That solar sinking feeling

When I last wrote about the solar activity situation, things were (as Jack Horkheimer used to say) “looking up”. Now, well, the news is a downer. From the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) all solar indices are down, across the board:

The radio activity of the sun has been quieter:

And the Ap Geomagnetic Index has taken a drop after peaking last month:

WUWT contributor Paul Stanko writes:

As has been its pattern, Solar Cycle 24 has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The last few months of raw monthly sunspot numbers from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) in Belgium are: January = 12.613, February = 18.5, March = 15.452, April = 7.000 and May = 8.484.  After spending 3 months above the criteria for deep solar minimum, we’re now back in the thick of it.

The 13 month smoothed numbers, forecast values and implication for the magnitude of the cycle peak are as follows:

  • June 2009 had a forecast of 5.5, actual of 2.801, implied peak of 45.83
  • July 2009 had a forecast of 6.7, actual of 3.707, implied peak of 49.79
  • August 2009 had a forecast of 8.1, actual of 5.010, implied peak of 55.67
  • September 2009 had a forecast of 9.7, actual of 6.094, implied peak of 56.55
  • October 2009 had a forecast of 11.5, actual of 6.576, implied peak of 51.46
  • November 2009 had a forecast of 12.6, actual of 7.190, implied peak of 51.36
  • December 2009 had a forecast of 14.6, actual would require data from June.

Solar Cycle 24 now has accumulated 810 spotless days.  820, which would require only 10 more spotless days, would mean that Cycle 24 was one standard deviation above the mean excluding the Dalton and Maunder Grand Minima.

One standard deviation is often an accepted criteria for considering an occurrence ‘unusual’.

Here are the latest plots from Paul Stanko:

Advertisements

216 thoughts on “That solar sinking feeling

  1. Do you suppose that this, coupled with a La Nina starting will lead to a cooler 2nd half of the year and maybe 5-7 more years to come, as like per David Achibald’s theories? The sun has been in the tank for 3 years, I think the cooling he predicted is due this summer? I personally would like him to be right, self interest hopes he’s wrong…

  2. Hmm. Very low solar activity, La Nina on the horizon. Looks like its back to the good ol’ cold days of the 60-70’s. Good for fish not so good for crops.

  3. Anthony, Leif is going to bring down the rain on this.

    How is this blip unusual? How are solar Minima unusual?

    Look back, the data are spikey.

  4. All we can do is sit and watch … By now you would think NASA with their scary press releases would have figured it out. We do not control the sun, no matter what they make people think. No more than we control the weather…….

    But frankly, it is a good time for science, we can now watch with modern instruments, that could open our eyes to new discovery. What is bad about that?

  5. Expect the polar oscillations to stay negative and the stratosphere to gradually reverse the cooling of the late 20th century.

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
    revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
    slightly warming since 1996.”

    The evidence for a direct solar link to the strength of the temperature inversion at the tropopause is becoming stronger by the day with all that that entails for the air circulation patterns, cloud distribution and albedo effects as described by me previously on this site and also here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5497

  6. the daily AP is much more revealing. right now the individual days are much lower, and the higher monthly average is the product of a few more active days raising the average. in the past, each day is higher, with the monthly average being closer to each day.

    and noaa greatly exagerates the sunspot count relative to the historical record.

    so overall, activity is still extraordinarily low

  7. How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?
    isn’t it contradicting the sun spots climate theory?

  8. Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t this in direct contrast to the stories on Drudge and elswhere stating that we are going to have massive storms?

  9. “nil says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?”

    Urban effects, station drop outs, manipulation. And satellite don’t count as it wasn’t around 100 years ago. Or even 50.

  10. Tarpon:
    But frankly, it is a good time for science, we can now watch with modern instruments…..hope not with modern lies too.

  11. Where’s Big Al? And the jerky Sen. Graham? All that CO2 is even screwing up the sun! Somebody do something… ready, fire, aim…. er, wait a minute….

  12. This is one of those “Good news, bad news” stories. High solar activity is not such a great thing either. Think CME’s, etc. that trash satellites, cause blackouts, increase the risk of various cancers, etc. Pick your poison.

  13. @Enneagram says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:34 am

    If its sunspots you`re after, then the proximity of the inner planets with Jupiter, from late August to late October will produce a whole series.

    @MattN says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:56 am
    “This story might have been a little premature:”

    I don`t think so, larger solar storms tend to happen through maximums following long quiet minimums.

    @Roald says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    “So what is driving the recent warming if it isn’t the sun?”

    The solar wind speed has returned to levels not seen since late 2007.

    @ nil says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    “How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?
    isn’t it contradicting the sun spots climate theory?”

    A good deal of the theory is back to front. The larger proportion of long quiet minimums display above normal surface temp`s, minimums with higher SSN will have more cold episodes/winters. Over the whole cycle, more cold winters will be found around maximum. Its all to do with the balance between spots and coronal holes.

  14. @nil
    “How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?
    isn’t it contradicting the sun spots climate theory?”

    Not really… There could be up to a decade lag between low solar activity and noticeable effect on climate.

  15. “isn’t this in direct contrast to the stories on Drudge and elswhere stating that we are going to have massive storms?”

    Stories like that are generally a “safe bet” if you play the odds. We have “massive storms” every solar max and our electronic infrastructure is more extensive than it was during the last solar max.

    It is just a headline designed to attract eyeballs to ads at most news media outlets. That is why it is called the “news industry”; they manufacture news.

  16. My solar based forecast for temperature deviations from normals, indicates;
    a heat wave starting around June 12th,
    a heat wave starting around mid July,
    a drop in temp mid August leading to v.heavy N.H. rain,
    an intensly hot September, especially at the end,
    a record breaking hot October,
    an unusually mild November, very wet.

  17. Enneagram says:
    Someone upthere pull the hand break:

    Planning a trip down to Concepción on 20th September, flying to Europe to see Katla’s shaking its ashtray?

  18. Forget CO2, forget Methane – the only place Earth gets heat from is the Sun. (double fullstop). Find out how much heat comes from the Sun during its solar variations – then FIND OUT HOW THE EARTH HANDLES THE INPUT.

    ps. No models are allowed – they don’t work!

  19. Wishful thinking: Next october, Climate Gate II. Next november: Snow falling on Cancun during GWrs. jamboree, El Chichon volcano eruption covers with ashes pleasure gathering of climate fanatics, local drug cartel’s maffia kidnaps Al Baby. ☺

  20. I’m an AGW skeptic, but I agree with Lief. It looks like noise on the ramp up of cycle 24…

  21. So much for ‘revising’ historical SS counts, et al. Current inflated SS numbers render the whole “science” a farce. Now we are supposed to believe radio fluence is the holy grail. Perhaps it will so resolve-when we’re long dead and gone.

  22. Just like with the temperature dataset, NOAA is also contaminating the Solar Spot Number by giving sunspot numbers to every little speck on the sun… even dead pixels.

  23. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    “nil says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?”

    Urban effects, station drop outs, manipulation. And satellite don’t count as it wasn’t around 100 years ago. Or even 50.”

    But haven’t we learned only yesterday that the increase in CO2 is following the temperature rise? Could it really be that the oceans are emitting so much CO2 because of urban heat islands?

  24. I’m looking at your graphs with a chartist’s eye, not a scientists, and I see a very spiky history that suggests you should be careful reading too much into this recent drop in sunspots. I’d wait for a couple more data points before concluding the sun is going quiet again.

  25. gary gulrud says:
    June 10, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    So much for ‘revising’ historical SS counts, et al. Current inflated SS numbers render the whole “science” a farce.
    Only for people that do not know what is going on. The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.

  26. “Ulric Lyons says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    My solar based forecast for temperature deviations from normals, … etc…”

    But where?

  27. Roald says:June 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    Urban effects, station drop outs, manipulation. And satellite don’t count as it wasn’t around 100 years ago. Or even 50.”
    But haven’t we learned only yesterday that the increase in CO2 is following the temperature rise? Could it really be that the oceans are emitting so much CO2 because of urban heat islands?

    So much CO2? Really. Historically? Unprecendented? Better look at some historical reconstructions or change your use of adjectives.

  28. It is far too soon to say the present solar cycle is slowing down. It actually looks like we are going to have some of the strongest solar activity of this cycle, so far, by the end of June 2010.

  29. nil says: June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?

    Every downturn from a peak is going to be neat that peak. And 2009-2010 a hot period?? Pffff….

    Rule one of AGW – it is only ever very hot in places that nobody lives and nobody can verify.

    .

  30. The curve is pretty noisy, lots of ups and downs.

    The current little dip has many of similar size earlier in the cycle.

    Wait and see if the trend survives the noise.
    -Jay

  31. I love this NASA Sunspot prediction.

    We pay for this ‘science’ ? You could do better by throwing darts at a board, or doing a vox-pop at your local kindergarten.

    .

  32. Too early to say. This fluctuates wildly. The next 6 months will tell us much more I think.
    My feeling though is that the sun is taking a nap.

  33. An important graph that should be always be looked at when discussing the sun is total solar irradiance. Irradiance is good measure of the total energy reaching the earth from the sun, and as as this latest very detailed graph displays:

    While it is bouncing around a lot, the graph is quite clearly on the uptrend from the solar minimum, and if you look back toward the years prior to the solar minimum, heading back towards the last solar max in cycle 23, you’ll see a series of higher highs and lower lows, that are in line with the crossing of groups of sunspots, etc. Expect irradiance to continue on it’s upward trek, though bouncing up and down as it does so, toward the solar max in 2013, and the total amount of energy from the sun to increase ever so slightly in tandem. A great study on this has recently been published which also discusses the surprizing relationship between sunspots and faculae and irradiance:

    http://www.physorg.com/news194025410.html

    In sum, though we may be temporarily seeing a lull in solar activity, this brief spike down, which as the solar irradiance chart above shows, is often followed by a sharp spike upward, and there is no reason to think we won’t see that soon, as we have a long time to go to the next solar max.

  34. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 10, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    gary gulrud says:
    June 10, 2010 at 1:16 pm
    So much for ‘revising’ historical SS counts, et al. Current inflated SS numbers render the whole “science” a farce.

    Only for people that do not know what is going on. The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.

    Sounds like two different issues to me.

    1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.

    2. Too low SS numbers, compared to what we would expect without the L&P effect.

  35. The frozen waves are cool. It looks like something out of Day after Tomorrow. (Fun sci-fi if you can get past the AGW setup)

    Should we be talking about Bond events with the oceans going cold and a solar minimum? It’s been about oh let’s ee.. 1400 years. Hmmm.

    Which way to Lake Agassiz?

  36. Ralph says: June 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    I love this NASA Sunspot prediction.
    from the years past:
    “This year, as the cycle approaches its maximum, forecasters are placing bets on how the next solar peak will unfold. So far, their outlooks aren’t converging. A group led by Leif Svalgaard of ETK (a Houston-based consulting firm) predicts the weakest peak in over a century. Using a different technique, David Hathaway and Robert Wilson of NASA are calling for the strongest cycle since the 1950s.”
    Good old doc Svalgaard !

  37. “”” Roald says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    So what is driving the recent warming if it isn’t the sun? “””

    I would say it is your fertile imagination since we really haven’t had any recent warming in the last 15 years; which is half of a standard climatic baseline period. Of course that 1998 El Nino, was an anomalous anomaly so we can’t count that; weather is not climate after all.

  38. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.
    This is compensated for, so is not an issue.

  39. nil says:
    June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?
    isn’t it contradicting the sun spots climate theory?
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    Real easy you fudge the data: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif

    Also do not forget the ocean cycles have a big contribution to the temperature and because of their mass they do not change temperature in a hurry.

    Here is the raw 1856 to current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

    Large city in the middle of NC – Fayetteville NC

    How about Professor Paul Jones from the Climate Research Unit who when asked by the BBCs Roger Harrabin in February 2010:
    “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming[?]
    Jones: Yes, but only just.”

    Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    Jones: “…the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

  40. Less sun = colder oceans. The longer the quiet sun goes on the colder the oceans get. Solar flux down in the 60s again. Over 1d celcius drop in recent months.
    Colder oceans = colder climate
    Sunny Sydney last night down to 5 on the coast – this is really unusual. Night temps have been tracking in single figures for most of the week. Daytime temps are around 15 on a sunny day – this is also unusual. Are the lamestream media picking up on the sun, the oceans, the cold? You gotta be kidding!

  41. Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
    predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)

  42. SC24 is running subdued in the umbral spot area dept:

    while not doing to bad in penumbral area:

    Leif: The umbral area seems to track much better with the 10.7cm flux than penumbral or whole spot area.
    Perhaps this is only confined to this cycle’s L&P effect?

  43. Crops look good to excellent.

    http://www.agriculture.com/ag/category.jhtml?categoryid=/templatedata/ag/category/data/agnewscategory-crops.xml

    http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=TIBILLPKRKG54CQCEASB5VQ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1275684340274.xml

    “We planted it in record pace and it could very well be harvested earlier than farmers have picked corn in many years,” Mowers says.

    Already, there are reports of Iowa grain elevators making plans for very busy harvest activity in late August/early September.

    So, what would a bumper crop and early harvest mean for crop prices? Warning: The answer may be more digestible for end-users versus producers.

    Early end-user buying
    Let’s first take a look at what the futures market could look like under an early harvest, big crops scenario.

    The December futures contract would no longer be the new-crop month. Instead, September would become the new-crop month.

    “The bottom line, it’s possible you are looking at a high yield, high test-weight crop in 2010 that the 2009 crop lacked. This means end-users will be looking to get this years crop in-hand early. As a result, we will feel harvest pressure earlier than normal,” says Joe Victor, Allendale Inc.

    An early harvest would also mean seasonal price patterns could occur sooner. “Whereas, the highest futures and cash price for the producer normally comes in late January-early February, this could happen late December-early January,” Victor says.

    This early end-user buying philosophy is happening right now with wheat. As the wheat crop gets underway, end-users are being advised to step in before 60% of the crop is harvested and grab at least a six-months worth of supply.

    Previously:

    USDA: Farmers making big planting strides

    http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=QEYIJK3BT0MYECQCEASB5VQ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1275425761013.xml

    Progress report
    http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/prog2310.txt

    I’m sticking with sc24 kind of resembling an ‘elongated’ sc20…

    But I’m not in Sunman, Indiana now. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express

  44. Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
    predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)

    Don’t snicker. I think that is a very, very good question and could be very real. To me that is some proper scientific probing! ( But what would I know being one of the declared out-of-the-know crowd? )

  45. as far as cooler temps – Seattle has just broken its all time record for the late arrival of the “first” 75 degree day of the year. We *still* haven’t hit 75. Maybe this weekend . . . . (we’ve also set records for consecutive days of measurable precipitation for this time of year). Mt. Rainier has fresh snow.

    Bring on global warming . . . .

  46. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
    June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Sounds like two different issues to me.

    1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.

    2. Too low SS numbers, compared to what we would expect without the L&P effect.

    Both are casualties of counting specks. The L&P effect suffers the same problem, the more specks there are, the more lower gauss readings are thrown into the mix.

  47. Mattn –
    as for noaa and their solar storms – they’re fearmongering (do they get more money if they can incite a panic?). I saw those same releases two years ago.

  48. Ralph says:
    Rule one of AGW – it is only ever very hot in places that nobody lives and nobody can verify.

    Really? That’s quite funny because I live in Labrador and 3 months so far this year have been between 8 to 10 degrees warmer than the average… 1 month was average and the other was 3 degrees warmer… I’m not saying this is AGW but i’ll tell you what, the global averages for this year have so far been very much affected by the heat in northern Canada and despite what you think, lots of people do in fact live there.

    Perhaps you should consider a little fact-checking before you open your mouth.

  49. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.”

    Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?

  50. The study of the sun is one of mankind’s oldest sciences, and yet great swaths of its respected practitioners are made to look silly on a very regular basis (particularly the last few years).

    Climate Science, as a recognized discipline, is maybe a generation old. . . and we’re supposed to believe how accurate it is about century-length predictions.

  51. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The ‘episodic’ ramp-up is also not unusual for a weak cycle:”

    Leif can you provide any links that detail the rationale (other than consensus) for the weak cycle 24 prediction?

  52. ed, continued heavy cloud cover in iowa is taking the blush off the rapid plantig pace. we still need the heat and we aint gettin it. farmer dave in nw iowa

  53. For the recent past daily F10.7 radio flux graphed with the
    planetary A index and the sunspot reporting number
    you can click on:

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

    There’s a huge difference between the spot reporting number
    and the actual monthly count. The spot numbers and number
    count summary for the month of May, 2010 can be seen at:

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

    You can check out the sunspot counts and F10.7
    Radio flux measurements for the previous 30 days:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt

    For a general (but not infallible) summary of spotless days
    during solar cycles 10 through 24 you might look at:

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html

    Some pundits are indicating the solar cycle is right on the
    schedule they “predicted”, with a “ramping” up of solar
    activity. However, these same folks thought the F10.7cm
    number would now be the 80’s and actual monthly spot
    numbers in the high 20’s.

    It looks like we might have less than 90 sunspots for the
    entire year of 2010.

  54. Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
    predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)

    —…—…

    Robt protests: Gail cheated and copied my snarky sarcastic comment about the peak of nbr 24 cycle already being over before I could post it….. No fair! 8<)

  55. Neutron counters have stopped their decline. The Oulu counter is holding at 2008 levels. The neutron counters at Leif’s page also are flat since April.

    I haven’t seen any 2010 update on the CLOUD experiment at CERN for results on cosmic rays creating condensation nuclei.

  56. Glenn says:
    June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?
    Warmer than they have been since the 1940s [calculated form the F10.7 microwave flux]. Hundred years ago, we don’t know. 350 years ago we think the spots were warm too and hard to see. It has been called the Maunder Minimum.

  57. R.S.Brown says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Some pundits are indicating the solar cycle is right on the
    schedule they “predicted”, with a “ramping” up of solar
    activity.

    It could very well do that, ramp on up. If you looked at the comparison of whole spot and umbral area that I gave in my
    rbateman says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    posting, you will see that SC13/14 had a ‘hump’ in it just before ramp in 1903.7

    You can find historical sunspot drawings from Haynald Observatory for SC13/14 and SC14/15 at:
    http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html

  58. Extending the comment above about “three of the top years”…

    This trend is very striking when both number of spotless days/year, and number of fewest spotless days/year, are looked at for all historical cycles.

    The sunspot cycles are very clearly grouped together in sets of three: Three cycles high, three cycles low, three high, three low, etc.

    Within those groups of three – generally, but not always, the middle cycle is the most extreme: Moderately high counts, very high counts, moderately high counts, moderately low, very low, moderately low. Granted, this is a “verbal” description, but it does describe a simple sine/cosine wave of period 66 years – but I am separated from my folders of counts and plots, and so cannot offer the plots themselves.

    Thus, I don’t think it is the 11-year sunspot cycle itself that is related to the 60 – 70 years short term climate cycle – a 60 to 70 year cycle seen in solar orbits and climate temperature changes, the PDO, ENSO, etc. – but that all of these cycles are demonstrating related behavior due to common, but not-yet-identified, periodic change in solar circulating patterns.

    That is: a group of three sunspot cycles do not themselves change the climate or change the temperature. Nor do they themselves change the PDO or AMO or change the incoming gamma rays and cloud cover on earth. Nor can a group of three sunspot cycles change solar orbits or high cloud cover.

    But whatever DOES control the 66 year cycle of the sunspots DOES appear to influence all of the other correlated symptoms that we see.

  59. I am on the side of believing that solar activity has a strong influence on the climate of the Earth. I do believe that it is as simple as “the sun puts out more heat…the Earth warms”. My hunch is that the solar wind and magnetism have an impact which we do not understand. Whether these variables influence the number of cosmic rays reaching the atmospere and Earth’s cloud formation is a possibile mechanism. (the theory is that cosmic rays increase cloud formation and that an active sun, with a strong solar wind and magnetic field, prevent cosmic rays from reaching the atmospere)
    There is good evidence that solar activity, as measured by sunspots, fluctuates greatly from one cycle or series of cycles to another. There is also good evidence that Earth’s climate has fluctuated dramatically during the past 4 billion years. Finding a convincing link between the two is the challenge.

    As for this solar cycle, Leif can say it is “normal” because he looks at it scientifically. Whatever the processes are which drive solar activity, they are progressing normally. However, it is safe to say it is the slowest “ramp-up” and “quietest” period in any of our lifetimes. It is NASA, (Hathaway) which was making the most inaccurate predictions about this cycle. Here’s an article from 2007 already admitting they were wrong and they continued to be so: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html

    As for AGW believers, they can not predict solar activity but they are sure it has no influence on climate, past, present or future.

  60. The sentence: I do believe that it is as simple as “the sun puts out more heat…the Earth warms”…

    was supposed to read: I do NOT believe…

  61. geo says: “The study of the sun is one of mankind’s oldest sciences, and yet great swaths of its respected practitioners are made to look silly on a very regular basis (particularly the last few years). Climate Science, as a recognized discipline, is maybe a generation old. . . and we’re supposed to believe how accurate it is about century-length predictions.”

    The problem with astrophysics, geo, is how little we know.
    The problem with climatology is how much we know that isn’t so.

  62. dave wiebke says:
    June 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    ed, continued heavy cloud cover in iowa is taking the blush off the rapid plantig pace. we still need the heat and we aint gettin it. farmer dave in nw iowa
    __________________________________________________________
    Tell me about it. We finally got the first cutting of fescue hay today. It is a good three weeks late for North Carolina.

  63. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Glenn says:
    June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?
    “Warmer than they have been since the 1940s [calculated form the F10.7 microwave flux]. Hundred years ago, we don’t know. 350 years ago we think the spots were warm too and hard to see. It has been called the Maunder Minimum.”

    Isn’t the relationship a correlation and not a causal relationship? And if so, would your assumptions be based on pure speculation?

  64. RACookPE1978 says:
    June 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
    predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)

    —…—…

    Robt protests: Gail cheated and copied my snarky sarcastic comment about the peak of nbr 24 cycle already being over before I could post it….. No fair! 8<)
    ___________________
    What can I say, Great minds think alike. I would really laugh if we turned out to be right. double snicker

  65. Robert says:

    Would that be for all of Labrador or just the area you live in?
    I live in NE Arizona and it averaged 8-10 below normal from early Oct through Early May (In the area I live). Since I didn’t maintain a data base for all the weather stations in Arizona I can’t speak for a Statewide average.

  66. If nothing else changes, the Sun will keep right on doing the same thing it has been doing the past 3 years:
    Instead of a ramp, it’s putting on a stinker.

  67. Gail Combs says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    dave wiebke says:
    June 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    But that’s still not out of the norm, even during the recent grand solar maximum we’d experience a few years like this.
    So we’ve had a long solar minimum with five VEI 4 volcano eruptions in ’08 & ’09, its been kind of tough but not too terribly drastic and we’re beginning to come out of it. All this talk about bitter cold waves ‘way out of the norm’ could take 100 years or more.

    We are more at the mercy of the really large VEI eruptions, or close groups of larger eruptions than a solar nap. At least until a Malankovitch Cycle really kicks in, (if it ever does again) or impact from large space rock.

  68. Ed Murphy says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    No, we are not out of the solar minimum woods yet, at least not until ramp is sustained.
    Don’t count your spots before they are hatched,
    We cannot assume that the increased frequency/intensity of volcanic events of the last 210 years have nothing to do with the rising/falling edges of solar minimums/naps.
    We do not know if this is coincidental or correlated.
    Thus, the whole meaning of this thread.

  69. Robert says: June 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Ralph says:

    Really? That’s quite funny because I live in Labrador and 3 months so far this year have been between 8 to 10 degrees warmer than the average…
    Perhaps you should consider a little fact-checking before you open your mouth.

    Just like I said – its only ‘warm’ where nobody lives and no one would want to live.

    .

  70. Solar Cycle 24 now has accumulated 810 spotless days.

    Here I will only give the total of spotless days provided by SIDC. These numbers are definitive until the year 2009 (included). The values are:
    2004: 3
    2005: 13
    2006: 65
    2007: 163
    2008: 265
    2009: 262
    For this year, on June 1st, the number of spotless days is 30. This is still a provisional value.
    The sum is 801 spotless days for this minimum, according to my calculations on the numbers provided by SIDC.

  71. So apparently the tiny tims should be counted, sunspot numbers are “too low”, etc. Hmmm. Well, folks have to get the SC 24 maximum sunspot number to at least 70… somehow.
    Layman’s Count predicts a cycle maximum similar to or less than SC 5 (49.2) which means that with current count “inflation” the “universally accepted maximum” for SC 24 will probably fall as predicted between 70 and 90 (close to Damon type), whilst Layman’s will reach between 40 and 60 (close to Dalton Type).

  72. Ed Murphy says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    “Already, there are reports of Iowa grain elevators making plans for very busy harvest activity in late August/early September.”

    From mid August to early September will be very wet in the N.H.

    My solar based forecast for temperature deviations from normals, indicates;
    a heat wave starting around June 12th,
    a heat wave starting around mid July,
    a drop in temp mid August leading to v.heavy N.H. rain,
    an intensly hot September, especially at the end,
    a record breaking hot October,
    an unusually mild November, very wet.

  73. Ed Murphy says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    We are more at the mercy of the really large VEI eruptions, or close groups of larger eruptions than a solar nap. At least until a Malankovitch Cycle really kicks in, (if it ever does again) or impact from large space rock.

    I second that.

  74. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 10, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    The temperature of the spots is not changing, only the amount of smaller spots according to the NSO.
    Nowhere on page 6 does it say that. Direct measurements of the OH lines shows the temperature rising. See page 12 and 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf

    Just The Facts says:
    June 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    Per my question above, are you avoiding me, ignoring me or otherwise? :)
    No, the latest graph is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png and it is updated WHENEVER Livingston has new data. He will have an observing session in June, so stay tuned.

    Glenn says:
    June 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    Isn’t the relationship a correlation and not a causal relationship? And if so, would your assumptions be based on pure speculation?
    No, the relationships are very much causal. So, my statement is not just ‘pure’ speculation, but is well-founded speculation.

  75. Mr. Alex says:
    June 11, 2010 at 1:33 am
    Layman’s Count predicts a cycle maximum similar to or less than SC 5 (49.2) which means that with current count “inflation” …
    The Layman’s count is not a prediction, but just an extrapolation. And the official count is not “inflated”, but is too low.

  76. Here in western Washington the vegetable growers (including us) are 2-4 weeks behind because of the record low temps Ked5 noted above and the exceptional rains. Also I’ve been seeing reports of Eastern Europe having floods. I think I’ll start researching agricultural commodity ETFs. Any thoughts?

  77. Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . . and even then, something unexpected can happen to invalidate even the previous hours forecast.

    Then too, comparing what we have the ability to detect as of now (much greater detection ability now) to what is speculated to have been in the past, always being sure to call those speculations by the label scientific thinking, of course.

  78. Glenn says:
    June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Glenn, you are just using logic, something that the speck-counters and radio flux sunstrength measurers seem to lack.

    Historic sunspot counting method looks backwards and tries to reconcile past climate with historic counting measures, i.e. Wolf et.al, and Layman’s methods. This has pertinence to us today.

    Nouveau sun methods, e.g. magnetism, invisible-to-the eye speck counting, radio wave strength, solar wind, etc., try to be predictive of future climate, a shaky proposition at best without any history, and a misleading one at worst. Without the hindsight of history, the multitude of confounding variables makes this latter a futile exercise.

    Nouveau methods will be very helpful, about five more cycles from now. For now, these are esoteric exercises to be carried out in a dark academic office.

    BTW, beware Christmas 2022 when the planets are on one side of the sun!

  79. LarryOldtimer says:
    June 11, 2010 at 9:41 am
    Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . .
    Not quite the same. My forecast was made in 2004 and has not been updated to fit.

  80. bubbagyro says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Wolf’s desire was not to count, but to measure area. So, you could have one big spot of 2000 x 10E6, and 200 single spots of 10 x 10E6 and they would measure out to be the very same. The spot count would be 2000. The derived Wolf count from Layman’s (or Debrecen) area measurement would be 2000/15=133.3 in a crude estimate.
    Or, you could caculate 2000 * .275 * x^y .775=132.97839422981722855744627206741
    One could also take Wolf’s number that he applied to previous drawings and come up with area, which I believe Pulkovo Observatory has done back to 1825.
    It all depends on what one is doing and looking for, count or measure.

  81. rbateman says:
    June 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    My point is not to evaluate the method, but to preserve the method.
    Bob G

  82. “Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2010 at 11:40 am
    LarryOldtimer says:
    June 11, 2010 at 9:41 am
    Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . .
    Not quite the same. My forecast was made in 2004 and has not been updated to fit.
    ——–

    Queen takes pawn, checkmate, Leif!

    My friend, you said:
    “The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.”

    Aren’t sunspots cooler than the surrounding surface? That was the conventional wisdom I was taught (centuries ago, albeit)
    http://windows2universe.org/sun/atmosphere/sunspots.html

  83. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 10, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    The temperature of the spots is not changing, only the amount of smaller spots according to the NSO.

    ______________________________
    Nowhere on page 6 does it say that.

    No they dont talk about temp, but they talk about the magnetic strength which is the same.

    “sunspots today still follow the same infrared intensity and magnetic field strength relationship seen in previous years (1992-2009). Instead, magnetically weaker sunspots are seen more frequently now with correspondingly higher infrared intensities”

    The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.

  84. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    June 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
    Aren’t sunspots cooler than the surrounding surface? That was the conventional wisdom I was taught (centuries ago, albeit)
    Yes they are cooler [say 4000 degrees]and that’s why we can see them against the hot surrounding [6000 degrees]. As they warm up [say to 5000 degrees], they become harder to see and when they reach 6000 degrees they cannot be seen.

    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 11, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    No they dont talk about temp, but they talk about the magnetic strength which is the same.
    It is the magnetic field that cool the spot. If the magnetic field decreases, the temperature therefore must increases, thus warmer spots.

    The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.
    has nothing to do with speck counting.

  85. Given that the cutoff for spot visibility is about .95 contrast, there has already been a 25% loss according to the latest L&P graph.
    A bunch of spots on the high end of the graph would never be seen.

  86. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    The magnetic field is not changing if you measure a decent spot, therefore the temp is not changing, this is what the NSO is showing along with other contrast studies. If you measure more specks than decent spots it naturally will show a decrease in magnetic strength…that’s what has been happening.

    It has everything to do with specks.

  87. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    If you measure more specks than decent spots it naturally will show a decrease in magnetic strength…that’s what has been happening.
    It has everything to do with specks.

    If the ‘decent’ spots are becoming specks then more specks will be seen.
    I’m working closely with Bill Livingston on this. He measures EVERY spot, speck, and pore during his allotted observing times, weather, time, and seeing permitting. The effect can be stated differently: instead of spots we’ll more and more only see specks. If the specks warm even more, we’ll not even see specks. The L&P effect can be stated thus: spots => pores => specks => poof!

  88. Leif Svalgaard says: June 11, 2010 at 7:36 am

    “No, the latest graph is here [B only]: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn%20B.png

    Bookmarked, thank you. I am going to do some homework so that I’ll have a basic foundation to be able to request and comprehend some of your thoughts on this subject.

    Obviously I should read through these;
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/livingston-and-penn-in-eos-are-sunspots-different-during-this-solar-minimum/

    are there any other papers or articles you would recommend on the subject?

    Do you consider the NASA article/press release reasonably accurate?
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/

    Are there any significant inaccuracies or exaggerations in the NASA article/press release that I should be aware of?

  89. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    If the ‘decent’ spots are becoming specks then more specks will be seen.

    There has been plenty of decent spots this year, L&P have only measured one this year (1057).

    Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?

  90. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm
    Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?
    How do you know they had large readings?
    As long as the selection is random [and not determined from the size of the spots], the method is a valid statistical sample. What makes L&P plausible is the F10.7 measurements where nothing is omitted or missed: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf or
    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf

  91. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?

    Please do. Include field strengths, important spectral lines (see the first L&P paper).

    The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.

    If it’s busted, then you have hard data, right? This is part of a 20 year trend, so you certainly don’t need to data for all the spots.

  92. Leif,

    My comment is regarding the prespective of past TSI changes versus past earth temp changes which you show in the conclusion (page 21) of your paper http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf“for the Workshop in Tromso [Norway].

    In the conclusion you said,

    -Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten
    too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age,

    -Unless the Climate is Extraordinarily
    Sensitive to Very Small Changes,
    •
    -But, Then the Phase (‘Line-Up of Wiggles’)
    is Not Right

    -Way Out: Sensitivity and Phases Vary
    Semi-Randomly on All Time Scales. (NOT)

    Leif,

    I can see the evidence (in your paper) showing that TSI variation cannot explain adequately the historical earth temp variation. I am wondering now if how the TSI is received by earth due to changes in the angle earth’s axis of rotation wrt orbit and its precession might be possible contributors to past earth temp changes.

    Anthony=>thanks for doing a solar post . . . it always makes my day brighter (no pun intended)

    John

  93. Ric Werme says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?

    Please do. Include field strengths, important spectral lines (see the first L&P paper).

    The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.

    If it’s busted, then you have hard data, right? This is part of a 20 year trend, so you certainly don’t need to data for all the spots.

    When you look at all the data carefully (and I have it) its soon becomes obvious there is some bad science going on. The paper is stating the magnetic strength of gauss readings do not follow the normal 11 year cycle. But it becomes clear that cannot be claimed, the meager records taken before SC23 max used a different method where only large spots were measured. After SC23 max all specks were measured, and the result is obvious on the dying cycle. SC24 is showing a turn around with readings getting close to 3000 gauss and the big spots like 1040, 1045 and 1054 were missed. These were big regions that were also dark, also missed was 1041, 1042, 1043, 1048, 1049 and 1056. These all were dark regions.

    Independent research says otherwise, they say no change. It is early days but the rest of the cycle will tell the story.

  94. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    The L&P effect can be stated thus: spots => pores => specks => poof!

    At this stage of a solar cycle, you would normally have spots=> swarms of spots => continuous swarms of spots!
    The poof is good.

  95. As others have observed, the sun remains in a slumbering state, with few sunspots (instead we’re seeing mostly specs), a weak solar flux and anemic Ap index. We should have experienced a ramp-up in solar activity by now as we head towards the next solar maximum. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next six months or so.

    Is it possible we’re heading towards another Dalton Minimum? David Archibald certainly seems to think so.

  96. Early signs of a hatch coming on…

    http://spaceweather.com/

    New sunspot 1081 is crackling with C- and M-class solar flares. Credit: SOHO/MDI

    Give it some time…

    Periods of looking like a wave of mayfly larvae swimming to the top of a trout stream coming.

  97. John Whitman says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    I am wondering now if how the TSI is received by earth due to changes in the angle earth’s axis of rotation wrt orbit and its precession might be possible contributors to past earth temp changes.
    No need to wonder. The orientation and orbital elements of the Earth change with time and the changes manifest themselves as glaciations.

    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 12, 2010 at 1:16 am
    After SC23 max all specks were measured, and the result is obvious on the dying cycle. […] These were big regions that were also dark
    There is a small solar cycle variation of the kind you mention. See slide 9 of
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
    But note that the intensity ratio [also in the infrared] during the interval 1968-1982 varied between 0.47 and 0.62, consistent with [or in the same range] as the measurements by L&P before 1996: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
    The L&P effect is that since then the ratio is higher, in the 0.50 to 0.95 range.
    You also misunderstand the effect. There will still be dark spots with strong fields, but just fewer of them compared to smaller [less dark] spots with weaker fields. Thus we are losing [not seeing] the smaller spots faster than the larger spots. This makes the sunspot number smaller than it otherwise would be. This is clearly shown by the comparison with the F10.7 flux: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf slide 8 and http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence.png and http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence2.png
    These measurements include ALL spots and are a strong argument for the reality of the L&P effect.
    Your allegation of ‘bad science’ is misplaced. The data is strongly suggestive and consistent and it is good science to formulate a working hypothesis based on them.

  98. Ed Murphy says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Give it some time…

    That’s what they said 2 years ago.

    kirkmyers says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:43 am

    It will be interesting to see what happens during the next six months or so.

    It already has been interesting the last 3.5 yrs.
    It’s like a lemon car that you keep having to take back to the shop.
    The poof is in the pudding, and the level of your pocketbook.

  99. The suntrout are hungry with that long minimum, so the larvae were chomped as they swam upwards, or sipped off just as they surfaced. As the trout get full, at times they’ll take rests and let the larvae go. Then they’ll get downright fat & lazy for a while, until the cool-off starts and perks them back up again.

    Have you ever fished a trout stream, Bateman?

  100. rbateman says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Ed Murphy says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Give it some time…

    That’s what they said 2 years ago.

    .. and, funnily enough, it’s what all the solar-climate supporters say when asked about the continued rising temperatures.

  101. You know, our modern observational tools (ground based & satellite) are so much better than they had in the time of past minima, I’d dare say that we are in a minimum that rivals Dalton.

    Sort of like comparing modern electron microscopes to Leeuwenhoek’s microscope.

    Leif, your AAS article says:

    “If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so…”

    Actually, I find the opportunity to study a grand minimum with modern astronomy tools & techniques quite exciting!!

    IMHO, the sucker is broken. Conveyer belt system is not doing what it used to, this might be a very long-term change. Teeny-tiny sunspots, OK, but nothing earth-rattling for a long time, if ever.

  102. John Finn says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Rising temperatures on the Sun due to L&P warming up the spots?
    Sounds about as effective as TSI.

  103. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

    There is a small solar cycle variation of the kind you mention. See slide 9

    And we can imagine how that small dip might look if measured correctly, all of the pre SC23 max data should be removed from the study and your graph, including these values is bad science.

    You also misunderstand the effect. There will still be dark spots with strong fields, but just fewer of them compared to smaller [less dark] spots with weaker fields.

    Your allegation of ‘bad science’ is misplaced. The data is strongly suggestive and consistent and it is good science to formulate a working hypothesis based on them.

    There is no misunderstanding, the larger spots on the back of SC23 are in natural decline and by adding the speck values it goes down even quicker compared to the the method used before SC23 max. The larger spots have been missed on the small SC24 up ramp, but even so an increase in gauss peak strength has been observed. The F10.7 flux values are an entirely different measure and need not be related.

    The data is too unreliable to be strongly suggestive. Promoting this weak data and claiming spots will disappear in 2015 is bad science.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

    John Whitman says:
    June 11, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    I am wondering now if how the TSI is received by earth due to changes in the angle earth’s axis of rotation wrt orbit and its precession might be possible contributors to past earth temp changes.

    No need to wonder. The orientation and orbital elements of the Earth change with time and the changes manifest themselves as glaciations.

    Leif and all,

    Thanks, I have seen Milankovic’s work (or at least general summaries of it) & I wanted your take those ideas. Appreciated it.

    I am trying to update my perspective as follows.

    So the Major Glaciation cycles do not appear to have varying TSI (say at 1 std a.u.) as a major cause and there is a mainstream theory (see Milankovic) that seems to explain the causes.

    We have a view now that TSI (say at 1 std a.u.) variation does not appear to have been a major contributor to the earth’s lower temps in the Little Ice Age (coincides with the Maunder Minimum). Leif, I assume therefore, TSI variation is also not likely to be a major cause for any low temps during the Spörer Minimum & Dalton Minimum. [Sorry, if I assume too much there.]

    And conversely, Leif is it true that the historical earth warm periods seem not to be due to TSI changes either? I am referring to periods such as the Roman warm period and Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm period we are currently in.

    There is a study ongoing at CERN to investigate whether solar activity variations may cause earth temp changes via resulting solar wind changes on GCR=>clouds. As I understand it, there are no results yet to report.

    If CERN study shows no significant relationship exists between solar activity and earth temps via GCR=>clouds then I wonder where does that leave us on Non-Earth Origin (NEO) causes for earth temp changes.

    So, Leif . . . . . are there some NEO candidates in the back of your very experienced solar physicist memory banks? : )

    If there are no currently feasible NEO causes for earth temp changes for the Maunder, Sporer and Dalton minimums (also the historical earth warm periods), then . . . . . . well it is reasonable that earth internal processes are primary drivers those historical changes. Incidentally, for those periods it does not seem possible that man was the cause of earth temp changes . . . which may provide some useful input to us about our theories on whether anthropogenic CO2 is a viable cause of current warming & cooling.

    Am I missing something fundamental?

    John

  105. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:49 pm
    The F10.7 flux values are an entirely different measure and need not be related.
    F10.7 is generated by the magnetic field of sunspots so is very closely related.

    Promoting this weak data and claiming spots will disappear in 2015 is bad science.
    Sticking your neck out with a definite prediction is good science. The current trend moves the ‘disappearance’ out to 2018.

    John Whitman says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:31 pm
    So, Leif . . . . . are there some NEO candidates in the back of your very experienced solar physicist memory banks? : )
    Most solar physicists are not worrying about the climate and it causes.

    well it is reasonable that earth internal processes are primary drivers those historical changes.
    It is a strange fact that people who do not accept internal terrestrial processes are happy to accept internal solar processes…

  106. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    The spot swarms on the startup of previous small cycles (12,13 & 14) are missing from SC24.
    I believe they are impacted already, so as to be missing the smaller spots. We see them as lone groups of medium spots.
    The two groups of today (1080 & 1081) are about half of what they should be.
    An examination of the Haynald Observatory drawings http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html is sufficient to demonstrate what we should be seeing if L&P were not happening.

  107. rbateman says:
    June 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    The two groups of today (1080 & 1081) are about half of what they should be.
    An examination of the Haynald Observatory drawings http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html is sufficient to demonstrate what we should be seeing if L&P were not happening.

    Less spots does not necessarily mean weaker spots (magnetic), this year has seen many spots that are of dark contrast that don’t appear to be diminishing in strength. The dynamo will still go through its normal cycle as it has during past grand minima, but at much lower levels. I think what we are seeing now is a reduced frequency in the dynamo which could also be particular to one hemisphere. This might be causing the reduction in activity but we should expect and are indeed witnessing an increase in gauss strength as we come off the bottom of the solar minimum. If we experience a solar grand minimum this rise off the bottom may not be too impressive. 2015 will be probably just after cycle max, even during a grand minimum we should expect plenty of spots.

    What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.

  108. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am
    What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.
    Then you chose to ignore the inconvenient F10.7 result. Doing this is bad science, but that is your choice, of course.

  109. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 13, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am
    What we are observing is most likely just a weak cycle, not a gradual deterioration of spots until there are none.
    Then you chose to ignore the inconvenient F10.7 result. Doing this is bad science, but that is your choice, of course.

    The F10.7 “result” ?

    Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.

  110. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 8:24 am
    Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.

    The two main sources are ‘free-free’ emission [basically electrons being deflected by other charges – depends on the density of the corona, which in turn is created by the Sun’s magnetic field] and, more importantly for L&P, by gyro-resonance: electrons spiraling in the magnetic field of sunspots. The F10.7 flux is thus a sensitive measure on ‘true’ solar activity. More here:
    http://www.esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/Alpbach2002/DudokdeWit-Radio%20monitoring%20of%20the%20sun.pdf

    That there are now fewer spots than the F10.7 flux indicates there should be [deduced for the period 1950-1991] is a good argument that we are undercounting spots and specks. The L&P effect is a natural explanation.

  111. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Less spots does not necessarily mean weaker spots (magnetic), this year has seen many spots that are of dark contrast that don’t appear to be diminishing in strength.

    The cycle is ramping as L&P eats into it. Even the L&P data shows a range, and it’s going to be reflected in the depth of intensity of spots.
    On the average, using SOHO MDI Continuum as the basis for comparison, SC24 is is failing to gain umbral depth and breadth from it’s spots.
    It’s clear from examination of SOHO EIT’s as well. The active areas don’t extend as far, and often fail to produce spots.
    Need more? Take a long-running Neutron Monitor count, like Moscow, and subtract the expected cyclic waveform from it.
    From 1991 to present, a slope will be seen, mimicking L&P’s slope.
    Now, here’s something to chew on: What do you think will happen to SC24 when ramp is expended and the L&P persists?

  112. rbateman says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Perhaps a comparison of butterfly diagrams of SC23/24 with SC13/14 would help??

    Those links don’t work, they’re .png files.


    What am I supposed to see? I see 13-14 has obvious clumpy groups of spots, but they don’t jump out nearly as much in 23-24.

  113. Ric Werme says:
    June 13, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Sorry Ric, I changed to .png to aid in examination.
    Vertical lines of “+” ‘s are indicative measure of the latitudinal extent of groups.
    Use the Windows Magnifier, and look closer at the clumps. They are composed of a lot of “+” marks. The earlier cycles had groups that, more often than not, extended over a wider range of latitude than does SC23/24.
    SC23/24 is a random & scattered spraying of groups, and far less extensive as the range in latitude reveals.

  114. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

    Tell us about the origin of F10.7. Your referenced PDF suggests many sources.

    According to your reference there are many sources:

    1. Sunspots
    2. Plage
    3. The quiet solar atmosphere
    4. Polar faculae
    5. Prominences

    We would only need one to vary according to the record history to get a variance between spots and flux, more plage could certainly be a culprit. The variance seen since SC23 could just be part of the normal process heading into a grand minimum type cycle, the important fact is that in general the F10.7 is ramping up. Just as we see with the gauss readings.

  115. rbateman says:
    June 13, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I think you are still confusing less activity with less magnetic strength, there is no doubt about reduced activity, but the gauss readings are still heading in an upward direction. The value of 2906 on the 30th march is a good example, that region was not overly large but the contrast values remained high well into the decay phase. The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings, this method has recorded the high points of EVERY region of SC24. It also shows an upward trend.

    The Neutron count is mainly controlled by the solar wind which is influenced by other factors other than just magnetic output. If you look at solar wind graphs that cover SC23/24 you can see it does not always follow the sunspot count.

    I think that once the SC24 ramp is expended the gauss values will simply return back to solar minimum baseline values before heading back up again to SC25 max.

  116. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 6:16 pm
    According to your reference there are many sources
    These are not independent and really derive from the sunspots eventually.

    between spots and flux, more plage could certainly be a culprit.
    That is very likely what the L&P effect is, namely that the magnetic field around spots are assembling itself less efficiently into spots.
    in general the F10.7 is ramping up. Just as we see with the gauss readings.
    You have not understood anything then. Of course, F10.7 is increasing and so is the sunspot number. It is the ratio between them that is changing, because sunspots are becoming warmer. This means that solar activity is not really affected, only the visibility of the spots and thus the SSN becoming less useful as an indicator of solar activity.

  117. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings
    Including for all the small specks? The L&P effect is not that the largest spots are always weaker, but that there are more specks [some too weak to be seen and that fraction is increasing] relative to the larger spots and that therefore the sunspot number is too small and not a valid measure of solar activity anymore. As simple as that, and completely independent of any solar cycle variation of spot magnetism. This is what the F10.7 flux shows, which you conveniently ignore. It is, of course, possible to ignore what one wants, to fit one’s agenda. Many other people do that, too.

  118. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    The Darkness Ratio that Geoff has been working on hasn’t been updated for some time, but reading through each entry I can see it runs in a range of <50% to slightly over 70%.
    L&P also runs in a range.
    A good percentage of spots are simply too weak in contrast to be seen, like Leif says.
    Spot groups are likewise down in the number of small spots they contain, as I have demonstrated with the SC23/24 Transition Butterfly diagram. Download the sequence of transition butterfly images, and run through them.
    The decrease goes back to SC22/23.
    If L&P were to reverse slope, it would be refected in time on the butterly. Right now, I don't see any evidence of that.

  119. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 13, 2010 at 7:06 pm
    Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    The Layman’s darkness ratio aligns very nicely with the gauss readings

    Maybe we can close this by the following remarks:
    No solar physicist would claim that the L&P ‘effect’ is without doubt or uncertainty. On the other hand, L&P could be a natural [or unifying] explanation for three different anomalies:
    1) the L&P measurements themselves
    2) the changing relationship with F10.7
    3) the fact that during the Maunder Minimum when few spots were seen, the solar dynamo was still operating and cosmic rays [and thus solar wind] were still modulated.
    If L&P is for real, this would the most important development in solar physics in the last 400 years and therefore on this alone commands our interest and scrutiny. It is perfectly possible that there is nothing to it and that we must seek other explanations for the above three anomalies. The exciting possibility is that L&P are correct and good science will result from this. In a few years time we will know.

  120. The Layman’s darkness ratio measures the entire region of all groups that make the grade. Single regions under 23 pixels are not counted, the graph is updated every month and is up to date. The values climbing over 70% being of interest and they show the upward trend. The butterfly diagram once again is more about spot count not magnetic values.

    The only thing the L&P results are showing is the increase in specks, but as we all know this is actually inflating the sunspot number. Trying to link spots and flux is full of traps with so many variables involved. The flux and sunspot values are not hard linked as Leif is suggesting (sometimes rudely). Flux values can rise along with gauss readings while the amount of sunspots does not need to rise at the same rate, the frequency is reduced. This is also shown in the EUV values, they are also not hard linked to sunspot activity. The dynamo is being strangled but still going through its normal fluctuations in the Hale cycle.

    Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.

    Rather than going around in circles, lets see how the next 6 months go and come back to review the situation.

  121. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    The Layman’s darkness ratio measures the entire region of all groups that make the grade. Single regions under 23 pixels are not counted, the graph is updated every month and is up to date. The values climbing over 70% being of interest and they show the upward trend.

    Climbed to 74% and fell to 51% in June. Climbed and fell 20 points since the end of May, repeatedly. It’s been higher and lower the past few months. I don’t see any trend yet. I see a measurement running in a range. Given enough time, an overall trend will emerge, but it’s not there yet.
    Geoff’s last reading:
    2010/06/12 06:24 1081 now measuring 45 pixels, it was larger some hours back but maybe the M class flare robbed it off some energy. The darkness ratio measures 51%, dropping 10%

  122. Clive E Burkland says:
    June 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    The only thing the L&P results are showing is the increase in specks, but as we all know this is actually inflating the sunspot number.
    We ‘do not all know that’. The sunspot number is not inflated, but is too low.

    Trying to link spots and flux is full of traps with so many variables involved. The flux and sunspot values are not hard linked as Leif is suggesting (sometimes rudely).
    Flux and SSN are physically ‘hard linked’. There are no ‘traps’. Rude remark: You should get your facts straight. See http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png

    Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.
    What NSO study?

  123. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 14, 2010 at 4:25 am

    We ‘do not all know that’. The sunspot number is not inflated, but is too low.

    Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.

    Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.
    ——————–
    What NSO study?

    The one I referenced earlier in the discussion. http://www.nso.edu/general/docs/APRPP_2009-10.pdf

  124. rbateman says:
    June 14, 2010 at 1:42 am

    Geoff’s last reading:
    2010/06/12 06:24 1081 now measuring 45 pixels, it was larger some hours back but maybe the M class flare robbed it off some energy. The darkness ratio measures 51%, dropping 10%

    Thanks Rob for the typo alert. The current spell is indeed interesting, most of the measured values are taking a dive for the past month or two. I don’t expect this to continue though.

  125. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:20 am
    Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.
    The flux is the true measure of solar activity, and ‘most people’ seem to not know what is going on living as they do in a different universe than the real one where the rest of us dwell.

    “Most importantly the NSO study using the same Kitt Peak observatory is showing no decline in magnetic values.”
    ——————–
    What NSO study?
    The one I referenced earlier in the discussion. http://www.nso.edu/general/docs/APRPP_2009-10.pdf

    that says:
    “Magnetically weaker sunspots are seen more frequently now with correspondingly higher infrared intensities”

    Perhaps misquoting references is accepted behavior in that other universe…

    

  126. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:20 am
    Only low if comparing with flux…most people would consider the current counting methods inflated. Some of us live in a different universe.
    So, if the current number is inflated, then the ‘real’ sunspot number is even lower supporting my finding that the sunspot number is too low…

  127. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 14, 2010 at 5:27 am
    …The current spell is indeed interesting, most of the measured values are taking a dive for the past month or two. I don’t expect this to continue though.

    If things are to turn around on the Sun, it’s going to have to be more than simple rotation. You know how this thing likes to get stuck for extended periods. Behavioral problem Star.

  128. “direct measurements of solar
    irradiance currently cover only about three decades. Beyond that interval
    irradiance has to be estimated using available observations and activity
    indices. This entails three major difficulties: (a) the physical connection
    between the observed activity phenomena, such as sunspot number with
    irradiance is complex and difficult to quantify. Often the result is the need
    to use connections that are often largely empirical, (b) proxies might have
    to be used. In a sense this has some commonality with (a), except that
    here the physical connection is even less understood, but a historical high
    correlation between the proxy and the desired quantity justifies its use, (c)
    having constructed a model which necessarily incorporates elements of (a)
    and (b), it has to be extrapolated substantially outside the parameter space
    that was used to set up that model.”

    I guess “tight” doesn’t mean what we thought it might.

  129. gary gulrud says:
    June 14, 2010 at 9:41 am
    “it has to be extrapolated substantially outside the parameter space
    that was used to set up that model.”
    I guess “tight” doesn’t mean what we thought it might.

    I don’t think that ‘tight’ has changed its meaning.
    About ‘extrapolating outside of the parameter space’, we are now in a better position as the Sun has obliged us by returning to the low values of more than a century ago, so we are not extrapolating ‘substantially’ outside that space anymore. In a sense, we have a tighter and better base for interpreting the proxies. This is real progress.

  130. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 14, 2010 at 7:57 am

    So, if the current number is inflated, then the ‘real’ sunspot number is even lower supporting my finding that the sunspot number is too low…

    It may suggest an even greater deviation between the current F10.7 values and the sunspot number. But that does not mean the two are connected, I have been researching plage activity over SC22 & SC23 and suspect there is a greater proportion of plage activity during SC23. Plage and EUV look to be very closely connected, so I overlaid the F10.7 values over the EUV values for SC23.

    The fit on one solar cycle is fairly impressive.

    The Flux/SSN deviation may just be related to an increase in plage?

  131. Geoff: The problem isn’t so much in scaling one to fit the other, it’s that over time (many cycles) these things want to diverge and converge again. Moving targets. It’s alive.

  132. rbateman says:
    June 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Geoff: The problem isn’t so much in scaling one to fit the other, it’s that over time (many cycles) these things want to diverge and converge again. Moving targets. It’s alive.

    Agree, it would be a lot better if a few cycles of data were overlaid. But the very neat fit especially at 2002 that is not apparent with the sunspot data warrants further investigation perhaps. Finding it hard to find any references dealing with plage area over the cycles.

  133. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    It may suggest an even greater deviation between the current F10.7 values and the sunspot number. But that does not mean the two are connected
    On physical grounds, the sunspot number, F10.7, and EUV are all just manifestations of the same thing: the sun’s magnetic field. So, they are all closely connected. Here is how the SSN follows F10.7: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png
    Plages are the source [and later debris] of sunspots, so are very strongly related to spots. The L&P effect may be a change in the efficiency of the compaction of smaller magnetic elements into spots that then appear dark. It must be remembered that L&P is about the visibility of spots, not about absence of magnetic flux.

  134. “I don’t think that ‘tight’ has changed its meaning.”

    The hope that smoothed regressions to the mean, employing data adjusted by sundry fudges, might reveal an explicit relation of effect, severally distant from their common cause, is a fancy that awaits heuristic underpining by “science” and its epistemologists-confidence notwithstanding. Certainty is a feeling.

  135. gary gulrud says:
    June 15, 2010 at 7:07 am
    Certainty is a feeling.
    The is no ‘certainty’ in science. We try to understand the causes the best we can, using the best data we can get, and construct images or theories based on those. Feelings do not enter. People who promote anti-science or pseudo-science, on the other hand, seem to be propelled by feelings.

  136. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 13, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    If L&P is for real, this would the most important development in solar physics in the last 400 years and therefore on this alone commands our interest and scrutiny. It is perfectly possible that there is nothing to it and that we must seek other explanations for the above three anomalies. The exciting possibility is that L&P are correct and good science will result from this. In a few years time we will know.

    Well said. This is why I find the L&P hypothesis so exciting, and why we should pay a lot of attention to what is happening with our Sun. This stuff is incredibly exiting on its own.

    A different issue is whether there is a earth climate connection.

  137. Leif, you said this in 2008:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 3, 2008 at 6:06 pm
    Data exists up to and including a couple of the first spots of cycle 24 – that is through March 2008 and they show [and thus confirm] the same trend, which is now based on 1990 and 2008. If I could figure out how to show an image here, I would.

    Now, there are a few things to comment upon:
    The spots will still be there except they will be invisible. The reason for this is that as the magnetic field decreases, the plasma heats up [rather it is the strong field that inhibits convection and cools the spot]. As the spot heats up, the temperature difference between the spot and the surrounding photosphere becomes smaller and the contrast decreases with the result that it becomes more difficult to see the spot.

    So, the spot is still there, the magnetic region is still there, the interplanetary magnetic field is still there, the cosmic ray modulation is still there, TSI-variation is still there, the solar cycle dynamo is still operating, etc.

    During the Maunder minimum, we know from 10Be in ice cores that the cosmic ray ray modulation was still operating, so it may be that we had a similar situation, that the magnetic field was still there, but the spots [especially the smaller ones] were hard to observe.

    Even if the trend should ‘flatten’ a bit and 2015 becomes 2020 or more, it is quite possible that a Maunder-type minimum is in the offing. This does not , IMHO, automatically mean that we are entering another LIA, as it has not been demonstrated [at least to my satisfaction – the rest of you can believe what you wish, I’m not trying to convert anybody] that the LIA was due to the Sun.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

    No one can say that you are not consistent! 8-) Thanks, Leif! You touched on the “sunspots are hard to observe” that I remarked on regarding historic minima.

    I’m giving some hard thought to L&P, we’ll see what the sun decides it wants to do. This could be quite a ride!

  138. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Here is how the SSN follows F10.7: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20and%20SSN.png

    I have looked at how you have created the F10.7 values for this graph.

    Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed). If I use the standard Canadian model there is no divergence between the SIDC daily and F10.7 Flux during SC23?

  139. vukcevic says:
    June 16, 2010 at 12:30 am
    If LP is real, than it may be just another manifestation of something which could be predictable.
    Except that the polar fields do not decrease as a result of L&P. What decreases is the visibility of sunspots. Your formula is not a good representation of the polar fields outside of the interval 1980-2000 and has no physical basis, so, alas, no predictive power.

  140. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:47 am
    Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed). If I use the standard Canadian model there is no divergence between the SIDC daily and F10.7 Flux during SC23?

    The Canadians disagree with you:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session6/6d_Tapping_i.pdf
    http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf

    Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed)
    What specifically do you disagree with? The ‘not sure’ doesn’t mean much.
    I have described the method in detail here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf
    Both the Canadians and the Japanese agree with my analysis. The directors of both observatories were co-authors of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf

  141. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:47 am
    Not sure I agree with the flux reconstruction method (or why it is needed).
    It is needed because the relationship between flux and SSN is not linear [see middle Figure on page 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf ], so you cannot just simply scale one to the other.
    Try to repeat the analysis with this in mind. That is find a formula for the relationship before 1990 [say]. the calculate either F10.7 or SSN from that formula for data after 1990 and compare the two.

  142. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Except that the polar fields do not decrease as a result of L&P.

    Hey Doc
    You got it upside down again, but let me enlighten you:
    Cause: magnetic field decline as reflected by the polar field’s decline.
    Consequence: L & P effect.

  143. vukcevic says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:26 am
    Cause: magnetic field decline as reflected by the polar field’s decline.
    Consequence: L & P effect.

    The magnetic flux on the Sun does not decline other than the normal solar cycle effects. The L&P effect has to do with the visibility of the flux. I have forgotten how many times I have said this. What is it you do not understand?

  144. Leif Svalgaard says:
    What is it you do not understand?

    More appropriate:
    L.S: Do you understand any of it.
    V: Very little if any.
    L.S: Then, how dare you make nonsensical statements !
    V: I just look at numbers and assume a meaningful connection.
    L.S: That is not science, it is ‘numerology’.
    V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.
    L.S: Agree
    V: I agree too.
    Happy ending!

  145. vukcevic says:
    June 16, 2010 at 11:27 am
    V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.
    The inverse is not true: numbers alone do not make science.

  146. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “V: Possibly, but then again you can’t have science without numbers.”
    (L.S.) The inverse is not true: numbers alone do not make science.

    Ah, another rush statement, Romans thought the same and how wrong they were. Pythagoras, pi, binary, hex, etc.
    I used numbers to create order out of a chaos, by taking elementary trigonometry function in form of a simple formula, easy to understand.
    Is it a kind of ‘Zeno’s paradox’, where something that mathematically can be proven to be true, that the same in reality may not , time will tell.

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:17 am

    It is needed because the relationship between flux and SSN is not linear [see middle Figure on page 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Radio%20Flux.pdf

    Your references don’t explain your reasoning for adjusting the base data, but you did describe it in detail in a previous WUWT story. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/ No one including myself challenged your data at the time, perhaps we should have looked closer.

    The continuous record from Canada in a wiggle match test lines up very nicely with the SIDC record and if put under more scrutiny would not show the kind of divergence you and Tapping show for SC23.

    By adding 3% to the continuous record before 1991 creates the variation seen during SC23. The Japanese record is not continuous and is in two parts. The first part is lower than the Canadian record with the second part above. I would be adjusting the Japanese record, the Canadian record is backed up by the sunspot count.

    Have you submitted this analysis for peer review?

  148. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    The continuous record from Canada in a wiggle match test lines up very nicely with the SIDC record and if put under more scrutiny would not show the kind of divergence you and Tapping show for SC23.
    ‘would’? Either it matches for SC23 and not earlier, or earlier and not for SC23.

    The Japanese record is not continuous and is in two parts.
    So is the Canadian record.

    Have you submitted this analysis for peer review?
    It has been discussed with colleagues at AGU and at the Hinode Science Meeting and is generally looked upon favorably. In particular, the two directors [of the Japanese and the Canadian observatories] agree with it [co-authors]. There can be no better peers. Later this month it will be formally submitted to the Astrophysical Journal. We do not expect any peer disagreements or whining.

    perhaps we should have looked closer.
    Repeat my analysis. the Japanese data can be found here: ftp://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/pub/norp/data/daily/

  149. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    I have already shown the unadulterated version of the data matches the SIDC sunspot data nicely and does not show the SC23 deviation or any other deviation.

    I will wait for peer review, in the meantime I will continue to use the accepted version of the F10.7 data.

  150. Leif Svalgaard says:
    vukcevic says: time will tell.
    (LS) Time has already told. Back in 1965.

    Aha cycle SC20, for which I have neat numerical solution as shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    As you or anyone else care to look at, it can be seen that the solar cycles are subject to amplitude reduction when two governing components are in anti-phase.
    A precise mathematical relationship, proved itself on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum.
    And what is Svalgaard et al explanation?
    Random drift of one part of a sunspot in 1000 (thousand) ?!
    And just had to happen to fail for the strongest cycle ever SC19 ?!
    Can we have something more verifiable ?
    Let’s hear it !
    Science should not be based on such feeble theory (1 in 1000 drift) and than it fails when it has the greatest chance of success (Ouch!) .
    As John McEnroe would have it “Man you can’t be serious !”

  151. vukcevic says:
    June 17, 2010 at 1:17 am
    Aha cycle SC20, for which I have neat numerical solution as shown here
    Your talent for self-delusion is unmatched. To concentrate on the polar field formula, you ‘predict’ a very large PF for 1965 and the observations show [are consistent with] very weak polar fields as we have discussed repeatedly.

  152. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 17, 2010 at 12:08 am
    I have already shown the unadulterated version of the data matches the SIDC sunspot data nicely and does not show the SC23 deviation or any other deviation.
    As the careful analysis [ http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf ]by Tapping shows, the original F10.7 data shows the deviation clearly for cycle 23.
    Here is my version of that relationship: http://www.leif.org/research/Canadian%20F107%20flux%20and%20SSN.png
    What is yours? Plot Sunspot number against F10.7 flux separately the two time periods.

  153. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Your talent for self-delusion is unmatched. To concentrate on the polar field formula, you ‘predict’ a very large PF for 1965 and the observations show [are consistent with] very weak polar fields as we have discussed repeatedly.

    This is a science discussion, do I detect some anxiety in your post, and failure to comment on extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift you espouse .
    As it happens you are wrong again on both of above counts.
    I have no particular talents and self delusion is not a sport I readily participate in.
    You are also wrong in interpretation of my formula, which you relentlessly have been perusing for some time now, and failed to fault.
    Let me make it clear in simple terms:
    There is no accurate and accepted value for polar fields in 1965, else it would be quoted in your extensive work on the matter (private guess is not good enough), it could have been either low or high.
    Either
    a- Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
    b- Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle

    Case a) Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
    If polar field has direct relationship with the next cycle, then my formula as described here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    has to be subject to same anomalies as the solar cycles (else cannot be PF/SSN amplitude correlation, and specifically no Rmax = 0.6286 DM).
    The anomaly formula has been proved as correct on every single occasion since and including the Maunder Minimum, i.e. whole of the SS’s known records.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    In that case anomaly would calculate PF to around 200. That is matter of simple logic.

    Case b) Polar field is not the seed of the next cycle
    Your theory is defunct, case closed.

    My case is based on 2-3 precise astronomical numbers which are beyond dispute, and two simple mathematical equations which is again beyond dispute.
    Most importantly they do work, as the same type equations work in mechanics, acoustics, electro-magnetics, electromagnetism etc.

    What does not work is some kind 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift, unknown to any other science, and to make things even worse it fails when had the best chance ever to succeed (SC19-SC20).

    Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.

  154. vukcevic says:
    June 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
    a-Polar field is the seed of the next cycle
    in case a, the PF for minimum in 1965 would be 105/0.6286=167. You PF formula predicts 304 in 1963. Case closed.

    Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.
    This is easily done, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1006-3061v1.pdf that shows how a weak polar field of cycle 20 results from random diffusion of the magnetic flux.

  155. LeifSvalgaard says:
    This is easily done, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1006-3061v1.pdf that shows how a weak polar field of cycle 20 results from random diffusion of the magnetic flux.

    No it does not. Introduces another spurious variable ‘tilt angle’ , which is undoubtedly a fiddle to get wanted result.
    Without the cycle-dependent variations of the tilt angle the weak cycle 20 would have been unable to offset the polar field after cycle 19.
    Now it is your turn to explain extraordinary success and failure of 1/1000 (one in thousand) random drift.

  156. vukcevic says:
    June 17, 2010 at 10:30 am
    No it does not. Introduces another spurious variable ‘tilt angle’ , which is undoubtedly a fiddle to get wanted result.
    The tilt angle is an observed property of sunspots [Joy’s law] and is a fundamental part of the dynamo. Page 5 of
    http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/graduate/classes/spring2010/Giacalone_503/lectures/ss_mag3_spr10_schad.pdf
    It even has a theoretical understanding:
    http://www.physics.iisc.ernet.in/~arnab/arnabresearch.pdf

  157. Leif Svalgaard says:
    The tilt angle is an observed property of sunspots
    Yes, but it its application is nonsense.
    Our calculations showed that theory matches observations only if the magnetic field in the solar interior is assumed to be about 10 Tesla. This is the first time that the value of the magnetic field in the solar interior could be established.
    Too many reasons why this is incompatible with observed either polar field or sunspots (not to mention Maunder, Dalton , L&P if real, etc) .
    In short : pure fiction.
    The AGW boys are real amateurs in the science of ‘fiddling science’ when compared to ‘doctoring’ going in the solar science.
    No fidle here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
    Just 3 astronomical numbers and 2 COS functions. All mistery gone, problem solved .

  158. vukcevic says:
    June 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Just 3 astronomical numbers and 2 COS functions. All mystery gone, problem solved
    Many people long for simple solutions. I think it was Einstein who said: “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler”. You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point. Perhaps time to pack your bags for a trip to Stockholm…

  159. Leif Svalgaard says:
    You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point. Perhaps time to pack your bags for a trip to Stockholm…

    What you meant to say:
    An elegant and simple solution may solve multiple problems at once, especially problems not thought to be inter-related.
    Ah! ‘Stockholm, City of My Dreams’
    Vi ses där.

  160. Leif Svalgaard says:
    You seem to have regressed past that ‘no simpler’ point.
    Not everyone is indisposed to the simplicity of solutions:
    IP Address 140.147.236.204 [Label IP Address]
    Country United States
    Region District Of Columbia
    City Washington
    ISP Library Of Congress, Information Technology Service
    Visit Length 23 mins 34 secs
    VISITOR SYSTEM SPECS
    Browser Firefox 3.6
    Operating System WinXP
    Resolution 1024×768
    Javascript Enabled
    Navigation Path
    Date Time Type WebPage
    17th June 2010 20:38:33
    Page View http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm
    Exit Link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC16.htm

  161. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 17, 2010 at 7:06 am

    As the careful analysis [ http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf ]by Tapping shows, the original F10.7 data shows the deviation clearly for cycle 23.

    Not all that clearly actually, the comparison graph he deploys makes it difficult to visually see any deviation between the two sets of data. We need to see a clear graph of the non manipulated base data properly overlaid to gain some sort of comparison. He also states flux (observed), making it unclear if he has used the adjusted for orbit flux?

    His closing comments are interesting ” Weird solar behaviour should be good for solar and space weather funding” along with his own doubts on the accuracy of his method.

  162. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    We need to see a clear graph of the non manipulated base data properly overlaid to gain some sort of comparison.
    That is what my plot shows. The ‘manipulation’ bit is just a strawman as the difference is below 1.5%. What he plots is the difference between ‘observed’ and ‘proxy’. This is to make it easier to see.

    He also states flux (observed), making it unclear if he has used the adjusted for orbit flux?
    ‘observed’ is as opposed to ‘proxy’. Of course, he uses the ‘adjusted’ values. All solar physicists do.

    along with his own doubts on the accuracy of his method.
    What doubt?

  163. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 17, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    We need to see a clear graph of the non manipulated base data properly overlaid to gain some sort of comparison.
    The [almost] correct way of doing is to find a regression formula for 1947-1990 for SSN vs. F10.7 flux. This allows us to calculate the SSN from the flux at all times and check if the SSN during SC23 is lower than that predicted by the formula. I say ‘almost’ because that comparison assumes that the calibration of F10.7 has been constant, which we know from the Japanese data that it was not, but since the error is small, we’ll let that slide. First the regression formula based on 16,000 individual days:

    and then the comparison [solar cycle per solar cycle] between observed [reddish] and calculated from F10.7 [bluish] for every single day since measurements began until today:

    The heavier curves are 27-day running averages. It should now be clear that during SC23 the reddish curves are consistently below the blue, showing a deficiency of spots as Tapping said there should be.

  164. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    An update on the L&P Effect is Debunked story.

    “Ken Tapping has performed some analysis on this topic and shows that there is some divergence between flux and sunspots during SC23. http://helios.swpc.noaa.gov/sww/2010/friday/SWW_2010_KFT.pdf He uses the standard Canadian flux data and shows plots describing this variance. The difference in this analysis is he is not showing a trend change as per Dr. Svalgaard but an overall difference covering the entire cycle. If I smooth the standard data further a large anomaly is apparent around 20001/2002 and then the two measures come back together. The reason for this divergence could be high flare activity at cycle max or one of the other factors that drive F10.7 Flux, it is more of a one off event rather than a gradual diminishing of sunspots.”

    There is no need for fancy formula or manufacturing composite data, everything is apparent in the unmodified base data. I have still not seen credible evidence for a decline in sunspots that will render them invisible by 2015.

  165. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    “Ken Tapping has performed some analysis on this topic […] The difference in this analysis is he is not showing a trend change as per Dr. Svalgaard but an overall difference covering the entire cycle.
    You are misrepresenting his analysis. His slides 5 and 7 show that the difference was smaller in the beginning of the cycle and then growing.

    There is no need for fancy formula or manufacturing composite data, everything is apparent in the unmodified base data.
    You analysis is misleading [even invalid] as you [it seems] let Excel do the scaling for you [correct me if I’m wrong by telling us how the scaling was done], but this is incorrect if the relationship is non-linear [as it is – his slide 5]. To make a correct analysis you have to find a non-linear function [I use a polynomial – Ken uses an exponential] that is a good fit over the period where you except there is no trend – such as 1947-1990]. Then calculate the proxy and compare the curves. If you do this correctly you’ll find the same result as Tapping as I. In my previous post I show you the deviation for every single day since the measurements began in 1947. The ratio between observed and calculated [scaled] SSNs shows the downward trend I have shown before.

    I have still not seen credible evidence for a decline in sunspots that will render them invisible by 2015.
    2015 is probably too early. More like 2018. Anyway, the spots may just end up with reduced visibility, leading to an undercount of the sunspot number. It does help if you study the material and try to follow the advice about making correct analysis.

  166. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    There is no need for fancy formula or manufacturing composite data
    A composite of several reliable datasets is much better than the individual datasets, as they support each other in the composite. Your use of ‘manufacturing’ betrays a deep lack of understanding of data and their analysis, or an attempt of willful smear. Perhaps you could tell me which of the two it is.

  167. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 18, 2010 at 4:17 am
    Manufactured ie assembled from components, just not sure I like your bill of materials.
    You still didn’t tell me which of the two possibilities it is. The ‘material’ is high quality microwave radiometry data, carefully observed over decades by competent researchers.

    The F10.7 value on your graph at http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png is looking very sick, the sunspot count is beginning to read higher… watts up with that?
    The sunspot number is indeed all of 8.

  168. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 18, 2010 at 5:00 am

    In the “manufacturing” industry when designing a quality finished product the BOM requirements are paramount. When there are competitors for components the best man wins (when cost is not an issue), the track record of the Japanese component is in doubt and should be sidelined until it meets quality assurance.

  169. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 18, 2010 at 5:23 am
    the track record of the Japanese component is in doubt and should be sidelined until it meets quality assurance.
    It is not in doubt, and I [and Hugh Hudson] have personally assured its high quality: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
    Our conclusion:
    “The Canadian and Japanese microwave radiometry is stable, robust, and of high quality”.
    And from:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
    •  As shown by Tanaka et al. (1973), these data (fixed frequencies, integrated Sun) can be calibrated precisely
    •  The microwave flux is more objective than the sunspot number
    •  The main high-quality data sources (Canada for F10.7, Japan for five frequencies at present), have been maintained very well

    If anything, the Canadian series suffers from a [small] discontinuity stemming from the move from Ottawa to Penticton. In any event, this small error does not alter anything.

    And still:
    Your use of ‘manufacturing’ betrays a deep lack of understanding of data and their analysis, or an attempt of willful smear. Perhaps you could tell me which of the two it is.

  170. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 18, 2010 at 6:34 am

    You seem hung up on a smear campaign, I am not suggesting you would willfully try to delude the solar community. But perhaps you should do your own QA analysis and question why the Japanese record is below the Canadian standard on the first installment and above on the second. The sunspot record agrees with the Canadian standard which is adopted by most and appears to be the leader in quality assured product.

  171. Leif, loved the powerpoint. Especially the magnetic coiling up as a result of the rotation speed difference between the equator and poles. I am once again reminded of how we made yarn draw strings for our 4H knitting class, or how we used to twist the long chains of our school yard swings as tight as we could (I needed help because my feet couldn’t touch the ground) and then let them untwist with dizzying stomach churning speed.

  172. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 18, 2010 at 7:19 am
    You seem hung up on a smear campaign
    I consider the phrase ‘manufacturing data’ to be a smear. Good to see that you agree.

    But perhaps you should do your own QA analysis
    We have worked closely with world experts [Tapping, Shibasaki, Hurford] on the QA of both series and we all agree that both series are excellent.

    question why the Japanese record is below the Canadian standard on the first installment and above on the second.
    Because the Canadian ‘standard’ suffers from a jump when they moved from Ottawa to Pentiction [now, how many times have I explained that to you?]. Such small jumps are hard to avoid [as there are local – and seasonal – influences on the flux measurements] and are not really a sign of poor quality. So, the Canadian series is not of lower quality. You just have to be aware of site discontinuities and correct for them as best one can.

    The sunspot record agrees with the Canadian standard which is adopted by most and appears to be the leader in quality assured product.
    The sunspot record agrees with both the Canadian and the Japanese series within the uncertainty of the sunspot series. ‘Appears to be the leader’? says who? The director of the Canadian observatory [Tapping] is a co-author on our paper that compares both series and that finds both to be excellent. The Japanese series is perhaps less known, but that does not mean that it is inferior.

    The Sun produces most of the microwave flux in a frequency band between 1.5 GHz and 4 GHz. The choice of 10.7 cm [2.8 GHz] by Covington was dictated solely by accident as that was the wavelength that the military surplus hardware he had was tuned to. The composite of 2.0 MHz [Japanese], 2.8 GHz [Canadian], and 3.75 GHz [Japanese] is a very good measure of solar activity. Probably the best we have at this moment.

  173. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 18, 2010 at 7:19 am
    You seem hung up on a smear campaign
    I consider the phrase ‘manufacturing data’ to be a smear. Good to see that you agree.

    But perhaps you should do your own QA analysis
    We have worked closely with world experts [Tapping, Shibasaki, Hurford] on the QA of both series and we all agree that both series are excellent.

    question why the Japanese record is below the Canadian standard on the first installment and above on the second.
    Because the Canadian ‘standard’ suffers from a jump when they moved from Ottawa to Pentiction [now, how many times have I explained that to you?]. Such small jumps are hard to avoid [as there are local – and seasonal – influences on the flux measurements] and are not really a sign of poor quality. So, the Canadian series is not of lower quality. You just have to be aware of site discontinuities and correct for them as best one can.

    The sunspot record agrees with the Canadian standard which is adopted by most and appears to be the leader in quality assured product.
    The sunspot record agrees with both the Canadian and the Japanese series within the uncertainty of the sunspot series. ‘Appears to be the leader’? says who? The director of the Canadian observatory [Tapping] is a co-author on our paper that compares both series and that finds both to be excellent. The Japanese series is perhaps less known, but that does not mean that it is inferior.

    The Sun produces most of the microwave flux in a frequency band between 1.5 GHz and 4 GHz. The choice of 10.7 cm [2.8 GHz] by Covington was dictated solely by accident as that was the wavelength that the military surplus hardware he had was tuned to. The composite of 2.0 MHz [Japanese], 2.8 GHz [Canadian], and 3.75 GHz [Japanese] is a very good measure of solar activity. Probably the best we have at this moment.

    I direct you to my analysis based solely on the Canadian data [and thus of diminished weight]: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Daily-derived%20from%20F10.7%20and%20Observed.png that shows the deviations for every single day since 1947 until yesterday. That should put the doubt to rest. It is now your chance to see the light.

  174. Geoff Sharp says:
    June 18, 2010 at 7:19 am
    But perhaps you should do your own QA analysis
    We have worked closely with world experts [Tapping, Shibasaki, Hurford] on the QA of both series and we all agree that both series are excellent.
    This does not mean that there are not issues [especially with the Canadian series], but the data is just the best we have.
    As an example of a problem with the Canadian series [and an example of the excellent QA we have performed] I can mention the Sawtooth-problem. There are systematic differences between morning values [1700 or 1800 UT], noon values [2000 UT] and afternoon values [2200 or 2300 UT] in the winter time:

    [shows the square root of F10.7 for illustration purposes]
    The teeth appear every day during winter and is probably related to influence [reflection?] of snow on surrounding mountains. They are a good example of influences that can vary from site to site.

    So, I do not want to hear anymore whining about QA. We do the best that is humanly possible.

  175. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 18, 2010 at 9:33 am
    The Sun produces most of the microwave flux in a frequency band between 1.5 GHz and 9 GHz. […] The composite of 2.0 MHz [Japanese], 2.8 GHz [Canadian], and 3.75 GHz [Japanese] is a very good measure of solar activity.
    I should clarify this a bit and correct the typo: 2.0 GHz, not MHz. The band is where the flux varies the most in response to [rotational modulation of] solar activity. All this is just technical detail. By good fortune, the military surplus hardware that Covington got to work with in 1946 was just in the most sensitive part of the microwave spectrum.

Comments are closed.