Guest post by David Archibald
The prognostications based on spotless days are now a distant memory. From here, given that the green corona brightness indicates that solar maximum will in 2015, the big unknown is what the maximum amplitude will be. We are now eighteen months into a six year rise to solar maximum. What is interesting is that in the last few days, the F10.7 flux has fallen to values last seen in late 2009:
The red line is a possible uptrend based on the data to date. That uptrend would result in a maximum F10.7 amplitude in 2015 of about 105. Using the relationship between F10.7 flux and sunspot number, that in turn means a maximum amplitude in terms of sunspot number of 50 – a Dalton Minimum-like result. Dr Svalgaard has kindly provided a graphic of the relationship between sunspot number and F10.7 flux:
Dr Svalgaard has also done the work to show that Solar Cycle 24 is looking less and less like Solar Cycle 19:
The red line is the Solar Cycle 18 to 19 minimum, and the blue is the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 minimum. Dr Svalgaard updates this graphic daily at: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
I just read a commenter in another thread who said the Arctic “enjoyed…..warm conditions” this past winter. We should have all moved there to enjoy that sub zero warmth.
I would imagine the same commenter will say the sun is enjoying cool conditions now. I’ll take a sweater on my next trip there.
What my F10.7/SSN graph shows is that the SSN may not be a good proxy any longer. F10.7 is better, and the prediction is for F10.7max = 120. The SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72. The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct. So correlations involving the SSN may be void.
For all the new commenters here there is a hypothesis from Henrik Svenmark that the sun does indeed affect climate on earth. For those who haven’t seen it you can seen it in a documentary in YouTube in 5 parts
part 1
This animation is a simplified explanation of how it is thought cosmic rays effect cloud formation on earth. A more active sun blocks more cosmic rays from entering the earth. And a less active, “lazy”, sun allows more in.
Congress needs to include sunspot legislation as part of their larger climate/energy bill. They should set an acceptable range for sunspots and fine the Sun if it fails to comply.
Typo? “solar maximum will in 2015”? is there a missing verb? Should that be “solar maximum will ??? in 2015”? Maybe “???” should be “occur”?
The Oulu neutron counter and the five counters shown on Dr. Svalgaard’s site have flat lined or shown a slight increase over the last couple weeks.
The Ap geomagnetic index showed a large jump in April. Here is the last twelve months:
4 4 4 5 4 3 3 2 3 5 4 10
It will be interesting to see what happens with May’s index, and what happens with the neutron counters by June’s update of the Ap index.
The possible uptrend line looks to be high, based on the recent downturn. I know it’s early, but the next few months may prove interesting…
What strikes me is that the uptrend, even if it holds, could result in a Dalton-like minimum? IMHO, that’s something to be worried about, if indeed there is a climate effect as some predict for such a minima.
Layman’s sunspot count: SC 24 = SC 5
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
OT but worth to share:
Consider the idea that since the Carbon Tax exchange (scam) is a given, why not band together and deliver a “Weather Options” exchange.
Science could conquer the “Street” mentality and defuse the greed on “real” terms or will it just give “Warmers” a chance to lose real money betting on weather reports?
Based on the “Warmer” comments, they look like a reasonable “chump” to leverage the taxation scheme?
R. de Haan says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Layman’s sunspot count: SC 24 = SC 5
The problem with that idea is that we really don’t know [to within a factor of two] what SC5 was…So cannot compare.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm
What my F10.7/SSN graph shows is that the SSN may not be a good proxy any longer. F10.7 is better, and the prediction is for F10.7max = 120. The SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72. The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct. So correlations involving the SSN may be void>>
Leif, Leif, Leif… if the proxy is diverging from the data then the accepted scientific practice in a number of recently published, peer reviewed papers, it to replace the part that diverges with something else and splice them together. Aren’t you keeping up with the times?
Seriously, I would be curious as to when this divergence between SSN and 10.7 started to become significant in your opinion?
What my F10.7/SSN graph shows is that the SSN may not be a good proxy any longer. F10.7 is better, and the prediction is for F10.7max = 120. The SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72. The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct. So correlations involving the SSN may be void.
Any longer, that is an incredible statement Leif. I understand the Livingston and Penn connection but 10.7 while it is one proxy, does not tell a lot about the actual effect of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Have you seen the USAF numbers lately on the exosphere thickness? I haven’t but the relationship between the instantaneous sunspot number and SSN vs 10.7 should be applied to the temperature profile in the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
The question is: Is atmospheric expansion following SSN/Sunspots or the 10.7. If it is the former, then the relationship between sunspots and climate may be strengthened. If the atmospheric expansion is following the 10.7 number then it may be a definitive falsification of the Maunder minimum effect on climate.
From what I know, I would bet on the former. I don’t have the latest data from the USAF on the lower Exosphere, do you?
Well said Dennis
A
A rather stark comparison is the latest SOHO EIT’s in RGB color vs the same date in 1998 (1.6 yrs into SC23):
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin9.htm – first 2 images
It’s not just the current face of the sun, as STEREO EUVI Ahead and Behind faded off concurrent with SOHO EIT (next 2 images). STEREO is 3 days lag from SOHO in terms of downloading the 171 and 285 channels, so if you want to see how the entire Sun faded off as a unit, compare SOHO latest EIT 195 with latest STEREO EUVI 195’s (Ahead & Behind).
Why the Sun did this is something worth knowing.
What is going on up there?
Leif: If you draw a curve fitting to the bottom of the 10.7 cm flux instead of a single sweep, you’ll have a much better representation. It should show 2 successive waves of increasing amplitude, the latest one which is rolling down as we speak.
Is the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel going to meet sometime this year to vote on what and when the max will be?
“Solar cycle 24 is looking less and less like solar cycle 19”
Can somebody explain to me the value or significance in comparing solar cycles?
Why would we expect #24 to look like #19 or be concerned about it?
davidmhoffer says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“Seriously, I would be curious as to when this divergence between SSN and 10.7 started to become significant in your opinion?”
I was thinking of asking the same question, in addition to when Leif first decided that SC5 count may be off by a factor of 2 and why.
Now, I might be just a plain ole dumb nuke, but it seems to me that if we wanted to count sunspots (instead of craters, canals, dust storms and black spots on Mars) we should turn the telescope back towards the sun…..
The WUWT daily solar image is, after all, labeled a Martian view …. 8<)
Does the Svalgaard effect apply to guest posts?
Seriously, solar activity remains low. To test if there is a strong linkage between cycles and activity with climate, is Dennis Wingo’s statement at 6:16 going to be evaluated by the scientific community over the coming years??
Both the Maunder and the Dalton were observed under Galileo’s system of counting Groups of Sunspots.
Pulkovo Observatory has done some work on conversion of Sunspot Drawings to the Greenwich System of Sunspot Area measurement, so you might ask Habibullo Abdussamtov for details. He is one of the speakers at the conference you are going to.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/PulkovoWhSp.PNG
Well I would think that the flux would always be a better indicator or should I say measurement. But shouldn’t the SSN and flux eventually average out. Also I read something about the conveyor belt indicating lower activity which confuses me somewhat because s change in magnetic fields would make it extremely hard to pedict cycle activity.
davidmhoffer says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Seriously, I would be curious as to when this divergence between SSN and 10.7 started to become significant in your opinion?
Sometime between 1990 and 1996. Hard the tell more precisely.
Dennis Wingo says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Any longer, that is an incredible statement Leif.
Yes, indeed. And that is what makes it so exciting. In
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf you’ll see more of why we think it is so. BTW, two of the authors are World authorities on F10.7 [responsible for the Japanese and Canadian data, respectively. One author [HH] is a renowned solar expert [reported together with Willson the solar cycle variation of TSI], and LS has some knowledge too.
The question is: Is atmospheric expansion following SSN/Sunspots or the 10.7.
It is well-known that F10.7 [and also Ap] is the main input to the USAF operational models. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/ADA277355 and the newer
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JB2006_AIAA_2006-6167.pdf
There is a movement to also use more direct measurements of the EUV flux, e.g. MgII-index. But MgII is VERY well represented by F10.7, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf A problem is that it is hard to get a good calibration of MgII [as my link shows], while F10.7 has a very stable calibration.
rbateman says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Leif: If you draw a curve fitting to the bottom of the 10.7 cm flux instead of a single sweep, you’ll have a much better representation.
I’m too lazy. Just let the computer do the fitting and drawing. And nobody should attached much significance to the curve anyway.
noaaprogrammer says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Is the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel going to meet sometime this year to vote on what and when the max will be?
No. The science is settled…:-)
Glenn says:
May 15, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I was thinking of asking the same question, in addition to when Leif first decided that SC5 count may be off by a factor of 2 and why.
I didn’t ‘decide’ anything. This is well-known. Here are the Group SN and the Zurich SN for cycle 5:
1798 4.7 4.1
1799 5.6 6.8
1800 11 14.5
1801 51.1 34
1802 35.3 45
1803 18.5 43.1
1804 21.6 47.5
1805 25.6 42.2
1806 13.3 28.1
1807 5 10.1
1808 3.5 8.1
1809 1.2 2.5
1810 0 0
Ani says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Well I would think that the flux would always be a better indicator or should I say measurement.
It is, as it is a direct and absolute measurement [in Watt/square meter per Hz]
But shouldn’t the SSN and flux eventually average out.
Don’t know what you mean. And how long is ‘eventually’?
I’d like to recall this thread from WUWT in March, 2008.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/29/solar-cycle-23-forecasts-the-movie/
Two years ago the talk was about the moving official predictions for the SC24 upswing. It still hasn’t happened.
Can someone please post a graphic of this solar cycle overlaid with some of the more recent Mauder and Dalton cycles?
TIA
tesla_x says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Can someone please post a graphic of this solar cycle overlaid with some of the more recent Mauder and Dalton cycles?
We can’t really do that with any confidence as we don’t really know the sunspot number back then well enough.
The ‘official’ series [Group Number and Zurich/International Number] are shown here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspots-1600-Present.png
But these numbers are almost certainly not correct, see: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/research/SPD-2009.pdf
Why does the first graph look like we have passed 9 months of 2010 already?
Leif:
I am glad to see that the search continues! I was beginning to wonder a couple of years ago!
Hey guys, do you realise that posts like this one increasingly isolate non-experts that have previously been attacted to this blog due to the accessiblity of the discussion? Surely it is in our interests to keep this discussion as broad as possible and to avoid exclusion where-ever possible. Consider that with this post some simple courtesies would be:
1. to introduce the discussion by its solar cycle context and perhaps link it to previous posts discussing the similarities with the Dalton min and with cycle 19;
2. to identify the Dalton min and cycle 19 by a common and well known indicator of time, like, say ano domini.
3. to weave into the discussion suggestions of why the comparision with Dalton min and cycle 19 are controverially important. (My thought when reading was that cycle 19 was a strong cycle occuring in one of the hottest periods on record – but this was not confirmed by my reading — in fact the opposite was suggested.)
Consider that someone like myself might have gathered that the relapse of the sun in recent weeks in interesting, and that I am keen to know how various experts might interpret this. Yet I learnt little from the above. As for newbies and non-experts that have little context to draw on…well, look at this post, and you will find hardly a handle hold offered to pull them in. If in-talk like this continues in top-posts, without simple gestures of inclusion, then I fear this blog will hemorrhage valuable readers who are not in the in-crowd of this or that climate related discourses.
Dan in California says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Two years ago the talk was about the moving official predictions for the SC24 upswing. It still hasn’t happened.
The official prediction is not going to change. This doesn’t matter much as NASA and the satellite operators are using our [Ken Schatten’s and mine] prediction anyway. Also NASA’s own David Hathaway has finally seen the light and his prediction is now identical to ours. Here is what solar activity this minimum looks like compared to the previous two minima: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
what is shown is the ‘active region count’, ARC. ARC is calculated over a month as the number of NOAA numbered regions visible on the solar disk [within 70 degrees of central meridian] for each day and then summed for the month. The dashed line shows Hathaway’s [and my] prediction for cycle 24 [and if you look really close also for the ramp up of cycle 23. The sun is right on track. The ARC is not too sensitive to the various problems with the SSN that have been identified.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Why does the first graph look like we have passed 9 months of 2010 already?
Because Archibald is sloppy.
A strong upturn in activity till 2014 will take the SSN cosiderably higher than what has already been acheived in C24. A strong downturn from 2014 will leave the peak behind, I really can`t see this cycle peaking as late as 2015. I am though forecasting some high temperatures at times till late 2013.
John from CA: here you go. Buy or sell all you want to.
http://daytrading.about.com/od/futures/a/WeatherFutures.htm
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
2. to identify the Dalton min and cycle 19 by a common and well known indicator of time, like, say ano domini.
I can help you a little bit:
Dalton 1800-1820 AD
Cycle 19 1955-1964 AD
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Even if sunspots fade from view, the magnetic signatures still exist, or so I understand. Are they usable as a standin for SSN? I don’t think the resolution would make it feasible to count each spot (or each speck!) in a group from the magnetic view, but a group is worth 10 points, so maybe close enough?
The last graph does answer a question I was too lazy to answer myself – During the uptick of a solar cycle, there can be periods where the SSN and/or 10.7 flux drops to quite low values. The recent falloff might be one of those. However, the recent SC24 drop looks lower than anything seen in SC19 runup.
This cycle is too important to tolerate questionable SSNs….
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Even if sunspots fade from view, the magnetic signatures still exist, or so I understand. Are they usable as a standin for SSN?
This is what my ARC attempts to be. But in any case the F10.7 flux is perfectly usable [and used by operational services, such as USAF]
Ulric Lyons says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I really can`t see this cycle peaking as late as 2015.
Neither can I, but Archibald is not known for great precision. To wit: his graph…
I am though forecasting some high temperatures at times till late 2013.
So am I, I forecast the summers to be warmer than the winters…
Global temperatures are going to do what they are going to do. Talking about Dalton conditions arising again without being able to explain definatively what caused Dalton or Maunder, is best taken with a pinch of salt, especially if it is politically loaded. Here is what David A. had to say about last May;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf
here is what I said:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=133
The Solar minimum is my favorite subject. If there is a creator, they really have a great sense of humor. I tell my neighbors in Florida there will be zero or one hurricane this year that hits the US just like last year. I tell them, the sun is in a solar minimum, again, for the 3rd year in a row. Ho hum. All I know is, the north east US better increase their snow removal budgets for next winter season.
If there is any truth in John Nelson’s work with RCA in the 40s and 50s in predicting solar and geomagnetic weather, then late June, 2010 should be filled with lots of interesting solar and geomagnetic activity. The alignment of the planets with regard to the Sun will provide us with strong evidence either in favor of his work, or conclusively invalidate it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm
How does the ARC differ from group count?
If an AR contains more than 1 group, or a single spot, is it treated any differently than an AR with multiple groups or a group with a lot of spots? Not that anything is wrong with ARC.
Michael says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:35 pm
This situation with a La Nina in the long range forecast and an uncharted foray into Solar Inactivity is much the same as saying the ‘Big One’ is due to hit on the San Andreas fault. Only in California’s case, they have taken steps to prepare for eventuality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:23 pm
And easier to measure, and doesn’t have the area issues that specks and spots do.
And what of the missing band on Jupiter? Is it now obscured by Jovian Stensmark clouds?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:27 pm
“So am I, I forecast the summers to be warmer than the winters…”
I guess you get the Nobel then………
Leif,
Thank you. Good data.
This is a total SWAG, but looks to me like we’re in for a repeat of either 4 or 11.
Thinking Randy’s chart here holds merit too and was wondering if anyone’s seen an updated variant of it showing the most recent volcanic eruptions with cumulative ash/sulfur compound emissions totals to date.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
Tesla
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Hey guys, do you realise that posts like this one increasingly isolate non-experts that have previously been attacted to this blog due to the accessiblity of the discussion? …
What incredible insight berniel. Good for you for speaking up. These discussions on the sun do tend to get rather singularly channeled and somewhat obscure without detail. But keep listening, there is more to the sun than just its magnetic properties, and contrary to what some will argue, little is yet known of the actual physics behind our inferno and its effect on the earth.
Here a tidbit, something I just realized the other day, duh, 0.1ºC on the surface of the earth is equivalent to ~20x that, or 2ºC, on the surface of the sun. If the sun runs a two degree fever for very long the earth should have one of a tenth of a degree. Simple physics. You get that by 5780K(sun) / 289K(earth) roughly. I sometimes wonder what the global temperature of the sun is today to +/- one degree since we are so good at keeping track of hundredths of a degree here?
I am glad there are some other non-experts visiting this site!
It is well-known that F10.7 [and also Ap] is the main input to the USAF operational models. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/ADA277355 and the newer
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JB2006_AIAA_2006-6167.pdf
There is a movement to also use more direct measurements of the EUV flux, e.g. MgII-index. But MgII is VERY well represented by F10.7, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf A problem is that it is hard to get a good calibration of MgII [as my link shows], while F10.7 has a very stable calibration.
Leif
I have read the second paper (the first on your site is not available!). However, the question was not answered. The Marcos paper corresponds to what I have seen in this modeling in the past but they do not separate the solar flux terms:
We were not able to evaluate the contributions of individual solar flux terms in JB2006. Further investigation of the thermosphere response to solar heating is warranted.
Also, the Marcos paper uses the Cycle 23 data derived from SOHO where the 10.7 is still more or less tracking SSN. If what you say is correct, that the 10.7 and SSN are diverging, then the input parameters that are used in the JB2006 model (that only uses data through 2004), could be completely out of school now.
Interestingly they use EUV sensors and as you know these EUV sensors are measuring the highly variable output of the sun due to EUV flux variations in sunspots.
Since the JB2006 model does not differentate flux terms, and since 10.7 and SSN may be diverging, the model accuracies are sure to suffer. Also, since the terms are not differentiated, you cannot make the statement that the model only follows the 10.7 number as this is not what the Marcos paper says.
I could be wrong and I await your corrections!
The reason that I am going on about this is that I have been involved in a lot of low orbit satellite work, including measuring the drag on the Shuttle at 160 miles altitude. I remember clearly that both Solar Max and Skylab were effected by specific solar storms and since 10.7 and SSN tracked each other until recently, even in those cases there is no differentation between the two. However, EUV is known to effect atmospheric density and the EUV output is strongly effected by sunspots.
Again, if this divergence continues, it looks like we can separate the terms and help to either reinforce or decouple the discussion and or links between climate and solar output. I know that you have put a lot of work into making the decoupling argument and I would like to see more detail of the interannual variation that is discussed, but it seems that if the current cycle continues its interesting behavior that we are all going to learn something!!
Leif Svalgaard,
Bold predictions indeed.
Inspired by your temerity I predict there will be periods of heavy snow, more so in the winters than the summers.
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
… This cycle is too important to tolerate questionable SSNs….
Are you aware of the latest solar SSN drawing posted daily at http://sidc.oma.be/uset/index.php ? If you are really interested in accurate SSN, follow it daily as I do. The observer’s signiture will be at the top, the SSN calculated at the lower left. There are other observatories plot there also on this page http://www.sidc.be/LatestSWData/LatestSWData.php . Catania Italy etc.
I tend to have a viewpoint that some of the interaction is not magnetic in nature but is due to the sun spots themselves. So altering the SSN counting algorithm would throw the data of my interest off. If any re-adjustment of the count were to take affect I sure hope historic methods, Wolf, are still maintained intact.
I will not be the only one to notice but as the sun activity picked up so the melt speed in the Arctic accelerated. We are now back to spotless days and a lower flux and the melt speed has dropped quite drastically.
I thought we had all been told the sun does not have much effect on the earth.
Current theories have to be reviewed once again.
Babcock-Leighton dynamo replaced in 1960s by mean-field dynamo theory
– mean-field dynamo theory has fundamental problems
– revival of Babcock-Leighton-type models in early 1990s
– Babcock-Leighton model produces excessively strong polar surface magnetic fields
– physical mechanism responsible for the regeneration of the poloidal component of the solar magnetic field has not yet been identified with confidence (Charbonneau 2005)
– strong cycles last shorter than weak cycles, but diffusion time should be proportional to cycle strength.
Dr. Hathaway has already decided to turn his hypothesis of the meridional flow (conveyor belt) on its head.
Perhaps its time to take a serious look at the alternatives.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC14.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
But as Dr. Svalgaard says:
“If correlation is really good, one can live with one as yet undiscovered mechanism.”
Some might say that the F10.7 flux is not a good indicator of SSN, but maybe that depends on what SSN method you compare it with. Attempting to use the NOAA system is a total waste of time with the SIDC count not faring much better. This is a problem with the current counting methods more than the two records drifting apart.
Attempting to hide the low SSN of SC5 is getting a bit desperate, there are plenty of proxy records that show the Dalton SSN values are right in the ball park.
One is tempted to ask whether this is due to recent biased SSN counts (too high) or if there is a real physical change in the F10.7/SSN relationship?
On the second graph, why are all the latest decade results on the right side of the plots? – So you apparently need more flux per Sunspot this decade…
.
tesla_x says:
May 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Can someone please post a graphic of this solar cycle overlaid with some of the more recent Mauder and Dalton cycles?
Leif says the SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72.
There are too many candidates. With a reasonable margin for error there are more recent candidates outside the named minimums. Look between 1880 and 1930.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/Sunspot-Long.png
So, shortly after the start of 2012 we’ll know if the ARC projections clearly can fit but not until 2014 would it be strongly indicated and then not until the downward slope of 2016 would it be close to being confirmed. Supposing it is confirmed, then what would the projections indicate for cycle 25?
I asked Abdussamatov about the peak of the current solar cycle a couple of months ago and he responded: “According to my forecast, the peak of the solar cycle 24 will take place approximately in December, 2012.”
I am unable to attend the ICCC but will read or listen to Abdussmatov’s remarks with interest.
Svensmark – The Cloud Mystery Youtube playslist:
I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles. If that’s true, we are back to comparing strange looking curves to each other.
But if it’s all empirical, are the old counts of sunspots telling us anything about solar activity? If we believe the Livingston Penn idea that sunspots never die, they just fade away, and/or take note of the subject of this post, their appearent vanishing doesn’t have to mean much. And since what we know about connections between SSN and solar activity is due to data collected during a relatively short time span, no theory, it seems to me that almost anything can be doubted. A very good situation for a scientist I suppose.
If I am right, the sun spots should disappear around the year 2015. (see also http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/ ). What will happen to the mentioned solar maximum?
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Hey guys, do you realise that posts like this one increasingly isolate non-experts that have previously been attacted to this blog due to the accessiblity of the discussion?
….Consider that someone like myself might have gathered that the relapse of the sun in recent weeks in interesting, and that I am keen to know how various experts might interpret this. Yet I learnt little from the above. As for newbies and non-experts that have little context to draw on…well, look at this post, and you will find hardly a handle hold offered to pull them in. If in-talk like this continues in top-posts, without simple gestures of inclusion, then I fear this blog will hemorrhage valuable readers who are not in the in-crowd of this or that climate related discourses.
__________________________________________________________________________
That is a good point. On the other hand those of us who have hung around this site and struggled to get up to speed can add a valuable contribution by adding definitions and other information (pointers to other threads) to flesh out the discussion for the newbies. Newbies should take it upon themselves to ask questions. The only dumb question is the one left unasked. Generally if you are confused there are many others who are also.
#
David Thomson says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:57 pm
“If there is any truth in John Nelson’s work with RCA in the 40s and 50s in predicting solar and geomagnetic weather, then late June, 2010 should be filled with lots of interesting solar and geomagnetic activity. The alignment of the planets with regard to the Sun will provide us with strong evidence either in favor of his work, or conclusively invalidate it.”
Late September to early November will be the very active period this year.
Winkin’ and Blinkin’
The Gods are testing us all.
Cheshire Irises.
=========
mb says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
“I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles. If that’s true, we are back to comparing strange looking curves to each other.”
Heliocentric syzygies of Earth and Venus that also line up with Jupiter, Superior conjunctions in one cycle, and Inferior in the next. This gives a serious clue as what causes the solar magnatic reversal at each maximum. By looking at the alignment centers, we can see much better how early or late a cycle is, and can exclude notions of missing cycles. Such as following the alignment centers of C1 to C6 compared to the apparent centers; 1760, 1771, 1783, 1794, 1805 and 1815, no missing cycle here, but you do get a clear idea how late or early a cycle can be from this perspective.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
Heliocentric syzygies of Earth and Venus that also line up with Jupiter, Superior conjunctions in one cycle, and Inferior in the next. This gives a serious clue as what causes the solar magnatic reversal at each maximum. By looking at the alignment centers, we can see much better how early or late a cycle is, and can exclude notions of missing cycles. Such as following the alignment centers of C1 to C6 compared to the apparent centers; 1760, 1771, 1783, 1794, 1805 and 1815, no missing cycle here, but you do get a clear idea how late or early a cycle can be from this perspective.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/
Ref – Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
“It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.”
_________________________
You are wiser than you claim to be. You have precisely defined the meaning of this article.
How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?
Given the total solar irradiance at Earth distance only varies by +/- 0.5 watts/m2 over the solar cycle, that means the Sun’s surface temperature only varies from:
5,778.5K at solar max to 5,777.5K at solar minimum – Just 1.0K (or 0.017%) from max to min.
#
Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
_________________________________________________________________________
All this article is doing is calling attention to the fact cycle 24 is not ramping up (increasing in sunspot numbers) the way the cycles in the last half of the 20th century did. If you look at this graph you can see the peak number varies http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/Sunspot-Long.png
Take a look at the number of years at minimum this varies too. You will also notice once a cycle gets going it ramps up fairly quickly. and that does not seem to be happening yet.
Leif had predicted a sunspot maximum of around 75 a few years ago. Now the rest of the solar scientists are agreeing. Hathaway readjusted his predictions a couple of times before coming into line with Leif.
Leif in another article commented about the divergence of the F10.7 and sunspot numbers when SSN was close to zero. If I recall correctly during peak sunspot activity clusters form making counting difficult so a number of “10” was assigned to the clusters to make counting easier. With a large number of clusters the average would approach ten so the total number would be fairly accurate. When you have very low activity assigning a number of 10 to a “cluster” of 2 or 3 specks on a regular basis causes an artificially high number that is not offset by clusters with 15 to 20 spots.
QUOTES:
R. Craigen says:
May 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm
how many spots would an astronomer 100 or 200 years ago have identified on the sun during the recent Leif, I would love to hear your thoughts/predictions.activity?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
rbateman says:
May 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
btw… I came across a reference that Rudolf Wolf would have preferred to base the Sunspot Index on area, not depending on group or spot counts. Anybody know anything more about that?
It is correct. Wolf wanted to use areas, but found that the older data was not amenable to determine the areas, so came up with the next-best thing: the Wold number.
So if the recently ended El Nino allowed a lot of heat to escape the earths atmosphere with none of it being replenished because of a slumbering sun and ocean cooling then it means cold to very cold times ahead.
Bill Illis says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:17 am
“How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?”
How much does plasma temperature at the Earth bowshock vary?
” Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.”
I’m a lay reader (on the serious scientific topics) and enjoy very much the posts which deal more with, for instance, the politics of climate change. That said, I am still utterly fascinated and gripped by these more technical and learned excursions. No, I don’t understand a great deal here either, but that lack on my part has made me follow up the links and articles suggested and helped me to get a better, even though embryonic, understanding about the sun and its activity.
My own view is that WUWT is also a place where the professionals can communicate openly and that will mean some very technical and complex topics like this. I find it greatly reassuring to know that there are far better-informed people than me out there whose opinions I can access, attempt to understand and ask questions about without restriction – especially when contrasted with the secrecy, arrogance and contempt for constructive debate exhibited elsewhere.
rbateman says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm
How does the ARC differ from group count?
Not in essence. I simply count regions that have a NOAA number, and let NOAA worry about the details.
Dennis Wingo says:
May 15, 2010 at 11:14 pm
“main input to the USAF operational models. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/ADA277355.pdf ”
(the first on your site is not available!).
Forgot the “.pdf”. Should be ok now.
However, the question was not answered. […] that the 10.7 and SSN are diverging, then the input parameters that are used in the JB2006 model (that only uses data through 2004), could be completely out of school now.
Since the SSN is not used by anybody, there is no problem with the thermospheric models.
Also, since the terms are not differentiated, you cannot make the statement that the model only follows the 10.7 number as this is not what the Marcos paper says.
The model only uses F10.7 [and Ap]. They would like to use EUV indices too, that follow F10.7 very closely.
EUV output is strongly effected by sunspots.
As is F10.7. The issue is whether the SSN is ‘correct’ and my argument is that it is not. This does not matter for the thermospheric models, as they do not use SSN. The title of the first paper is: “Thermospheric Modeling Accuracies Using F10.7 & Ap”
vukcevic says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
Perhaps its time to take a serious look at the alternatives.
“If correlation is really good, one can live with one as yet undiscovered mechanism.”
Except that your correlations are poor, so are disqualified simply on that.
jinki says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:50 am
Attempting to hide the low SSN of SC5 is getting a bit desperate
Nobody is hiding SC5. The fact is that there were so few observations that the SSN is highly inaccurate and we don’t really know what it was. It could be even lower than the ‘official’ numbers.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:17 am
One is tempted to ask whether this is due to recent biased SSN counts (too high) or if there is a real physical change in the F10.7/SSN relationship?
The bias is towards too LOW a SSN. We do not think there is a real change in solar activity and F10.7 relationship
Ralph says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:18 am
On the second graph, why are all the latest decade results on the right side of the plots? – So you apparently need more flux per Sunspot this decade…
That is the whole point: there are too few spots compared to the flux.
MartinGAtkins says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:20 am
cedarhill says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:01 am
Supposing it is confirmed, then what would the projections indicate for cycle 25?
That statistically we would expect a low SC25 as well.
Harold Ambler says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:07 am
“the peak of the solar cycle 24 will take place approximately in December, 2012.”
Would seem too early for a low cycle, but we shall see.
mb says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
I just looked at Svalgaard’s keystone slides, and the impression I’m left with is that there is at present almost no theoretical understanding of what is causing the cycles.
There are good theories, but they need to be constrained by observations so we can fix the input variables correctly.
Michael Larkin says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
With this article, I haven’t a clue what it means.
It means that this solar cycle will be small.
Pascvaks says:
Bill Illis says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:17 am
How much does the surface temperature of the Sun vary?
About a degree as you say.
I’m off the the Keystone Meeting http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/ now, so comments will be farther between the next couple of days.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 16, 2010 at 7:37 am
rbateman says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm
How does the ARC differ from group count?
Not in essence. I simply count regions that have a NOAA number, and let NOAA worry about the details.
If it were me, Leif, I’d be looking to data (like Bill Livingston is taking eg.) to weight those Active Regions. Otherwise, they too can be polluted by flyspecks.
Gail Combs says:
May 16, 2010 at 6:52 am
You will also notice once a cycle gets going it ramps up fairly quickly. and that does not seem to be happening yet.
Thus the topic heading: Dude, where’s my Solar ramp-up?
It rolled back down, which is consistent SC24 behavior: Always pulling up lame.
Reminds me of a car I used to own (or maybe it owned me).
Dear dr Svalgaard !
About your F10.7- SSN graph above, is the discrepancy between 1951-1990 and 1996-2009 points connected with contrast (Livingston & Penn) of sunspots?
And, perhaps there is relation between SSN and IR contrast?
vukcevic says:May 16, 2010 at 12:15 am
Perhaps its time to take a serious look at the alternatives.
Dr. Svalgaard: “If correlation is really good, one can live with an as yet undiscovered mechanism.”
Leif Svalgaard : May 16, 2010 at 7:37 am
“Except that your correlations are poor, so are disqualified simply on that.”
Not so, not so, until we see the SC24 out.
Dr. Svalgaard: “If it is a good correlation, then it should survive the ‘difference test’.”
Apparently it does !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC25.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC24.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 16, 2010 at 7:42 am
I’m off the the Keystone Meeting http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/
***********************************************************
Planetary Ordered Solar Theory on the agenda then?, they won`t get far without it.
I do hope some of these guys get round to talking about the solar wind instead of continually talking about every thing else.
Leif Svalgaard says:May 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm
What my F10.7/SSN graph shows is that the SSN may not be a good proxy any longer. F10.7 is better, and the prediction is for F10.7max = 120. The SSNmax can be anywhere between 0 and 72. The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct. So correlations involving the SSN may be void.
and:
EUV output is strongly effected by sunspots.
As is F10.7. The issue is whether the SSN is ‘correct’ and my argument is that it is not.
and:
The bias is towards too LOW a SSN. We do not think there is a real change in solar activity and F10.7 relationship.
Appropriately timed conference. I was born and raised in CO. Beautiful area you’re going to. I’m sure this trip will be an exhausting effort.
This luxury hotel offers exceptional accommodations, elegant alpine style décor, and friendly service. The Lodge is at the edge of Keystone Lake, a popular spot for summer and winter activity. The property features a wonderful spa and fitness center, WIFI in all guest rooms and public space, and many other nice amenities you won’t want to miss.
As my daughter currently lives in Denver and keeps us informed, I suggest you dress warmly. It snowed last week down to elev. 7,000. It’s that damn global warming. :<O Seriously, I wish I could go to hear your backroom discussions regarding the questions posed by the teasers in the program:
Relative to the past three solar minimum epochs of the space era (1976, 1986, and 1996) the current solar minimum (2008-2009) between solar cycles 23 and 24 is unusually prolonged, with record numbers of sunspot-free days, record low solar polar magnetic fields, and record high levels of cosmic ray flux. Evidence is accumulating for broad ranging terrestrial responses to the current inactivity of the Sun.
The lack of global warming since 2002 can be attributed in part to declining solar irradiance, which, together with La Niña cooling, has cancelled much of recent anthropogenic warming. Reduced solar UV irradiance and corresponding lower ozone levels may be obscuring the recovery from anthropogenic ozone depletion by CFCs. In the upper atmosphere and ionosphere, temperatures are anomalously cool and densities are reduced relative to previous solar minima; but these changes may also be related to accumulated greenhouse gas cooling in the upper atmosphere.
Key questions to be addressed include:
Are spectral and total solar irradiance levels lower now than during past minima, and how much will they increase during solar cycle 24?
Are we entering a new prolonged period of anomalously low activity such as the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s?
Can we identity anomalous behavior in the solar dynamo and surface flux transport during the current minimum?
How are heliospheric changes altering incident cosmic ray fluxes and the Earth’s near-space environment?
Can we reliably discern the terrestrial signatures of the current solar inactivity – at the surface, in the stratosphere and in space weather?
What does understanding of the present (in the context of the past) infer for the future variability of Earth’s environment?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to exercise an open mind, take good notes, drink with moderation (altitude affects inebriation, defined as “to make somebody excited or exhilarated”) and provide a guest thread upon your return?
Despite the consequences, enjoy yourself!
>>>Ref – Michael Larkin says: May 16, 2010 at 5:54 am
>>“It’s most peculiar. Articles are usually presented in reasonably
>>understandable terms, and what with those and the comments, I
>>can often get 80% or more of their meaning. With this article, I
>>haven’t a clue what it means.”
“Tis a bit obscure, I must admit. Here is my interpretation:
a. Based upon the work of Landscheidt, et al, many people believe that Earth climate is directly related to Sunspot activity.
b. Sunspot activity is directly proportional to geomagnetic flux as presented in these graphs (I presume Archibald is using geomagnetic rather than direct solar flux.)
c. Landscheidt, et al, predicted solar minimums (low sunspot activity) based upon the Sun swinging around the center of the solar system (swung by the planets) – with solar minima supposedly occurring when the Sun was nearest the center of the solar system. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node
d. The Landscheidt forecast was for a low Sunspot activity for cycle 24.
e. The small rise and recent fall of geomagnetic flux in these graphs (above) are possible indicators that cycle 24 will indeed be a diminutive cycle (low sunspot numbers).
f. Some might take this as evidence that the various “orbit’ of the Sun vs Sunspot numbers” predictions are correct.
g. This same faction would also point to the Maunder minima also being coincident with the Sun being close to the center of the solar system (low angular momentum), and so we are in a similar scenario to the mid to late 1600s – the Maunder era.
h. The Maunder era was COLD.
i. Make of this what you will.
j. Leif will no agree, of course.
.
I sense I should have added;
and provide a guest thread upon your return…….. including discussion of contrarian viewpoints to your convictions?
kim says:
May 16, 2010 at 5:53 am
Winkin’ and Blinkin’
The Gods are testing us all.
Cheshire Irises.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/1book30.jpg
Yup. This discussion is a good example of a thought-provoking porous boundary between expert and layman (or experts in other areas). Thanks again, Anthony, for this site. And thanks to the many contributors. I personally had to do some deep digging.
” The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct.”
Do tell.
RockyRoad says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:26 am
“Yup. This discussion is a good example of a thought-provoking porous boundary between expert and layman (or experts in other areas).”
Could be a semipermeable membrane, could be a diode.
Yes, Ulric… the flow of information was indeed lopsidded.
To solar newcomers, sorry for all the in-house chat, we’ve been at this for a while!
This is a very interesting colloquium presentation to CERN in Europe, given by Dr. Jasper Kirkby, regarding possible relationships between sunspots, solar activity and climate. I recommend it highly:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
This is his abstract for his colloquium presentation, “Cosmic Rays and Climate”:
“The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity.
However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds.
This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.”
RockyRoad says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:24 am
“Yes, Ulric… the flow of information was indeed lopsidded.”
Ah a zener diode, that would expaim the “heat”.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:25 am
“This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism.”
Cosmic rays are the inverse proxy of the forcing factor, the solar wind, which correlates so well to short term changes in surface temperature anomalies. The big factor with global climate averages and means, is what happens in the N.Hemisphere, particularly in Winter, as the Winter temperature range is much larger than Summer.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:25 am
This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
Later this year? Oof! Send that man to the front of line, and step on it!!
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=177 http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard would like to acknowledge that Archibald may have been correct much earlier than he was. I do not respect the “Archibald is sloppy” comment. Especially since Svalgaard is coming to the same conclusions just now. Leif, you should have acknowlegded this.
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
This is exactly what academia wants you to believe. That you are incapable of understanding anything that they come up with. This to perpetuate their livelihood. They can just as easliy be wrong as you or I. Don’t need a Phd to see through the thin veil. Transparency is what we want, it is NOT what they want.
Ironically, the publics lack of information is exactly what the proponents of AGW are taking advantage of. We should do the opposite. Explain the complexities in a manner that all can comprehend.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:25 am
(Dr. Jasper Kirkby)
“Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. ”
It takes heat to create water vapour on Earth, that comes from the Sun. Low solar activity through colder climatic periods are dryer. Seasonally, its more complicated because of the temperature/precipitation relationship is the opposite from Summer to Winter. Either way, changes in solar activity determine the amount of water vapour present, how much it will rain (due to short term temperature changes), and when it will rain (highly predictable).
As a lay reader, my interests are practical. I understand the chilling potential of a Maunder/Dalton type minimum but I am interested in the possible compounding effects of increased volcanic activity like is predicted for Iceland. In addition to Katla, there are Grimsvotn, Hekla and Askja — all of which are bigger than Eyjafjallajokull and it sounds like any one of them could add serious ash cooling to the mix. It seems to me that the northern hemisphere could be in for a some nasty cold years. This in addition to the el niño/la niña deal. Were there compounding factors like these in the great minimums?
It is worth noting that in recent weeks, the Sun has had M class x-ray flares of a size that has not been seen for 4yrs, and the solar wind velocity reached its highest level since December 2007, early this May.
Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures) from surface to space vary in response to changes in the F10.7 Flux ?
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 11:39 am
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:25 am
“This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year. ”
—–
It is a 9 Million € project, tax payers money I guess. So far it doesn’t seem
to produce the results needed to falsify GHG theory. Henrik Svensmark
is involved, the man who refuses to retract graphs on correlation sunspots
/warming even when the calculation errors have been pointed out to him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/
sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html
Since WUWT bloggers are very strict on these matter, I expect
indignation & protests? Personally I think it is good that CLOUD is
implemented.
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I have two huge problems with Leif’s analyses of how Flux, but not SSN are germane:
1) If we give up SSN in favor of flux, then we give up all historic context.
2) Leif’s methods of refutation of historic counting do not use statistics properly.
For 1), the historic methods use projection and readout using primitive scopes, it is true. Yes, the results from different observers differ by as much as a factor of two. But this is perfectly fine and is typical for multiple measurements in any replication methodology. Statistics handles this when applied properly.[see 2)]. We must try to replicate the old methods rather than throw them away. I favor the Landscheidt method for doing this.
For 2) Leif in his PP presentations, shows how each observer is very different. This is not surprising, taking into appreciation the different telescopes and eyes of the beholder! However, the proper method for statistical evaluation is to take each point as a separate measurement at each time point when equivalent time points are available. You don’t recreate each curve and show which seem to be best to the mean! Correlation coefficients and t-tests notwithstanding! After each point is enetered, one should perform a mean and standard deviation of each sampling time, with each observer not identified or value-judged. The more observers you have, even though the total deviation of the worst observer is larger (i.e. we may get more “lousy” observers), the better the final number, and the lower the standard deviation from the mean! (within reason, of course – we cannot introduce someone who has cataracts, or frontal-lobe challenged, like Algore). SO we should take all the observers available that are serious scientists, no matter how many spots they see each time. (I’m seeing extra spots after reading Leif’s slide shows. Only joking! I value his work very highly) Then we may use all the old points for commensurate points, average them, and get an s.d.
Now, we have a decent basis to evaluate other methods that attempt to get a similar method, such as the minimum pixelation method of Landscheidt. We could even get new observers using old telescopes and use the ancient project-and-count method. Then we have another basis to evaluate new methods, by comparing to the old methods or the “new-old” method.
This way we do not throw out the old history. The old history is not perfect, but it is all we have. How else can we evaluate an historic observation, like skating on the Thames, or the robustness of the ancient Viking settlements in Greenland, or when vineyards ceased to be viable in England.
I am NOT saying that new flux, magnetic, wavelengths, proton flux, and all other solar variances methods cannot be evaluated going forward. But we may not ever have suitable grounds to evaluate the new method retrospectively. Which seems to be the whole point of Climatology, actually.
I would love to see comments from Profs. Svalgaard and Landscheidt, et.al.
E Philipp says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“I am interested in the possible compounding effects of increased volcanic activity like is predicted for Iceland.”
Volcanic eruptions occur at an uplift in temperature, especially after a cold spell. Pinatubo for example started early eruptions in March 1991 at a strong temperature uplift, then the major eruption on June 12th also was on a strong uplift. See temp`s in these different locations to appreciate a solar driven simultaneous rise:
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Tombouctou/06-1991/612230.htm
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/LUZERN/06-1991/66500.htm
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Odiham/06-1991/37610.htm
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Northolt/06-1991/36720.htm
http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/MANILA/06-1991/984250.htm
Signs of cooling after Pinatubo could be partly anthropogic:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-488Y5H4-8J&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1993&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1337101716&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e09e4d08f6e12bba3ed70f2b67a5ff59
Changes in solar forced temperature are far larger than those possible by volcanic forcing, for example the winters of 1814 and 1815, both followed by strong volcanic eruptions. My own studies on 1816 show that April and August should have been slightly warmer, but most of the summer very cool.
E Philipp says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“Were there compounding factors like these in the great minimums?”
Yes, volcanic activity approx. 5 times the average of the past century.
Numerous volcanic eruptions took place a.o.:
1580 Billy Mitchel Volcano
1600: Eruption of Huaynaputina volcano (Peru) caused the most severe short-term cooling event of the past 600 years in the northern hemisphere.
1641 Mount Parker
1660 Long Island (Papua New Guinea)
1785 Laki Eruption
1816 Tambora eruption during the Dalton Minimum
According to Joseph D’Aleo http://www.icecap.us our recent NH winters also have a volcanic link due to the recent Kamchatka eruptions a.o Sarychev Peak Volcano and Mt. Redoubt Alaska.
Ulric Lyons
May 16, 2010 at 10:28 am
Are you saying that laymen like me are dopes?
berniel says:
May 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Berniel, you used 273 words to complain about the brevity of my post, which used 201 words. That is quite amusing, and thankyou. Dr Svalgaard has had the opportunity to explain why he provides a daily update of the dissimilarity between the Solar Cycle 19 ramp up and the Solar Cycle 24 one, but has chosen not to do so. For what it is worth, my own theory as to why he does that is because Dr Svalgaard believes that changing solar activity does not affect the Earth’s climate, and he is trying to show that Solar Cycle 24 could be a biggy, just as Solar Cycle 19 was.
The significance of the post is that the groundstate of solar activity has barely moved off what it was at minimum. In fact the F10.7 flux is down to the levels of previous solar minima back to the early 1950s.
Our ability to predit solar activity will improve dramatically when a gentleman from the lower 48 gets his paper published. All the existing solar activity models will then be quickly forgotten.
Leif. f10.7 is a better indicator of what?
It can’t be Solar activity because SSN is Solar activity! Obviously not the only Solar activity but they have diverged.
I ask this knowing that not even you have all the answers.
DaveE.
E Philipp says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“As a lay reader, my interests are practical. I understand the chilling potential of a Maunder/Dalton type minimum but I am interested in the possible compounding effects of increased volcanic activity like is predicted for Iceland. In addition to Katla, there are Grimsvotn, Hekla and Askja — all of which are bigger than Eyjafjallajokull and it sounds like any one of them could add serious ash cooling to the mix. It seems to me that the northern hemisphere could be in for a some nasty cold years. This in addition to the el niño/la niña deal. Were there compounding factors like these in the great minimums?”
_________________________________________________________________________
AHHhhh yes – Another controversy. Some think there are solar/magnetic/volcano /earthquake correlations, others do not (Dr Leif)
http://sc25.com/index.php?id=171
“Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction.com long range weather & climate forecasters today announced important findings connecting solar-lunar effects on earthquakes and volcanoes and warned that the major solar explosion (Coronal Mass Ejection) of 13th April will increase risk of: more earthquakes, renewed eruption of Iceland’s volcano & extreme weather events world-wide as it hits Earth in his predicted Solar-Lunar Impact periods 18-24 April.”
Changes in the Earth’s Magnetic Field
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Planet-039-s-Magnetic-Field-Varies-Much-Faster-Than-Expected-88963.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/76158139.html
“…..The decline in the magnetic field also is opening Earth’s upper atmosphere to intense charged particle radiation, scientists say.
Satellite data show the geomagnetic field decreasing in the South Atlantic region, Mandea said, adding that an oval-shaped area east of Brazil is significantly weaker than similar latitudes in other parts of the world.
“It is in this region that the shielding effect of the magnetic field is severely reduced, thus allowing high energy particles of the hard radiation belt to penetrate deep into the upper atmosphere to altitudes below a hundred kilometers (62 miles),” Mandea said.”
We live in “interesting times”
mikael pihlström says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Sorry you missed my point, let me spell it out in no uncertain terms:
I want this question answered, as it is directly related to current events.
We ARE in a protracted minimum, and Henrik Svensmark has a theory with some testing behind it.
The Physics are needed. How much, by what mechanism and what’s the relevant contribution?
The computer models are monopolzied by the incumbents, so there’s no dissenting opinion, no review.
I repeat: I want this question answered.
Gail Combs says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm
AHHhhh yes – Another controversy. Some think there are solar/magnetic/volcano /earthquake correlations, others do not (Dr Leif)
I don’t qualify to investigate the messy details of the mechanism, but:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SSNvsVOL.JPG
for the past 200 years, the frequency and magnitude of volcanic activity increases at time of solar minimum. There is also a background level of activity that is pretty much constant. It’s the larger eruptions that follow the solar minimum, preferring the rising and falling edges of the same. And there are exceptions.
Make of the graph whatever you like. Make a better one. I just did it because nobody else had.
DesertYote says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“Are you saying that laymen like me are dopes?”
Not at all, it’s all too common for an onlooker to spot something all the experts are missing.
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Try look at monthly temperatures leading up to each event, CET will do;
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
its very striking.
Just a thought here but since it seems to have been mentioned about SSN number bias I will put in my two cents. I personnaly dont see how it could be biased. A person can only draw what they see, how or why in the world would someone draw spots they dont see? Also there are several different observatories drawing these plots. Granted some have better eyesight and may see more and the better the telescope the more spots you can see, but that is taken into consideration. But to get to my original idea which is if there is a divergence that can be defined could it be the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere degrading the visual white light projection.
There is correlative information aplenty out there, but the system is too complex, with uncertain lag times, before the effect of a cause may be known, and a correlation be proven.
Anything is possible, but some causalities may be unknowable, call them hidden.
I have often thought of the crust of the earth’s mantle. The solid part on the very surface is very thin compared to the radius of the earth. I did a rough calculation, and it is an order of magnitude or two thinner than the ratio of an egg shell to an egg’s radius, depending on where you think mantle fluidity ends and hard crust begins.
At the solar maximum, the increased insolation, be it UV or IR or a pulsatile event by CME, flare or protons, or whatever, heats the top of the mantle. The core is unchallenged by this transient sinusoidal peak. The crust expands and opens the fault lines, leading to vulcanism. The delay is seen as a lag of a few years, so it seems to occur during a minimum. Even though the change in total insolation is small, the crust is so thin that it is affected by the differential among solar maxima and minima.
Inflate a balloon. Spray it with a sugar coating (if you could get it to stick). Let it dry to form a crème brulée balloon. Now inflate one puff more. What will happen? Fault lines.
Let’s suppose the opposite. Cooling can cause the mantle to shrink slightly, causing faults to close faster, leading to seismic events. In any of the two cases, flexing causes heat, localized in the upper mantle.
See what I mean? I just made up a plausible scenario that is probably untestable. Therefore not in the realm of science. How could we possibly measure a meter change in the earth’s diameter over 11 years? (22 years if you count the whole sine curve). That is all it would take for the circumference to grow by 2πr. Divide all the weak places (faults) in the circumference, let’s say 6 fault lines are affected? That is a meter more “spread” than normal over the 22 year cycle of expansion and contraction.
Many thanks to Gail Combs and Ralph for filling in some of the much-needed detail for a bozo like me. I now know that I’m not stupid, but that the discussion was at a level at which only those already versed in the matter could readily understand. I’d say I have now understood around 60% of the post. For those who, like me, weren’t acquainted with the meaning of “F10.7”, wiki says:
“Emission from the Sun at centimetric (radio) wavelength is due primarily to coronal plasma trapped in the magnetic fields overlying active regions.[15] The F10.7 index is a measure of the solar radio flux per unit frequency at a wavelength of 10.7 cm, near the peak of the observed solar radio emission. It represents a measure of diffuse, nonradiative heating of the coronal plasma trapped by magnetic fields over active regions, and is an excellent indicator of overall solar activity levels. The solar F10.7 cm record extends back to 1947, and is the longest direct record of solar activity available, other than sunspot-related quantities.”
I was able to look this up because I realised from the replies that “F10.7” was a measure of something. My brain was skipping over it, seeing it as a reference to a figure somewhere.
bubbagyro says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm
We must try to replicate the old methods rather than throw them away. I favor the Landscheidt method for doing this.
I would love to see comments from Profs. Svalgaard and Landscheidt, et.al.
To clarify a couple of points, there is no “Landscheidt method” of counting spots. You are probably confusing the “Layman’s Sunspot Count” on the “Beyond Landscheidt” website, this counting method was developed by Geoff Sharp and Robert Bateman.
You are unlikely to see comments from Geoff Sharp (Landscheidt, et al) as he was banned from WUWT some time ago.
ani says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:42 pm
The SSN gets biased when using superior optics, or CCD Cameras to do the observing. Even in his day, Wolf cautioned against counting the really small spots. That’s a total of 3 levels of bias. Wolf would have preferred measuring area of spots, not counting them.
Much of this bias is done away with by measuring the areas of sunspots, which was began by Greenwich in 1876 and continued to 1976. After Greenwich, USAF picked up the system in a dumbed-down manner, to the nearest 10E6 (millionths of Sun’s surface area). Debrecen Observatory in Hungary is currently picking up the slack, going back to 1980.
see http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/index.html
SWPC/NOAA SSN has done a very poor job lately, I am sorry to say, though SIDC has done it’s best to portral the last run of mini-spots in a reasonable manner.
jinki says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I must have missed Geoff getting banned. It was his idea of measuring, I just helped a bit with working out the details and correlating size/contrast with what Wolf would have seen in his telescope. Leif helped a LOT with formulas.
I’d much rather talk of Sunspot Activity in Area than in count#’s.
Ralph:
On the second graph, why are all the latest decade results on the right side of the plots? – So you apparently need more flux per Sunspot this decade…
Leif:
That is the whole point: there are too few spots compared to the flux.
So magnetic flux is NOT a good proxy for Sunspots! In regard to the Maunder and Dalton minimums, I thought you were arguing the opposite.
.
rbateman: May 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“….It’s the larger eruptions that follow the solar minimum, preferring the rising and falling edges of the same. And there are exceptions….”
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SSNvsVOL.JPG
Hi Bob
That is very useful chart. It would be appreciated if you could post a note for the colour coding. Thanks.
Credit to Geoff and yourself for the work on the LSsC (Layman’s Sunspot Count)
Dalton Maunder ha this is the begining of the end of the holocene.
Dig deep into your gene pool and you might find a way through but dont expect quantitive easing to help out here.
rbateman: May 16, 2010 at 9:19 pm
….Wolf would have preferred measuring area of spots, not counting them. ….
Agree. It also allows good assessment of the hemispherical asymmetry ( N – S )
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC2.htm
David Archibald says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm
…Dr Svalgaard believes that changing solar activity does not affect the Earth’s climate, and he is trying to show that Solar Cycle 24 could be a biggy, just as Solar Cycle 19 was.
This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction24thCycle.pdf
History shows that larger solar storms occur after long quiet minimums. Peter Taylor has mentioned mid August to me, I am more concerned about late September to early November, which is a critical time of year as well, being near an equinox (more solar storms around equinoxes).
Ulric Lyons says:
May 16, 2010 at 10:19 am
“RockyRoad says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:26 am
“Yup. This discussion is a good example of a thought-provoking porous boundary between expert and layman (or experts in other areas).”
Could be a semipermeable membrane, could be a diode.”
At WUWT, at least one doesn’t require their papers to be “reviewed” before they cross the boundary…
As a ‘layman’ and long time blogger, I want to weigh in one the discussions here sometimes assuming a certain level of knowledge.
Personally I am not a fan of carrying the discussion at a level for the lowest expected visitor’s level of understanding. I think that the all-star cast here have a lot going on, and would rather get to the crux of the biscuit so to speak. This would be a long article if it required sub discussions to define F1.7, geomagnetic flux principals, Svensmark’s work, on and on. Eventually both the experts and the audience would water off, as frequently would the point of the discussion.
I also find it quite stimulating intellectually. If don’t know what the F1.7 is, I go and look it up. This interwebby thing is pretty good for that. Most people of my caste don’t know what Melankovitch cycles are, about the Younger Dryas, PDO & ENSO, or what TSI is. I do and I like that. I am very thankful for our host and experts that helped that along.
Also impressive is the really well educated jury of commentators, many of who’s blogs have also been very educational, and the very civil level of discourse. Thank you to all.
Ref – Noel says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:49 am
“Dalton Maunder ha this is the begining of the end of the holocene. Dig deep into your gene pool and you might find a way through but dont expect quantitive easing to help out here.”
____________________
The end of an interglacial is a long slide. It’s the end of a glacial that knocks your socks off.
Scratch a “human” and you’ll find an ice age caveman.
PS: Problem is, there ain’t enough caves on this here planet for 6.8 billion cavemen. About 6 billion are going to have to do that Japanese thing with a knife (or the Arab thing with a sword) (or the Hollywood thing with pills) (or the Wall Street thing with a window) (or the Chinese thing with baby girls). Know what I mean? People really are like cavemen; they sure are. You know what they complain about when the cave gets too many occupants? ACW – Anthroprogenic Cave Warming. (It stinks too.)
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:35 am
This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction24thCycle.pdf
It may depend on what you consider a small cycle. Above 70 SSN may turn out to way above reality?
Response to rbateman 116. I appreciate your response so please let me ramble a little here. If I get the gist of what you are saying correctly you are saying the K values are wrong giving to high of a SSN. Eyeballing charts overall I don’t see that. I do see an uptick late thirtys which is when better telescopes started being made and it seemed to have lasted till the sixties but historically doesn’t seem significant.
inki says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:23 am
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:35 am
This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction24thCycle.pdf
It may depend on what you consider a small cycle. Above 70 SSN may turn out to way above reality?
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. DA implies that LS is trying to show that SC24 is going to be a large max comparable to SC19 and the link shows the exact opposite.
#
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 am
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. DA implies that LS is trying to show that SC24 is going to be a large max comparable to SC19 and the link shows the exact opposite.
You made the statement “This is just nonsense. LS has predicted a small Solar Cycle 24.”
LS may have a different perspective on what makes a small cycle. His estimate may turn out to be much higher than what SC24 solar max eventually records, Hathaway may indeed continue to go lower over the next 12 months.
DA might be stretching the point, but calling above 70SSN a low count at this stage is presumptuous.
Contrary to the “constant Sun model”, via ice cores and other historical records, the Sun appears to have a ~400 year oscillation. This oscillation looks more like a sawtooth waveform. The last peak was in ~1620. A vertical drop in the energy output indicated by both Sun Spot reduction and ice cores. The sawtooth then rises to a “Global Warming Peak” during the next 400 years, then energy output collapses.
During the peak [before the vertical energy output drop] 1600s,1200s, 800s, … , Greenland became “green” (tree line information).
The Sun has “turned off” and we are now experiencing the vertical drop of the 400 year sawtooth oscillation.
More disturbing, are the volcanoes [ash, SO2], the Pacific temperature declines [stored heat decline], and the DECREASE in CO2 levels. I am not worried about “Global Cooling”, I am worried about “Global Freezing”.
jinki says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:26 pm
yes, the Layman’s Sunspot Count…my bad.
My point still stands. We must continue to refer to the old Wolf methodology to correlate as best we can with the past. It is climate change, after all.
The sun’s activity, or best measure of it going forward is irrelevant to my point. They should be looked upon as standalone methods. My other point is to use the old counts properly, using the right statistical treatment, not to pick and choose who we think was good at it, until we prove that any new method conforms to the older method’s means and standard deviations. Then we can say things like, “the new radio waves (or magnetic method, etc.) at such-and-such a wavelength or field strength is within xxx s.d. of the old method mean.” Then we can use correlation coefficients properly to deduce any trends.
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
Yes, I too am concerned with freezing and the coming ice age. If there continues to be warming at the pace of the last 30 years, well and good. If CO2 goes up, well and good.
The AGW climatologers have lulled everyone to sleep about cold climate. As a result, the world is unprepared for a cooling event. The poor will suffer, as they have already suffered with the food to alcohol fiasco and lack of energy. How many more millions must suffer and die before we turn the tide, and turn the page on AGW fundamentalism?
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
The next cluster of LIA type minimums would be c.1150yrs after the LIA. Every 4yr cluster more severe, at 4627yrs, a Heinrich event.
Notice the c.179yr periods between the Roman maximums, and cold episodes from AD970 to 1814;
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
Ice cores are a good precipitation record, but warm can mean dry or wet, it depends what time of year it happens.
#
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm
AHHhhh yes – Another controversy. Some think there are solar/magnetic/volcano /earthquake correlations, others do not (Dr Leif)
I don’t qualify to investigate the messy details of the mechanism, but:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SSNvsVOL.JPG
….Make of the graph whatever you like. Make a better one. I just did it because nobody else had.
__________________________________________________________________________
I was trying to stay neutral because some say there is a correlation and others state there is not. I have not had the time to follow it up and see what the truth actually is or if there is enough data to actually make a judgment call. Thanks for the graph.
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
“Contrary to the “constant Sun model”, via ice cores and other historical records, the Sun appears to have a ~400 year oscillation….
More disturbing, are the volcanoes [ash, SO2], the Pacific temperature declines [stored heat decline], and the DECREASE in CO2 levels. I am not worried about “Global Cooling”, I am worried about “Global Freezing”.”
________________________________________________________________________
Amen to that. “Global Warming” is annoying “Global Freezing” is down right deadly.
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:22 am
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Hundreds of hours across dozens of web sites. Yes, there is a 200 yr cycle and what I am naming the 400 year oscillation. The 200 is in phase with the 400. They both hit minimums every 400 years.
Research the Maunder minimum in ~1620 and analyze the gradual increase in Sun Spots for the next 400 years. We are forced to us tree rings, and ice cores for the rest.
Pascvaks says:
PS: Problem is, there ain’t enough caves on this here planet for 6.8 billion cavemen.
I’d be more worried about producing food than finding caves. What land isn’t covered by ice, tends to be a bit arid, if I understand previous glacial periods correctly.
R. de Haan says:
May 15, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Layman’s sunspot count: SC 24 = SC 5
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The Official SSN count could be called the sunspots count “on steroids”or “robust” (or rather “Stoned Count”).
It’s remarkable the comparison with cycle 5.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
May 16, 2010 at 1:17 am
Those are “robust” counts.
Pascvaks says: Really funny…gotto get some solar panels or windmill generators to power heat..(The new technologies that C&T will provide)
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:50 am
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:22 am
Can you give some links to that info? I am aware of the 200 yr Wolf-Gleissberg cycle but not the 400 yr cycle.
Hundreds of hours across dozens of web sites. Yes, there is a 200 yr cycle and what I am naming the 400 year oscillation. The 200 is in phase with the 400. They both hit minimums every 400 years.
Research the Maunder minimum in ~1620 and analyze the gradual increase in Sun Spots for the next 400 years. We are forced to us tree rings, and ice cores for the rest.
______________________________________________________________________
So what we see is a “minor minimum” alternating with a “major minimum” ?
I thought you might enjoy this that I just found. It is about time
The Sun’s Chilly Impact on Earth updated April 17 2010
A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200112065794
I followed the link at that site and found this: Of course they then have to add the mandatory political funding blurb
Changes in the sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution….
The paper, “Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum,” by authors Drew Shindell, Gavin Schmidt, and David Rind, from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-authors Michael Mann and Anne Waple, from the Universities of Virginia and Massachusetts respectively, appears in the December 7 issue of Science.
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
WOW so man is more powerful than the sun…..
Dr. Lurtz,
Would you please recommend a website which best summarises the risk of global freezing?
You mentioned a possible decrease in CO2 levels. Is that your own conclusion – that if the various drivers of temperature turn down, then CO2 (as a lag indicator) will follow suit – or are you referring to some interesting work by others?
Ani says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:37 am
I’ll try to post up something that underscores just how far away from reality the rash of weak spot counting is to a really healthy spot, both in visual and Extended Ultraviolet.
Yarmy says:
May 17, 2010 at 7:44 am
Leif has made his SC24 prediction based on Active Regions, not Sunspot Counts. The L&P effect could virtually wipe out all but 1 spot/AR, and Leif’s prediction can still hold up. I do believe he has stated more than once that his SC19/SC24 graph was done just for fun. The point I get out of it is that SC23 ended on a low slope and SC24 is coming up on an equal-lower slope.
Why does SC24 behave this way? It may have started life L&P’ed is my 2 cents worth.
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
There is actually very little on a 400yr cycle, I found only this, and a re-hash of it by Svensmark: http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/PACLIM/Yu02.pdf
There is a mountain of references to the 17yr and 179yr cycles, dating back to ancient Chinese records.
As sunspot levels are not directly proportional to SSN, they are not always the best indicator of real temperatures, eg. the 83yr and 166yr cycles in sunspots.
There should be something showing around 204 years in tune with the 17yr coronal hole cycle and certain planetary synodic periods, but it is not the dominant cycle around this length, as much fewer synodic periods unite over this interval than the 179. I don`t find a 400yr cycle usefull for mapping past temperature, but as it has cropped up, I will have a look at old Chinese flood/drought records, as precipitation is the issue here.
May 17, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Typo; 5th line; proportional to `temperature`.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynken,_Blynken,_and_Nod
tesla_x says:
May 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm
.. http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif ..
Thanks for the image Tesla. Someone should have stamped that with a “Parental Advisory,” warning. Looks incremental for increasing cold and colder. Looks incremental for less time between cold to colder. To me the planetary theory looks like a shabby fit. Ok, interstellar densities win, lag time has arrived now. Where is Henrik again? Maybe my rollerblading will carry back over to prolonged ice skating. Just a thought. Maybe we should start covering our beers or something.
Leif, all is well?
Carla says:
May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm
By that graphical measure, there is no need for TSI or Irradiance changes on the Sun. All that has to happen is for the Magnetic Field of the Sun to be weak (or whatever it does to make the coincidental effect on Earth), and off go the Volcanoes to do the grunt work of dragging the global temp into the fridge.
Hmmm……
“Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,” Shindell said. “The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases,” he added.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html”
That 2001 story, although previously unknown to me , actually covers part of my New Climate Model by similarly linking solar activity levels with air circulation changes and in particular the polar oscillations. However I go further in describing the mechanism which involves variations in stratospheric temperatures affecting the strength of the inversion at the tropopause so as to drive the polar oscillations within the troposphere.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5497
The thing is that to work correctly as per observations one has to reverse the normal sign of the solar effect so that the stratosphere cools when the sun is active and warms when it is inactive so that the air circulations can be changed in the way actually seen.
Interestingly the authors were on the verge of getting it right but threw it all away by assuming that the anthropogenic effect was greater. If they had focussed on the implications of that piece of work then current climatology would by now be very different and instead of being pariahs they would have achieved something useful.
The killer pieces of evidence are that the jets started moving back equatorward at the same time as the sun grew quieter, the polar oscillations started getting stronger, the ozone quantities started to recover and the stratosphere started to warm again.
I have placed in the public domain the only climate description that combines all those features plus many others and whilst all that was happening CO2 kept rising which effectively stuffs their proposition that some human caused effect was in control. It also brings the assumed CFC effect on stratospheric ozone into question as a seperate issue.
To avoid confusion in my previous post a stronger polar oscillation is negative (as now) and a weaker oscillation positive (as for the late 20th century).
From Keystone [1203 miles from home]:
rbateman says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:15 am
Otherwise, they too can be polluted by flyspecks.
F10.7 is the true measure.
NIKKI says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:20 am
Dear dr Svalgaard !
About your F10.7- SSN graph above, is the discrepancy between 1951-1990 and 1996-2009 points connected with contrast (Livingston & Penn) of sunspots?
Shows that sunspots have become warmer, the contrast less, and thus harder to see. But they are still ‘there’
vukcevic says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:24 am
“Except that your correlations are poor, so are disqualified simply on that.”
Not so, not so, until we see the SC24 out.
You failed already on SC20. You saying ‘not so’ does not make it that, but is just self-delusional.
Tim Clark says:
May 16, 2010 at 8:57 am
Are spectral and total solar irradiance levels lower now than during past minima
I don’t think so. See my poster at the meeting: [I’m working on uploading it, so have patience]
Are we entering a new prolonged period of anomalously low activity such as the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s?
Possibly, except it isn’t anomalous
How are heliospheric changes altering incident cosmic ray fluxes and the Earth’s near-space environment?
They are not: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
Can we reliably discern the terrestrial signatures of the current solar inactivity – at the surface, in the stratosphere and in space weather?
Not at the surface.
What does understanding of the present (in the context of the past) infer for the future variability of Earth’s environment?
That variation is normal
Perhaps you would be so kind as to exercise an open mind
‘Open Mind’ has no place in Science. Data [and/or good Theory] has.
take good notes […] provide a guest thread upon your return?
Will do.
Ralph says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:12 am
a. Based upon the work of Landscheidt, et al, many people believe that Earth climate is directly related to Sunspot activity.
No, this has been surmised for almost 400 years, starting with Giovanni Battista Riccioli in 1651.
gary gulrud says:
May 16, 2010 at 9:30 am
” The SSN may not be meaningful if Livingston and Penn are correct.”
Do tell.
Self-evident
David Ball says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard would like to acknowledge that Archibald may have been correct much earlier than he was.
Nobody has been ‘correct’ yet. The links to Archibald you provided seem to be dated 2006-2007. My prediction was submitted in 2004. My colleague Ken Schatten predicted a low SC24 in 2003: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
I do not respect the “Archibald is sloppy” comment.
The ‘sloppy comment’ was about the time axis of the first figure in the post. You better accept the facts.
Leif, you should have acknowlegded this.
Try to be up-to-date with reality… The specific predictions in the links you gave are already and clearly wrong, so why pay any attention to them?
David Ball says:
May 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm
This is exactly what academia wants you to believe.
Nonsense. Most go to great length to explain this stuff to everybody, e.g. my own posts and Roy Spencer’s just to mentions a few.
bubbagyro says:
May 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Ric Werme says:
May 15, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I have two huge problems with Leif’s analyses of how Flux, but not SSN are germane:
1) If we give up SSN in favor of flux, then we give up all historic context.
Not really, as we just need to calibrate stuff correctly. And this is possible. E.g.: http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
2) Leif’s methods of refutation of historic counting do not use statistics properly.
Not based on statistics, but on data. Can’t argue with what the data shows by statistical manipulation.
I favor the Landscheidt method for doing this. […]
However, the proper method for statistical evaluation is to take each point as a separate measurement at each time point when equivalent time points are available.
And Landscheidt did this? Show a link…
David Archibald says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Dr Svalgaard has had the opportunity to explain why he provides a daily update of the dissimilarity between the Solar Cycle 19 ramp up and the Solar Cycle 24 one, but has chosen not to do so.
On my website: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
David Alan Evans says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Leif. f10.7 is a better indicator of what?
It can’t be Solar activity because SSN is Solar activity!
No SSN is not. ‘Solar activity’ is is determined by the Magnetic Field over the solar surface, and F10.7 is a good proxy for that, while SSN may not be [to with the divergence]. F10.7 is a completely objective absolute measurements [in Watt/Square Meter/Hz]
Ulric Lyons says:
May 16, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Not at all, it’s all too common for an onlooker to spot something all the experts are missing.
Show me a valid example… or many [as they are common]
Ralph says:
May 17, 2010 at 12:24 am
So magnetic flux is NOT a good proxy for Sunspots! In regard to the Maunder and Dalton minimums, I thought you were arguing the opposite.
The other way around: Sunspots are not a good proxy for the true solar activity [the magnetic field].
I’m tired of commenting on all the pseudo-science crap by several well-known people that never miss a chance to try to hijack a thread. So, shall confine myself to questions and comments with substance.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 17, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm
There is actually very little on a 400yr cycle, I found only this, and a re-hash of it by Svensmark: http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/PACLIM/Yu02.pdf
There is a mountain of references to the 17yr and 179yr cycles, dating back to ancient Chinese records….
______________________________________________________________________
Thanks I could not turn anything useful up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Yes, indeed. That should shut them down!
bubbagyro says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Yes, indeed. That should shut them down!
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. But at least I won’t waste much more time on them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm
F10.7 is the true measure.
In cases where there is a single Active Region rotating off the limb of the Sun, depending on the strength of the Region, the flux will fall to current base level when the Region is on the rim, or behind it. A strong region is able to ‘shine’ through a day’s journey behind the rim, a weak region falls off at the rim.
I am still curious as to why the Sun fell off in activity as a whole object, including the Active Regions on STEREO Ahead & Behind.
Any ideas on that?
rbateman says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I am still curious as to why the Sun fell off in activity as a whole object, including the Active Regions on STEREO Ahead & Behind.
Any ideas on that?
The Sun is a messy place. Solar activity occurs in ‘episodes’ and perhaps the real thing to explain is the episodic outbreaks [like tornado outbreaks in the US]. The classic example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm……..
The other way around: Sunspots are not a good proxy for the true solar activity [the magnetic field].
– If Livingston & Penn are correct then we could have a situation of high 10.7 cm flux with few or no sunspots or solar flares (Given that solar flares are usually generated by sunspots). Would you call this scenario a case of high or low solar activity ?
Ozzie John says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:35 am
– If Livingston & Penn are correct then we could have a situation of high 10.7 cm flux with few or no sunspots or solar flares (Given that solar flares are usually generated by sunspots). Would you call this scenario a case of high or low solar activity ?
Solar flares are not really generated by sunspots. They are generated by the magnetic field in the active regions, regardless of whether there is a spot. There is even a name for ‘spotless flares’: Hyder Flares. [Google it].
Anyway, if the magnetic field is low, solar activity should be considered to be low. The L&P effect is the [supposed] result of the magnetic field of sunspots weakening making the spots warmer and hence harder to see, but they are still there.
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures) from surface to space vary in response to changes in the F10.7 Flux ?”
In the meantime I’m happy that Leif no longer wishes to engage with me ( if he did mean me amongst others) as regards my pseudo science crap that nonetheless seems to fit recent observations. That is very much for the benefit of both of us since we will never agree until more data is available.
Carla says:
May 17, 2010 at 5:20 pm
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif
“To me the planetary theory looks like a shabby fit. Where is Henrik again?”
About 4600yrs after the LIA. What you need is to see is lots of detail, like the coldest LIA winters individually, or weekly temperature changes, you won`t find it shabby then.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:42 am
“Anyway, if the magnetic field is low, solar activity should be considered to be low.”
So that explains why the recent M class flares are the largest for 4yrs, and solar wind velocity highest since Dec 2007.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures) from surface to space vary in response to changes in the F10.7 Flux ?”
Straight questions are always welcome:
Here is some background:
http://ocw.upm.es/ingenieria-aeroespacial/modeling-the-space-environment/contenidos/material-de-clase/mse06_atmos.pdf
And here is one you can play with:
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/vitmo/msis_vitmo.html
There is LOTS of data, as this is an area of immense practical interest. The models capture the mass of data and should be considered as representations of the data rather as theoretical constructs.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
“Is there any data anywhere as to how the thermal gradients within the atmosphere (both as to heights and temperatures)
Ingrid Cnossen’s thesis is a good introduction to the subject:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4533/1/2008cnosseniphd.pdf
It is long, but worth the wait.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 18, 2010 at 2:03 am
So that explains why the recent M class flares are the largest for 4yrs, and solar wind velocity highest since Dec 2007.
It seems my effort has been fruitful and that you have seen the light. As we said in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“to indicate lower solar activity for the coming cycle(s). Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity [Lockwood et al., 1999; Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88).”
Leif:
As posted elsewhere, even NASA thinks that lower solar activity CAN influence the N Hem jetstreams. Although the suggestion here is that the jetstreams are reduced in velocity, rather than moving towards the equatorial regions.
I did not see that this winter. Velocities appeared much the same (not a statistical analysis, but a subjective assessment), but latitudes were definitely lower.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Pseudo-science from time to time turns into real science (plate tectonics is an obvious candidate).
And the foundations of science? Built on sand. For instance we can do amazing things engineering wise with the concept mass/inertia. But we have absolutely no idea of the cause. Is inertia part electromagnetic? All electromagnetic? Something else? Feynman thought based on Maxwell and experiment that it may be at least in part electromagnetic. Now try to get funding for direct experiments in that area. You can’t because it is pseudo science according to the consensus view. Everybody knows….
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:15 am
I am well aware of the relationship between Minimums withlong spotless periods, and the incidence of stronger solar storms in the following Maximum;
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html
The C13/14 Minimum is very high on the list for long spotless day period, as is the C9/10 Minimum.
Leaving us with an advanced risk of serious solar storms through this coming cycle.
As for “Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity,”
early May solar wind velocity would suggest otherwise. Lets see how the cycle progresses.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
They say birds of a feather flock together.
Thank you Leif.
I note this extract from your link:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4533
“Sensitivity analyses showed that the responses obtained with both models depend on geophysical conditions such as season and solar and geomagnetic activity. In general it can be concluded that long-term trends are probably caused by multiple coupled radiative and dynamical processes.”
Just as I proposed, isn’t it ? Variable sea surface temperatures and convection in the troposphere and radiative variability from tropopause upward.
The weight attached to CO2 and CFCs may well be premature and excessive. They clearly accept a solar and geomagnetic signal.
Now just reverse the sign so that an active sun cools the stratosphere with a quiet sun warming it and a great deal falls into place.
Or are your own links to be classed as pseudo science crap ?
Ralph says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:26 am
As posted elsewhere, even NASA thinks that lower solar activity CAN influence the N Hem jetstreams.
‘NASA’ is not a single entity as far as this [or anything else is concerned]. A scientist at NASA may hold this or that view. The Shindell paper was based on the unrealistic solar irradiance reconstruction by Hoyt and Schatten [with a large difference between the Maunder Minimum and today – nobody believes that today], so cannot be taken as evidence for much.
M. Simon says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:30 am
Pseudo-science from time to time turns into real science (plate tectonics is an obvious candidate).
That was never pseudo-science, as there were solid evidence for it.
And the foundations of science? Built on sand.
No, built on experiment.
mass/inertia. But we have absolutely no idea of the cause.
We have many ideas, e.g. the Higgs field. Which one is ‘right’ [to our current level of understanding] ongoing experiments [at LHC] are designed to find out.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:06 am
early May solar wind velocity would suggest otherwise.
You cannot conclude anything from a single occurrence. Solar wind velocity is often high near solar minimum, where the absence of solar activity favors the creation of large coronal holes [they are not disturbed by the closed magnetic fields from many active regions].
Oh and the significance of seasons is that the same processes operate. Whether the latitudinal positioning of the air circulation systems is seasonally induced or ocean and sun induced matters not. The energy flux through the system changes in precisely the same way.
As you may recall I frequently refer to latitudinal variations beyond normal seasonal variability.
Note that I do not create any science or pseudo science myself. All I do is apply logic to the findings of others and match it to observations to try and ascertain the implications so if that is pseudo science don’t blame me.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:46 am
Now just reverse the sign so that an active sun cools the stratosphere with a quiet sun warming it and a great deal falls into place.
Or are your own links to be classed as pseudo science crap ?
Your pseudo science consists of reversing the sign
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 1:44 am
I was being sarcastic when I said Leif should shut dissenters down, have them muzzled, incarcerated, ignored, what have you. He agreed with me! In his original PP show, Leif inappropriately used correlations instead of standard deviation or standard error to discern the means of the old SSN counting method, dismissing some or all of the “counters” who were twice as high as other counters. I pointed out that his non-parameteric method of displaying individual curves for each “counter”, and not the mean +/- sd, was totally inappropriate for use in his hypothesis. By doing so, Leif used a fancy version of the straw man argument:
1.Person A (Mary is a sunspot counter) has position X (Here are my counts)
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y (Mary is a bad sunspot counter).
3. Person B attacks position Y (since Mary is a bad sunspot counter, by my “analysis” I condemn her counts), concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed (all previous sunspot counting is bogus, should be ignored, and if these people were alive today, I would not answer them or deign to talk to these “pseudos”).
I guess we know why he did not reply to my original post – just because I have been in life sciences for 41 years, 10 patents, 100 or so publications and presentations, I am obviously not a climastrologer. In fact, since I got my degrees 40 years ago, there was no such offering as Climatology (I call it Climastrology as a joke, since many methods (divining rods?) are still unestablished by the refinement of time). No, I know statistics, though. And trend analysis. Leif has not used statistics properly to make any case that the old methods are not accurate, or do not predict climate.
Can someone who has raw data from the last 500 years of counting history take all of the diligent SSN counters and do a mean and sd for each cotemporal point? Then show the simple composite mean graph with sd? Then let us properly look at the CV (coefficient of variance) and see how that comports with the mean? Then we can evaluate any period in which the CV has swollen and figure out a way to evaluate.
Unless you reverse the sign the findings in your link canot match observations.
A stronger inversion at the tropopause from stratospheric warming must logically be a reflection of a reduced upward energy flux from stratosphere to space. That would intensify the polar high pressure cells as rising convective currents fail to offload so much energy which energy is then redirected downwards. Yet we see that as the sun gets quieter.
During the period of more active sun the stratosphere cooled and the inversion weakened.
Thus the stratospheric warming or cooling effect of variations in solar surface activity on the upward energy flux is greater than the warming or cooling effect involving ozone of the tiny changes in raw solar power output that accompanies them. That is sufficient to reverse the sign and match observations.
Your pseudo science is that you have attributed the cooling then warming of the stratosphere to CO2 and CFCs without considering alternative possibilities.
You have already directed me to a link that indicated that a more positive polar oscillation had the power to reduce ozone and thus cool the stratosphere. You supported that idea.
You failed to indicate why you preferred the CFC / CO2 explanation to the more likely explanation that the positive polar oscillation was caused by the higher level of solar activity.
You referred me to a link that supported my proposition that upward waves in the energy flux can occur from solar variability causing such waves from troposphere to exosphere.
No pseudo science on my part, just legitimate questioning of your propositions and so far the links you have provided go against what you say.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:46 am
Now just reverse the sign so that an active sun cools the stratosphere with a quiet sun warming it and a great deal falls into place.
“[1] The coupling of the ionosphere to processes from below remains an elusive and difficult problem, as rapidly changing external drivers from above mask variations related to lower atmospheric sources. Here we use superposition of unique circumstances, current deep solar minimum and a record‐breaking stratospheric warming event, to gain new insights into causes of ionospheric perturbations. We show large (50–150%) persistent variations in the low‐latitude ionosphere (200–1000 km) that occur several days after a sudden warming event in the high‐latitude winter stratosphere (∼30 km). We rule out solar irradiance and geomagnetic activity as explanations of the observed variation. Using a general circulation model, we interpret these observations in terms of large changes in atmospheric tides from their nonlinear interaction with planetary waves that are strengthened during sudden warmings. We anticipate that further understanding of the coupling processes with planetary waves, accentuated during the stratospheric sudden warming events, has the potential of enabling the forecast of low‐latitude ionospheric weather up to several days in advance. Citation: Goncharenko, L. P., J. L. Chau, H.‐L. Liu, and A. J. Coster (2010), Unexpected connections between the stratosphere and ionosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L10101, doi:10.1029/2010GL043125.”
might be of interest.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 8:28 am”
Yes Leif that is of interest but it is limited to so called sudden stratospheric warming events which are localised and temporary phenomena.
I would indeed consider them to be created from below as large pulses of upward energy flux from the surface temporarily overcome the restraining influences from above. You are comparing apples with oranges there.
More relevant to long term climate change is the prolonged gradual cooling of the stratosphere whilst the sun was active and what may turn out to be a prolonged gradual warming of the stratosphere now that the sun is less active.
The level of solar surface activity (presumably acting via the impact of the solar energy flux at the top of the atmosphere and thereby affecting the efficiency of those upward waves) appears to set the background energy flux from tropopause upward where the convective processes from below run out of power apart from those upward bursts in sudden stratospheric warming events.
Of course if the air circulation systems move back poleward again whilst the sun stays quiet or if the polar oscillations go heavily positive whilst the sun stays quiet or if the stratosphere goes back to long term cooling whilst the sun stays quiet then I would accept any of those events as a falsification but don’t bet your pension on it.
bubbagyro says:
May 18, 2010 at 8:21 am
Can someone who has raw data from the last 500 years of counting history take all of the diligent SSN counters and do a mean and sd for each cotemporal point?
Of course, people have done that already, but it is of no use as the various observers do not use the same instrument or technique. Assume that we have two observers, one with a very small telescope at a site [e.g. central London in the 17th century] with poor seeing and lots of pollution; the other with a huge telescope at a mountain top with perfect weather 300 days out of the year. These two observers will arrive at very different counts of the number of sunspots they see. Add to this, that one observer deliberately does not count small spots or specks and you have a difference in technique. Statistics will not help you here [furthermore the distributions are not normal and the SD is almost useless]. If the two observers overlap in time you can regress one against the other and ‘scale’ one observers count [provided the regression is decent] to the other ones. If they do not, you might find a third observer that overlaps part of the others, etc, building ‘bridges’ or chains all the way up to modern times. This is highly dubious as errors tend to accumulate along the way [or rather, you don’t know what they are]. The only way to do this unambiguously is to compare with other physical phenomena that depend on solar activity, but does not involve the subjective aspect of sunspot counting. Fortunately, there are such other records. Solar activity creates electric currents in the upper atmosphere of the Earth. These currents have a magnetic field which we can [and have since the 1720s] measure at the surface. Comparing the recorded SSN with the magnitude of these currents we can calibrate the SSN. Assume, for example, that a modern SSN count of 100 gives a deviation of 50 nT of the Earth’s magnetic field and a SSN of 200 gives a deviation of 80 nT [and others in between], then we can assume that if a deviation of 65 nT was measured in 1785 [say], that the SSN would have been about 150. If an observer reports a count for that year of 75, then we may assume that a factor of two should be applied to his counts to put them on the ‘modern’ scale. The various assumptions are justified a posteriori if the relationships for several observers are consistent [as they are]. Measurements of radioactive nuclei in ice cores and tree rings afford a similar check that allows us to assess the old historical records [albeit with less precision].
There are no statistics involved in this, nor should there be, as the different records are drawn form different [and unknown] distributions and are therefore not amenable to statistical discrimination. To see this take my example of the two non-overlapping observers and tell me in detail how statistics will help, using your many years of experience and applying your many patents and papers. Statistics cannot make up for data that isn’t there.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:10 am
“You cannot conclude anything from a single occurrence. Solar wind velocity is often high near solar minimum, where the absence of solar activity favors the creation of large coronal holes [they are not disturbed by the closed magnetic fields from many active regions].”
Often high around minimum I agree, but not this mimimum. It has been below 600kps since Nov 2008, and before late April 2010, has not been up to 800kps since Nov 2007. This is significant.
Shhh…..be vewy quiet….I’m hunting a Fwux Wabbit.
rbateman says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Shhh…..be vewy quiet….I’m hunting a Fwux Wabbit.
Perhaps go easy on the Merlot…
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:26 pm
He’ll be back. He’s just hiding in his hole. We got him covered with 3 satellites.
He can’t fool us.
Is there any radio flux data, and solar wind velocity data available for C17 ?
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl17.html
especially 1933 to 1938.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 18, 2010 at 11:44 am
Often high around minimum I agree, but not this mimimum. It has been below 600kps since Nov 2008, and before late April 2010, has not been up to 800kps since Nov 2007. This is significant.
~
Yeppers, Ulric significant indeed. Mucks up the averages. Averages are used in modeling heliospheric interactions with interstellars.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:26 pm
rbateman says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Shhh…..be vewy quiet….I’m hunting a Fwux Wabbit.
Perhaps go easy on the Merlot…
~
Adventures with Buggs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.
Featured sound bite “Something Screwy.”
http://www.entertonement.com/collections/6882/Elmer-Fudd
Now don’t anyone take this personal.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:24 am
Is there any radio flux data, and solar wind velocity data available for C17 ?
On a daily basis, No.
On rotational, monthly, or yearly basis, Yes. I have reconstructed such data.
Carla says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:03 am
This is significant.
Not at all. Coronal holes [with high solar wind speed] are formed when new activity leaves behind magnetic flux which is not disturbed by further eruption of spots. So this is quite normal, not unusual, not significant as something extraordinary.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:24 am
Is there any radio flux data, and solar wind velocity data available for C17 ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:20 am
“On a daily basis, No.
On rotational, monthly, or yearly basis, Yes. I have reconstructed such data.”
So what was going with radio flux, and solar wind proxies from 1933 to 1938?, SSN was not so high for C17, but boy was it warm.
Leif, I remember when we were watching that wind after 23 began to die down. Huge black areas of the Sun were blowing wind up our skirts. I guess for some folks if you haven’t seen it before, it is new to you and therefore significant.
I have said this before. People always love to watch a spotted Sun. I like to watch it when it isn’t filled with spots. So much more is going on with a blank Sun. I have learned much more during this minimum than I ever did when it was all spotted up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:20 am
Carla says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:03 am
This is significant.
“Not at all. Coronal holes [with high solar wind speed] are formed when new activity leaves behind magnetic flux which is not disturbed by further eruption of spots. So this is quite normal, not unusual, not significant as something extraordinary.”
Which is why cycles with higher SSN have colder winters around maximum, and minimums with higher SSN have colder winters, clearly showing that solar wind velocity is what matters as regards surface temperatures, and that the SSN/temperature relationship is actually the opposite of what is widely acknowledged.
As for the recent uplift in solar wind velocity, we find it significant.
“Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 7:12 am
the SSN/temperature relationship is actually the opposite of what is widely acknowledged.”
That’s helpful Ulric but I’m sure Leif won’t agree.
Also I’m a little unsure that the situation is at all clear clear on short timescales due to the plethora of confounding variables. I think one needs 60 years or more to see the underlying pattern. Ideally 500 years from top to bottom of the cycle approximately represented by LIA to date. I don’t think we can safely assert that the change in stratospheric temperature trend from the mid 90s was down to reduced human CFCs which is what Leif and others have gone for.
The temperature inversion at the tropopause has to be the key here because that is where the energy from convection is released upward (or not) at varying rates.
However if your methods work on shorter timescales then go for it but I think you need to bring SSTs into play as well.
To Leif Svalgaard
I would like to suggest that the 10.7 Flux is a good proxy for Total Solar Output (TSO). I haven’t formed the correlations across the energy bands; but I am suggesting the possibility. I am going to assume that thermodynamics is still valid in “Climate Science”, and that high energy eventually becomes low energy (cosmic noise). We have not been able to determine all of the mechanisms and/or relationships, but I would strongly suggest that the Earth’s Climate is caught between TSO and “cosmic noise”.
I agree with you that the Flux is easy to use and less subject to interpretation.
We would have an excellent data point for LOW TSO: now.
My supposition is that there exists a ~400 year Solar cycle that looks like a “sawtooth” where the minimum was in ~1620 and rose to maximum(~linearly) in ~2000. Riding on the “sawtooth” are the 11 year and ~80 year and ~180 year cycles. My simple model had a crude match to Sunspot counts.
From the low TSO, the Climate is gradually warmed over the 400 period, and then the cycle repeats. This would put the 1930s, 300 years into the warming; and “now” 400 years into the warming.
I suspect that the ~400 year cycle is now at its low again. We will now go through decades of cooling.
Again, my suppositions are with poor data; oh, that the Sunspot record went back 4000 years.
Thanks
Stephen Wilde says:
May 19, 2010 at 8:43 am
You missed the point. Just look at every min and max from 1750. Max with higher SSN is more likely to have colder winters than a max with low SSN. A min with higher SSN is also more likely to have colder winters. Inspect each one; http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl1_20.html
Do bear in mind that the solar wind can be very turbulent around maximum, and can cause some strong +ve temp` anomalies, as well as having quiet periods, due to a dearth of coronal holes.
Q. Do world temp`s follow 10.7 Flux and SSN like a roller coaster?
Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 10:00 am
where can I get the raw sunspot counts from the various individuals over the last few hundred years?
bubbagyro says:
May 19, 2010 at 11:17 am
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/daily_area.txt
from; http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/ssndata.html
“Ulric Lyons :
May 19, 2010 at 10:00 am.”
Ok, I see what you are getting at.
On my proposal high sunspot numbers and/or a high 10.7 Flux would enable faster energy loss to space giving colder winters at such times in the absence of any other influence.You seem to go along with that.
However the rate of energy loss to space is only half the equation. The rate of energy release by the oceans also varies on at least three timescales namely interannual ENSO variability, the 30/60 year PDO cycle and the 500 or so year cycle from Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to recent Modern Warm Period.
Of the two influences (solar and oceanic) I have so far assumed that the oceanic effect is much greater than the solar effect because the variation in total solar output varies very little as Leif says. However, if the solar effect is a result of solar surface turbulence and so variability in the solar energy flux at the top of the atmosphere then the smallness of solar power output variability in itself need not be important and the two effects (solar and oceanic) could be more nearly equal over time.
You use the term ‘more likely’ which is fine by me because it allows for occasions when colder winters from a more active sun are offset by a countervailing increase in energy release by the oceans.
As I’ve said many times it is a balance between the solar and oceanic effects which effectively destroys correlations on shorter timescales as far as I can see.
Nevertheless if you can tease apart the two influences to obtain predictability on shorter timescales then you have my support.
Where I might draw the line is in accepting an assertion that the solar effect is dominant as against the oceanic effect but future data will resolve that now that some of us know what to look out for.
The relevance to this thread is that the solar quietude is giving us an ideal opportunity to test some of this stuff.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 19, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“You seem to go along with that”
No I don`t, sunspots are limiting coronal holes. Cold winters are just lower solar wind velocity. Exceptions to any cycles, imagined or real, are of a larger magnitude than the cycle itself, these occur as events, cyclicly, such as the 179yr periodicity that can be found between cold winters in the last 2000yrs. These are due to SHORT TERM changes in the solar wind speed, relative to the seasons. Last July, global Oceans were at peak temperatures, that didn`t stop the coldest winter in a long time, and SST`s took a fast plunge in temperature too.
Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:25 pm
SST’s plunging is being nice about it.
They got sucked into the climate shredder.
“Ulric Lyons says:
May 19, 2010 at 4:25 pm”
So your suggestion is that sunspots limit coronal holes which reduces solar wind velocity to result in a tendency for colder winters when there are more sunspots ?
You refer to the recent cold winter as evidence of that. However there were very few sunspots and the winter was not cold globally so that confuses me. But note that the tropics and the poles were warm whilst the cold was limited to mid latitudes to give overall a warmer than average globe which would support your proposition that less sunspots allowed a stronger solar wind and a warmer globe. Could you resolve that apparent confusion for me please ?
To account for the apparently contradictory real world observations one has to include oceanic variability in the equation and propose that the quiet sun is involved in reducing and not increasing the energy flux to space.
Thus the warm ocean surfaces are consistent with increased energy release from the oceans as per Bob Tisdale’s proposals. That accounts for the warmer tropics as regards the troposphere and a reduction in ocean heat content.
The colder mid latitudes are consistent with an overall global warming if a quiet sun reduces energy loss to space making the polar oscillations more negative and redirecting polar cold towards the mid latitudes whilst the poles become less cold.
The only remaining discrepancy then is that during the late 20th century when the sun was more active that pattern did not obtain. Instead we saw the energy from warmer ocean surfaces ejected rapidly to space via the then positive polar oscillations. The heat distribution in the troposphere was quite different as a result with the three main cloud bands nearer the poles to give reduced albedo and more energy input into the equatorial oceans replacing energy lost from the warmer ocean surfaces.
The three main tropospheric cloud banks are now much closer to the equator than they were then which has the effect of increasing global albedo. That reduces solar input to the oceans and explains why the drop in ocean heat content now is greater than occurred during the similar El Ninos of the late 20th century. Quite simply the higher albedo is preventing full replacement of lost ocean heat content during the recent El Nino.
Thus the most obvious real world observations are accounted for despite their initially contradictory implications.
One simply cannot account for what we actually see without making that intuitive leap about the solar effect being opposite to that which is generally accepted. You seemed to have made that leap but I am a little confused as to how you make it fit your scenario if all you are doing is switching from sunspots to solar wind as a primary warming influence.
I think that is why you emphasise short term climate effects. The speed of solar wind changes is far faster than the ocean and albedo changes so I concede that you may be able to derive some short term predictive skill as regards short term weather. Although I am open minded on that issue I am unable to do that myself because I see chaotic variability at least equal to changes induced by solar effects in the short term.
@Stephen Wilde says:
May 19, 2010 at 9:37 pm
“So your suggestion is that sunspots limit coronal holes which reduces solar wind velocity to result in a tendency for colder winters when there are more sunspots ?”
*Yes that would appear to be the rule, and it makes senese. The last 2 winters though have been low on spots, and low on wind speed from coronal holes, so are an exception to this.
“winter was not cold globally so that confuses me”
*Thats because it only occurs in one hemisphere. Remember last July how cold land temp`s were in the S.H.? and the N.H. land temp`s only dropped a little, but it rained massively all over the N.H. The range of winter temp`s possible, is far greater than summer temp`s. January/February 2010 has had an impact on temp`s everywhere, including ENSO, but obviously would be more severe in the N.H land. A weak polar vortex made it worse for some areas, but warmer for the Arctic, due to exchange of air. Oceans are going to take a month or so to show the rise and fall of the solar signal, they can`t respond as quick as land, so we saw ENSO high in July, after the June heat wave.
“propose that the quiet sun is involved in reducing and not increasing the energy flux to space.”
*Less heat in, less heat out.
“I am a little confused as to how you make it fit your scenario if all you are doing is switching from sunspots to solar wind as a primary warming influence.”
*Sunspot activity gives jets of elavated wind speed, but not as fast as from coronal holes, so its their ratio that is important.
“I think that is why you emphasise short term climate effects. The speed of solar wind changes is far faster than the ocean and albedo changes so I concede that you may be able to derive some short term predictive skill as regards short term weather. Although I am open minded on that issue I am unable to do that myself because I see chaotic variability at least equal to changes induced by solar effects in the short term.”
*Wel I managed to predict the El Nino by adding up the short term factors, seems like like Nature does the same, and all the bits we call weather, do actually add up to make what we refer to as climate. Its just that there are rise and lag times with the sea.
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 19, 2010 at 9:22 am
Riding on the “sawtooth” are the 11 year and ~80 year and ~180 year cycles.
~
Thursday and time out for an “Ignorance is Bliss,” moment.
The “sawtooth,” is the helical Interstellar Magnetic Field in which our solar cycle is embedded.
The Interstellar Magnetic Field has a CYCLE too!
Now put that in your pipe and smoke on it.
Group W now demands a cycle associated with the Interstellar Magnetic Field.
“propose that the quiet sun is involved in reducing and not increasing the energy flux to space.”
*Less heat in, less heat out.
Oven example: Running at 500degF on bake.
Set temp to 400degF, and what happens?
First the input is cut off, so the blackbody radiates excess.
Second, new equilibrium is 400degF, and when the blackbody reaches that temp it stops emitting more than input.
Simply stating that a blackbody emits no more than input does not tell one that the input has remained constant.
If the blackbody temp output has fallen, the input has also fallen.
Just because it cannot be accounted for does not mean that it didn’t happen.
It just means that the reason for less input is unknown.
“Less heat in, less heat out.”
Well yes, clearly.
But if we accept what Leif says the change of heat in from the sun is negligible and so one needs to suggest an additional mechanism for changing the amount or speed of heat going out when solar activity levels change.
From Leif’s own links the most likely such mechanism is in the rate of upward propagation of waves in the atmosphere. One can easily envisage slower upward propagation when the atmosphere contracts and becomes denser and less turbulent during an episode of quiet sun with faster upward propagation when the atmosphere expands becomes less dense and more turbulent during a period of more active sun.
That would be a seperate and distinct effect from the simple “less heat in, less heat out. scenario
rbateman says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:08 am
Think of a chilly desert at night *
“Simply stating that a blackbody emits no more than input does not tell one that the input has remained constant.”
I would have thought the amount of water vapour present above any given region of the Earth, would be a dominant factor in the actual radiative loss.
Think of an equally hot & dry (or cold & dry) desert during the day.
The effect of very dry weather is to increase the diurnal.
eg:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/1955.GIF
The effect of humid/wet weather is to decrease the dirunal.
eg:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/1958.GIF
TSI variations might be small, but the processes that control cloud cover must have a big impact on ocean heat uptake. The solar variances (solar wind, UV & magnetic) that some say change cloud cover is where the research should be funded.
With this area still relatively unknown everything else is just a sideshow.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:58 am
Its just another case of barking up the wrong tree, it`s pandemic in this area of science. As there is an obsession with sunspots, the highly variable solar wind gets overlooked. At the end of the day, the issue with sunspots has been misunderstood. As I have pointed out, the general rules are (exceptions aside) that colder winters are more likely at solar max than min because of the nature of the solar wind at maximum. Cycles with higher maximums have worse cold winters than cycles with lower maimums, and minmums with higher SSN are also prone to colder winters. Looking at detail in each cycle, a raise in monthly SSN can often be seen colder winters.
The big distraction with solar forcing of climate has been TSI. If it does not change much, what does? the solar wind of course. Does it follow temperature changes well? yes very well. Can we forecast these changes, even without understanding the mechanisms of heat transfer fully? you bet, and hincast with precision.
Ulric Lyons:
May 21, 2010 at 2:34 am
So a strong solar wind has a warming effect and the solar wind is stronger when sunspots are less as now. Hence (by your account) the overall global warmth we currently see despite the colder mid latitudes in winter.
Most surface temperature sensors are and always have been in the mid latitudes and it is now apparent that depending on the state of the polar oscillations the temperature of the troposphere over the mid latitudes can either go along with the global temperature trend as it did during the late 20th century or move against it as now. My New Climate Model accommodates all those varied observations.
From 1975 to 2000 or so there were lots of sunspots so the solar wind was weaker and therefore there should have been a cooling effect.
That clearly doesn’t fit observations within the troposphere because that warmed while the sun was active. However the stratosphere cooled whilst the sun was active and is now warming with the less active sun.
Do you see the logical problem ?
We can say that the solar effects you propose (but reversed) are seen in the stratosphere but not in the troposphere. The stratosphere cools whilst the sun is more active (both sunspots and solar wind) and warms when the sun is less active. That accords with observations.
On longer timecales the sunspot numbers, speed of solar wind and general solar surface activity rise and fall together so I don’t see much point in seperating them.It’s not an either sunspots or solar wind scenario.
Then there is the problem as to how stratospheric changes impact on the troposphere. That can only work via the varying intensity of the inversion at the tropopause which has a profound effect on the air circulation systems below and leads to variability in the polar oscillations. We then see those polar oscillations working either with or againt sea surface variability to create a specific climate pattern at any given time. That climate pattern varies as the relative solar and oceanic influences interact over time.
However none of that precludes your claim to being able to discern shorter term linkages between individual solar wind events and terrestrial weather and climate changes. It’s just that to my mind it doesn’t seem to work across decades involving several solar cycles. On that timescale there are other underlying periodicities as well. They are not all solar hence my need to involve oceanic variability.
@jinki says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Hot summers and cool winters would be the greatest path to increasing atmospheric water vapour. Temperature drops in summer, and temperature rises in winter, both increase precipitation, and will reduce total vapour amount present. A warmer World with more, rather than less water vapour is ideal (up to a sensible limit). Then we don`t have to suffer the extremes in temperature that occur when the atmosphere is dryer. See how spikey European temperatures were before 1860 even at yearly resolution:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm
1666 and the fire of London is another good example.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:58 am
““Less heat in, less heat out.”
Well yes, clearly.
But if we accept what Leif says the change of heat in from the sun is negligible and so one needs to suggest an additional mechanism for changing the amount or speed of heat going out when solar activity levels change. …”
_________________________________________________________________________
The total TSI only changes a little but the “mix” also changes. However some at NASA think the change is significant. (And yes I remember the “fight” between Judy & Leif)
“… To the amazement of many researchers, the solar constant has turned out to be not constant.
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,” says Lean. “How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate.”
….SDO will observe the sun at wavelengths where the sun is most variable, the extreme ultraviolet (EUV)….” NASA
“..A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” ….” NASA
This one I read with great amusement:
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, David Rind, Anne Waple
Abstract:
“We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures. “
Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2149 – 2152
Their assumption there was no cooling in the southern hemisphere is because Analysis of the Southern Hemisphere is limited by the small amount of terrestrial surface from which proxy records may be retrieved…In this study climate model simulations of the Maunder Minimum are investigated for the purpose of advancing the understanding of LIA patterns in the Southern Hemisphere. Back to scientific research being replaced by computer models. GRRRrrr
This study indicates there was at least some sort of change in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/2797/2008/acp-8-2797-2008.html
and there is this: Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies
Graphs of interest:
Graph plots by wavelength:
C 14 link to Sunspots:
Leif’s TSI graph:
Graph: Cosmic Ray since 1965:
Vukcevic graph Geomagnetic field at N. Pole vs sunspots:
@Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 4:06 am
“From 1975 to 2000 or so there were lots of sunspots so the solar wind was weaker and therefore there should have been a cooling effect.”
It cuts both ways. Look in detail at C21; http://www.solen.info/solar/solcycle.html
And see the hot bits of 1976 occur at notches, and the cold 1979/82 winters at peaks SSN. The big cycle will give effectively, hotter, and colder episodes. The same is for C22. See the drop off in SSN in mid 1990 that led to such a hot summer, then rises in Jan 1991, making cold, then rises again to set Pinatubo off. C23 being smaller, didn`t have many cold winters until this minimum. So the big cycle is spikey, more highs, more lows.
“On longer timecales the sunspot numbers, speed of solar wind and general solar surface activity rise and fall together so I don’t see much point in seperating them.It’s not an either sunspots or solar wind scenario.”
I don`t think that is true, and there is no point in looking at longer time scale, it serves no purpose at all in evaluating weather or climate, as the SHORT TERM changes relative to the seasons are totaly instrumental in deciding whether we get a cold winter, a heat wave, an El Nino, a drought and so on and on. Just look at all the cold winters on CET, and see how many months it takes to get above average temp`s after most of them. Thats the solar signal doing that, it changes fast.
I don`t see any problem with mapping changes to the polar vortex pressure, and the jet stream position, relative to the seasons, from the ups and downs in the solar signal.
As far as I am concerned, the longer term changes or cycles you refer to, are cyclic events as descibed above, and are not actually cycles, in the sense of something like a sine wave.
If your New Climate Model can tell me@ cold winters, heat waves, droughts and floods accurately at a weekly level, then you have something.
The strato/tropo temp` relationship is interesting yes? how do you think that works?
Had you seen the near surface temp` profile on here, notice the peak around the vernal equinox: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
May 21, 2010 at 5:52 am
Typo; then falls again to set Pinatubo off.
Gail Combs says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:47 am
The solar wind velocity can climb 200% or more in less than a day, turbulance and density are also important cosiderations, particularly around solar max.
Ulric,
Thanks for that detail I’ll give it some more though. However I think the longer term underlying climate trends are pretty important in my view because they will affect the size and scale of all the phenomena that you describe. My model is aimed at the background trend and I am having success anticipating the general character of an upcoming season. I’m happy to leave the weekly detail to you.
Gail,
Many thanks. Some good material for me to use against Leif there
especially:
” a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases.”
Particularly nice to see a recognition that the air circulation systems do respond to solar variability which is a concept at the heart of my proposals 🙂
@Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 7:26 am
“However I think the longer term underlying climate trends are pretty important in my view because they will affect the size and scale of all the phenomena that you describe.”
Not really. The phenomena that I am describing are far greatrer magnitude than any so called cycle. A great example is the cold episodes during the MWP, notably the 1120`s and the 1170`s;
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No2/HV3N2Morony.html
(freezings of the Euphrates)
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1100_1199.htm
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
These are event clusters, that are cyclic, modulated by longer event periods, and are all astronomically forced. Its the big jumps that really matter, like those 2-5C drops in temperature in 2-5yrs that occurred during the Dryas episodes. I think the important terrestial factor above solar forced temp` change, is loss and accumalation of atmospheric water vapour, this would smooth things to degrees. But how fast does it really change, probably quite fast over a few years, looking at history.
Ulric Lyons :
May 21, 2010 at 8:25 am
Ok, I’ll go along with that. It’s a useful way to explain the cold spells in warm periods and warm spells in cold periods.
However it’s still important as to whether one starts off with a warm period or cold period in the first place.
It then comes back to my proposal that during interglacials the solar and oceanic cycles generally offset one another to reduce overall climate variability which then allows the ice to melt.
During ice ages the solar and oceanic cycles generally supplement one another with large climate swings producing enough winter snowfall to get through the summer or subsequent short warmer spikes.
That’s a bit outside your week to week concerns though.
@ Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2010 at 9:18 am
“However it’s still important as to whether one starts off with a warm period or cold period in the first place.”
When last winter hasn`t made much difference to the weather now. The Younger didn`t make much with the rapid rise out of it.
“It then comes back to my proposal that during interglacials the solar and oceanic cycles generally offset one another to reduce overall climate variability which then allows the ice to melt.”
That didn`t stop last the last 2 winters, or the LIA, Dark Ages, Greek minimums etc.
“During ice ages the solar and oceanic cycles generally supplement one another with large climate swings producing enough winter snowfall to get through the summer or subsequent short warmer spikes.”
There would be bigger swings with less water vapour around.
“That’s a bit outside your week to week concerns though.”
I am clearly concerned about all scales. Weekly definition allows precise forecasting for timing of heat waves and cold periods, essential for realistic planing for any extemes, and implications for flood or drought, and also maps out all the liitle bits of weather that eventually becomes the climatic signal when smoothed.
On the lighter side…
Yes this solar radiation and activity is a heavy discussion and can bring upheated debates. 🙂
But on the lighter side. When I was discussing weather in 2008 in Alaska because I lived there… People were trying to say that 2008 was one of the warmest winters on record… I tried to tell them about the bad information that GISS was putting out and one of the characters from skeptical science blog came at me with this reply…
“What does snowiness have to do with coldness?”
I know I’m not a scientist per se like the rest of you commentors here but I was so dumbfounded by that serious question that I had to avoid the website for a few days for fear I’d be ejected for slinging an Ad Homonym or two.
1personofdifference says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“What does snowiness have to do with coldness?”
I lived and worked once on top of the Greenland Inland Ice [78N,45W]. It was VERY cold, but it was also a dessert with hardly any show.
Yes sir. Having lived in Alaska, I’m well aware that just because it’s cold doesn’t mean it’s going to snow. However in line with the predictions that have been going on in this thread, I’ll go out on a limb and state emprically and emphatically and categorically and anything else you want including the kitchen sink … I predict it will snow more when it’s 20 degrees F than when it’s 90 degrees F.
I think i’m safe in that prediction. 🙂
I will stipulate for the record (45 or 72rpm?) that while it’s not always snowing when it’s cold, that the scientific method would safely show that the inverse is a given.
I’m right with you
Michael, this is my favorite topic. I’m also telling friends that the hurricane forecasts are way off as I did last year. Also forecasts and forecasters need some accountability and scrutiny if they veer off track this much, otherwise it is meaningless media filler. I’m also collecting the few good UK research studies on solar effects. I can’t decide which is more interesting, the research findings or the BBC coverage that slaps on standard warning labels that the findings do not overturn AGW. We are getting a glimpse of what life was like in the dark ages. I also get off on details of history and how much more context the details provide relative to the oversimplified spin.