Amateur telescope photographer Thierry Legault has gained renown in recent years taking photographs of spacecraft in orbit… from the ground, with them either reflecting sunlight as they cross the terminator, or silhouetted by the moon, or in recent days, silhouetted by a near spotless sun.
His most recent accomplishment is this solar silhouette of the International Space Station docked with Space Shuttle Atlantis on its STS-132 mission. While many have marvelled at his accomplishment, we’ve heard less about the continuing near-spotless state of the sun in his photograph. This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!
It appears that the sunspot and 10.7 progression for Solar Cycle 24 have hit a bit of a roadblock in recent months, according to NOAA’s Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hockey Schtick says:
June 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm
It’s apparently ok with Dr. Svalgaard if the IPCC chooses one solar physicist to feature her own paper
Is even wrong on its face. Here are the authors. I have highlighted the ones I know are solar or space physicists [there are, of course, only one lead author for each subject.
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Piers Forster (UK), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA)
Lead Authors:
Paulo Artaxo (Brazil), Terje Berntsen (Norway), Richard Betts (UK), David W. Fahey (USA), James Haywood (UK), Judith Lean (USA), David C. Lowe (New Zealand), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), John Nganga (Kenya), Ronald Prinn (USA, New Zealand), Graciela Raga (Mexico, Argentina), Michael Schulz (France, Germany), Robert Van Dorland (Netherlands)
Contributing Authors:
G. Bodeker (New Zealand), O. Boucher (UK, France), W.D. Collins (USA), T.J. Conway (USA), E. Dlugokencky (USA), J.W. Elkins (USA),
D. Etheridge (Australia), P. Foukal (USA), P. Fraser (Australia), M. Geller (USA), F. Joos (Switzerland), C.D. Keeling (USA), R. Keeling (USA), S. Kinne (Germany), K. Lassey (New Zealand), U. Lohmann (Switzerland), A.C. Manning (UK, New Zealand), S. Montzka (USA),
D. Oram (UK), K. O’Shaughnessy (New Zealand), S. Piper (USA), G.-K. Plattner (Switzerland), M. Ponater (Germany),
N. Ramankutty (USA, India), G. Reid (USA), D. Rind (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), R. Sausen (Germany), D. Schwarzkopf (USA),
S.K. Solanki (Germany, Switzerland), G. Stenchikov (USA), N. Stuber (UK, Germany), T. Takemura (Japan), C. Textor (France, Germany),
R. Wang (USA), R. Weiss (USA), T. Whorf (USA)
—–
I may have missed some [got tired], but you should get that there were many solar physicists as authors.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Mr. Alex says:
June 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
however here are a 3 examples
None of these qualify as ‘regions’ [too small and ephemeral] in the NOAA sense. When you go to smaller and smaller spots and magnetic areas, their orientation becomes more and more random, to the point, where ‘reversed’ does not make sense anymore.”
Yes, they may be tiny tims but considering that often NOAA produces counts for what appears to be a “blank sun” and tiny tims showing typical “SC 24 orientation” (despite being small and random), surely these should have been numbered. An example of this would be the sun of 4th May 2010 when similar tiny tims helped boost the SN to 70. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/mdiigr/20100504/20100504_1912_mdiigr_1024.jpg
Fair enough, however the region was not numbered on the 26th when it was first visible.
“Geoff Sharp says:
June 27, 2010 at 7:03 pm
1084 (CL145)has finally been called by NOAA”
Yes, finally… and with a grand count of 11 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 12:14 am
For all the papers written on how the Sun cannot possibly influence Earth’s climate, there exists in Man a premonition of things experienced over tens of thousands of years that Science cannot put it’s finger on. Yet. In our modern, technologically sheltered world, there is insulation to a degree. What the last 100 years of Science has done is to stir it up, and did it ever.
It’s like this: you can open up the can, but the lid won’t go back on. Human nature won’t let it.
“Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
The flux is on its way up, albeit in fists and starts: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Note that the blue curve touched the red [coming out of the 1954 minimum into one of the biggest cycles ever], so give it a bit a time.”
I check updates of this graph regularly, however it has always annoyed me that the comparison begins with the curves at completely different levels… (perhaps because they may have been aligned at a common point of flux month of minimum).
If minimum point was to be ignored it is clear that shifting the current flux curve right would show an undercutting of the 1954 curve. Even without shift it is obvious that the flux has been at lower levels for far longer during this minimum. The 1954 minimum may have been deep but it was also brief.
Current flux has returned to very near solar minimum levels.
Hockey Schtick says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:15 am
how can you state that “the adjustments are so small…”?
Because a third is only 1/4 of the usual solar cycle variation [which we can barely see in the temperature response] or about 0.02K. We cannot even measure a 0.02K change.
Mr. Alex says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:39 am
Fair enough, however the region was not numbered on the 26th when it was first visible.
NOAA has a set of strict rules that they try to live by, like a regions must be seen by at least two observers, that it must live at least 12 hours, etc. So, if a region first becomes visible at 12:01 pm, it will not be numbered, but the spots will be counted. And, finally, sunspot counting is not an exact science, there will always be some subjectivity and only on a longer time scale can one hope to get a reasonable measure.
Mr. Alex says:
June 28, 2010 at 2:09 am
I check updates of this graph regularly, however it has always annoyed me that the comparison begins with the curves at completely different levels
As they must do because the curves had different levels. At minimum the come together, but the curves have not been shifted up or down. The flux is an absolute measurement in units of 10^(-22) W/m2/Hz, so the curves must plotted where they are. We can shift them left of right, and this was done to line up the minima [where they had minimum variance]
Current flux has returned to very near solar minimum levels.
As it also almost did in 1955. As SC24 is forecast to be much weaker than SC19 one must expect the flux to rise a lot slower as it does. Tomorrow the flux will be up again 🙂
Here is what an active Sun looks like:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1957/dr570102.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1957/dr570623.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1957/dr571223.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/2001/dr010328.jpg
All the little specks and dots must be counted. How many do you find for each of the four drawings? Number of groups and number of spot, specks, and dots.
>>About Soon’s graph linking Japanese sun time with China
>>temperature: is this not just a reflection of cloud cover? No
>>need for any solar variation to explain this figure.
As an aviator, my subjective assessment is that we do not do so many IMC (in cloud) approaches compared to 30 years ago (less fogs, dust hazes and low cloud).
Any data to back up this perception? If true, this would allow much greater insolation and surface heat.
.
Hey, have any of you noticed anything different, lately?
Okay, since you haven’t figured it out I’ll whisper it to you…
“YOU’RE ALL DOOMED!!”
Oh, sorry. Did I hurt your ears?
Get used to it. You ain’t felt nothin’ yet…
http://www.theamericansheeple.com/specialpublication.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
[long post]
I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’.
Not a peep.
He pronounces about the (supposed lack of) effect of the sun on the earth’s climate without considering the terrestrial end of the equation. TSI variation considered alone is a RED HERRING.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE from the ISCCP cloud project and project Earthshine and Nir Shaviv’s study demonstrating a terrestrial amplification of the solar signal through cloud cover modulation show that the solar effect on Earth and ocean is considerably larger than he tries to tell us. An amplified solar signal means that the increase in TSI over the C20th actually is important. Along with the work done by myself and Dr Roy Spencer on the ocean depth that higher than average insolation energy is mixed down to (Roy is currently working with 500m), a multidecadal energy storage and release mechanism can account for global warming as a solar induced phenomenon.
Leif verified my calcs, yet avoids the substantive issue of the steric increase in sea level proving the storage of solar energy in the ocean in the longer term. Instead, he obfuscates about weather, and TSI considered in vacuuo.
He is a solar physicist who is wrong about terrestrial climate.
DO NOT BE DECIEVED.
Leif:
No, the old school is still correct. The iron core is plain nonsense.
The Sun was derived from the same source material as the rest of the Solar System, and as such it surely must have an iron and silicate core (did the heavier elements just propel themselves away from the Sun?). Now that heavy-element core may be minute in comparison to the great bulk of the lighter elements, but a small heavy-element core must be there somewhere, surely.
And another thing that puzzles me. The center of the Sun has no gravity, or even a gravity gradient pulling away from the very center (for an atom at the center of the Sun, the center of mass and therefore center of gravity is actually outwards). If so, then surely the small outwards gravity gradient may even generate a small void at the center of the Sun.
.
John Finn says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
What is the solar mechanism which results in a narrow latitude band in the NH having a cold winter but leaves the rest of the world withrecrd high temperature anomalies. I suppose you could argue that the sun might affect the AO but that effectively just means that cold/warm air is shifted around – it doesn’t mean there’s a reduction in incoming energy, i.e. the earth, as a whole, hasn’t cooled.
There is a solar mechanism that can do exactly as you describe, its called UV and has recently gained scientific attention. TSI might vary by small amounts, but UV can vary as much as 16% during high flare activity. Some say this heats the stratosphere which in turn influences jet streams and equatorial evaporation etc.
More work to be done but the low UV count is now up for the test, let the effects of the last el Nino dissipate and watch what the outcome is in the next 12 months. The stage is set.
I’ve done a month by month analysis of 300 year record of CET temperatures (1700-2000). My conclusion may be speculative, but probably makes more sense than some of IPCC nonsense.
During summer months CET’s directly respond to solar irradiation, while for the rest of the year the Gulf Stream is predominant, with the amount of heat transported as a function of the solar irradiance, with much smaller annual variability in tropics, where the heat is absorbed.
Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field. These changes in the velocity of the transport system (by the GMF) introduce a variable time delay, directly affecting correlation of the CETs either to the solar irradiance or the Earth’s magnetic field.
Effect of the GMF on saline currents is most clearly shown in correlation to the Arctic temperatures, where the GMF is strongest and consequently the most effective.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
@Leif Svalgaard:
Leif can we agree on one thing between us, and that is that it is bad practice to make a scientist a lead author and then use their paper, and their paper only, to deal with the issue of TSI?
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’.
Not a peep.
He pronounces about the (supposed lack of) effect of the sun on the earth’s climate without considering the terrestrial end of the equation. TSI variation considered alone is a RED HERRING….
______________________________________________________
Dr. Svalgaard is a solar physicist so he, quite correctly, talks about what he does know.
However the IPCC et al talk about an increase in temp of 0.6C per century. Recently NASA says cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high. “There has been a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field down to 4 nT (nanoTesla) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT,” he says. “This record-low interplanetary magnetic field undoubtedly contributes to the record-high cosmic ray fluxes.” The heliospheric current sheet is flattening. “”If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt.”
Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. “”Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”
The state of science knowledge about climate is in its infancy. We know the climate changes and we are now seeing the sun changes more than was first thought. We do not know how much more the sun will change inthe comming decades if we are in a deep solar minimum. I do not think anyone at this time actually knows exactly how the sun, the oceans, the biosphere and the atmosphere interact to cause our weather. Those who are trying to tell us they do are “blowing smoke”
As you stated an increase in solar activity plus the UHI effect could certainly account for the 0.6C “found” by the IPPC scientists.
vukcevic says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:07 am
I’ve done a month by month analysis of 300 year record of CET temperatures (1700-2000). My conclusion may be speculative, but probably makes more sense than some of IPCC nonsense….
_______________________________________________________________
Vukcevic, perhaps you could write this up at length and have the article posted here at WUWT. Please make the explanation such that non scientists can follow it (explain abbreviations and concepts, label graphs and such)
Thanks
Leif, see Bishop Hill for this, but it seems that Wang’s reconstruction is an outlier and it formed the basis for the most recent IPCC solar stuff. This is Ross McKitrick’s contention and it conflicts with what you’ve said here.
=================
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
I cut and pasted Leif’s very long post into notepad and searched it for ‘cloud’ or ‘clouds’. Not a peep.
The clouds were in the ‘and so on and on and on’ part [the AR4]. If you care to look, it says:
“Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance (Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously.”
Leif verified my calcs
I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.
As I said:
“A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
Do this and come back and show us.
Ralph says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:16 am
but a small heavy-element core must be there somewhere, surely.
No, because the Sun is extremely hot so all element are vaporised and initially mixed throughout the Sun.
And another thing that puzzles me. The center of the Sun has no gravity, or even a gravity gradient pulling away from the very center (for an atom at the center of the Sun, the center of mass and therefore center of gravity is actually outwards).
No, even Newton knew that there is no gravity inside a spherical shell of matter [ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html ], so the atom does not feel any force from what is further away from the center of the Sun than it is, but only from matter that is closer to the center of the Sun than it is.
vukcevic says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:07 am
Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field.
No, it is not. The forces involved are too minute to have any effect.
geronimo says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
bad practice to make a scientist a lead author and then use their paper, and their paper only, to deal with the issue of TSI?
I think I just showed that many papers were cited. Perhaps check out what was actually said.
kim says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:26 am
Leif, see Bishop Hill for this, but it seems that Wang’s reconstruction is an outlier and it formed the basis for the most recent IPCC solar stuff. This is Ross McKitrick’s contention and it conflicts with what you’ve said here.
I’m not sure what you are saying [who is conflicting with whom]. Wang’s [Lean was a co-author] reconstruction is already obsolete [but a step in the right direction]. The current realization is that that the change in TSI since the Maunder Minimum is negligible [0.1K] in its effect on climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:35 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
Leif verified my calcs
I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.
You verified my calculations of the amount of energy required to heat the ocean up enough to cause the thermal expansion implied by the sea level rise observed by satellite altimetry less the melt runoff and other minor factors.
Or do you now wish to deny that you did, in public?
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 8:11 am
You verified my calculations of the amount of energy required to heat the ocean up […] Or do you now wish to deny that you did, in public?
Again a trivial calculation [that anybody can do]. And I’m not a denier 🙂 although I don’t remember that trivial detail. But is is WRONG to assert that I have verified everything [“my calc”] you claim.
As I said:
“A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
Do this and come back and show us.
Instead of whining about my ‘verification’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Vukcevic: Flow intensity of saline warm waters of the Gulf Stream is modulated by long-term changes in the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field.
Svalgard: No, it is not. The forces involved are too minute to have any effect.
Even an omni-logos can be erroneous.
1895 -“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
1903.- Orville Wright took the Flyer for a 12-second sustained flight.
Forces acting on a molecule of water are minute, but not negligible, eventually creating powerful ocean current.
Forces acting on a moving (by the above force) ion of saline water are also minute, but not negligible. Action along length of thousands of miles affects the velocity of the current.
http://envisat.esa.int/live/lg_03.gif
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
on discussing
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:05 am
He is a solar physicist who is wrong about terrestrial climate.
To be fair read his:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm
David44 says:
June 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Leif Svalgaard says @ur momisugly June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?
Clearly the latter.
Leif is defending with integrity the current measurements of TSI. When I first got into this climate business and was reading everything available, I doubted the statements. It is so obvious that all the energy on earth comes from the sun that the next step is that variations of energy on the earth are directly connected to variations in energy of the sun. I no longer doubt that the TSI measurements he is consistently defending are right. Therefore the changes in the earth’s climate must be looked for in other mechanisms , not the direct changes in TSI.
I think probably a combination of galactic cosmic rays and other chaotic mechanisms affecting albedo, including UV and magnetic fields, ( I cannot help but notice that the stronger rains are the ones coming with thunder and lightening, and rains means clouds).
This intriguing effect of UV also http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
When Sun’s Too Strong, Plankton Make Clouds
entering the mix might be important in destroying direct correlations of albedo and GCR.
The complicated story of measuring albedo is here:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
I do not think that Leif is trying to deceive anybody. He is stating the data on TSI, and he sure has more experience in calculating it than any of us.
Here’s the opinion of the scientists who operate the ACRIM missions: (http://www.acrim.com/)
“The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined By The total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses. TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era.”
and a post by a German physicist illustrating uncertainties far beyond statistical significance and certain IPCC conclusions to be unjustified or unqualified:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/more-on-solar-controversy.html