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

*was = wasn’t. Sorry. Sometimes even double-checking doesn’t catch everything. (Just ask SIDC!)

“The suggested “correction” method makes an a priori detrending of the rY series and then extends the linear regression between rY and sunspot numbers established for the last 25 years to earlier times.”
This is called circular reasoning, assuming what one purports to prove.

Daz, thanks for your comments. However, you say:

Solar cycles are factored into the models and have been for decades, as are almost all of the arguments commonly thrown up by sceptics (the vast, vast majority of whom have no professional background in climate research).

Of the 23 models relied upon by the IPCC, the total number of models that use solar cycles for the IPCC forecasts (as opposed to the hindcasts) is exactly two (really one, because the “two” are the GISS ER and EH variations). [See FAR Table 10.1)
So no, they are not factored into the models as you so blithely claim. In fact, the models use very few forcings for their forecasts, viz:
Variables Used for Forecasts in FAR GHCMs
100% used CO2 as a variable.
100% used CH4 as a variable.
100% used N2O as a variable.
100% used SO4 as a variable.
96% used CFCS as a variable.
61% used STRAT OZONE as a variable.
57% used TROP OZONE as a variable.
35% used BLACK CARBON as a variable.
30% used 1ST INDIRECT as a variable.
22% used 2ND INDIRECT as a variable.
22% used SEA SALT as a variable.
17% used VOLCANIC as a variable.
13% used DUST as a variable.
13% used LAND USE as a variable.
9% used NITRATE as a variable.
9% used SOLAR as a variable.
Given that, your claims about how the “vast, vast majority” of sceptics have no professional background rings a bit hollow … pot, meet kettle. Do your research and homework first, general comments will get eaten alive here if they are not true.
Best of luck,
w.

Also to Daz,
Note that “demonstration” means an empirical, hard data, demonstration.
Computer Generated models do not qualify as a demonstration of anything except the abilities of the programmers involved.

Gary Gulrud (21:52:40) :
“The suggested “correction” method makes an a priori detrending of the rY series and then extends the linear regression between rY and sunspot numbers established for the last 25 years to earlier times.”
“This is called circular reasoning, assuming what one purports to prove.”
Gulrud is exactly right. It is clear from Svalgaard’s responses that he has not read Mursula’s paper. Mursula shows that Svalgaard’s method of detrending is wrong. He is throwing out the signal and then claiming that there is no signal.
Perhaps Svalgaard would be better off by assuming the variations in rY from minimum to minimum represent real differences between solar minima.

The Solar Influences Data Analysis Center in Brussels, Belgium, will soon be able to identify sunspots that are a mere one hundreth the size of the controversial August “sunspecks”. “There will never again be a spotless month if we can help it”, a spokesman said.
The Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, Protecting Mankind From Solar Minima
Not Really

After the explanations that Leif has provided, including his communication with SIDC specifically about this issue, I am satisfied that both NOAA and SIDC followed their own procedures.
No conspiracies or political influence need be invoked to explain what happened.
I found documentation on the NOAA SWPC website that adequately explained their procedures.
I didn’t find such documentation on the SIDC website, but the explanation Leif received and posted above cleared it up.
In that explanation, SIDC clearly seems to realize that their automated counting process is flawed, which raises serious concern about why they continue to use it, especially as Leif points out, without manual quality control – when NOAA and the NGDC database depend entirely on the SIDC count as the “official” number.
Mt. Wilson’s daily sunspot drawing yesterday contained the remark, “45 days without sunspots,” so at least unofficially, the streak goes on.
As a side note, the “Spotless August” story continues to circulate, on the web and in the popular press – no mention of the SIDC non-zero count or any of what we’ve been talking about.
I think that’s unfortunate, especially if we also have a “Spotless September,” as the total – unofficial – streak, however long it ends up, will take on something of an “Urban Legend” character.
Once again, Anthony provides THE place to get the truth and the whole story.

This discussion about sun”specks” is neither here nor there. The crucial question is whether the Sun was scrutinised to the same level of detail in the years under comparison. This is almost certainly not the case: 90 years ago there was no reason to find the last tiny “speck”, now apparently even a miniscule feature qualifies. The result of such a comparison is nonsensical. The data to me are totally convincing in that they show that the Sun is now is as little, or even less, “specked” than during a similar period about a century ago. Given that in many places a cooling trent is observed, ignoring the possibility that the Sun has something to do with it will only be defended by the religious, the true believers of the GW brigade.

Tony:

You need to talk to SOD, our resident Iraq War debunker. He doesn’t seem to embrace this message. – Anthony

Now really! How offtopical of you!
Just so we don’t get all groovy too quickly, Saddam retained 20 – 50 kilos of bomb-grade uranium permitted by the UN IAEA since 1991. Worse yet plutonium refinement efforts started anew in 1998 at al Tuwaitha.
Just to put this into perspective, the Hiroshima bomb was made using 25 kilos.

Ed Zuiderwijk (06:49:13) :
“This discussion about sun”specks” is neither here nor there. The crucial question is whether the Sun was scrutinised to the same level of detail in the years under comparison. This is almost certainly not the case: 90 years ago there was no reason to find the last tiny “speck”…”
The speck or pore of August may well have been observed in 1913. The question is would it have been counted in 1913, and SHOULD it have been counted for August 2008.
It’s an important question as observing capabilities increase. Have a look at this image from 2002
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021114.html
claimed to be one of the sharpest views of the sun ever.
Now the question is not merely what is a sunspot and what is not, but what is a penumbra and what is not.
If we can now resolve small penumbrae around very small spots that would have previously been considered pores without penumbrae, that confuses the situation even further.
“…Given that in many places a cooling trent is observed, ignoring the possibility that the Sun has something to do with it will only be defended by the religious, the true believers of the GW brigade.”
It’s going to be more difficult than that. As recently as Monday, cold climate was blamed on global warming.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-chill-a-symptom-of-climate-chaos-20080901-46yx.html
The “logic” seems to be, “if it’s this COLD, it must be even WARMER than we thought!”
I’ve been [casually] looking into the weather of 1913 – not serious research yet, mind you – looking for anecdotal similarities with this year.
One similarity is the dismal weather in Europe. It was funny to read the news archives about American tourists in Europe, “thoroughly disgusted,” and impatiently waiting for the next boat home.
The spring US tornado outbreaks were similar, as was the flooding (Indiana and Ohio with record floods).
The devastating Great Lakes Storm – 250 killed, 19 ships lost, 19 others stranded – well, that remains to be seen. I for one will not be planning a Great Lakes cruise this November.
In Denver, Colorado, Greatest Snowfall From One Storm (all-time): 45.7 inches December 1-6, 1913.
Another feature of 1913 weather was a warm Christmas, in many places in the US and in Europe. A warm Christmas this year would tend to deflate any popular notion of global cooling.
My point is, amongst the religious, yes, you are correct. And as the article from Sydney shows, colder weather merely PROVES global warming, for the true believers.
Amongst the vast majority of people, a cold winter this year will subject “AGW” to increasing mockery, and make political moves such as this year’s US Carbon Tax bill less and less likely, no matter who wins the election.
My prediction is for a cold winter, with frequent outbreaks of Arctic air across the US east of the Rockies, a predominant northwesterly wind flow in the upper Midwest and across the Great Lakes (a typical feature of an NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) cold phase), leading to huge totals of lake-effect snow in the US “snow belt; frequent episodes of atmospheric “blocking” over the eastern North Atlantic (also typical of cold NAO), which cause Scandinavian and even Siberian Arctic air to stagnate over the UK and northern Europe, so this winter’s temperatures will average well below normal for the UK, Russia, and all of Europe north of the Alps.
Patterns which favor frequent US lake-effect snow also favor mild weather in the west (trough in the east, ridge in the west), so not as frigid west of the Rockies, but there will be significant snowfall in the Pacific Northwest, including Portland and Seattle metro areas.
News stories to watch for this cold winter:
Lake effect snow – cities in the “snow belt” buried under several feet of snow each big event;
another big Great Lakes Storm, with hurricane force winds;
substantial losses in the Florida citrus crop, AND in the Texas citrus crop (e.g. Lower Rio Grande valley grapefruit), due to penetration of Arctic air to low latitudes, which also means we will also see at least one “Tehuantepecer”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehuantepecer
news stories about the cold winter in the UK, Europe and Russia, including temperature records and snowfall records;
Some (DEFINITELY not a majority) of the “consensus” scientists cashing in their “AGW” chips and accepting that at the very least, the relationship between CO2 and temperature is not linear, and that the real climate does not behave according to the “AGW” hypothesis
One of the Biggest weather stories of winter 2008-2009 will of course be the price of heating oil. Especially for many people in the US northeast, this may be the least affordable winter ever.
Ironically, those of us electrically heated (especially with hydro), usually considered expensive and inefficient heating, may see very little change in our heating bills.