where there was none before. But as commenter Basil points out, SIDC’s own records are in contrast to their last minute decision to count the sunspeck or “pore” on August 21.

There is an archive of the daily SIDC “ursigrams” here:

http://sidc.oma.be/html/SWAPP/dailyreport/dailyreport.html

If you select the ursigrams for August 22 and 23, you get the reported data for the 21st and 22nd:

August 21:

TODAY’S ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 07 STATIONS.

SOLAR INDICES FOR 21 Aug 2008

WOLF NUMBER CATANIA : 011

10CM SOLAR FLUX : 067

AK CHAMBON LA FORET : ///

AK WINGST : 004

ESTIMATED AP : 005

ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 14 STATIONS.

August 22:

TODAY’S ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 11 STATIONS.

SOLAR INDICES FOR 22 Aug 2008

WOLF NUMBER CATANIA : 013

10CM SOLAR FLUX : 068

AK CHAMBON LA FORET : ///

AK WINGST : 003

ESTIMATED AP : 003

ESTIMATED ISN : 000, BASED ON 11 STATIONS.

In both cases, the daily estimated “International Sunspot Number” based on multiple stations, not just the Catania Wolf Number, was 000. So how did SIDC end up with positive values in the monthly report?

UPDATED at 2:42 PM PST Sept 1st –

After going days without counting the August 21/22 “sunspeck” NOAA and SIDC Brussels now says it was NOT a spotless month! Both data sets below have been recently revised.

Here is the SIDC data:

http://www.sidc.be/products/ri_hemispheric/

Here is the NOAA data:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY

The NOAA data shows July as 0.5 but they have not yet updated for August as SIDC has. SIDC reports 0.5 for August. It will be interesting to see what NOAA will do.

SIDC officially counted that sunspeck after all. It only took them a week to figure out if they were going to count it or not, since no number was assigned originally.

But there appears to be an error in the data from the one station that reported a spot, Catania, Italy. No other stations monitoring that day reported a spot. Here is the drawing from that Observatory:

ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20080821_063500.jpg

ftp://ftp.ct.astro.it/sundraw/OAC_D_20080822_055000.jpg

But according to Leif Svalgaard, “SIDC reported a spot in the south, while the spot(s) Catania [reported] was in the north.” This is a puzzle. See his exchange below.

Also, other observatories show no spots at all. For example, at the 150 foot solar solar tower at the Mount Wilson Observatory, the drawings from those dates show no spots at all:

ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080821.jpg

ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080822.jpg

Inquires have been sent, stay tuned.

Here is an exchange in comments from Leif Svalgaard.

——-

REPLY: So What gives Leif….? You yourself said these sunspecks weren’t given a number. I trusted your assessment. Hence this article. Given the Brussels folks decided to change their minds later, what is the rationale ? – Anthony

The active region numbering is done by NOAA, not by Brussels. The Brussels folks occasionally disagree. In this case, they did. Rudolf Wolf would not have counted this spot. Nor would I. What puzzles me is this:

21 7 4 3

22 8 4 4

The 3rd column are ’spots’ in the Northern hemisphere, and the 4th column are ’spots’ in the Southern hemisphere [both weighted with the ‘k’-factor: SSN = k(10g+s)]. But there weren’t any in the south. The Catania spot was at 15 degrees north latitude, IIRC. Maybe the last word is not in on this.

——–

Hmm….apparently there’s some backstory to this. There is a debate raging in comments to this story, be sure to check them. – Anthony

# MONTHLY REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SUNSPOT NUMBER #

# from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) #

#——————————————————————–#

AUGUST 2008

PROVISIONAL INTERNATIONAL NORMALIZED HEMISPHERIC SUNSPOT NUMBERS

Date Ri Rn Rs

__________________________________________________________________

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 0 0 0

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 0 0 0

20 0 0 0

21 7 4 3

22 8 4 4

23 0 0 0

24 0 0 0

25 0 0 0

26 0 0 0

27 0 0 0

28 0 0 0

29 0 0 0

30 0 0 0

31 0 0 0

__________________________________________________________________

MONTHLY MEAN : 0.5 0.3 0.2

========================================================

ORIGINAL STORY FOLLOWS:

Many have been keeping a watchful eye on solar activity recently. The most popular thing to watch has been sunspots. While not a direct indication of solar activity, they are a proxy for the sun’s internal magnetic dynamo. There have been a number of indicators recently that it has been slowing down.

August 2008 has made solar history. As of 00 UTC (5PM PST) we just posted the first spotless calendar month since June 1913. Solar time is measured by Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so it is now September 1st in UTC time. I’ve determined this to be the first spotless calendar month according to sunspot data from NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center, which goes back to 1749. In the 95 years since 1913, we’ve had quite an active sun. But that has been changing in the last few years. The sun today is a nearly featureless sphere and has been for many days:

Image from SOHO

And there are other indicators. For example, some solar forecasts have been revised recently because the forecast models haven’t matched the observations. Australia’s space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the expected date for a ramping up of cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months.

The net effect of having no sunspots is about 0.1% drop in the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). My view is that TSI alone isn’t the main factor in modulating Earth’s climate.

I think it’s solar magnetism modulating Galactic Cosmic Rays, and hence more cloud nuclei from GCR’s, per Svensmark’s theory. We’ve had indications since October 2005 that the sun’s dynamo is slowing down. It dropped significantly then, and has remained that way since. Seeing no sunpots now is another indicator of that idling dynamo.

Graph of solar Geomagnetic Index (Ap):

Click for a larger image

Earth of course is a big heat sink, so it takes awhile to catch up to any changes that originate on the sun, but temperature drops indicated by 4 global temperature metrics (UAH, RSS and to a lesser degree HadCrit and GISS) show a significant and sharp cooling in 2007 and 2008 that has not rebounded.In the 20 years since “global warming” started life as a public issue with Dr. James Hansen’s testimony before congress in June 1988, we are actually cooler.

Click for a larger image

Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

Coincidence? Possibly, but nature will be the final arbiter of climate change debate, and I think we would do well to listen to what it’s saying now.

Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP also wrote some interesting things which I’ll reprint here.

…we have had a 0 sunspot calendar month (there have been more 30 day intervals without sunspots as recent as 1954 but they have crossed months). Following is a plot of the number of months with 0 sunspots by year over the period of record – 23 cycles since 1749.

image

See larger image here.

Note that cluster of zero month years in the early 1800s (a very cold period called the Dalton minimum – at the time of Charles Dickens and snowy London town and including thanks to Tambora, the Year without a Summer 1816) and again to a lesser degree in the early 1900s. These correspond to the 106 and 213 year cycle minimums. This would suggest that the next cycle minimum around 2020 when both cycles are in phase at a minimum could be especially weak. Even David Hathaway of NASA who has been a believer in the cycle 24 peak being strong, thinks the next minimum and cycle 25 maximum could be the weakest in centuries based on slowdown of the plasma conveyor belt on the sun.

In this plot of the cycle lengths and sunspot number at peak of the cycles, assuming this upcoming cycle will begin in 2009 show the similarity of the recent cycles to cycle numbers 2- 4, two centuries ago preceding the Dalton Minimum. This cycle 23 could end up the longest since cycle 4, which had a similar size peak and also similarly, two prior short cycles.

image

See larger image here.

Will this mean anything for climate in our near future? Possibly.  But we’ll have to wait to see how this experiment pans out.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
evanjones

When the sun dies
Where will they all hide?
I want to move from the country
Live a sin and a lie then
Nobody ever believes me
You tried to call me a cynic
But I’d say I’m realistic
You are the ones who have hurt me
I want to live in the city
See my reflections
They’re all I have now
See my reflections
They’re all and they’re all I…
When the sun dies
Where will they all hide?
When the sun dies
Where will they all hide?
I’ll be watching you
When the sun dies
Where will they all hide?

I’m starting work on my ski lodge and lift here in FL! Make your reservations now!
On a more serious note, it might be a good time to start stocking up on non-perishable foodstuffs. It’s a lot easier to get crops to grow with a half-degree temperature increase than it is to grow them under a blanket of snow and ice. Of course, The Great Goreacle & his hysterical hand puppet, James Hansen, will say that the approaching glaciers are proof that AGW is true, thus ensuring themselves of billions of dollars in carbon credits snake oil sales.
Keep up the great work, Anthony. (And all you other deniers skeptics out there in the land of science.)

statePoet1775

The sun appears to be blushing in the upper left hand quadrant.
It’s not your fault, sun.

Leon Brozyna

Wonder how long into this quiet sun we’ll have to go before there’s so much cooling that funding gets channeled into studying the effects of solar activity (of all sorts) on the climate. But by then the AGW believers will be chanting on about how the cooling is masking the warming – can’t lose all that funding.

julie

So B.C. above can refer to “the Great Goreacle”, but I get my hands slapped for “McOld” in the previous thread. And I know that I’ve seen lots and LOTS of nicks for Al Gore since I’ve been reading this site.
Nice double standard you have here, guys. Perhaps you need to realize that not all Dems are AGW true believers.
::grumble::
REPLY: Julie you have a point. We have a couple of moderators now, and I didn’t see the one above until just now. Perhaps I’m overly sensitive, but lately I’ve been getting a lot of spam posts calling McCain and Palin all sorts of names, and I delete those since they are part of a political push. So lets all just not call people names please. -Anthony

statePoet1775

julie,
You got a point. But your other posts were charming. I think the intent is for you not to demean yourself. It is sound advice. Please keep posting.

Robert Wood

In case someone is wondering how we can measure the magnetic field strength of the Sun, google Zeeman Effect.

Robert Wood

BC, the main problem your ski resort will face in Florida isn’t lack of snow; it’s lack of mountains, hills, or even bumpy bits. You really ought to consult a reality expert. 🙂

David G. Mills

Al Gore is just the messenger. Human nature is to shoot the messenger and say the messenger is out to make big bucks.

Robert, apparently you’re not familiar with the HUGE mountains of phosphate mine tailings, aka “gypsum stacks“, that we have scattered all across West-Central FL. 😉
Might as well use ’em for something, since the trace amounts of naturally-occurring radioactivity in ’em makes the ‘Loons go apoplectic anytime someone comes up with a proposed use for the material, such as roadbeds or foundation filler. (Thus saving thousands of acres of land from being mined, solely for dirt, each and every year.)

evanjones

thus ensuring themselves of billions of dollars in carbon credits snake oil sales.
That is terribly unjust and I must object: After all, when the carny sold you snake oil, you actually got the snake oil.

David, hanging– using only Gaia-friendly, organically-grown hemp rope, of course— hypocritical snake oil salesmen is the “green” way of dispatching them, these days. Carbon-emitting energetic projectiles are passé . Ya’ gotta keep up with the program, sir. Remind us to “CC” you on the next memo.
😉

Mr. Jones, you are absolutely correct. Would “Ponzi scheme scam artists” be more accurate?
Alright, I’ve taken up enough of Anthony’s bandwidth for tonight. 🙂

statePoet1775

I lived long enough to see Alan Greenspend be discredited. Another Al, another milepost to reach.

Bruce Cobb

Al Gore is just the messenger. Human nature is to shoot the messenger and say the messenger is out to make big bucks.
He’s a fraud and a liar, and yes, out to make big bucks off of that fraud. But, you can call him a “messenger” if you want, David.
Julie: I think “McOld” is hilarious. BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000. Now, I can’t stand him.
[REPLY: Nonetheless, we will refrain from renaming the current candidates. FWIW, I am a liberal skeptic, myself, for now a “big tent” Republican (for liberal reasons), but theoretically that could change at any time.–Evan]

evanjones

::grumble::
Bear with us.
We do have to maintain some double standard around here.
Yet we have refrained from namegaming either of the current candidates (and, as I’m sure you can imagine, that is a sword that cuts both ways).

Bobby Lane

Heh. This is beginning to sound pretty much like I thought it would when I saw that solar cycle graph from an earlier posting. The actual Year 2020 might give new meaning to the saying that “hindsight is always 20/20.”
Mr. D’Aleo says: “These correspond to the 106 and 213 year cycle minimums. This would suggest that the next cycle minimum around 2020 when both cycles are in phase at a minimum could be especially weak.”
If this proves true, this sounds pretty ominous. Here is what I mean:
The PDO will be in the middle of its Cool Phase, and the AMO is set to switch over to being less active itself at some point. Dr. Gray, in his latest forecast of Atlantic Hurricane seasonal acitivity disabuses his readers of the notion that AGW is to blame for hurricanes (see page 34 here: http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2008/aug2008/aug2008.pdf). He also, thereby, provides a pretty approximate date for the AMO, although that is certainly not the only factor in hurricane formation. Still, I feel the case is pretty strong. If it follows Dr. Gray’s example of 25 years, and if it began in 1994 as his graphics seem to say, then that puts the switch back to less active (or Cool, if you like) to 2019.
If this is a minimum, even if it is minor in comparison with other historical minima such as Dalton’s or Maunder’s, that still does not bode well for that time frame (circa 2020). It take time to prepare for such things, if first one decides to prepare for such things, and particularly so on a national or global scale. And the way we are going now with AGW worriers dominating our political establishments is not good. Twelve years may seem like a long time; however, particularly if you have kids, you know it isn’t. We are not out of time yet, but we seem to be on the clock.
Uneasily, I shall say…I guess we shall see.

Tom in Florida

From Led Zepplin’s “Thank You”:
“If the sun refused to shine, I would still be lovin’ you.”
I told my wife today that I will be fulfilling that promise.
(Yes, that was our wedding song.)

julie

statePoet1775, thanks for your reply. I do get the point – but at the same time, I wish you guys would de-link the whole Republican = AGW skeptic; Democrat = AGW true believer. It does not help our skeptical cause to blast all liberals as sheeple when it comes to AGW… because they are the ones we need to reach. I should know – I’m one of them who was convinced (converted??) by what I read here – and I tell whoever will listen about this site.
That being said, I’m glad you like my (infrequent) comments. 🙂
re: the Sun – personally, I’m looking forward to skiing in the Texas Hill Country in the winter of 2014-15 🙂

statePoet1775

[snip] (trying for a snip)?
[and succeeding~charles the moderator]

statePoet1775

Or how about Biden his time since he’s next in line?

statePoet1775

julie,
I would guess the strongest skeptics are my herd, libertarians. I was agnostic on AGW but thought we could handle it without destroying the economy in the process. Now I even doubt AGW. This is great drama.

David L Hagen

David G. Mills
What should we do when the messenger distorts the message?
e.g. by inflating the ocean rise by some 2000%?
Sen. Kerry appears to excel in ad hominem attacks claiming: “Palin as a member of the “flat-earth caucus,” and “He’s chosen somebody who doesn’t believe climate change is man-made.”
Perhaps Sen. Kerry should read Watt’s post above on the sun.
<a href=”http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/docs/govrpt_jul08.pdf”Governor Palin stated:

Alaska’s climate is warming. . . . We are faced with significant questions: How fast will the climate warm? How warm will it get? What effects will the warming have? Is there anything we can do to slow the increase or the extent of the warming? Realizing that we can’t stop the warming, what can we do to adapt? And, what role should state government play in all of this?
To get the ball rolling, I signed Administrative Order 238 in September 2007, which directs a team of my cabinet members to prepare an Alaska Climate Change Strategy for my consideration. The strategy is to serve as a guide for a thoughtful, practical, timely, state of Alaska response to climate change.

During her Newsmax interview, when asked: “What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?” Palin replied:

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
Sen. Kerry and critics would do well to ponder the following before criticizing that about which they know so little: e.g., why
* 1) Global climate models cannot explain: Anchorage’s record setting cold summer
* 2) why Lucia states: IPCC Central Tendency of 2C/century: Still rejected., and
* why Keenlyside et al state:

Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

* 3) why Koutsoyiannis et al. state:

“Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”

D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008). See Koutsoyiannis et al 2008: On the credibility of climate predictions

evanjones

“If the sun refused to shine, I would still be lovin’ you.”
I like the Hendrix take. Less mushy.

statePoet1775

I wanna see the sun
spotted up in the sky.

Not till the warmers are silenced.

Stan Needham

BC, the main problem your ski resort will face in Florida isn’t lack of snow; it’s lack of mountains, hills, or even bumpy bits.
Robert, those deficiencies don’t stop them from skiing in Terre Haute, IN.

David G. Mills

BC It never cease to amaze me how scientist types want the non-scientist types to carry their water for them. But as soon as the water turns to shit, they blame the water carrier for stinking up the place.
But if you want to abuse the water carrier, it is your prerogative.
I still like Al Gore though I now think that solar activity is the most likely cause of the warming of the 1900’s. I don’t think its Al’s fault that he trusted the wrong scientists or accepted the scientific “consensus.”

Michael Hauber

Or until the earth has been warm enough, and the sun quiet enough for long enough that the [snip] realise they have to find a new theory for why AGW is wrong.

Duane Johnson

David G. Mills says,
“I still like Al Gore though I now think that solar activity is the most likely cause of the warming of the 1900’s. I don’t think its Al’s fault that he trusted the wrong scientists or accepted the scientific “consensus.””
If it’s not Al Gore’s fault, whose is it? You or I didn’t jump to similar conclusions. He reached his level of incompetence long ago, and is apparently blissfully unaware of it. What’s more, he’s at the forefront of creating the “consensus” myth that you describe.

julie

“statePoet1775 (19:28:30) :
Or how about Biden his time since he’s next in line?”
Okay, NOW you owe me a keyboard! (actually, you owe me a laptop. So much for drinking and reading this blog at the same time.) ::snort:: ROFL
” Bruce Cobb (19:34:29) :
Julie: I think “McOld” is hilarious. BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000. Now, I can’t stand him.”
Bruce, ME TOO. As late as 8 months ago I was wanting him (Gore) to run for Pres again and save the planet. Then I found WUWT, and that was THAT. Thank God for this blog!

mr.artday

What stops you people who defend Al Gore from noticing his massive level of “Do as I say, not as I do” hypocracy. His monthly electric bill for his Tenn. mansion would pay mine for 33 1/3 years. Plus his monster houseboat B.S. 1, plus his fleet of large vehicles, plus his private jet flights. He is the type specimen for: ‘I know he is lying, his lips are moving’.

David Corcoran

evanjones (19:21:28) :
After all, when the carny sold you snake oil, you actually got the snake oil.
Amazingly apt criticism.

Lucy

David G. Mills “I still like Al Gore though I now think that solar activity is the most likely cause of the warming of the 1900’s. I don’t think its Al’s fault that he trusted the wrong scientists or accepted the scientific “consensus.””
But please can I blame him for taking the Noble Peace Prize? Or at least not returning it now that he must know he was wrong?

[…] Read the story over at Watts Up With That… […]

All I can say from my deck on Vancouver Island is its been damned cold this summer. Right now its more like October than the end of August. But we were warned that global warming could cause global cooling, so I guess its still my fault. On the positive side, if this keeps up, we could be skiing much sooner. I drove up to the local ski resort today and it was a cool 10C. I’d like to say that this is not normal, but weather/climate is variable, at least here, so normal would seem to be whatever we have at the moment.
If the continuing lack of sun spots means cooler times ahead, then I’ll have to dig out that parka that I used to wear during Winnipeg winters.
Looking back to other “phase changes” its likely that the AGW crowd will just switch to AGCooling without skipping a beat. The media and their cast of supporting scientists have done it before.
For now, I’m reminded of a Beatles song, Here comes the sun.

evanjones

Bruce, ME TOO. As late as 8 months ago I was wanting him (Gore) to run for Pres again and save the planet. Then I found WUWT, and that was THAT. Thank God for this blog!
Nobody beats the Rev!
I spotted both Gore and Clinton in 1984 as potentially good presidents. (But I had learned my lesson by the end of ’93.) By 2000 I had Pal Al sized up as a mouse studying to be a rat.
And I was highly prejudiced against global warming from the very getgo, what with being fresh off the resources debate, and the exact same damn dudes pushing GW that pushed the anti-growth movement.

Until recently, AGW believers and skeptics have been mostly aligned according to conservative/liberal affiliations. I think this is because most of the proponents have been liberal (certainly here in the US, the biggest proponent is a liberal) and conservatives are reacting to the solutions to AGW which generally are wealth redistribution schemes which go under various names such as Carbon Trading/Taxing/Caps.
In science, I am apolitical to AGW. Either it exists to a measurable/meaningful degree or it does not. I currently believe it does not exist in any meaningful manner.
I am sure it bothers many skeptics to be called ‘flat-earthers’ by the likes of John Kerry and other politicians who appear to lack even the most fundamental understanding of the science itself, but these are the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
We skeptics need to avoid being drawn into the politicization of climate change and stick to the science and the facts.

Joe D’Aleo wrote:
Even David Hathaway of NASA who has been a believer in the cycle 24 peak being strong, thinks the next minimum and cycle 25 maximum could be the weakest in centuries based on slowdown of the plasma conveyor belt on the sun.
Hathaway has shown a very poor [that is with low significance] correlation or relationship between observed cycle strength and conveyor belt speed [two cycles back]. The correlation is barely there and fails completely for cycle 19, the biggest of them all. Curiously, David has been an active supporter of the HAO dynamo model by Dikpati et al. This model and several similar models all predict [or actually use] just the opposite relationship, namely that a slow belt means a large cycle coming. The reason is obvious [even for people that are not dynamo experts], namely, that the longer the flux stays down below the tachocline [because of a slow circulation], the longer the dynamo process can operate on [i.e. amplify] the flux and the stronger will the cycle be. So, the dynamo models predicting a high cycle are consistent with the observed slow conveyor belt speed. So, a slowdown of the speed will signal a large cycle ahead according to these much heralded dynamo theories. It is, to me, strange that Hathaway thinks otherwise and yet actively promotes the Dikpati dynamo model. Wonders never cease.

John Riddell

Can someone please explain (in simple words that even I can understand) why the TSI varies only by very small amounts (did I read 0.2%) while individual wavelengths/bands like UV can vary by much more. I think I have seen reference to 5% or more.
The TSI seems to be a mechanism the AGW believers use to make it seem as if solar variation cannot be responsible for climate change.

John Riddell (22:58:33) :
Can someone please explain (in simple words that even I can understand) why the TSI varies only by very small amounts (did I read 0.2%) while individual wavelengths/bands like UV can vary by much more. I think I have seen reference to 5% or more.
This is because the UV is such a small part of the total. It is like the variation of the amount of loose change in your pocket compared to your net worth [or at least I hope so for you 🙂 ]

Anthony,
the year 1816, the year without summer: There occured a very big volcano eruption (Tambora in Indonesia) with about 100 km3 blown into the atmosphere, in 1815. This was on top of a low solar activity period.

Kim Mackey

Dr. Svalgaard,
in your post up above you say,
“Hathaway has shown a very poor [that is with low significance] correlation or relationship between observed cycle strength and conveyor belt speed [two cycles back]. The correlation is barely there and fails completely for cycle 19, the biggest of them all. Curiously, David has been an active supporter of the HAO dynamo model by Dikpati et al. This model and several similar models all predict [or actually use] just the opposite relationship, namely that a slow belt means a large cycle coming. The reason is obvious [even for people that are not dynamo experts], namely, that the longer the flux stays down below the tachocline [because of a slow circulation], the longer the dynamo process can operate on [i.e. amplify] the flux and the stronger will the cycle be. So, the dynamo models predicting a high cycle are consistent with the observed slow conveyor belt speed. So, a slowdown of the speed will signal a large cycle ahead according to these much heralded dynamo theories. It is, to me, strange that Hathaway thinks otherwise and yet actively promotes the Dikpati dynamo model. Wonders never cease.”
My question is, if cycle 24 is, as you think, a low activity cycle, will this completely negate the validity of the Dikpati dynamo model, or can it be tweaked somehow?
Kim

Mary Hinge

EvanJones “After all, when the carny sold you snake oil, you actually got the snake oil.”
They sure saw you coming! 😉

FatBigot

We mustn’t worry about the lack of sun spots. The weather in Boston is very fine.
Why do hotels in America only give you one tea bag? That is a much more worrying state of affairs than a lack of sunspots. It’s a good thing I brought over my own supply (tea bags, not sunspots).
A happy Labo(u)r Day to you all.

Pierre Gosselin

Weather anecdote:
Earliest ever recorded snowfall on Mt Fuji in Japan.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/snow-fell-on-mt-fuji-aug-9-at-earliest-time-ever
[Note: A single weather event is not an indication of climatic change]

Pierre Gosselin
Andy D

“Why do hotels in America only give you one tea bag?”
Boston? Tea?
‘Nuff said.

RobJM

Leif Svalgaard (23:04:02) :
This is because the UV is such a small part of the total. It is like the variation of the amount of loose change in your pocket compared to your net worth [or at least I hope so for you 🙂
Hey isn’t loose change heavier than butterflies ! 🙂
UV may be small but it does have a significant effect in the stratosphere. the hard part is proving a link exists(or series of links).For a small force to have an impact it needs to act at a tipping point (gasp!) By this I’m talking about ball being balanced on a hill, with either side being a positive feedback, like for instance the neutral state of ENSO. Once the system gains inertia then the small forcing becomes irrelevant. Of course this smaller system can be part of a much larger system that undergoes stabilizing negative feedback. Like a hill in between two mountains. so how does the ball get back up the hill after it falls off? easy, all you need is some wobble at the right time, such as a man on a trapeze or a skateboarder in a bowl. Earth has at least two forms of wobble that can provide momentum, seasonal cycles and solar cycle oscillations.
Hey I have idea for a way to model for climate.
put a coin in bowl with an indentation in the middle and shake back and forwards! 🙂

Sean

I’m not sure that 0.1% is that insignificant in the long run (20 years).
Is my logic here somewhat correct?
The last I knew the earth was about 16 degrees Celsius or 289 Kelvin. Some of the heat comes from below ground but a boatload comes from the sun. The temperature of the Universe is about 3 degrees Kelvin. If the earth would be 3 degrees without the sun that means that a 0.1% variation would change the earth’s temperature by 0.286 degrees. If, without the sun the earth would be about 100 K a 0.1% variation would change the earth’s temperature by 0.189 degrees.
I know the continents, oceans and atmosphere has a tremendous amount of heat built in but in the long-term it shouldn’t matter.